User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6044 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
"... before we move to the American League next year."
They should go back.
and all the silly fuss over using the actual retro unis - well, anything to get face i guess
(*) And moving from a traditional to a DH league is fundamentally different than switching back to a traditional league, as Milwaukee did. Nothing about how the Astros are shaping their future makes a lick of sense.
"Colts .45s" doesn't make any sense.
Really? I think it's very '60s and dated. Also makes me think of the dog from the Jetsons.
"Colt .45s" is a great name. Plus you've got the cross-promotional opportunities with the gunmaker and malt-liquor.
That was probably the diminutive for their nickname, like Fish or Tribe or Yanks.
There's no way Colt .45s is getting repeated again and again without someone (an announcer, a headline writer) finding a shorter version, and there isn't a more obvious candidate than Colts.
But not the 60s you detest, but instead the futuristic and optimistic 60s whose disappearance should be lamented. It's not as though they're the "Houston Hippies" or "Houston Bra Burners."
"Astros" is in the same vein as "Expos" or the big World's Fair globe outside that still stands outside Shea/Citi and the US Tennis Center. Everyone has their own aesthetic, I guess, but it's tough to see those as being bad symbols for popular sport. They fit and reflect the spirit of popular sport quite well.
There's no way Colt .45s is getting repeated again and again without someone (an announcer, a headline writer) finding a shorter version, and there isn't a more obvious candidate than Colts.
What's wrong with ".45"s? Pronounced, "Forty-Fives", like the "49ers".
I don't like the futuristic, optimistic '60s either.
The same attitude of inevitable progress and the perfectibility of man is behind all the "progressive" movements that have wrought so much damage.
The same nonsense underlies the "War on Poverty" as does "Futurism". Big government and the technocracy can fix all our problems, and make us all happy little citizens who love each other and get along.
It's just not true. That's not the nature of man.
And what are the 49ers called just as often as they are called the 49ers? The Niners. Finding shorter and shorter names for our ballclubs is a pretty time-honored tradition.
Isn't "Red Sox" a product of its time too?
Maybe, but you'll never convince me that a society where everyone subscribes to that view will be a decent society in which to live. Life is very dreary, bordering on dystopic, where everyone's given up on the hope of progress and a brighter future.
And putting a man on the moon in 1969 -- the apogee of the futuristic, optimistic 60s -- was one of humankind's greatest acoomplishments (*) and a cause for unalloyed celebration.
(*) One in which Houston was intimitely involved; thus, the aesthetic appropriateness of "Astros." It's a nearly perfect fit.
Do they not actually wear red socks? Or are you talking the spelling?
Well, civilization existed for 6000+ years without any hope of long-term material progress for the avg. man (basically until 1800) and they still produced lots of scientific progress as well as art, literature and culture.
I'm not saying you can't have progress, you just need to have reasonable expectations. You're never getting rid of war, poverty, disease and hatred.
So true. What is a man, after all, but a miserable pile of secrets?
The spelling. No one spells "socks" like that anymore.
How long does it take for an era to go from being seen as tacky and dated to being seen as classical and timeless?
Like the expectation of going to Valhalla in the Sky after your physical body shuts down for good? I'm not sure I'd call that "reasonable."
And, of course, it was the hope of that very thing that predominantly drove the pre-1800 progress you noted.
Well, we've made huge strides in all these areas, but you seem to be calling this progress "so much damage".
I'm certainly not offended, but someone's going to be. At least they aren't playing Colorado that day.
The same amount of time it takes for this to be ok. How long till I can market my 9/11 dunk tank?
As much as I believe that the Founding Fathers put the word "Militia" in the 2nd Amendment for a reason, I have no qualms about having a gun on a baseball uniform. I thought "Colt .45s" was a cool name back in the day and still think so now. Not that Astros was a bad name either, very forward looking in its time.
This modern day fear of the image of a gun or playing army (or dare I say it, Cowboys and Indians) is just nonsense. I remember when I got my toy Mattel guns (pistol and Winchester repeater) which had cartridges and plastic bullets that would actually fire. I was warned (and obeyed) the admonition that if I shot them at anybody, the guns would be taken away forever. I had no doubt that was true.
I have no desire to own a gun to this day.
For Hitler's birthday, of course! The new jersey will have a V-2 on it.
