OnWis97

I just did the Petco Park tour and went into the pro shop. Authentic jerseys have the swinging friar on one sleeve and Motorola on the other. The replicas only have Motorola. I am irrationally upset about it.

It's really amazing to think that the Rays entered a long-term lease on that warehouse in 1998. Three years later, MLB was talking contraction for teams that could not get modern ballparks.  The Suncoast Dome was probably a year or two away from going down as a (even more) colossal waste of money.

I went to an A's game on July 3, 2007. I thought the BART trip in from SF was OK and the walk, while partly a bridge that appeared to be made entirely of rust, didn't seem that bad. I went by myself because my wife was hanging out with friends. I told her I'd be back at about 10:30 (which turned out to be true). The game went something like 2:09.  But there were fireworks, so we were not allowed to walk the rusty bridge and had to take shuttle buses back to the station and it took that would-be-saved hour back. That left a terrible taste in my mouth (and I assume people that drove had no extra delay; don't get me started on preferences toward the car).  That said, I assume it's normally OK.

As for the ballpark, I loved every second of being there; sure I wish I'd seen it without Mount Davis but it was really kinda fun to be in a big ol' hunk of concrete with no amenities except for flag-waving fans. So, to be clear, I know it's an outdated dump that can't sustain an MLB team beyond next week, but it was a fun nostalgia trip and a college football like atmosphere (just days earlier I'd been to Pac Bell or whatever it's called and that was such a different experience. Beautiful ballpark but also just a cool place for people to be. Fan rabidity was only fraction in SF of that in Oakland. After all, who is going to go to an A's game just for something cool to do?).

Does this mean I like the Coliseum better than Pac Bell? No. Would I want it as my home ballpark? Hell no. But I kinda hope I get to go once more.

19 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

"As your governor, I plan to make sure no taxpayer has to foot the bill for another dildo bridge ever again! I can't be bought by the dildo lobby!"

You mean Big Dildo?

I am totally with the absence of black. KC looks perfect from the neck-down and the fact that they don't have any yellow on the helmet is too bad (even if I understand why they use black and no yellow).

The logo is really sharp and well-rendered. But I feel like a yellow "KC" would be better on the helmet with the wolf playing the same role the Vikings primary plays. (Admittedly, that's just my preference away from detailed/fierce logos on helmets)

On 1/30/2023 at 3:48 PM, spartacat_12 said:

 

The North Stars, just like the Flames, Mets, Knicks, NY Jets, and Detroit Lions, never needed to add black. I don't know how you can look at those pictures next to the ones the Wild based their RR on and say they're an improvement.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of fans in Minnesota who haven't bought a RR yet, but would if they're wearing it for the next couple years.

I agree that they did not need to. But for reasons I cannot articulate, I think the North Stars addition wasn't nearly as bad as the Flames, Mets, and Lions (KC Royals, Eagles, and probably several others, too).* I think their late-1980s black trim worked nicely. I've been back and forth on whether I prefer their early 1980s (no black) green vs. the added black. That said, I think the non-black white jerseys (which were just before my time) are far superior to the black they added in the early 1980s. My earliest memories include black at home (white) and no black on the road, which I didn't understand at all.

If I could eliminate one common philosophy of sports uniforms, it would be that yellow cannot touch white. I think the Flames and Chiefs look absolutely fantastic and the Flames were ruined by black. I think they used it more prominently than the North Stars, but even thin outlines would have ruined it for me. Their 1980s look is top-5 all-time for me and the moment they added black, they went to the middle of the pack.

*I'm also not able to articulate why I absolutely think the Jets addition of black trim was absolutely the right move.

1 hour ago, maz said:

 

A lot of people use success to justify wearing a certain uniform regardless of its design merits. Therefore, I think there is a lot of love for the red and black given the success they had during the  90s and 2000s, and Brodeur playing his whole career in it, whereas they made the playoffs in just four out of ten seasons in the red and green (they've also only made it in twice out of the past 12, but I digress).

 

Red and green matches the area, red and black matches the name. Can't go wrong with either one, IMO. I've seen a lot of support around here for going back to green, so at least on the CCSLC I think you're actually in the majority.

That's funny. I just replied that I think that opinion's in a fairly small minority, even though I agree with it.

From the name vs location perspective, I agree that both "work." I just happen to love the christmas colors and happen to think red and black is overused.

20 hours ago, Ark said:

I think this is a popular opinion but I don’t know where else to put it.

 

 The New Jersey Devils should be a red and green primary team. Red and green pays homage to their location (New Jersey is the Garden State and the Jersey Devil is from the pine barrens in NJ). Wear red and black on 90s/2000s Night and Halloween and that’s it.

