Kramerica Industries

Members
  • Content Count

    13,794
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Kramerica Industries last won the day on March 7 2016

Kramerica Industries had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,196 All Star

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tampa, FL
  • Favourite Teams
    Tampa Bay Lightning, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Borussia Moenchengladbach, Florida Gators

Recent Profile Visitors

25,802 profile views
  1. See, I've written about this before, but my belief when it comes to road uniforms in particular is that the "protocol" for them developed in an era that we can't relate to in the modern day. Sanitary socks were worn because if Ty Cobb spiked you wearing colored socks, with the materials of the day, you could get poisoned from them. Gray uniforms were the choice of road color because washing facilities weren't so ubiquitous and gray hides grime and schmutz well. The first team to wear colored uniforms for a World Series game? The New York Giants...in 1905. Even worse, they only wore them in the World Series, not at any point in the regular season! Imagine something like that happening today, huh? Many people (legitimately; this isn't a "right vs. wrong" situation) get annoyed to see alternates worn in the playoffs to begin with; imagine breaking out an alternate for the first time on the grand stage, eh? My point is - I don't mind the concept of teams not just wearing colored uniforms but embracing them, because times have changed from what necessited original norms, and that despite that colored uniforms can be found all the way back to nearly the inception of the World Series itself. Now, I have some personal preferences of my own, namely, in that I think that white and gray pants are the best way forward because, unlike in football, colored pants don't seem to translate as well to baseball uniforms (though maybe it would be different if everyone wore high socks with a contrasting sock color, but that's simply not gonna happen so we have to work with what we've got). I also prefer teams wearing white jerseys at home, in general, though that's not a hard-and-fast preference. But for road uniforms? The Marlins used to wear their black jerseys all the time on the road, and it seems like the White Sox are doing that this year. You know what? I've always felt the White Sox had the best colored jersey in the league, so if they want to wear them as their de facto road primary, go right ahead. I would like to see them wearing their standard home uniform at Comiskey The Cell home more, but the gray jersey is clearly the most boring of the three, so it should really be treated as such.
  2. Honestly, I would give the Capitals the nod against the Bruins, but if they go out tomorrow night while Boston wins tonight, the Bruins are the runaway favorites to win the Cup, no question. There isn't a team out there who I would pick to beat them, all things taken into account. Not that I have much love towards Toronto and, frankly, if they win the Cup with their core before the Lightning do I'll be very annoyed, but, I was very annoyed at them not getting the job done in front of their fans on Sunday. That was the opportunity they all wanted, right? One win at home sends you through, and they couldn't do it. I know they've won twice in Boston already, so it's not impossible for them, but good luck doing it a third time. Because now you're asking a lot to move on, being in this situation. Whether I want a Carolina shocker is going to depend entirely on what happens in that series.
  3. I see DG wrote more-or-less what I was about to write. I really shouldn't like Portland wearing non-traditional uniforms in the playoffs, but, man, that color scheme just works. It's beautiful.
  4. Writing this post after getting a road sweep against the first place team in their division is curious timing.
  5. It is starting to open up for them, isn't it? If the Bruins don't come back, then I believe that gives Washington home ice the rest of the way. Frankly, the chances of a Las Vegas-Washington rematch are higher than we probably care to admit.
  6. DGB explained this one time in an old Grantland article, and at the moment I can be bothered to look it up, but up until around 1999, this was the situation. Regulation or OT, winner gets two, loser zero, and ties go evenly. The NHL decided to make OT games worth three points...probably because (I'm thinking as I'm writing here) that gave an incentive for teams to go for the win in OT rather than being content to take the one point; if they lost, they still got something rather than nothing. The immediate problem with this logic, is that it meant that teams wouldn't take risks late in regulation in tie games anymore because why risk a point when you don't have to? I mean, if a regulation loss or OT loss was identical, then if you lost the game with 90 seconds remaining or lost in OT was useless; if anything, you at least have those 90 seconds to try and tie it up again. The bigger problem with this logic would later come with the fact that this was a pre-shootout era implementation that was unadapated for the shootout era. Because a game could still end in a tie and two points dispensed before, but now that ties were out of the equation? The extra point could be awarded based on which team either has better shooters or a better one-on-one goaltender. To the NHL's credit, they did (eventually) establish the ROW component* (something which has been in need of further adaptation in the 3-on-3 overtime era but, of course, the NHL is several years behind on) to categorize shootout wins as less than regulation/OT games for tiebreaker purposes, but that has rarely ended up mattering in most cases. Point is, as usual, the NHL made one decision to fix a problem that wasn't really there, opened up a host of other problems that otherwise would've never existed, and then never made any meaningful adaptations once further changes down the road that would affect it were made. Gee whiz, can someone post the OITGDNHL graphic? *amusing side note - the NHL did establish the ROW tiebreaker around 2010-'11, maybe the year before but definitely no later than that point, but not before the 2009 Canadiens, celebrating their centennial, made the playoffs over the Panthers despite the fact that, under post-ROW tiebreakers, the Panthers would've been the #8 seed over Montréal. Good thing the NHL waited on that one, huh?