Just to be clear, the Astros' ownership has stated that they will not change the name of the team. The Astros will continue to be the Astros in the AL. But the uniform design may change.
Definitely one of my favorites from that scene; saw 'em in Phoenix around 1982. "Manzanar" is a great track.
And what better way to decrease the general populace's desire to own a gun than to have the Astros wear one on their jersey?
Not with that attitude, Debbie Downer!
Apologies. I assumed a thread about guns was going that way anyway.
I was talking philosophy not politics, but I know some people can't separate them. I should know better.
That is a fascinating article about the 1914 Braves opening day uniform.
Have we really? Think beyond the borders of the U.S. The problem is that progress in some areas lead to problems elsewhere. Like overpopulation and the environmental damage done by having so many people, all wanting to enjoy the material benefits of progress. If science ever cures aging - or even just extends lifespans to the 150 range - we're going to be in real trouble.
They are primarily a function of limited resources. All you need to do is increase the ratio of energy/person. 6 billion people dont use a fraction of the solar energy or physical space available to us... We just dont harvest or utilize it very efficiently.
As for disease, a bunch of that goes away with unlimited resources as well. The rest of it (cancer/longivity/infection/genetic prediposition) will all be solved in 50 years anyway. Without postulating better resource utilization (but assuming no epic collapse of civilization)
"Colts .45s" doesn't make any sense.
I think the correct phrasing is "Colts .45."
/William Safire
They are primarily a function of limited resources. All you need to do is increase the ratio of energy/person. 6 billion people dont use a fraction of the solar energy or physical space available to us... We just dont harvest or utilize it very efficiently.
As for disease, a bunch of that goes away with unlimited resources as well. The rest of it (cancer/longivity/infection/genetic predisosition) will all be solved in 50 years anyway. Without postulating better resource utilization (but assuming no epic collapse of civilization)
Resources all always limited, b/c human desires are unlimited.
We still define 15% of the U.S. population as "in poverty" even though they have material wealth that a King in 1000 AD could only dream of.
Humans are flawed beings. We will hate and envy and desire and fight for resources. That's what we do.
Do you actually notice rich people being less competitive and cut-throat? Hell no. They're even more ruthless in gaining more, more, more.
Like the expectation of going to Valhalla in the Sky after your physical body shuts down for good? I'm not sure I'd call that "reasonable."
And, of course, it was the hope of that very thing that predominantly drove the pre-1800 progress you noted.
Whatever you think of their expectation, they had a much more accurate view of the nature of man than any modern Progressive.
They recognized man as a fallen creature, and unperfectable. That gave them much more insight in to human nature than many moderns.
/William Safire
I guess it could be Colt's .45, if you were indicating the original gun invented by Samuel Colt (even though that's not the common usage), but "Colts .45" never works.
/end retaliatory pedantry (full snark mode)
Yes. Why limit it to the US? Endemic poverty only really exists in a few areas of the globe right now and actual war is confined to even fewer. A huge number of people are still affected, of course, and we're not "rid" of any of our problems, but we've come a long way in terms of real human progress in the last 6000 years. And there's no reason, snapper's "philosophical" stylings aside, that we can't keep making progress.
A-have jobs where you have a lot of free time? So you can just post at BBTF all day.
B-not have jobs
C-or what?
I've often wondered. I guess a book store owner like Frank..err...Andy can just sit at the counter and "spiel" away until somebody buys a book.
How do the rest of you get away with it?
Snapper--don't you own a company or something?
I thought Kings had castles and slaves and such?
Multiple Colt revolvers, all .45 caliber. Works just fine.
Well, it could have been a thread about baseball uniforms.
They're ripping off their employers. Which means that they're ripping off all of the rest of us who ultimately pay for their non-productivity in one way or another. Me, I have a flex time job and am generally off on Fridays.
But back to the unis... I'd prefer a more detailed and accurate depiction of a Colt .45; this is just a pretty poorly drawn generic revolver.
Snapper--don't you own a company or something?
Don't you know how to multi-task?
I thought Kings had castles and slaves and such?
They still had no 1) central heat, 2) AC, 3) refrigerated food, 4) fresh fruit and vegetables except in season, 5) effective medical treatment, surgery, or dentistry, 6) anti-biotics or any medicine, 8) televisions, movies, phones, internet, etc., etc.