The 1980s "Christmas" Devils is my favorite NHL look of all time. That said, I think your (our) opinion is extremely unpopular. When I first got on these boards, I figured a lot of people would agree with me...red/black is pretty overdone and the red/green look was unique. Turns out that 1) like pineapple on pizza, the red/green is polarizing and mostly not liked and 2) red/black is preferred to red/green because it's more "devilish."

7 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Specific points

1 - Co-signed

2 - Absolutely agree

3 - You lost me here. Soccer isn't as popular as its fans believe that it is. Regardless, what works in one sport doesn't apply to another. If it did, then the NFL (and NHL) never would have had ties because baseball (and basketball) didn't.

4 - Yup

5 - I'm more ambivalent on this one. I agree that fans have to care about baseball, but not all fans lose interest in a game that many people would consider boring or one that causes them to lose interest. We can't fix a problem by changing what we think interests fans if that interest isn't shared by some overwhelming percentage of the fanbase.

6 - See 1 and 2 above

7 - see 6

3. I absolutely think ties in MLB are a non-starter. I know I am in the minority (to say the least).

5. That's an interesting point. I love a 2.5-hour nine-inning pitchers' dual that ends 1-0 or 2-1. And there definitely has to be a balance between attracting casual fans and keeping the game to mostly what it ought to be. I definitely don't want to see games be 15-9 just because some people might like high-scoring games. I kinda think pace-of-play and balls-in-play will take care of it.

As a traditionalist, I don't like the runner on second. That said, there absolutely need to be measures taken to reduce the length of games. If the ghost runner reduces the length of extra-inning games, than I can accept it. What I would rather to to prevent regular-season games from going super long is have them end in a tie after, say, 12 innings. American fans tend to be very averse to ties, though, so that's probably a non-starter. A cap on possible innings would be great for managing pitching staffs and the bench and would prevent the most ridiculous of the ridiculously late games. Maybe the popularity of soccer will reduce our aversion to ties.

That all said, I think that the primary problem with game length occurs in innings 1-9. The real challenge is how to speed that up...pace-of-play to 1) keep fans interested and 2) make a 3.5-hour nine-inning game a rarity. As a traditionalist, I accept that something has to give, even if I don't know what it is. Hopefully that can include finding a way to have more balls in play. Right now they all go over a wall, fair our foul.

Pitching to contact, stealing bases, hit-and-run, small ball...these were always bad strategies. But the game sure was fun...

5 hours ago, See Red said:

 

It's very common for the official to stand over the ball to allow the defense to sub.  The defense is at a huge disadvantage when it comes to subs since they have to react to offensive personnel, so the rules allow them to do so without having to worry about getting caught with too many men on the field.

 

What happened last night is on one play, the Eagles didn't actually sub, to my knowledge, but since the play went out of bounds to the Eagles sideline, it gets treated as if they did. Philly wanted to quick snap to avoid a potential review and did, but the refs shouldn't have allowed it. On an another, the Eagles subbed late and the refs have to provide KC the ability to do it. 

Was that caused by the receiver running about 15 yards through the team's bench area?

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Last night was the first time I ever heard officials holding the ball so the defense could make substitutions.

 

Might absolutely have been the correct call by the book; it was just something I had never heard done before. And both times they made that call, they were holding the ball for the Chiefs to get set. It just feels weirdly paternal to me.

 

Again, holding the ball for the defense to make subs might be a normal thing but it stuck out as odd to me.

Not the first time I have heard that. I saw it in college and pro this year (including my school being forced to call a timeout once).

I am not exactly sure of how the rule is written/enforced, but I'll say this. Getting a 12-man-on-the-field call is an Aaron Rodgers strategy and it's lame, so I like the idea of trying to prevent that.

That's the kinda call that in the second quarter of a week 3 game, people will think could go either way. The difference here, aside from the obvious spotlight, is that for 58 minutes that call had not been made. That's the reason the call bothers me. If the game had been called tightly all game, then I could live with that. But they'd been keeping their flags in their pockets, leading this to be a very ticky-tack call by comparison. It's an inconsistency and that's why I don't like it.

I hold the unpopular opinion that refs can decide games late by letting penalties go just as much as they can by calling them. That said, this was closer to the latter, regardless of the letter of the law, simply because I don't think it's called in the first 55 minutes of the game.

I've been as willing as anyone to suggest that the NFL has a huge problem with favoritism of certain players and teams. In this case, I'm not quite ready to make that leap because I didn't feel like I was seeing a one-sided game the entire time.  The games that really upset me are games like the Steelers vs. Seattle and Arizona where every call seemingly went to one team. In this case the question is did they really make this call to help KC or did the official who made the call kinda choke? They're human, too and maybe he saw the contact and didn't want to be the guy who let a penalty go at the end of the game.

