Jump to content

RedRamage

Moderators
  • Posts

    22,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

RedRamage last won the day on February 8

RedRamage had the most liked content!

About RedRamage

  • Birthday 12/05/1971

Converted

  • Location
    GR, MI

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RedRamage's Achievements

MotownSports Fan

MotownSports Fan (1/1)

149

Reputation

  1. Chiefs I feel isn't really bad at all. Now obviously that's just my opinion but to me it's not a bad think... it isn't referencing a people as a whole, but rather a title. Granted, the original logo was kinda bad... not as bad as Chief Wahoo, but still not fantastic. But since the 72 they've used the same logo which I feel is perfectly fine. And it fits with the other team names in Kansas City... Royals, the old Monarchs, the Kings when the NBA team was there. Again just one non-Native American's opinion... take it for what it's worth.
  2. I applaud the Cleveland team for thinking of the environment and recycling 71.4% of their old name. Should make it cost effective to change the signs.
  3. Not to bring up the Inge debate yet again... but I get the feeling that Inge would be a great fit for Hinch's philosophy... assuming he could at least be acceptable offensively. I think 2004 Inge would have made Hinch drool: .287/.340/.453 while starting 34 games at C, 58 games at 3B, 6 games at LF, 14 games at CF and playing some RF as well.
  4. So, based on the comments here maybe I'm valuing Candy too highly. However, I'm still interested in people's thoughts re: Best since? @JackPine answered with Cabrera, which is the obvious answer that I should have thought of... I just didn't consider him a "real" third baseman I guess, but he was there for a few seasons so qualifies. So, let's disqualify Cabrera for the sake of argument here as that answer is too easy in my opinion... doesn't make for a good conversation. So other than Cabrera, how far back do we need to go? For discussion purposes, here's the player who played the most 3B stars for Detroit in the past years based on data from baseball-reference: 2020: Paredes 2019: Lugo 2018: Candelario 2014-2017: Castellanos 2012-2013: Cabrera 2009-2011: Inge 2008: Guillen 2005-2007: Inge 2003-2004: Munson 2002: Truby 2001: Macias 1999-2000: Palmer 1998: Randa -1997: Fryman I don't know why I thought Palmer was here longer than he was... I guess that's when I started getting back interested in the Tigers after a while of not really following them.
  5. I know that I'm probably putting too much emphasis on the here and now, but it feels like Candy might be a solid 3rd baseman. Both his defense and offense seem to be at least above average, which is more than we can say for the hot corner in Detroit in a long time. I can't remember the last time I didn't feel like whoever was manning 3rd wasn't either a defensive liability or under performing at the plate for that position. Now, to be fair I'm not trying to say that Candelario is Gold Glove caliber on defense or Silver Slugger on offense. But I'm don't feel like he's a liability either. So yeah... "recentcy" bias firmly in place, but how far back would you go to find a starting 3rd baseman that you would have been more comfortable with than Candy?
  6. Here's why I have low expectations from the Lions in 2021: Rookie HC: Okay, sure he's got some time as an intern HC in Miami, but he's still mostly a rookie. That's not to say he's bad or will be back, but I don't expect a rookie HC to automatically be good. New OC and DC: Any time there's a drastic change in offensive or defensive scheme I'd expect it to be a down year as the team learns the new way of doing this. Just like a rookie HC this doesn't mean it will be bad long term, but I expect there will be growing pain short term as the personnel adjust. Questionable QB: Yes Goff has history of being good, but he also has history of being bad. While I'm hoping for good Goff, I'm not expecting it. Questionable WR: Even if we get good Goff, who's he going to be throwing too? Is there anyone right now at WR that you'd consider worrisome if he was on the Bears or Packers? Anyone you'd think: "Oh... that'll be a problem." Questionable LB: Same as WR... is there anyone that you would worry about if he was facing the Lions from another team? Over all I do think the Lions will probably be slightly better than they are generally projected to be, but I can't honestly blame the national media for their predictions. There's a lot with the Lions that might be good long term, but very little for me to hang a hat on saying they will be good this year. I certainly hope they prove me wrong, but I'm just not expecting good things this year.
  7. Wow... I'm not liking some of the personal stories here. It doesn't sound like Beaumont is a great organization. FWIW I'm have mixed results with Spectrum. Some good, some great, some bad experiences. Over all I'm happy with them. I guess the good news is that if the merger happens Spectrum's CEO will take over the new organization and Beaumont's will be stepping down.
