Sport

It was my fourth post on this subject and the first one was beyond thorough in talking about fixing the issues with their current road uniform. I could not have been more clear. I'm not sure it's not just the twill material which is why I'm saying don't do something (outline the numbers with burgundy) that makes the number color appear brighter than it already is. Never said it was. In fact I said multiple times that it appears brighter than the rest of the blue equipment, which is in and of itself a problem. No. That is not what I said. I said, again, "the two colors are too close in value to have them touch like that". The blue looks brighter on the numbers because the hard edge stroke makes it stand off from the white background and appear brighter and/or they literally chose to use a brighter blue and a darker burgundy stroke to improve contrast. In either case, using a blue that looks brighter (either by their deliberate choice or by the laws of fabric/color/light) from the rest of the blues on the uniforms is not a good thing! If they outline the number with silver it'll draw less attention to the color difference, it'll soften the intensity of the blue, and lessen issues they have with matching twill.

YEAH I was trying to show how to fix this one issue with their current uniform without overhauling their entire existing uniform. I even said "If we have to use blue instead of black then I just want this". Couldn't have been more clear. I thought I was "Butthurt"? No I'm saying the burgundy outline makes the blue appear brighter than it actually is. A gray stroke on the same blue number would "shock" it less. Did it? Looks like the same issue. Same exact problem. Nobody cared because it was a short lived event that wasn't a full-time uniform. If it was a full-time uniform I'd say the same beef. And just because nobody complained about the Nordiques 30 years ago doesn't mean the current Avs couldn't do something to look better. CRIMINY.

I don't want the Avs to wear blue pants and gloves. If I had my druthers they'd be wearing what they wore in 2001 (with some small changes here and there). My solution is trying to make the best of their current road uniform. Thought that was pretty clear from the get-go. My solution is blue numbers with a gray stroke. It solves all the problems that are making me so butthurt.

And as I explained at least twice I did that to demonstrate how close these two colors are in value, which is why it's best to avoid placing them directly next to each other. That photo also demonstrates on MacKinnon's "A" how way off the blue on the number is from the color they're supposed to be, which isn't a point in its favor!

Again I'm not talking about contrast. I'm talking about the relationship between these two colors and how the two interact when placed directly next to each other. I shared that photo because I was pointing out where the blue yoke meets the burgundy jersey without a color separating the two and how rough that looks. The colors do vibrate with one another, but if you ignore that, the color on the numbers still doesn't match the blue in the rest of the uniform, the burgundy outline on the numbers still doesn't match the burgundy on the rest of the uniform, and the two colors touch each other when they don't touch anywhere else on the rest of the uniform. So like I said earlier, there's like 3 problems created by outlining the numbers in burgundy that could've been avoided if they'd just kept the stroke silver and the whole thing would look better. The Rangers are grandfathered in my mind because they've been doing it for so long, but if they started today that's not how I'd scheme their numbers. The Avs made this change in 2021, though, so they had all the color theory and material tests at their disposal, they even had the previous black numbers with silver outline to use as the proof of concept, and still made the wrong decision, which is less excusable. Knowing all that, the question is, "but does it look good?" And I'm saying no, that inconsistency in color and usage creates this incongruent element that sticks out, which is why they look like they took the jerseys to a local seamstress and they did their best to match colors with materials they had on hand.

I'm being misunderstood. I'm not talking about contrast. I'm talking about the relationship between these two colors and how the two interact when placed directly next to each other, which is why the two colors have been separated by at least one other color for almost all of the team's entire history until this recent decision to outline the blue numbers this way. One of the rare cases where they didn't buffer the two colors they got this stupid look.

I don't see where the selection bias is. I've been consistent since my first post. If we have to use blue instead of black then I just want this That's a more harmonious use of these colors and every element plays by the same set of rules.

Yeah I addressed that. They're not identical BUT they still don't look good together because "They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that." and "Beyond that, though, it's also visually inconsistent with how the two colors are used with a buffer color in almost every other application. The other problem is, look at the A on Mackinnon's chest, the blue used on the numbers appears to be a much brighter blue than the blue equipment or the blue on their socks. The numbers are bad for like 3 different reasons that would all be solved by simply not outlining them with burgundy." If you like the Avs numbers that's fine. I think they look bad, which is why I used IMO in my original post. Have a good one.