Again, I wish the call had not been made but conspiracies only enter my mind because of past history...this game, in a vacuum, didn't feel like one team was getting preferential treatment.

The league should be embarrassed by this turf.

The 49ers have always frustrated me with their jerseys. The either have to be red and white only or if they include gold it has to be with black, drop-shadows, and logos on the sleeves.

I think the red jersey with gold-outlined numbers and gold incorporated in the sleeves would look fantastic.

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

I'm old enough to have seen every one of Jordan's championships, as well as his years coming up short to the likes of the Pistons.  But I never got to see him live and in person.  I have seen Lebron live and in person (several times, including from super up close.)

 

Lebron is the more talented/gifted/athletic player.  He's the best "basketball player" I've ever seen.  All things being equal, he can do things that Jordan couldn't.  If we're talking pure talent, it's Lebron.

 

However, all things aren't equal, and Jordan is just a winner, whereas Lebron is not as mentally tough and simply doesn't quite have the same level of killer in him.  If I was building a team to win one game, I would choose Jordan.  All the good things people have said about Lebron are true - he single-handedly carried teams to the playoffs on his back, whereas Jordan always had Pippen, Grant, eventually Rodman, and a host of other talents.  But Lebron also had Wade, Bosh, et al, then eventually Davis and whoever else along the way.  

 

Lebron can do things effortlessly that Jordan simply couldn't (though Jordan always put in the effort to close whatever gap there was.)  Passing for example - Lebron could make passes with the flip of a wrist with his eyes closed that nobody else - not even Magic - could ever do.  Jordan can get the same job done, but had to work harder.  But that's fine.

 

So two things can be true - Lebron can be the better player, while Jordan is the better winner.  I'll choose winning.

 

Also any top x list that doesn't include Wilt is ridiculous.  They literally changed rules and had to change the shape of the court just to stop him.

 

This is roughly how I feel and why I would rate Jordan #1. I'm the opposite; I've seen Jordan in person (once from some really good seats) and not James.  And some of those things like threading needles while blindfolded on passes were definitely not Jordan's thing. But he was so determined and it was like every game was made up of about 50 one-on-one games and he had to win every single one. That and the ability to turn on a dime in mid-air and make the ball find the hole.

Anyway, I agree that LeBron was more gifted and could do more things but that MJ was the bigger "winner." That doesn't make LeBron a "loser." It just means that there's this semi-tangible thing that puts MJ over the top because to actually choose one, we have to split hairs. Honestly, it all probably points to LeBron being a happier person because he's probably more like the rest of us while MJ can't handle loosing a basketball game or a game of pick-up sticks. Does Jordan win in 2007? Maybe not. But he does win in 2011.

17 hours ago, Unocal said:

 

GSW's home/road splits are scary. 

And really bizarre. Veteran team with championships should be able to approach .500 on the road.

Observations as a T-Wolves fan.

• Meh on Conley but D-Lo wasn't doing a lot anyway.
• The West gets stronger. That tends to happen when the Wolves have the opportunity to ascend to their ceiling (i.e., being a middling playoff team).
• Thank you, Nets, for becoming the butt of the NBA jokes for a while.

10 minutes ago, See Red said:

If we are splitting hairs, Kobe had an NBA Finals game 7 where he shot 25% from the field.  I don't really get the doubting of LeBron's clutchness. Think he just had the misfortune of dragging worse teams to the finals and playing much better teams there than Jordan ever did.

Jordan's always going to have the benefit of when he played and the influence he had on the sport and popular culture in these discussions.  Also, there's this weird idea of what the NBA actually was when Jordan played.  People seem to generally if you put LeBron in the 90s against people who were smaller and less athletic and then make most of what teams do to defend LeBron against the rules, he'd be some schlub.

I do find this funny. Yeah, they got away with more hockey-like things, but I really don't think it would have been too hard on LeBron. He looks more like Karl Malone than he does Jordan.

9 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

True, but he also got his ass rocked by the Magic in 1995. Like, he did play in those games. That series might be the most memory holes in NBA history.

 

LeBron has played 20 seasons straight, along with deep playoff and national basketball team runs included in there. MJ had multiple season+ breaks in his career, and those Wizards seasons happened too.

 

Both were/are great. Both had highs and lows. I think the MJ lows tend to be forgotten/handwaved away more than the LeBron ones. 

Jordan definitely gets more passes than LeBron for misteps on and off the court. Having grown up with Jordan as the most popular athlete in the country (world?), there was a mystique that could simply not be matched under any imaginable circumstance.