They came up with the conception of heaven because they wanted their perceived future to be better than it would be without heaven.
In other words, they did precisely what you said people shouldn't do when you said they should live with "reasonable expectations."
By any objective and serious measurement, their expectations about the future of man in this universe were less "reasonable" than the secular optimism that prevailed in the West from ca. 1962-67.
You try using your slaves to stage a giant game of Skyrim*, or to re-enact the 1975 World Series.
*Admittedly, you could do this...and it would be quite fun. But such a hassle to plan.
EDIT: I was going to edit in a more serious response, but snapper covered it in 47.
My idea of the world gets a bit fuzzy after Versailles, but I'd have thought the golden age of secular optimism and belief in progress was 1900-1914 or so.
Oh, you are more talking quality of life than material wealth (also, I'm pretty sure Kings did just fine for heat and food).
I might still choose the toothaches and incurable infections as long as I could have my slaves pre-enact various world series.
It could depend on the when and the where. A big part of the reason for European exploration and expansion was that the food plain sucked.
I'm not sure I completely get the hats, but the home Colt .45 jerseys are sweet. (With the gun, of course; trying to resurrect them sans gun was silly.)
Yeah, by modern standards, dark/early middle ages food in Northern/Western Europe was incredibly dull, bland stuff. Conversely, I can pick up my iPhone (beats sending mounted messengers) and choose from one of the 13 Indian restaurants that deliver to my home and have food brought to my door, laden with spices that would cost a king's ransom back in the times of the legends of the days of yore.
Plus even kings back then had lice. Lice! Sure it'd be great to have hordes of scurrying serfs to enact your every whim, but at the cost of being infested with parasites?
Another thought, cut out the whole food thing. How dull would life in general be without professional baseball leagues to follow, instant inter-continental communication, movies, just to name a few modern perks.
I suppose you could always create a strat-o-matic type game.
A-have jobs where you have a lot of free time? So you can just post at BBTF all day.
B-not have jobs
C-or what?
I've often wondered. I guess a book store owner like Frank..err...Andy can just sit at the counter and "spiel" away until somebody buys a book.
Sorry to disillusion you, my man, but I closed my shop over five years ago. I live off mail money from my two websites, my stocks, and good old Social Security, plus the occasional pool score.
And you? Are you still in cold storage?
Well, they did have jousting. No jousting-reference.com of course, but still.
well i clean other folks houses, walk other folks Dogs, sit and wait for the repair persons at other folks houses, and sometimes, while i am getting paid to sit and wait, i got time to argue with youse boys.
and some days when it is pouring rain (and oh how we NEED rain) the kidz are playing with their toys and i have already fed em and am waiting for husby to feed him too and i gots time to argue with youse boys
the colt 45s was indeed a very appropriate name for a texas team when the most popular tv show was talkin bout - space. the FINAL frontier. and my kids like to dress up like the gunslinger cowboys with their fake guns that do NOT shoot ANYTHING
i love those old unis - not thrilled they are doing it on hitlers birthday though
I don't see anything sinister in that. I'm 100% sure that it wasn't planned, and it's just an unfortunate coincidence.
I work 7 days a week...but only 3-4 hours on weekend days. Those license plate machines never stop.
If that's the case, then rename the Astros simply "Houston" and have them wear Rollerball uniforms. (It would be kinda annoying to hear Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" every time someone walks out of the bullpen, tho...)
They waited three years to object?
EDIT: and timed their objection to coincide with the opening of the Astrodome?
"Can't stand the Midwest"
The spelling. No one spells "socks" like that anymore.
I don't understand why, when the word is obviously "socks", it is insisted that a singular Boston baseball player is "a Red Sox".
This is not even counting "space: the final frontier"
Ever played a poker game for totally insignificant stakes? Not much of a game, is it?
Because he has two feet?
If Astros isn't dated now, it will be in short order now that there isn't any space program for Houston to support.
Who insists that? "Red Sock" as the singular works fine. Better verbally but it's okay written too.
Personally I prefer Red Soq.
I go to great lengths to avoid writing the singular form of Red or White Sox.
In Bill Giles' book, he discusses the birth of the Houston franchise and possible names for the team; one of them was "Texans."
I'm guessing that John F. Kennedy's assassination in Texas -- even though it took place in Dallas, not Houston -- led franchise officials to believe something different was necessary. Moving into a futuristic ballpark, combined with NASA's major role in Houston, made "Astros" a natural.
