OnWis97

Members
  • Content Count

    14,708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by OnWis97

  1. Yes! It’s nice to be in the know on one of these.
  2. MOD EDIT: You cracked me up, but in the interest of avoiding all out war in this thread, I'm going to step in and ask that we not go there. Fair enough?
  3. I’ll probably regret pointing this out, but I didn’t.
  4. Interesting points...I guess that means if I am going to say "the two leagues should have the same rules" I'm going to have to come up with a different problem with the fact that they don't. The best I have now is roster preparedness for the world series and interleague (e.g., an everyday DH for the AL and maybe pitchers more equipped for the NL).
  5. Well, I acknowledged the complexities and even his growth and have been called "disgusting" by two people who either misinterpreted me or focused on part of what I've said.. You guys have fun on the rest of this thread. But on the outside, I'm still not going to engage in the worship.
  6. The Cincinnati Bengals were my second-favorite team throughout my childhood and into young adulthood because of their uniforms. In fact, as a kid, most of my "second tier" teams were based on uniforms. Now that I don't really have second-favorite teams, I am still not above cheering for the team with the better uniform. I don't want the Orioles to win a World Series because it will strengthen the hold the Cartoon Bird has on the identity. I went to Miami two years ago to see my alma mater, Wisconsin, play Miami in the Orange Bowl. I felt absolutely cheated that 1) it was my first ever bowl game and the end zones were not painted in team colors (just a white-line criss cross pattern) and 2) that Miami wore black uniforms and helmets...because I love their regular color scheme. We got down to Miami (where I'd never been), enjoyed the weather, went to my first bowl game, and got the "W." And I allowed these things to put a dent in it...mainly while I was at the game, but still.
  7. Sano was actually never a DH when healthy. He was the first "fat-when-signed" guy I thought of, and not a particularly great example. Certainly, I am aware that he's been used defensively most of his career (and he's actually not too bad at 3B...now moving to 1B). But he's always been chunky. I'm not saying that his weight is why he ended up in the AL. I'm saying that it's a plausible scenario to happen to some players who could be suspected of being defensively deficient for one reason or another. By the way, while I think the two leagues should have identical rules, I hope they continue as they are for as long as possible. I love NL ball.
  8. I'll preface this by saying I don't follow MLB development or farm systems very much. But I could see how maybe an AL team might be more apt to take a flyer on a "fat guy." It doesn't truly give them extra players or anything. But maybe that's how the Twins ended up with Miguel Sano (not that I'm happy about it)...I think they outbid the Pirates (not certain). Maybe Pittsburgh was scared off by the weight and the Twins said "well, there's always DH." Again, I'm anti-DH...but I totally get the idea that the leagues (which, face it, are essentially conferences in most ways) should have the same rules.
  9. I also see the frustration that someone is supposed to get universal praise because he's good at basketball. And I think that's why some people are bringing it up...I mean, it's not like men have been given passes on sexual assault forever. Rape is almost impossible to prove. Statistically, very few accusations are false. That said, one case is not a statistic, so you have to tread carefully. It's the difficult part of this; I have my thoughts but I can't really shine any light that hasn't been shone. To this point... Rape charges being dropped mean very little in terms of "proof of innocence" (which I know is not any sort of legal requirement)...it simply means that something that's almost impossible to prove wasn't going to be proven. Now, I did NOT go over this case with a fine-toothed comb. I've read from some that did things that don't go along with this (though I agree; let's not litigate it)...so I don't know. I don't think you have to know a thing about basketball to have opinions on off-court things a basketball player does...this rings dangerously close to "he's a great athlete, which is all that matters" (someone said this about M. Vick; but I don't remember who). Waiting until Kobe's no longer a hot topic...it's kinda like how we're supposed to wait until after we've moved on from the shooting spree to talk about guns. If someone's going to write some kinda reminder that this happened in, say, a week there are only two possibilities: 1) They get treated the same as they are today and 2) it goes un-noticed. There really is no way to say "do we have to praise this athlete despite this?" For my part, on my more public personas (i.e., Twitter and Facebook). I chose to say nothing. I didn't feel comfortable even giving an "RIP" with that cloud hanging over this. I chose not to re-hash an accusation I'm not quite equipped to make...since I really don't know. I just stayed away. That said, rape culture is real. My first memory of it is Mike Tyson. I was in middle school and you would be, at the time, hard pressed to find a male peer of mine not saying "what did they think she was going to do in that hotel room, play a board game?" Some said that about the Kobe case, too. It's toxic, and I see the frustration that we're supposed to lionize this guy because he's the best basketball player since Jordan. Remember Brock Turner? Six months for raping a passed-out woman. No he said/she said? Maybe that "punishment" becomes more substantial if we're not trained to give athletes a pass. EDIT: I say all this as someone that's learned a bit about him over the last couple of days. I certainly don't think he's a predator; I think he was....well whatever. But I think he grew from that experience quite a bit. There's a ton of nuance to his life; but that doesn't mean he didn't get away with something; something that men almost always get away with.