Is LeBron arrogant? Maybe, but not nearly as arrogant as Jordan was. Jordan kinda gets a pass but there are also some differences in their arrogance. I remember a Jordan interview when he said "If I have you one-on-one, you're at my mercy." He used his arrogance to actually make himself better, like with the stories of how he'd always make it a point to take some over-hyped player down a peg. He was also an ass to some of his teammates....That's not LeBron's personality. LeBron just bought into his own hype at times, which was in a different world when he was 18 vs. when Jordan (or even Kobe) was.  I found most of it to be forgivable and an excuse for people to hate a guy they already wanted to hate (in no small part because of hype generated by media).

I think the hate is a little odd. I think Jordan can be your favorite player and you can still appreciate LeBron. And given how famous he was at such a young age, I think he handled it pretty well, even if you want to ding him on some purity tests.

56 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

But is it really hate or discrediting to simply say, as good as he is, he’s still second place to MJ?  Doesn’t feel like hate to me.  
 

Here’s how I always think of it…. If my life literally depended on the outcome of a single basketball game, and I mean literally, and I could choose any player in his prime as my one pick, I’d say Jordan before the question was finished. 
 

Watching MJ play you always felt he’d cut your throat in a second to win a game.  I never got that feeling from Lebron. 

And when you're talking about all-time greats, these really are the hairs that you have to split. If I need someone to help get homecourt, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, Lebron, etc. are all valuable.  But when it's really on the line. It's Jordan, then Kobe, then Lebron (with Kobe closer to Jordan).  Lebron had the physical size and skill combo that might be unmatched.  I don't care about ring counts because circumstances matter. I don't care that he had to move around because there was no Shaq going to Cleveland for the endorsements. But in the clutch...there's just a little bit of doubt with LeBron that I never had with Jordan or Kobe.

10 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

This is the thing that’s so baffling to me about a lot of the Lebron hate. The dude is just about the best example of a person as you could possibly expect to be the face of the league and a role model to a ton of young kids (even if you argue that athletes shouldn’t be role models, you can still at least understand the point in this). And yet people nitpick stuff like, oh, he comes across as too arrogant or oh he’s too much of a drama Queen. Like, ok. Sure. Even if that’s true (I don’t really think it is), what do you really expect? How perfect does someone have to be to validate their achievements? That’s the real arrogance if you ask me. That stuff all comes across as so annoyingly entitled from fans.  Like, people have so little left to hold against Lebron that they’re even roasting him on his stance on stuff like China and Kyrie’s antisemitism. Basically stuff that none of us would ever care about with any other athlete. Some of that comes with the territory, no doubt about it. It’s the cost of being in that position. But this dude has been held under a microscope forever and has mostly come out clean sans a few relatively minor issues (at least for an athlete and in the context of sports). Jordan had the luxury of playing in an era when there wasn’t that constant surveillance, and Jordan was famously a douche. But because of the “mystery” or whatever, it’s celebrated rather than torn apart like it is today. It just builds his legend. I think in that sense, how can you not see Lebron as at least on the same level as Jordan? 
 

That’s just my feeling, though. You’re right that some people are never gonna be swayed on this issue in either direction. 

I think a lot of the LeBron hate is fueled by two things: Jordan fandom and Kobe fandom. Then the decision multiplied it.

I think Lebron is #3 among Jordan/Kobe/LeBron but hard-core fans of the other two still seem threatened by him.

I'm sure I'm in the minority but I love that Toronto jersey...I prefer that leaf and I like the double outline. I don' think the name-on-back font fits, but I otherwise really like it.,

The NFL absolutely deserves the questions it is getting about its legitimacy. Are they WWE? No. If for some reason they wanted the Texans to win the Super Bowl this year they could not have made it happen. But that doesn’t mean they don’t hedge their bets towards preferred outcomes. It seems counterintuitive, given how people will watch football, regardless of who plays. But it certainly feels like they have teams they are trying to push through. It felt like the Packers late in the season and yesterday both winning teams sure seem to be on the good side of all the controversial calls. Philadelphia didn’t even need it.
 

Bad calls happen. But when the whole game is one-sided, I am tired of hearing about how you should not let the officials beat you . You could make the argument on the questionable personal foul if the rest of the game was fair but it’s a hard argument to make with the whole game went against one team.

I would rather have a game like the Fail Mary game (terribly officiated, but at least terrible both ways)  than a competently officiated game that is one sided. I don’t know if it was about Mahomes’s legacy, Andy Reid, or the Kelsey brothers, but really seems like the thumb was on the scale for Kansas City. And Philly.

I kinda wish they would’ve let that one go.