RBIs, say "hello."
A-have jobs where you have a lot of free time? So you can just post at BBTF all day.
B-not have jobs
C-or what?
Sir! These guys, as you call them, are our nation's job bloviators. The 1%! In that they work 4.8 minutes out of an 8-hour day. The rest of the time, they're here, making a better world. In conclusion, Obamacare Pavement McCarver steroids LoSH Jeter's Gold Gloves Jedi food recommendations.
Once again you're reduced to making nonsensical remarks about a philosophy you can't be bothered to understand. The progressive position is on the order of, 'let's aim to be better than we are when our baser natures are given free rein.' Your "perfectibility" silliness is more Marxist, than progressive. I know you can't tell the difference, and won't be bothered to do the work necessary to sharpening your argument, but you might consider doing us the courtesy of not rattling on every time you get a twitch.
Thanks.
Self-employed, and I not infrequently do the kind of work where I'm at the computer while the person I'm consulting with takes the info I give them and goes and does something for five or ten or twenty minutes, then comes back, often gives me new info to mull over, and so on; on those days I need to stay around the computer so it's easy for me to post here. It's hard to do anything else that's productive in five or ten minute increments... Although, after the Starlin Castro thread fiasco I got back in the habit of not posting much, and turned my attention to putting together some writings I'd done and want to organize into a book. Turned out I already had 70,000 words in the bank and have written 10,000 more since the Castro thread closed. That's been good.
I also type 100 words a minute, so there's that.
I only enjoy poker when played for no money. I suppose it only works as a tournament style game. But to me it's like any other game. Whether there's money inolved or not presumably you want to win (and not sit around watching your friends play for 4 hours after you've been knocked out for making some kind of foolish play). Does it really change how one plays?
Though actually I'm toying with including a Bill James quote in my thesis, so all this can be considered part of the research too.
The first temp job I got in Philadelphia when I moved down here in 1994 was at an insurance company housed next door to the Art Museum. It had been built in the Art Deco period, and the cast-iron grating they placed in front at night/weekends had a swastika motif. As I was making $6.25 an hour there, it seemed apropos.
How about Socman?
Poker is terrible when played for no money. Nobody takes it seriously at all. Everybody just goes "I don't care" and shoves all-in whenever the heck they feel like. There's no strategy, you may as well be playing a dice game. Then of course they get knocked out, which is their own fault. But either they have to sit around doing nothing, or you have to let them back in which means losing imposed no consequences, and the cycle repeats. (I suppose it's possible that a regular play group could collectively adopt the attitude to take it seriously, but mine sure doesn't.)
Money, even an insignificant stake, makes poker real. Real decisions to make, real reward for winning, real consequence for losing and an entirely justifiable reason to buy back in.
For me it's "C- or what".
But what I don't get is why is it this way for poker and not...say...Monopoly?
The object is still to win the game (Once again I'm talking about a tourney style here). Doing something stupid because you don't care about winning because there's no gold at the end of the tunnel...you are correct, you lose and you sit there watching everyone else have fun for an hour or two. Maybe I just hang out with particularly brilliant friends, but it doesn't seem to take a genius to figure out "playing a game to win" is the better option than "screwing around and then sitting arond twiddling your thumbs for a couple hours".
I should point out though that people I play with are firmly divided on the topic. Sometimes there is a majority of "money" players, in which case we play for maybe $10 or $20 each. Sometimes the "free" folk have the majority in which case we play the same structure, but no money. As far as length of game, style of play, how often individuals push all on...there is no discernable difference. I know the "money" guys and gals find it less enjoyable because they get a heightened sense of danger (or whatever it is gambling gives you)*, but in terms of actual game play there's no difference. I don't really see logically why there should be in a tournament game. It's like saying playing 3-on-3 basketball without any money riding on it is a waste of time because since no one cares everyone will just be hucking half-court shots and seeing if they get lucky. The game isn't so devoid of merit on its own that you need money to make it fun. Of course in a buy-in game obviously it's different.
*and of course the inverse is true for non-money cowards like me. Playing for free is more enjoyable for me because I don't get the anxiety of spending good money that could have been put towards booze on a card game. Compromise is king!