It's called chromostereopsis It's not "one bright, one dark". They're too close in value to use effectively touching each other like that. If you look at the uniform in black and white there's very little discernible difference between the two colors. I know the pants are blue, I know the jersey is burgundy, but you can't tell the difference here. Beyond that, though, it's also visually inconsistent with how the two colors are used with a buffer color in almost every other application. The other problem is, look at the A on Mackinnon's chest, the blue used on the numbers appears to be a much brighter blue than the blue equipment or the blue on their socks. The numbers are bad for like 3 different reasons that would all be solved by simply not outlining them with burgundy.

The Avalanche and their white jerseys have been bothering me all playoffs. Two Things: 1. They switched from black to blue pants and gloves to simplify the color scheme and balance the uniform better. I would've solved the problem differently in order to keep black, but I get why they made those decisions. The Colorado shoulder patch looks good on the burgundy jerseys because it contrasts with the blue yokes, the white jersey however, which could use more blue, somewhere, anywhere, just uses the same shoulder patch. Here's what it looks like now: Here's how I think it should look: 2. The numbers! How did they mess these up? Burgundy and their blue should never touch! EVER. The values are too similar and it creates a "vibrating" effect. They get this right almost everywhere else on the uniform except for the numbers. The policy should be that the numbers are only ever outlined with silver. Also, for consistency's sake, why are they outlined in silver on the back of the burgundy jerseys, but stroked with blue on the burgundy sleeves of the white jerseys? They got this right the first time when they outlined the black numbers in silver on the white jerseys, but when they switched to blue numbers they inexplicably decided to outline them in burgundy and it doesn't work IMO. Also I'd use a darker, gray twill instead of a silver, shimmery material so the outline isn't lost when touching against white like it is here: The Kings have the same problem on their black jerseys

I feel like the Avs stole that one, but that's what great teams do. Didn't play great for 60 minutes, were outshot, outworked, outchanced, and Kuemper looked shaky, but hold a team to under 3 goals and you'll win most nights. In overtime they had possession for what felt like 75% of the time and a goal felt inevitable, which is why I can't really care that much about Kadri going early on his line change. Now, is it too much to ask to invent a net where the puck doesn't get lost so easily and/or there's some kind of puck sensor system that automatically turns the red light on when the puck enters? That goal was anti-climactic and the TV coverage of it was not good. They never did show the moment when the Avs figured it out. It just cut from the players standing around to the celebration and the announcers didn't really know what happened.

I think this is it. They've played only 3 more games in these playoffs than Colorado, but Colorado had 9 days off between the conference finals and the final and Tampa only had 4. Plus Tampa's played 23 extra playoff games over the last two years compared to Colorado. That's a lot of extra mileage. Plus I think the Avalanche are just damn good.

Great. We just won the fight to get FC Cincinnati games on local TV without a blackout and now they're going back behind another paywall. I'll probably subscribe to this because I have another $5 each month and I've grown fond of watching our beloved FCC's, but grrrrr I can't count the number of streaming services I subscribe to on two hands.

I wouldn't say he's debunking them because he also provides the reasons why each cause makes sense. He's just laying out reasons to explain why this might be happening. He finishes with "I don’t think we can settle on one answer. I’ve given you the eight best theories that are out there, and none of them stands out as being unassailable. But that doesn’t mean we’ve come up empty. Most complicated problems have more than one cause, so we can pick and choose from our options here. Personally, put me down for a mix of theories 3 and 7, a little bit of theory 5, and a healthy dollop of theory 8. Your recipe might be different, and I’m open to hearing it, or any other theories you might want to share. " And where have I seen this before? "There are seven Canadian franchises, nearly a full quarter of the NHL’s 32 teams. Those numbers have changed over the years, but the ratio has been roughly consistent, meaning you’d expect a Canadian team to win a Cup every four or five years. Instead, nothing." The extent to which people care is separate from your initial point that a Canadian cup drought doesn't even exist. It does.

https://theathletic.com/3353799/2022/06/10/canada-stanley-cup-drought/ Noted Canadian and Maple Leaf fan Sean McIndoe on the Canadian cup drought.

Funny, "Angels in the Outfield" opens with the team losing 15 straight so now I'm rooting for that to happen for real. The Reds worst stretch was 11 straight, won once, and then lost 9 more after that so it formed a healthy 1-20 run. They're 17-14 since then, though. Team makes no sense.

Yes correct. Sounds like those 7 randomly selected teams have a collective "drought" going. No it is not. The 7 Canadian teams share a handful of challenges, both economic and environmental, that they have to overcome to win the cup that their counterparts based in America don't have to grapple with nearly as much. It's those factors caused by location that tie them together. It's not random. The Flames have more in common with the Oilers and Jets than they do with the Panthers and Rangers. They just do. Is your irritation that it keeps being brought up? I'm sorry, but it's notable. Literally nobody believes that when one Canadian team is left it means that every single living Canadian is rooting for them.

