Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. Wisconsin redshirt freshman QB Graham Mertz looked amazing in his first start on Friday (20 of 21). Then on Saturday he tested positive.  He started because the (former) starter Jack Coan broke his foot in practice. Apparently Mertz had been hanging out with the third-stringer who also tested positive. So Wisconsin is down to their fourth string QB to be backed up by a RB who played QB in high school. 

  2. The original Miami Heat logo and uniforms.  The logo might have been a bit simplistic but those uniforms are still my favorite Heat uniforms ever and among my favorite NBA uniforms ever.


    The original Wild uniforms.  In hindsight, I think they overused gold and I generally prefer where the uniforms are now.


    Like Leopard 88 above, the Rainbow guts.  Those existed prior to my memory, but when I first saw them (probably on a card) I was hooked. They did not maintain their place in my heart.


    The Bengals tiger-striped helmets.  They've been #1 among NFL helmets ever since.


    St. Louis Blues first look after dumping the asymmetrical uniform with red trim. Still my favorite in team history. Same with the Seahawks "slate" uniforms. Same with the 1990s Vikings uniform with the logo on the sleeve.


    1991(ish?) Orioles standing bird.  Happy Bird has always been a bad piece of an otherwise great look for me.


    Milwaukee Bucks Green/Purple. It replaced my favorite look in team history, but I liked it.  It really did not hold up for me in the long run.

  3. On 10/14/2020 at 7:27 AM, BBTV said:

    Can't find a photo, but the Minnesota North Stars had the ST^RS logo on the ice while still wearing the N* jerseys in the SCF against Pittsburgh.

    I remember watching that live. I recall a rectangle with that logo on the boards. Being into logos and uniforms, it struck me. I think I knew they were changing their uniforms but for some reason, it did not occur to me that this was going to be the new logo. I thought it was just something they threw out there as a cutesy thing because fans so frequently referred to them as "the Stars."


    Another one, but maybe this doesn't count because it might be common...In 1987 I knew the Twins were getting new uniforms, but obviously, leaks didn't get out to the masses back then so I tuned into a spring training game just to see the new uniforms. And they were wearing the previous set (Batting practice jersey and "TC" hats/helmets.  They may have been wearing pinstriped pants; I'm not certain. But I recall being really let down that I was going to have to wait another month to see the new uniforms.

  4. 8 minutes ago, _J_ said:

    I think the Senators get a pass, at least the hockey team, because they link themselves so closely with the 1901 team.


    But yeah, would be off the table now. Especially in the US, where senators are much more powerful than they are in Canada.


    Name for the nation is good, name for the govt would be not so good.

    LOL...I totally blanked on the NHL team when I was talking about the MLB team...but I also think it might be different than the US.


    (also, as you said there was an old team in hockey-crazed Canada. There was also an old team in the US (two in fact) and maybe it would have been considered more if they'd have had more success.  I don't think people in DC had much connection to either edition of the Senators.)

  5. 37 minutes ago, _J_ said:

    Honestly? A team named the presidents would be tied to whoever is in the office. Is it unfair? Possibly, but the first thing that would come to mind is whoever is in office at the time. All of the other ones manage to be abstract concepts.

    I'd even suspect that takes Senators off the table.  Even in 2004 or whenever the Expos moved, government is too polarizing at this point.  In 1901 or whenever the original Senators were named, it was probably received better than it would be today.

  6. 11 minutes ago, DEAD! said:

    I recall this whole "rings" debate when comparing Brady to Montana, which is now a moot point as Brady has passed Montana in rings. Jordan went to six finals and won them all, but it also meant failing to get to the finals in all the other years. Magic Johnson played about 12+ seasons and went to 9 finals. In some respects, I wished I had Magic's career over Jordan's. 

    Yeah, back when Brady was like 4-2 (even 4-3?) I argued that 4-2 was better than 4-0.  But it's surprising how many people don't see it that way.


    So LeBron is 4-6.  Is that better than Kobe's 5-2?  It's an interesting question, whether the three extra appearances make up for one less title.  Probably not, but to me the comparison gets tricky and fruitless because of other circumstances.

  7. On 9/29/2020 at 11:26 AM, Bmac said:

    When I was young I collected the gumball size MLB helmets. A local arcade I frequented had them available as prizes, and I'd usually trade in my tickets for a few of them each time. The final helmet I needed for my collection was that of the Florida Marlins. I asked the "cashier" for the Marlins helmet, and he put it in the bag. When I took it out later, I didn't find a bright, teal Marlins helmet, but a dark, navy Mariners helmet. The guy mixed up his teams and I was too shy to go back and correct him.