  10. I was at the game when Wisconsin got clobbered in those uniforms...which I viewed as a cross between the Cowboys (who had big stars on the shoulders on their blue jersey) and the Niners (their drop-shadows). They sold replicas. I wish I'd purchased one. I love when that uniform is brought up...those same three graphics are always posted. There's not much else out there.
  11. I don't run into too many people like me: lifelong AL fan who hates the DH. Baseball's a long season and I like there to be opportunities for odd things to happen. I still remember the Twins Johan Santana hitting a triple at Joe Robbie (or whatever it was called) in a game I was watching in about 2006. About the bold...is this true? I've always understood that AL games take a little bit longer than NL games. And I've wondered (never seen it confirmed) whether AL teams have too much freedom to have mid-inning pitching changes because they don't have to make a switch when they pinch hit for the pitcher. Who knows, maybe the two leagues would have equal-length games if we eliminated the Red Sox / Yankees contests. I do think the AL game is kinda boring...I prefer the NL game. I am a fan of competitive integrity and it's hard to argue with the idea that NL and AL teams are building teams differently. They should probably have the same rules. And while I'd have the rule be "current NL rule" I know that can't happen. I'm going to St. Louis this year to see a new ballpark. I'd better savor it...it might be the last time I see traditional baseball in person.
  12. To be fair, it's given me a new perspective (well, this thread, mostly). I hated Kobe from the time he declared he must play in a big market. Then watching him get all the calls. Then the rape accusation. Then the pass he was given for it. Hi greatness on the floor was connected, for better and worse, to who he was. I knew he had that intangible that maybe only Jordan has had in our lives, so I respected that. I struggle with those accused of rape...rape is the hardest crime there is to prove (thanks in part to rape culture, which is real, but also the general nature of he said / she said) but once someone is acquitted or, as in this case, the charges are dropped, we have almost no choice but to begrudgingly welcome them back. The Eagle, CO case always stuck with me and it will always be a part of his legacy. And while I'm never going to be comfortable in my suspicions that he "got off" I actually kinda think he was able to learn from it and become better for it. Maybe, while putting his own freedom first, he also understood where she was coming from. Throw in having several daughters, and I think he might have turned it around some. I of course, don't know, but that feeling has only come about in the last 24 hours. As I see his dedication to parenthood, the WNBA, etc. There's a ton of nuance and I'll never pretend to really know what he was about...but in the last 24 hours, this stuff has moved him from "retired superstar" to "complex human" for me.
  13. There's a reason professional sports halls of fame tend not to elect players until five years after retirement; to avoid knee-jerk reactions. Unfortunately, the Mavericks have already done this...and are they going to go back? Probably not, because that would be a "dishonor." All the tributes we saw yesterday in the various arenas were great. But I hope the league and the rest of the teams are careful before they etch more things in stone. I don't want to see 8 and 24 retired leaguewide. Otherwise you'll get people clamoring for 23. And then older people for 33 (Bird) and 32 (Magic). And really old-school guys for Oscar Robertson (1?), etc. Let's take some time to mourn, breathe, and reflect before making permanent changes.
