Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. I suspect by jumping up several pages, someone's mentioned the Bills (looks like that's what all this face mask talk probably derived from).

    Did I see that the Bills are going to white as their "primary" face mask color? Does that mean they may show up one Sunday with gray, red, or blue face masks? Or would that only be in the case of a throwback or something?


    College teams switch face masks a lot (Wisconsin bounces between red and white) but in the NFL the helmet is such a major identifier, I'd be kind of surprised to see this happen frequently. It seems like a mistake to have helmets changing a lot. Jerseys? Sure; fans buy those. But is there really a big run on helmets (full-sized and/or mini) that Bills Mafia members are going to need one with each face mask color?


    I think the move to white is an improvement, though blue or red would have been better. Gray generally sticks out like a sore thumb on teams without gray or silver. But we're probably at the point at which the topic of gray face masks need to be given the distinction of "quasi-political" and banned.

  2. 15 minutes ago, infrared41 said:


    For me, it was the Rangers. I have no idea how many Indians and Tigers games I've been to in my life, but I'm pretty sure they played the Rangers in about half of them. Anyway, before interleague play started, I had seen exactly three NL teams - Pirates vs. Reds at Riverfront and the Padres in the '84 World Series at Tiger Stadium. Since then, I think I just need the Giants, D-Backs, Braves, and Cardinals to complete the Bingo card. Oh, and the Brewers. They've been in both leagues yet I've somehow never seen them play.

    It's crazy when I am looking at what game(s) to attend and those four teams just dominate the schedule. I'd be all for unbalancing the intraleague schedule. Also, Cleveland vs. Texas in the 1980s at Municipal Stadium. That must have been one tough ticket to get...


    A few years ago, I went back through my ballgame attendance history and determined the only team I was missing was the Dodgers. They came to Target field on like a Tuesday/Wednesday in April. It was cold, windy, drizzly and miserable.  But I needed to get that final notch on my belt. Nobody would go with me. So I went by myself. As an adult, I've traveled to a lot of ballparks (and have since been to Dodger Stadium), but as a kid in the 1980s, I never saw anyone. Sure, it wasn't Aaron and Mays, but I never saw Tony Gwynn,* Ozzie Smith, Eric Davis, etc.


    *I was actually able to see the Padres Twice at County Stadium (First interleague and second after the Brewers made the switch) but Gywnn didn't play either game. Boo. I'd love to have seen Tony in his prime, wearing the awesome pinstriped road jersey (with the superior-to-yellow orange trim) in the dumpy Metrodome.

  3. I like interleague, too but I wish the interleague schedule was more like the NFL's intraconference schedule. Bascially, play one division from the other league either at home or on the road. It would make the crosstown rivalries more special. Of course, interleague primarily exists so those rivalries can happen all the time, as they sell a lot of tickets.

    I remember when it first started and people would say "nobody cares about a Royals/Pirates matchup." Maybe so, but nobody cared about Royals/Twins either.  The last thing I need when trying to figure out what game I'm going to is more Tigers games.  Getting the Padres or Nationals in on occasion is a nice change of pace.


    That said, I know it's "just sports" but I do like the idea of the maintaining some scheduling integrity and doing the NFL-like division arrangement would be good for that.

  4. 1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


    By contrast, a rule change that I abhor is the automatic intentional walk. In the first World Series that I ever saw, in 1972, Rollie Fingers struck out Johnny Bench on a fake intentional walk.  Since then there have been instances during intentional walks in which hitters have swung for base hits, and in which pitchers have thrown wild pitches or have picked runners off. That such events do not happen often is irrelevant; the threat of any one of these things had been present in every intentional walk, creating tension.


    I agree on the automatic intentional walk. No matter how much one loves baseball, 162 games is a lot of games. To me, the intentional walk was always an opportunity for something truly bizarre and memorable to happen. Did it happen a lot? No. In fact, I don't recall seeing it happen. But the possibility lingered. Now, I would totally give that up if the change would provide a meaningful amount of time savings. But given how often intentional walks happen, I tend to doubt the average game is even a minute shorter because of the rule.


    However, that same reason is part of why I am anti-DH. Bartolo Colon's home run. I still remember like 15 years ago the Twins were playing the Marlins the the cavernous football stadium and Johan Santana hit a triple. It was awesome. I don't even remember who won the game. Sure, the DH may have even hit a homer in his place, but we see that all the time. 

  5. On 3/15/2021 at 10:51 AM, OnWis97 said:

    The XX IIII is brutal.


    New uniforms? How are they going even do that given the amount of real estate devoted to ads?