    Wow.  I have a very similar story to that.

    When I was a kid (before the Marlins existed!) Dairy Queen sold helmet sundaes.  I tried to collect as many teams as I could.  The stores tended to have about a third of the teams at a given time.  So I ordered my sundae and asked what teams they had.  The girl behind the counter looked down at the stash located under the register and started naming teams.  I selected the Cardinals, which I'd had yet to acquire.  Out comes the ice cream in a Cincinnati Reds helmet. I was dejected, since I already had the Reds.  But I didn't have it in me to squawk.

  8. Both the NHL and NBA did pretty well with their bubbles.  MLB stumbled but managed to make their system work OK.  The NFL has seemed to be on the edge of disaster for a while now, but they're skating by.

    Unfortunately, bubbles are not a long-term solution.  The NBA and NHL are not doing this for a full season. But yeah, kudos to both for what they did. It was kinda fun having games played almost all day for a while.


    1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:


    John Salley and Robert Horry come to mind. I think there's one other. Clear difference, of course, is that LeBron isn't a role player but instead was the featured guy for three very different rosters in three almost very different eras.


    MJ was amazing, but his career course was easier to chart -- drafted out of college, struggled against the 80s Celtics and Pistons, then broke through and won 6 titles in 7 years he played. Then his two 40-year-old seasons where the Wizards couldn't make the playoffs in a weak conference, but like the 1995 playoffs, those tend to be forgotten.


    LeBron's is trickier. Everyone wanted him to suffer in Cleveland until he broke through like MJ did, except Cleveland never supported him with a guy like Scottie Pippen. Instead he got Larry Hughes, fat Shaq, and old Antawn Jamison. So LeBron got the eff out, went to Miami, won a couple of titles, saw they were at the end of that run (and he was right!) and he got the eff out again and repeated the process in Cleveland.


    Along the way, LeBron encouraged a total change in NBA player empowerment narratives. @Sport says the NBA is more of a mercenary league, but that wasn't really true in the same way it is now until LeBron broke that expectation. He spent 7 years suffering under bad ownership, saw his legacy was suffering as a result, and he decided it was more important for players to maximize their winning and earning potential in limited careers than be at the whims of ownership and management that take them for granted.


    Do you think MJ would have stuck around in Chicago for forever if he didn't have a good supporting cast? Given that he left Chicago the way he did, of course not. And the CBA is way more beneficial to players now than it was in the 90s, so it's totally possible a different salary structure would have led to some very different results. (There's also the possibility that with a better agent and shorter years, Scottie doesn't spend his prime drastically underpaid.)


    I'm losing my thread here. MJ's narrative is pretty simple to follow: get drafted, suck, get good, win. LeBron's is different: got drafted with expectations of being the next MJ, go to the Finals way before anyone imagined was possible, leave Cleveland to orchestrate a superteam (not the first! but people pretend it is), leave Miami to do another, make the Finals so frequently people got bored rather than amazed, finally get injured in year 16, watch a stream of people (Steph, KD, Kawhi, Giannis) get anointed his replacement while he's still playing, and then win a title in dominant fashion anyway. All that, and be among the greatest ambassadors for social change American sports have ever seen (and I won't entertain bad-faith China arguments here).


    When I think about LeBron, I think about a player who has surpassed impossible expectations and been told he was failing along the entire way. No other GOAT-status player got that treatment in my lifetime.

    Good points, particularly the bold.  Jordan joined a putrid team but their management was just about to start putting together a great cast. And then his team (and eventually Kobe's) became teams people wanted to join. For some reason that did not happen in Cleveland the way it did in Chicago and LA.  I'm pretty unapolgetically pro-LeBron because I think he ran into different circumstances than other stars and I've always had the opinion that circumstances matter.  From his crummy small market cast in Cleveland, to better teams (Spurs semi-dyansty, Golden State) being around than were during the 1990s, to playing for an array of mediocre coaches (as opposed to the one coach on the bench for Jordan and Kobe's 11 titles), to looking like having THE team to win a few in Cleveland right as Golden State was about to change everything.  Does he catch Jordan? of course not. Kobe?  Maybe.  But, as you say, everything that happened during LeBron's career is a complicating factor.  Counting rings and holding finals losses against him is just a little too simple.