  8. https://www.freep.com/story/news/health/2021/06/17/beaumont-hospital-spectrum-health-merger/7722296002/ Just wanted to throw this out there... Beaumont being "bigger" depends on what way it's being measured: So in some what Spectrum is bigger... perhaps in the most important way being the net revenue... though I'd guess that a good chunk of that revenue is from Priority Health, the insurance plan that Spectrum owns. The linked article does say there will be "dual headquarters" in both Grand Rapids and Southfield... however I suspect that after a handful of years one or the other will become the primary and the other will diminish or disappear all together.
  9. While not strictly a political discussion, I'm sure there will be a political side to this, so figured I'd start the thread here rather than having to move it later. Genuinely curious what people think of this proposed merger. Here in Grand Rapids I think we've started to take at least a little pride in the medical developments here. We're no Mayo Clinic, but we do have a rather large medical presence on the Medical Mile, and this is anchored by Spectrum Health. Granted it's no Mayo Clinic, but has been a growing area of the economy in Grand Rapids. Given that Beaumont is bigger I have some concern that the merger will turn into "Beaumont Health....and oh yeah, we've got those places over on the other side of the state too." I doubt that facilities over here will close, but I fear that future expansion won't be focused in Grand Rapids as much as an "independent" Spectrum Health likely would have done.
  10. I don't think this would be a serious problem. You might get some talk of it being a "long mound era" and the "pre-long mound era" or something, but I think people (at least not now) talk about records after the lowering of the mound being different from pre-lowering the mound. I mean there is definitely a mention that that year defined the era, but there isn't talk that record before or records after were illegitimate because of the changed that off season.
  11. Hmm... maybe, I dunno. After the strike in '94 that cancelled the end of the season there was only one no-hitter in '95. On the other side of the spectrum, after the '90 lock out that pretty much erased Spring Training there were 7 no hitters. I suspect that no-hitters are just not something that can be predicted to any level given the rarer circumstances that they are... which is kinda what I was saying: I don't think having 6 no hitters in two months is necessarily an indicator of a problem that needs to be solved. Rather, it's a it's an quick and easy "stat" that anyone can understand and point too (wrongly) that something needs to change. This of course assumes the 6 in 2 months is an anomaly and doesn't carry through the rest of the season. If we have 18 no hitters that might be a real indicator of a problem.
  12. I've heard speculation that MLB wants to move back the mound... I believe they're working with an independent league to test this this summer, and I know that there are a number of reasons to consider this and what it might do to help improve baseball. This video from about a month ago has some good information on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQXzJoad5m8 But I wonder if the super high rate of no-hitters so far this year might provide the spark to actually make this happen. Now, I will say that I don't think that an abnormally high number of no-nos should (by itself) be the reason to change things, but no hitters are a pretty big deal and one that's easy to understand and latch onto, and therefore might be a reason many people might agree to or want a change. 4 times in the last 40 years there have been 7 no-hitters plus one year with 6. We already have 6 in 2021 and we're not two months into the season. This is a somewhat flawed extrapolation because nothing says no-hitters need to be evenly distributed, but we assume this rate stays consistent that means we could see 18 or more no-hitters this season. This would of course shatter the modern record of 7 ('90, '91, '12, and '15) as well as the all time record of 8 no-hitter thrown in 1884. Regardless of the change or not of the mound, I'll be very curious to see if we get at least three more no-hitters this year to set a new record.
  13. Well, Holmes is supposed to be able to find the diamonds, so... at least for now I'll wait and see and it's not a huge reach. My only WTF right now is taking a second DT in round three. I felt like the DL was the area that perhaps needed the least attention so I don't understand using two high draft picks on it, but at the same time TP felt like the OL needed the least attention and I'm still trusting Holmes on that pick, so I'll wait and see here too.
  14. Yeah, and it's really not a major loss... plus if you argue that guys in the 4th round are projects more than ready-to-go starters, we can start developing Barnes now.
×
×
  • Create New...