I've been broke as #### and still played $5 buy-in, 50-cent max, three-raise max games that went on for hours (granted, this was pre-hold'em craze, dealer's choice, 5- and 7-card games). I just don't see 10 bucks as good money.
Now, of course, a $20 buy-in with no-limit might give me pause, or make the game short, as affording to buy back in in this case would rarely not be "real" money for me.
Yeah, that's a shock.
(It would be kinda annoying to hear Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" every time someone walks out of the bullpen, tho...)
Bach's D minor is the opposite of dystopic. It's utopian.
It's not so much the money itself as it is the opportunity cost. I get far more out of $10 of beer than $10 of a card game (that if the situation was slightly different I could play for free). That may be my problem with gambling. I don't see it as "gaming" I see it as a fee I am paying to play a game that I have no real chance of redeeming. Such is the price of being really bad at things.
Luckily it costs me nothing to lose at chess, which I dearly love. I lost a few games tonight, which brought me no end of satisfaction.
EDIT: Of course all this could be avoided by simply sticking to Euchre, which has been scientifically proven to be the best card game ever invented. Unless it's using those weird American rules.
The other games mentioned can be about the journey. Basketball and other sports are fun just on the physical exertion level. Monopoly has a social aspect of trading and negotiation that's fun whatever the result turns out to be. But you can't really talk about your strategy with other members of a poker game, and any cooperation between players is explicitly illegal as collusion.
I suspect the reason lies in the very nature of the games themselves.
Monopoly, like most board games, is played "out in the open". You roll the dice for all to see. Everyone can see where your piece is on the board, and where it will end up when your turn is complete. Everyone can see exactly which properties are owned by every other player. Houses and hotels are placed on the board in full view of all players when they are purchased. Nothing is hidden.
It's different with poker. No one knows (presuming an honest game) what cards any other player is holding. Because of this, bluffing is a key element to the game. Your opponent makes a bet and puts his chips in the pot. Does he have a good hand? Is he bluffing? Do you have a good hand? Will you try to bluff him?
And because so much of poker is about the bluff, it's a whole different game when not played for real money, because people act differently when real money is on the line. No one is going to break out into a cold sweat if they're bluffing with worthless chips or matchsticks; so everyone can bluff at anytime. It takes a lot more skill (not to mention a lot more nerve) to act naturally when you're putting real money into the pot while holding garbage; and that's why the game is totally different when not played for real stakes.
DB
EDIT: Karl in #88 may have said it better.
I actually disagree that "any" real money is enough. If a big pot is 75 cents, my curiosity trumps and I am calling down everyone.
Tournament corrects this a little because the number of chips is fixed... but still it's better if the winner gets some thing real.
Chips and pretzels when you have the munchies... sure - the key is that the RESOURCE IS LIMITED. Which was my whole point.
I found for most non-1%ers $10 buy-ins with multiple buy back ins is large enough stakes to force people to take the game seriously enough.
The amount of money each player has is hidden. You can know it if you've been paying attention, but they are under no obligation to reveal their exact bankroll.
...okay, carry on with your poker discussion.
It sort of is, in that his homeboys hadn't been exposed as a NAMBLA chapter back then.
Just as long as they don't use a luger.
*yes, I started gambling young...
My stance on poker also probably says more about me than the game. Because (and I'm aware it's just an expression, but) playing for bragging rights doesn't seem particularly worthwhile to me either. As a kid I took playing games "just for fun" a bit too far. My brother was/is super competitive and he'd get really angry when either A) he won at a game and I wasn't bothered by his attempts to rub it in my face, or B) I won a game and didn't brag about it.
Our parents essentially told me to pretend like I cared for the sake of getting along. I love playing games and doing as well as I possibly can at them but I guess I never got into gambling because it attaches value to winning, which I never quite wrapped my head around. I recognize that I'm in a bit of a minority on this though. Which is a bit of a shame...it's tough to find people who want to be part of a baseball club (which is the best game of all to play!) who aren't also really competitive.
The problem of course, was that the resource got progressively more limited as the game went on.
Weird. I had to pretend I didn't care for the same reason.
Even under Dodd-Frank?
OTOH you always hear about big poker scores, but how many full time players own their own home and have a steady income, and how many die with enough money to cover their funeral expenses? IOW is the BS to reality ratio as much in poker as it is in pool?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main