  9. 2 hours ago, Digby said:

    In general it seems like the LeBron-on-the-Lakers narrative has been... underplayed, somehow. I don't know if it's that that's maybe the only team (besides Chicago) where the team outshines his own stature, or the general LeBron fatigue, or so many storytellers trying to make the other LA team a thing, or Currymania or Giannismania or Lukamania. Just seems like, in a sports world obsessed with narrative, that one has been weirdly overlooked. I think it's compelling! Particularly this year against his old team, which also became weirdly overlooked.

    LeBron and Lakers really does seem like a lethal "Sports Media Dead-Horse-Beating" combo.  I'm glad it did not feel that way, though. I get burned out on the constant talk about teams with national followings. Historically I don't like the Lakers but I was happy to see this because I think the finals losses part of LeBron's legacy is somewhat unfair. (Like, would he be better off never having taken the 2007 team to the finals?).  And in a strange way, even though this was the Lakers, it's kind of the most impressive one. The first two were with a super-team, the Cleveland one happened because lotto luck and other cirucumstances made it a good situation (and a BS suspension tarnishes it). But the Lakers team he went to did not seem ready to compete; it felt like by the time it was, he was too old.  Yeah, AD was a key addition but wasn't part of the criticism that nobody went to join LeBron (in Cleveland, mind you) and he had to join others?  This time they joined him and I would not call this a "super team." 


    It's funny, with LeBron I hear everything from "he's the GOAT" to "He's Karl Malone with better ring-chasing; a Hall-of-Famer but nothing more."

  10. Given the pandemic, it's obviously going to be some time before anyone puts resources into exploring a new stadium.  Further, we'll have to see how things shake out with the younger generations not really following sports like us oldsters and a lot people just Quitting sports for political reasons. If anything, I see the next huge move in one of the big 3/4/5 (depending on your take on the NHL and MLS) being contraction.


    There's no NFL-ready stadium in need of a team and we're a long ways from major headway occurring in that direction.

  11. I like some of those draft hats.  Particularly Montreal.


    And I love, love, love what Calgary did.  Red and yellow don't need black trim.  These look great.  I like the 1980s style yoke better, but this is where we are for those...Both jerseys are terrific, particularly the white (I always really loved that stripe pattern and I'm glad they brought it back). A+.

  12. The Twins have just lost their 17th consecutive playoff game!  That's the most amazing losing streak in sports history.  In theory, if you make the playoffs, you should be good enough to win a few of those games.  Most of them are against the Yankees, but this one, along with 18  were against a sub-.500 team.

  13. On 9/12/2020 at 9:17 AM, BBTV said:


    But they're doing it like every time now.  It's one thing if the HP umpire asks for help, but it's like the catcher is the boss now.  I'm not sure how a HP umpire can't see a swing while staring intently on the ball that's being swung at.  There may be the rare close call that he legitimately needs help on, but I don't need for there to be three HP umpires.  Let those other guys focus on messing up foul balls and close plays at first.  

    For years I have questioned the basic premise of angle being better than proximity, though I admittedly don't spend any time where any of these umps work.

    I'd say it ought to be the HP ump's request for help.  But as it stands, I guess it becomes the 1B/3B ump's call every time a catcher points at him?  Or is it?  Which ump has the final say? 


    Anyway, I agree with you (and probably even go further than you); should be the plate ump's call and only his option to ask for help.

  14. 19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:


    My pet theory is that the team went with the overly-simplistic look in preparation for a move to Tampa Bay in 1987. The uniform switch happened despite the move falling through.

    Although they switched from uniforms that simply said "Sox" everywhere to a road uniform that said "Chicago" and a cap with a "C." I'd think sticking with "Sox" would be the way to go if that was the rationale.

  15. I think the late 1980s White Sox uniforms are pretty nice in a vacuum.  They're classic-looking baseball uniforms, albeit less-than-exciting. The only issue I had with the uniforms themselves was that the loop on the "C" was large enough to create ambiguity.  (And I think they had sizable numbers on the pants, which I wasn't a fan of).


    But the overall problem is that those uniforms just did not say "White Sox." OK, they literally said that, but despite all the bucking of tradition that the team had done, the use of "Sox" on its own is pretty consistent. The next look, while seemingly jumping on the black/sliver bandwagon* set us straight that the "Sox" were back.


    If the team were an expansion team today, I'd probably favor the late 1980s uniforms if pitted against anything else they've ever had (though the over-used colors would be another concern).  But they just seemed "off" for that franchise.