  7. If my two options would be to either have ties, which likely reflect an evenly-played game where neither team dominated the other, or have shootouts determine who gets all the points, which is nothing more than a skills competition affecting team results, then the shootout needs to be immediately abolished. North Americans and their bizarre hatred of "ties". Mind-boggling.
  8. Colorado's season was tanked by a miserable record in 3-on-3 hockey. They had a winning record in games that ended in regulation, which is the only thing I care about these days when it comes to judging wins and losses in the regular season. Frankly, I'm not surprised at all that Colorado won that series. The Flames don't have a roster built to succeed in the playoffs. Finesse hockey doesn't work and their top line players aren't particularly good at playing in their own end.
  9. Your Rowdies' propaganda is my favorite thing about your posts. #MLS2StPete.
  10. Considering the Penguins scored the first goal of the game in Games 2, 3, and 4, that stat is absolutely nuts.
  11. I really hate to do the "Only Sane Man" act, but, jeez, the ones you were dealing with...I mean, arrogance is something you have to earn. What have the Lightning done to allow their fans to be arrogant? They won 50+ games this year (I don't count 3v3 OT and SO wins) and I don't remember saying a damn word about it in the regular season thread because, you know, who cares about regular season accolades when your last two postseason trips ended with blowing 3-2 leads in the Conference Finals? Good thing, too; no juicy quotes to make fun of me with now. In any case, I'm pretty terrible at getting out and, you know, "meeting" people in real life so maybe I'm just extremely insulated from nonsense, but this is something I can't understand. And, on that note, that's really what has kept me from getting too pissed off over this; I was taking a "all anyone cares about is the playoffs" approach the entire season, so I didn't really build myself up during the regular season, no matter how good it was. Since I didn't get too built up, I didn't exactly have too far to fall. Trust me, I was a hell of a lot more beat up in 2016 and 2018 than I am tonight; I had pretty much accepted this was going to be what happened (maybe not a sweep, but a defeat) midway through Game 2. Frankly, I remember the playoffs in 2017, when the Lightning had last missed out (another feather in Cooper's hat, btw; I know there were some injuries but imagine missing the playoffs with the team he's had), and with the exception of the Bruins, I didn't really care too much who won or who lost. I could watch the hockey to watch, well, the hockey. Strangely liberating experience. I'm looking forward to that once again. Frankly, I've been shamelessly looking for any excuse to descend into fan apathy for some time now (and this isn't a Lightning-specific thing, mind you, this is an all-sports thing), and this is about as good an excuse for it as I'm ever going to get. Definitely spending more time next hockey season either not watching hockey, or at least watching other games that interest me. If you're telling me a 128-point team could lay this much of an egg in the playoffs (it is literally the biggest egg they could've laid), then what significance can I possibly find in next regular season? It's impossible. I'll just end this with a brief review of something I'm going to elaborate on more at some point in the future - maybe during an off-day between series or something when there's not much to tak about - but I made a half-troll/half-dead-serious thread on HFBoards when Alex Ovechkin scored his 700th goal in the NHL. Not his 700th regular season goal (it was only #639), but his 700th between the regular season and playoffs. Some people caught my drift; others wondered "gee whiz, why's he lumping the two together?". Well, the playoffs are where we put people either on pedestals or toss them down the river, right? Stamkos might have some 385 or whatever career regular season goals, but he's been a playoff no-show his entire career. His team trophy case serves as proof of that. The point being, we want to write the stories on these people based on their playoff successes or failures, but for some reason only seem to count their regular season statistics when talking about them in an overarching, career sense. I dunno, doesn't make sense to me, but, clearly, plenty of things make sense to me that sound like nonsense to other people so I guess that's just one of the many things that keeps the world spinning 'round. Both those teams bailed out big-time by the Giants winning the Super Bowl in both cases. Same with the 2012 Canucks, which was one comparison I heard. I suppose it's possible the Jackets could go all the way as well, but obviously that's yet to be determined.
  12. As much as I detest Cooper and detested that extension, surely they never imagined this in a million years when they gave him it. But, you know what? The unexpected happens all the time, and you have to react to it. There's absolutely no way you can go on with him as head coach after something like this happens. He's had six full seasons and five postseasons in Tampa, and with the best team he had, he had his worst result (well, tied for worst result - sure is neat to be swept in the 1st round [with home ice!] twice with him as head coach) with them. It has to be game over for him. Rip the band-aid right off; he's not good enough to win a Cup with and there's more than enough evidence of this now, so there's nothing to gain by keeping him around. Will the next coach be worse? Maybe! I don't care. Sometimes even a good coach is no longer a good fit with their current employer; , Tampa Bay should know that well enough from Tony Dungy, a wonderful head coach who simply had run his course with the Buccaneers way back in the day. A far better head coach in his sport than Cooper is in his, for that matter.
  13. Back when I used to make MLB pre-season predictions, I think there was only one time I correctly predicted both an LCS matchup, and who would win it. 2012, I predicted the Tigers to beat the Yankees. Not because it's what I wanted, but because I was trying to be, you know, "objective" and other assorted rubbish. Turns out, while it's not quite the same thing, the post I'm quoting from nine days ago, it sure seems like I only end up being correct in situations where I really wish I could be anything but.
  14. Imagine the world we live in where the Penguins get swept in the first round and it's not even the most surprising first round sweep in their own conference.