RedRamage

Moderators
  • Content count

    21,709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About RedRamage

  • Rank
    MotownSports Fan
  • Birthday 12/05/1971

Converted

  • Location
    GR, MI
  1. Wait, so this isn't a real picture?
  2. Quinn: "I've always found Red to be an aggressive color. I think teams with red just tend to play better." Interesting side note: For a very brief period of time the Lions actually did have Red as a Jersey color.
  3. Some interesting info from the wikipedia pae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1): All seven planets orbit much closer to their star than Mercury does our Sun. The three in the habitable zone are .62, .68, and 1.34 times the mass of Earth. A "year" on the closest planet is 1.5 earth days while the furthest planet away is an estimated 20 days. All seven planets are likely tidally locked... meaning they don't spin like the earth. Rather the same side of the planet is always facing the sun. This makes life less likely, but still possible. It also means there's probably some pretty substantial temp differences between the day side and night side of the planets. The mass of TRAPPIST (the star) is about 8% that of the Sun, and only about 11% of the radius of the Sun.
  4. I once was an assistant t-ball coach when my son was in Kindergarten. I've asked everyone to call me Coach since then.
  5. Meh... I'll wait to hear what they actually discovered. From the story it sounds like it might be just one or more exo-planets (ie, planets orbiting a star other than our sun). And while exo-planets are cool and all, they aren't anything amazing... we've got proof of exo-planets already and this isn't anything that wasn't expected/predicted.
  6. Just cause we're having an interesting discussion here... what would this realignment look like? Let's assume expansion in Montreal and Las Vegas. I'll propose two possible 4x4 (x2) possibilities: 1. Strict Geography: West: South Pacific: Padres, Angles, Dodgers, DBacks North Pacific: Giants, As, Mariners, Las Vegas Mountain: Rangers, Astros, Royals, Rockies North: Twins, Brewers, Cubs, WSox East: River Valley: Reds, Indians, Cards, Tigers South: Marlins, Rays, Braves, Nationals Metropolitan: Phillies, Yanks, Mets, RSox North: Os, Pirates, Blue Jays, Montreal However, I think a more interesting "realignments" might be one that's takes geography into account, but also attempts to preserve some of the NL/AL history: WEST: NLWest: DBacks, Padres, Giants, Dodgers ALWest: Mariners, A's, Angels, Las Vegas NLPlaines: Rockies, Brewers, Cubs, Cards ALPlaines: Twins, Royals, Rangers, Astros EAST: NLMid: Marlins, Braves, Reds, Pirates ALMid: Tigers, Indians, White Sox, Rays NLCoast: Montreal, Mets, Philies, Nationals ALCoast: Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jay, Os. Obviously play #2 doesn't save quite as much on travel, but it does try to keep divisions within the same time zone as much as possible while still keeping divisions aligned to classic AL/NL teams.
  7. That's interesting... I hadn't heard that idea being floated around at all. I don't think I'd like it either.
  8. She looks sorta like an elf from LotR there!
  9. I think that's done to try to re-enforce to the viewer/listener that the individual is an "expert" in the field being discussed.
  10. I gotta say, this new group is... lame. This is like Mad Max in Thunderdome sort crap. **** poor writing. Weak, weak, weak. I really enjoyed the "b" story with Daryl and whats-his-face from the Kingdom. Thought that was well done, but the "a" story with Rick and the post-Apocalypse emos? No thank you...
  11. Well, technically only 37.5%, but okay. I don't entirely disagree. I'm just trying to figure out a best option for a hypothetical 32 team MLB league. I like smaller than 8-team divisions personally, so I guess I'm okay with allowing a bit higher percentage of teams in. Ideally... if it was up to me (which it isn't of course), but my personal preference would be: 4 divisions, each division winner gets in period. No Wild Card. But I know that lots of people would dislike that because of very real possibility of a 2nd place winner being better than the other division winners and being left out. Plus MLB would never like to reduce the number of teams in the playoffs.
  12. In my scenario the third and fourth best division winners would face the two wild card teams in a three game series. The games would all be at the division winners house rather than split between the two stadiums. The reasoning would be: 1.) "Punish" the Wild Card winners. In this scenario MLB is saying winning your division is the most important regular season goal. We'll let the wild card team in, but first they have to face the other division winning team in all away games. 2.) Reduce the time involved. Because division winners 1 and 2 are getting "byes" for this series, it's important to keep this series from running too long, so we'll eliminate travel days by keeping the series all in one place. This would only be for the first round of course. Side note: The proper order, I think, is "!?" It's a shocking question. I think "?!" makes it seem like you're questioning your level of shock.
  13. What about my suggestion above: 4 Division winner (D1..D4) and 2 Wild card winners (W1, W2): Round one... fight! W2 at D3 for a three game series. W1 at D4 for a three game series. All three games are Division Winners stadium. This round would take a maximum of 5 days from end of the season: 1 day for travel, three days for games, 1 day for travel. Round two... D1 faces lowest remaining seed, D2 highest remaining seed. Five game series, standard 2, 2, and 1 for locations. Round three... last to team face off, seven game series, standard 2, 3, and 2 for locations Round four... WS.