  14. Covering up sexual abuse is the human default, for some reason. I give up. A lot of people in Happy Valley are probably spell-checking their resumes right now.
  15. The Raiders haven't been nearly as good, for a long while, as they used to be in the 1970s and 1980s (back in the early 1990s, a friend who was a Raider fan said that they had the best winning percentage of all teams in the "big 4," though I doubt that's true now). That said, the Raiders are still one of those few brands that sort of transcends their home. At this point, they're not the Oakland, LA, or Las Vegas Raiders. They're just "the Raiders." Putting aside the other franchise name/history arguments the boards have seem, this one is different than, say, the Atlanta Thrashers or even the Houston Oilers. This is more like the Dodgers or something. The Raiders mean more to the NFL than most teams and they have a different following than most as well. The absolute only way the Raiders name wasn't moving to Vegas was if there was a Cleveland Deal in place, where we knew the Oakland Raiders would exist again in short order. I agree that "Las Vegas Raiders" doesn't sound as good as "Oakland Raiders." Then again, I remember the first move to Los Angeles and that sounded weird...for a while. I got used to it.
  16. It seems like the thing to do is to vote for the guys you think should get in...but there's a strange history of some voters who don't think anyone with the exception of the top few guys all-time should get in on the first ballot, don't think anyone should be unanimous (possibly because guys like Ruth, Mays, and Aaron were not). I was hoping that this nonsense was over after Mariano was unanimous. The other thing is, I think there are voters that won't vote for anyone (well, any hitter, apparently) that played during the steroid era.
  17. That's funny...I was going to mention that when I was a kid, my dad would tell me how Carew would get ball/strike calls because he had a reputation for have a good eye (the BEST eye!). I am only old enough to remember him as an Angel. I think this in and itself makes the leagues un-level...particularly basketball, which has so many instance of one-on-one involving a star. Sure, sometimes those stars even out...but I have a lot of experience watching the T-Wolves play against the Kobe-led Lakers...
  18. My point is that the game can be set up to favor a team without having anything to keep quiet about. It's just not that black-and-white. The best example is the NBA. Nobody really disputes that superstars get favorable treatment. This favors certain teams (that tend to be better TV draws). Therefore the NBA, while not "fixed" is less than "even." And for its part, the league doesn't try to correct this flaw. I view it is a flaw anyway. Why? Maybe because it helps hedge their bets in terms of who goes further in the playoffs. Or maybe it's just because fans don't like seeing the best players foul out. But, even if it came about unwittingly, the league is tilted.