    When I wrote this, it didn't even occur to me that they would tone down the ads on the uniforms. But it looks like they are, at least some of the time. Maybe the league realized it watered down the identity too much.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Kramerica Industries said:


     If this is extra innings, then end a game after nine innings, call it a tie, and tell everybody to go home instead. That's better than this. It shouldn't be MLB, or the NHL's, problem that Americans can't handle the concept of a game ending in a tie.

    I share the unpopular opinion with you that ties are not a big problem (The North Stars had 20 ties one year in my earliest memory). But it is the league's problem that fans can't handle ties if its to the point where they stop consuming the product.


    Seeing a team get a "win" for a shootout win bugs me and I cringe about the impact on the standings. Sixty minutes (plus some amount of 5-on-5 OT) ending in a tie tells me that the two teams played evenly and should each get one point. Unfortunately, many fans, particularly casual fans that attend games, consume the game as a single event and don't really tie it to the integrity of the season. And I'm guessing they walk out more satisfied at a shootout W/L than a tie.

  7. Overtime is tricky in most sports in terms of balancing integrity of the game and manageable time. Basketball is really the only major team sport that is in a pretty good position to do it well. Unlimited extra inning games on a Tuesday it’s kind of like the NHL going to unlimited sudden death its regular season. It’s never done that because nobody wants to see it. So what they are doing now provides a lot more digestibility in terms of time. My personal opinion is that the shoot out should go and the possibility of a tie should be reborn. But  I think America is pretty much done with ties, except ironically in the NFL, its most popular sport.  The NFL sacrifices the fairness end of the integrity of the game, where as college sacrifices the “full game “part of it.


    Anyway, as a baseball purist, I have to admit that some thing should perhaps he sacrificed in terms of integrity of an extra inning game. I’m not exactly sure what that is, but I would actually lean towards something like a 12 inning maximum and then have a tie. If ties are forbidden then I think the only other options are to keep it how it’s always been or to do something like is being done now.  There are not really any good options

  8. With the Timberwolves being, well, the Timberwolves, I am not paying hard-core attention to detail in the NBA. Is Blake Griffin just another player now, or is he actually still pretty good? It feels like the nets might be stacking themselves better than the Heat and GSW combined.

  9. I’m not a fan, either. However, it’s definitely not as bad as a shoot out, in terms of not being true to the game. MLB has a has a problem with the pace of play and the length of games, for sure. But that really needs to be addressed in terms of how a nine inning game is played. I suppose there’s a chance this will help reduce the length of extra inning games, but we will have to see.  But it doesn’t address the real issue at hand.

  10. 4 hours ago, infrared41 said:


    Maybe? Yes. No.


    No one cares, but Don Mattingly and I were born on the same day a very long time ago. His baseball career went a little better than mine.

    Don Mattingly never won a World Series. Your baseball careers are equal.

  11. 10 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

    LeBron James is 4-6 in the NBA Finals. He's been a favorite in one of those six losses exactly once (2011 against the Mavs). He's been dramatically outmatched 5 times (2007, 2015-18) but won one of those, in 2016.


    People who think LeBron is the GOAT (like me) look at the record and say that, yeah, he should have won in 2011, but he's led his teams10 damn championship finals in an era where no one else does that.


    Of course, "GOAT" is different than "great," but I bring up LeBron to say this conversation has focused more on teams than individuals.


    Is Patrick Ewing great? Charles Barkley? Don Mattingly?

    I think LeBron should have been MVP of the 2015 finals and I'm not generally a fan of giving it to a member of the losing team.


    I am not a fan of ring-counting because I am a believer that circumstances matter. For example, who's better between the Hakeem Rockets and the Stockton/Malone Jazz?  Each made two finals appearances in a row but I'd argue the biggest difference is Jordan's retirement for Houston vs. the Unbeatabulls for Utah. Houston got the rings and will be better remembered than Utah and that's fine, but Utah certainly had different circumstances. LeBron had different circumstances than Jordan and Kobe. After lotto luck and dealing made the Cavs better, it looked like it was time for a run; but at that very moment, the whole game changed, starting in Oakland. Those other guys never had a Warriors team. They never played for a small-market team nobody wanted to sign with. None of Jordan's six finals teams or Kobe's 7 was nearly as undermanned as the 2007 Cavs.


    As for LeBron's 4-6 record, I'd argue that 4-6 is a lot better than 4-0. I've never understood why players get more of a pass for losing earlier than losing in the finals.  That said, two of those losses came with a super-team that he joined with the intent of catching Jordan in six years.  That's going to cut into his GOAT status, for sure because many people think Jordan or Kobe would have gone 4-0 in those finals.