    *And it even turns out that the look stuck for the long haul, which at the time I never dreamed would happen given the trendiness of the colors and the team's history of changing.

  16. 23 minutes ago, BBTV said:


    I don't need more baseball on a Tuesday night when I just want to go home at a reasonable time so I can make it to work the next morning without being a zombie.  I also don't want to leave a game that I've paid for without seeing the conclusion, so if the numbers show that the runner on second idea cuts down on the time duration of extra-inning games, then I'm fine with it.


    I don't know anyone that likes to stay up till 1AM to see two mediocre teams battle it out in the 16th inning.

    I've been all for a maximum number of innings (12, but not sure why) and calling it a tie.  I know we hate ties, but I wonder how much the "runner on second" rule will speed games up.  The data will have to be generated.  All else equal, I don't love gimmicks, but just like nobody wants to see a six-period NHL game on a Tuesday in February, we don't need a June Tuesday going 16 innings. I generally lean purist, but this is an instance where the times have changed.  Most games are at night, nine-inning games are going much longer than they used to.  This all dates back to before there were lights and nine-inning games tended to go about 90 minutes. Teams also didn't worry about wear and tear on pitching staffs like they do now.  Things change.  As with the NHL, I assume postseason would be "old school."


    But MLB has to find a way to speed up their games in general.  Nine-inning games go well over three hours with regularity.

  17. I wonder about some of the long-term impacts.  Assuming we get back to normal.


    I think MLB is a candidate for some of what we've been talking about sticking. I honestly think we've seen our last DH-free game (well, until Ron Gardenhire or someone screws up their lineup card).  I hope the runner-on-second thing does not happen.  I know, it's probably akin to the NHL shootout and I assume it won't be used in postseason but it's a tough pill to swallow. I am actually OK with the 7-inning double-header, though when fans come back, that's a bad optic unless you pair them on one ticket, which doesn't seem likely.


    I support MLB going back to a 154-game schedule but I don't want it getting too small for the simple fact that I like being able to decide to go to a game on a Tuesday and drop 14 bucks for mediocre seats.


    As discussed above, the NBA and NHL didn't change a lot. I suppose I could see a reduction in the regular season in favor of some sort of "mini season" to determine the last few playoff spots (There's already been NBA talk of a play-in between 8 and 9, right?).  Integrity-wise, it's bad, but it's a way to add more games that generate interest/excitement.


    Then there's the general fan experience regarding food, drink, etc. I foresee a few precautions becoming general practice.

  18. 14 hours ago, the admiral said:

    NBA and NHL aren't cheap, they should count. Other than the layoff, they've played near-full seasons and mostly normal postseason draws under normal rules. It's baseball, always the most asterisk-demanding of the four, that feels cheapened. They will have played about a third of a season and let over half the teams qualify with a neutral-site LCS/World Series and phony-baloney magical leadoff doubles in extra innings. And given the time and resources that go into building a short-window baseball contender, either winning the wacky year or -- perish the thought -- having hoped for the stars to align in 2020 only to have it be the wacky year and then badly losing the wacky year feels like it would have to be a critical blow to a franchise. Imagine the Padres winning the West and getting dropped by an 8 seed that wouldn't be near October in a normal year. That smarts.


    I'm not saying there shouldn't be extra qualifiers for a shortened season, or that neutral sites and everything about the pandemic present a unique set of challenges that will make a world championship a well-earned achievement, just that it's so far removed from anything before and, God willing, anything after that it will pretty much demand a footnote.

    I tend to agree with most of this.  The NBA and NHL are going to be remembered as strange but the playoffs and the seeding ended up being not exact, but similar to what they'd have likely been had it played out.  MLB is going with a very short season, expanded playoffs, large rosters, temporary rules, etc. Whoever wins the World Series will forever be considered on a very short list for the least legitimate champion.  Go Twins; we'll take anything here.


    I actually do think there should not be extra qualifiers for the very reasons you allude to (an 8-seed with a record of 27-33 knocking out a 1-seed and maybe even winning the whole thing).  The playoffs should be their regular setup (or less; but that's a bigger discussion). 

    Obviously, it was short season or bust.

  19. That 49ers redesign is terrific.The red and gold work very well together without much black.


    I feel like with their jerseys it's usually all (black/dropshadow/overdone) or none (red/white only).  I really like the incorporation of gold into the jerseys.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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