Literally nobody thinks the Canadian cup drought means A Canadian hasn't won the cup since in 29 years. Everybody knows they're talking about the 7 teams based in Canada. We don't need to specifically explain that every time it comes up. Math and reality aren't a fabrication of the media. Why is "drought" in quotes? Are you saying 29 years without a team from Canada winning the cup isn't a drought? A fifth of the league is based in Canada yet they've collectively gone nearly three decades without any one of them winning the cup. In theory they should win one every 5 years. There's been more recent NBA and World Series parades in Canada. I'm sorry, but that's a drought.

At this point Gary's just going to keep punting the Coyotes discussion to the next quarter until he runs out the clock and retires and then the Coyotes are the next guy's problem.

My wife and I do okay and could've afforded tickets without hurting our bank account, but even so we looked at tickets and the last row in the stadium was going for a price that I would consider exorbitant for what is essentially a preseason game against an opponent that I know nothing about. Then I looked at the weather and we decided not to attend. Pulisic isn't paid to consider why it wasn't a sellout and even if he's speaking directly to USSF, to put that on the fans, directly or indirectly, is lame. The best course of action for him to take would've been to say nothing about it.

Christian Pulisic can eat a fart. Listen, it was a**holishly hot with a great chance of thunderstorms, a weeknight, and tickets were exorbitant all for a scrimmage against dang ass Morocco. I thought about going, but that was just too many ass-aches I needed to overcome and I can tell you that post-COVID my tolerance for ass-aches has dropped significantly. I can deal with two, maybe three ass-aches at this point. Any more effort required than that and I'm staying at home and last night was like a 9 ass-ache event. No thanks. Plus I live here and I didn't even know it was happening until a week before the game so I wasn't really planning for it. If he's got an issue with the number of fans in the building he should take it up with USSF for poor planning and stupidly priced tickets, don't go on ESPN and :censored: about the fans. That's not your job, rich boy.

Reds Report! - Reds win a game at Fenway for the first time since Game 7 of the 1975 World Series. - After going 3-18 in April the Reds just posted a winning record in May. Stupid sport. The Reds passed the Nationals and Royals last night and no longer own the worst record in baseball, which is remarkable because at 3-22 they looked to have a death-grip not only on the worst record in the league, but on one of the all-time worst records in the modern era. Now they're just a normal, run-of-the-mill bad team at 17-31. I kind of miss the days when they were cosmically bad because it stuck it in Phil Castellini's fat stupid face every day. - They're now 2.5 back of the Cubs. 4 back of the Pirates. Coming in third place is my only rooting interest for the rest of the season. - Also notable: last night Joey Votto hit the top of the wall in right center and it bounced back into play for a double, two at-bats later he hit the top of the Green Monster, same thing. He was 4 inches away from two homeruns, but instead scored zero runs and ended up with two doubles. He could probably take BP all day not hit the top of the wall again. What're the chances? This has been your semi-regular Reds Report.

The blue numbers help, but I think outlining them in burgundy was a mistake because they flash and vibrate and it makes the blue appear brighter on the numbers than it does anywhere else in the uniforms. I would've outlined them in silver.

Votto homering in Toronto to score the winning run yesterday was a cool moment. Also the Reds are only 4 games back of the Pirates and Cubs...Not finishing in last place would be a minor miracle after that 3-22 run to start the season.

Russillo's probably tired of Bill's Aspbergian rankings of random basketball events like "Ryen, is this in your top 10 conference finals game 3 performances of the last 20 years or just top 50?" The Ringer discusses all sports like they're "The Bachelor" and that's why I stopped following any of their content years ago. The thing that broke me of The Ringer for good was when their MLB podcast, which I didn't even like because both hosts had what I call Eli Manning voice*, did a season preview episode a few years back where they were spent 5 to 10 minutes on every team and straight up forgot to cover the Reds. I know the Reds weren't a contender or even interesting that season, but I sat through 10 other teams who weren't contenders or interesting either. The funny thing is some of the people who've left The Ringer because they didn't fit that mold, and I would say Russillo doesn't fit their mold, have some of my favorite coverage going. Robert Mays' NFL podcast is one example. That's the kind of sports nerdery I'm looking for. *This is when your voice sounds like you're talking while smiling and also like you just drank a large glass of 2% milk.