Interesting Goalie Pad Concept

[tretiak]

as another sieve, you're right on about seeing the puck, although i've never cared that much about what tape an opponent uses. one important fact about goalie equipemtn is that white gear stays white for roughly a week. you can already see the blocker is all marked up and the pads are most likely even worse, diminishing the physical effect. so while it's a novel idea, i think if there's an effect it's primarily mental. which can have a greater effect on skaters...

i think tape color has more to do with look, feel, and superstition - though most goalies use white. personally, i've always used white because i thought it felt better, which led to me playing better. i've had teammates who will switch things like tape if they are in a rut. if you look at cornell the break-down is not all forward/defense, as seminoff usually sports black, while riley nash uses white.

[DL]

Feh.  Put big old crosshairs or a bull's eye target on the pads instead and watch goal-oriented shooters instinctively work to hit those marks.

[ftyuv]

I think someone should design goalie pads in conjunction with Japanese scientists.

[Trotsky]

[quote ftyuv]I think someone should design goalie pads in conjunction with Japanese scientists.[/quote]That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.

[ftyuv]

[quote Trotsky][quote ftyuv]I think someone should design goalie pads in conjunction with Japanese scientists.[/quote]That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.[/quote]
Not if done correctly.  Make the front of the blocker invisible-enabled, but not the back or side... that way the shooter won't be able to see where your blocker is as easily, but when you're down scurrying for the rebound it's just like any other blocker.

Or give the D the cloak, but only for their backs -- that way they won't screen the goalie.

[BCrespi]

[quote ftyuv][quote Trotsky][quote ftyuv]I think someone should design goalie pads in conjunction with Japanese scientists.[/quote]That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.[/quote]
Not if done correctly.  Make the front of the blocker invisible-enabled, but not the back or side... that way the shooter won't be able to see where your blocker is as easily, but when you're down scurrying for the rebound it's just like any other blocker.

Or give the D the cloak, but only for their backs -- that way they won't screen the goalie.[/quote]

I assume Trotsky meant standing in traffic.

[LaJollaRed]

[quote cth95]http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/25/teen_goalie_designs_pads_to_trick_shots/?page=2[/quote]


Whatcha think?

http://media.nj.com/yankees_main/photo/calljpg-094e2d2464ef8938_large.jpg

[cth95]

From that angle, the ball disappears into the foul line.  On the TV replay, it was very obvious that the ball was not only fair, but fair by a pretty good margin.  I really couldn't figure out how the ump missed that since he was standing on the line.  From his angle, I think the ball would have been to the right of the foul line, and in constant contrast with the dirt behind the ball.

[imafrshmn]

The ump choked under pressure.

[LaJollaRed]

I think he lost it in the pinstripes, honestly. It was too bad of a call to just be choking.

[KeithK]

[quote LaJollaRed]I think he lost it in the pinstripes, honestly. It was too bad of a call to just be choking.[/quote]
The ghosts obscured his vision.  They did cross the street.

[DeltaOne81]

After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way :-P

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way :-P[/quote]
Listening to bitter Yankee haters never ceases to amuse me.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote DeltaOne81]After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way :-P[/quote]Yeah, but how much did they have to pay to get the Twins to botch up their base running? If it costs a few mill to pay off the umps, how much must it cost to pay off the other team? Maybe it would be cheaper to just pay off all the other owners, rather than to buy other owners ballplayers.::uhoh::

[RichH]

[quote Jim Hyla]Maybe it would be cheaper to just pay off all the other owners, rather than to buy other owners ballplayers.::uhoh::[/quote]

Gawd, I promised myself I would never get baited into a baseball discussion on this forum again (and this being the hockey sub-forum of all places), so I'll try to just brush the subject on the business side.

Read or skim (or don't) these two articles:
http://umpbump.com/press/tag/luxury-tax/
http://www.e-sports.com/articles/2267/1/The-Luxury-Tax-conundrum/Page1.html

I don't think these articles are very well-written, but the main take-aways:

1) Big Stein is worth $1.6B.  The Pohlad family of the poor David vs. Goliath Twinkies has a worth of $3.6B.  The Nationals' owner: $3.5B. (All according to Forbes).

2) The Yankees post an operating deficit just about every year.  Teams like the Nationals routinely turn an operating profit in excess of the team payroll.

Many teams have the resources to compete, but choose not to because it's good business in the "line the pockets" sense. The fans of those teams don't see any benefit except when they happen to develop a young phenom who will be traded away when he becomes eligible for free-agency (e.g. Miguel Cabrera).   Owners of teams you see often in the playoffs (and those with the higher payrolls): Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets on the other hand chose to build their brands and deliver a quality product to their paying customers.  They operate in the theory that a stronger brand means more long-term benefits.  They get a huge fanbase (bandwagon or otherwise) buying merchandise, tickets, and concessions every year, and enough interest to make revenue positive team-owned cable networks like YES, SNY, or NESN a possibility.  These are the teams that have been slapped with the luxury tax that gets redistributed to owners claiming poverty.  Like the Nintendo-owned Mariners.

I used to buy into the guilt-trip of the "payroll payroll payroll" screamers. On the surface, it's easy to explain to your fans "the big bad Yankees outspent us again!"  When you look deeper at the situation, it's really not that simple and more of a scapegoat explanation to deflect attention away from the profits the owners are taking home.