    And why do I keep bringing up Kobe and Jordan? Well, I think a lot of hard-core fans of theirs hold particular disdain for LeBron and that's part of what makes the discussion ugly and leads to people actually suggesting that LeBron is a Hall-of-Famer but nothing more (or even LaBust, LOL). These fans cut down LeBron to prop up two guys who's combined 11 titles were all coached by a coach usually included in the top 5, whereas LeBron has had an array of unmemorable coaches (another circumstance that matters to me).


    Counting rings is easy, that's for sure.


    After all that, I still think Jordan's the GOAT and I'm not even sure I'd put LeBron ahead of Kobe. But it's not a simple 4-5-6 discussion.

  12. 5 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

    I assume you saw Darryl Watts' goal to win the women's title. I feel horrible for the Northeastern defender.

    I don't have ESPN U so was following on Twitter.  Was happy when I saw the news, but when I saw the reply I thought "well, that's not exactly how I wanted it to happen."  I do feel bad for her. Such a bang-bang play and she didn't really make an egregious error.

  13. 12 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:



    Women's championship already claimed. Let's bring home the men's as well.

    Like in 2006.


    I really like the way they're playing in recent weeks.  In January, the idea of a 1 seed would have seemed unlikely, but their goalie tandem is solid and they have some firepower, including Caufield, who will finish either 1 or 2 in the Hobey voting. (Also, in Minnesota, I've had suprisingly many opportunities to see them play). NCAA tourney hockey is fairly random, but the Badgers have a shot.

  14. I've always held the following belief: The best team doesn't always win the championship.  That nobody cares about the regular season results doesn't offset that. Yeah, the 2006 World Series Champion Cardinals will be remembered over whoever had the best record that year and I don't have a problem with that. I don't think they were the best team of 2006. Sport-by-sport and league-by-league, it's different, as well.  NCAA single-elimination isn't as good of an indicator as the NBA's best-of-seven format, for example. Same with college vs. NHL.  But then hockey is more apt to have a "lesser" team win it all with the hot goalie and puck luck.  We've had eight seeds win the cup. Nothing like that is going to happen in the NBA. It's quite nuanced.


    That said (while I am not familiar with the discussion from some other thread), the title is "greatness" so I accept the argument that under some strict definition of "greatness" (particularly if "greatness" is fairly exclusive), a team cannot achieve that without winning the title.  The 2007 Patriots would be remembered as perhaps "the greatest" had they won. But they didn't, so that sort of pushes them back to a team that had a great year with a disappointing finish (or, a "Viking Year"). But that certainly doesn't make the 2006 Cardinals "great." And I'd argue that the 2006 Cardinals were not the best team in MLB with their 83 wins. They won the World Series per the way the league is set up. And I don't remember anyone else's win total so they are the story of 2006, but "who's the best" and "greatness" is more nuanced than "who won it all" in the same way Robert Horry isn't better than MJ and Kobe because of his seven rings.


    There are a few things at play here:

    • Champion (nobody's crowning the 2007 Pats the Super Bowl Champion). This is most remembered and it's true that the Lightning fans are going to be more excited about the Stanley Cup team than the President's Trophy team. Believe it or not, the Timberwolves once had the best record in the NBA. Despite me stating this here, I never rave about it; I just remember it as the team's one competitive year with a disappointing ending.
    • Best team of the year. The 1987 World Champion Minnesota Twins were not even close to the best team. There were three teams in the AL East that finished ahead of them.  They got hot at the right time. They're the Champion, but they were a pretty good team.  The 1991 Twins were the best team. Great? Maybe, though it wasn't sustained. But I still don't think the best team always wins.
    • "Great" becomes different meaning to different people. To many it's more than a single title. It's sustained excellence or a level of eliteness like the 1985 Bears (a one-hit team that was just so dominant) 


    If your opinion is that greatness is simply about who wins the title (or even that "best team" is) then you should not really argue that playoff fields should be smaller. Why should they? They should be bigger, just in case the best team happened to go 15-67.



  15. I feel like my distaste for the Flyers nameplates is unpopular.  They look cheap to me and the Flyers uniforms look like the 1970s decade from which they came...it feels like the 1980s version was a proper modernization of that look. Pictured below is my favorite Flyers jersey ever.  Probably not a popular opinion.




    HOWEVER, I guess the current Flyers uniform caused me to have a Manela effect. I would have bet anything the contrasting nameplatae was taken right from the 1970s.  The mothership seems to show that they did NOT have contrasting nameplates in the 1970s.


    Philadelphia Flyers (1973 - 1977)


    That said, the current trim is based off of the 1970s and the sleeve numbers hanging off of the orange onto the white looks cheap to me as well.  I think they got it right in the 1980s.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.