  19. The tangent the thread has taken is probably "own thread" worthy. Twenty years ago this was a huge topic around the NBA...and has remained so to some degree. And in my opinion, far too often, it's viewed as black-and-white, leading people to say "it just wouldn't work because too many people would know about it." However, I see "Total Legitimacy" on the opposite end of a continuum as "Totally Fixed" with most leagues falling inbetween (closer to legitimate, mind you, but not all the way). And to that point, the NBA is low-hanging fruit. Did David Stern say to the officials before game 7 of Kings vs. Lakers: "Tonight, the Lakers win." Of course not. But that doesn't mean the Lakers don't come in with an advantage; nobody really even denies that superstars get preferential treatment. So team with superstars (who happen to be the teams more likely to garner TV viewership) are going to get a few calls because they have certain players that get those calls. That means an evenly played game is probably always going to be won by the more star-studded team. Does that make the league "fixed?" No. But it certainly hedges the leagues bets in terms of the bigger TV draws advancing. And I don't think Adam Silver's about to say "treat each call on its merit and stop giving preferential treatment to bigger names." And that's how it should be (unpopular opinion?). Calls should be made as if the official don't know who the players are. Now, in the NFL, there isn't a ton of parallel. Maybe a certain WR is going to get a PI against a common CB or something. I think the most obvious "superstar treatment" comes with the QBs. I believe it takes less to draw a roughing the passer call on Aaron Rodgers than it does on most other QBs. Are officials instructed to do that or is the concept of "protecting QBs" just a bit more on their mind when it's a household name? But my gosh, it seems like the higher-profile teams get the calls. The two Super Bowls involving the Steelers (Cardinals and Seahawks) are solid examples; it just seemed like every close call went their way in each of those games (this of coursed stopped when they met the Packers). Admittedly, I'm biased, but I don't think the Vikings can draw a holding call on the Packers, particularly in Lambeau. Maybe that's again in officials bias in protecting the star QB. I dunno. Because I do agree, that nobody's saying "the Packers need to win this week" or even "let's give the Packers an edge." My best thought is that the NBA is about stars and the NFL is about the full team (and a few star QBs) -- Organically NBA officials started favoring the stars and the league never stopped it...since it seems be benefit the bottom line. Similarly, maybe this happens in the NFL. The Packers, for example, have been good for so long and they're more than just a football team (ask their fans)...maybe there's some favoritism (of the subconscious variety) there; an assumption that they don't need to hold or interfere or take chap shots? Same with the Steelers. Or the Pats. Or the Cowboys (when not playing the Packers). It seems like the NFL puts its thumb on the scale for certain teams, but I agree that it cannot do so in any official way...so I'm not sure what's going on? But when's the last time, in any sport, where a lower-profile team seemed to be advantaged over a high-profile team? (I suppose the Fail-Mary and America lost its collective mind)
  20. While I am fascinated by what this thread has become, I do have an amusing story about the actual game in question. My grandparents went to Super Bowl IV. They received the game tickets (from the NFL? Vikings? Stadium Admin?) in the mail along with about $3000 in cash (which was a pretty nice sum of money in 1970). They did the right thing and made a call and returned the money.
  21. I read Orioles part and had my curser over the "like" button. The first standing bird, is by far my favorite hat of theirs...the almost perfectly round head was a bit of a miss but but I like how it was simple and just used black, orange, and white By the end it was trying to hard to look like a photograph. The cartoon bird seems minor-league to me. However... Your opinion on the Angels is unpopular thanks to the Winged-A/periwinkle days. My opinion on the Angels, that this is the BEST they've ever looked is also unpopular because it's too red. I love it. It sets them apart from other red/blue teams and I think the "A" has a certain "boldness" that the original pointy A didn't have. And, regardless of anyone's ranking, I have another unpopular opinion. Gray halo over gold halo...by a lot. 1/2 a like...
  22. This might just be me being obtuse, but it took me a long time to pick up on the motion in the original. I saw the wing, but thought it was more of an abstract rendering...that’s why I want an update that makes it more obvious. That said, robo-falcon doesn’t show the motion well, either...I’d take the original back if offered.
  23. I don’t think it needs an F. I’m not fond of a letter being formed out the logo it represents. In other words, a “Falcon” forming an “F” is redundant. If it formed an “A,” it would be more valuable to the logo.
  24. Based on the use of "new uniforms" and the fact that current logo is placed at the end of the "tease" video, I'd say the logo is staying put. Given that, I hope for something modern...not gaudy like Tampa, but maybe more along the lines of Miami, Houston or the Jets. Going with the current logo on the 1960s-1980s uniforms would look odd to me. I'd like to see an update of the old logo...with the bird at a slight angle so the second wing shows a bit (like the 2 horns on the Vikings logo).
  25. Didn't Seattle have some deal where if they got a team by some number of years (7 or so?) that they'd get the Sonics history, etc.? Not trying to re-open the debate...I just kinda feel like I remember this. On the other hand, I could be totally making it up.