This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Logo Au Go Go

mlb.gif

As we all know by now, Major League Baseball puts its logo on just about everything these days, including jerseys and caps. Nothing unique about that — the NFL, NBA, and NHL put their logos on players’ unis too. But unlike those leagues, MLB modifies its logo so that each club can impose its team colors on the design. While I’d prefer that the MLB logo not appear on caps and jerseys at all, I do think it’s pretty progressive of MLB to allow their mark to be reinterpreted in umpteen different ways — it makes for better color-coordination. (In fact, think how much better this page would look right now if the MLB logo above were rendered in colors to match the Uni Watch logo.) But can you imagine the NFL doing this with their mark? No way.

Anyway: In a spectacular display of detail-oriented observation, reader Matt Irving noticed an MLB logo glitch involving at least two Blue Jays players at the All-Star Game. Now, the Jays’ version of the MLB logo is gray, white, and blue, as you can see here and here. But during the All-Star Game, the default red/white/blue logo appeared on the back of Troy Glaus’s and Vernon Wells’s jerseys. Roy Halliday’s logo, however, had Toronto’s proper color scheme. Unfortunately, rear-view images of Toronto’s other All-Stars — B.J. Ryan and Alex Rios — have been tough to find.

Speaking of the MLB logo, it’s a really a nice piece of design, no? I love that the batter could either be left-handed or right-handed, depending on how you squint, and I’m impressed that MLB has been disciplined enough to avoid updating it. (If only they could show similar restraint with some team logos and uniforms.) The standard urban myth is that the logo was based on a photo of Harmon Killebrew, although MLB denies this. Then again, the NBA folks deny that their logo is based on Jerry West, even though everyone knows it is. Draw your own conclusions; personally, though, I prefer to think that the MLB logo is a generic, all-purpose batter, rather than anyone specific.

Illustration Update: I heard back from Michael Klein, the artist who whipped up the cool illustration that accompanied my New York Times opinion essay earlier this week. As you may recall, I was wondering why he depicted the fielder’s jersey placket with buttons on the left and buttonholes on the right, which is normally done only with women’s clothing. Here’s his response:

Regarding the placket, that’s an interesting question. Many years back, I was examining a sales rack of plaid button-front shirts when my wife informed me that they had to be women’s shirts, based on the button configuration. Though the price was right and the pattern was plenty masculine, wearing a woman’s shirt was out of the question. So yes, I was aware that there’s a difference.

When I’m drawing, I sometimes think about that little detail. But if I’m on a roll, I generally don’t stop to check it. Who would notice, anyway? Now that you have pointed it out though, I may have to start drawing gender-specific plackets.

“Who would notice, anyway?” Um, he’s kidding, right? This would be hilarious if it weren’t such a sad commentary on everything we hold dear. Michael Klein, welcome to Uni Watch, where we notice everything.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Georgia Tech will wear 1970s throwbacks on September 21st. … Sick of really stupid hip-hop baseball caps? Then you’ll definitely wanna read this. … Several of yesterday’s comment contributors discussed the hosiery on display at the Triple-A All-Star Game, but Michael Kramer points out another noteworthy item from that game: the ridiculously large All-Star Game logo decal plastered on the side of each batting helmet. … Eddie Guardado wore No. 18 with the Twins and Mariners, but he can’t wear that number now that he’s been traded to the Reds, because it’s been retired for Big Klu. So Guardado wore No. 45 (note that the numerals add up to nine, same as with 18) when making his Reds debut last week. He must have really liked 18, though, because now he’s found a way to wear it after all: by transposing the numerals.

 

73 comments to Logo Au Go Go

  • Mike | July 14, 2006 at 8:58 am |

    Star Tribune here in Mpls. reported that Francisco Liriano wore Johan Santana’s glove last night because of travel issues. Not a huge deal, but kinda cool. And I of course have no pictures.

  • Robert Eden | July 14, 2006 at 9:28 am |

    I would like to see some kind of uniform number regulation in baseball. It doesn’t need to be as strict as the NFL, but it is just annoying when a player wears a number higher than 59. Leave 81 for the guy in Spring Training with zero chance to make the team.

  • Brett | July 14, 2006 at 9:29 am |

    I love that the Big Klu is wearing a true sleeveless jersey. Say it aint so!!!
    I can see the HipHopsters matching their sleeveless jerseys with “the stupid hip-hop baseball caps.”

  • Matt | July 14, 2006 at 9:42 am |

    Another thing to notice about the team colored MLB logos. The Devil Rays is opposite of all the other teams. All the other teams is dark on the left light, on the right. The Devil Rays are dark on the right, light on the left. Also, wouldn’t make more sense if the Nats MLB logo was blue and red, not blue and gold? I’m suprised the Tigers are the only team with 2 different MLB logos in the age of alternate uniforms.

  • JTH | July 14, 2006 at 9:49 am |

    [quote comment=”2691″]I would like to see some kind of uniform number regulation in baseball. It doesn’t need to be as strict as the NFL, but it is just annoying when a player wears a number higher than 59. Leave 81 for the guy in Spring Training with zero chance to make the team.[/quote]

    Not me; I kind of like it, to a certain degree. This is one case where I like it. It’s similar to when Carlton Fisk “changed Sox” and he went from 27 to 72.

    Dennis Rodman did something similar when he came to the Bulls. Since 10 was retired for Bob Love, he chose 91 because the digits added up to 10, plus, as he said, “What are the first two numbers you dial in an emergency?”

  • DG Lewis | July 14, 2006 at 10:02 am |

    I agree with the sentiment against MLB updating the logo. If they did, the batter would be wearing a CoolFlow helment and dot-matrix sleeves…

  • yoggi | July 14, 2006 at 10:10 am |

    The Pirates MLB logo needs to be black and gold, not black and red. I dont think the Pirates even use red in their uni colors anymore.

    I think the higher numbers are cool. The only number no one can ever wear in MLB, NBA, or NHL is 69.

    I actually enjoy seeing what number a player chooses when he changes teams. It is always interesting what they do next.

    I know Jason Kidd’s favorite number is 32 for Magic Johnson, but when it is taken he wears #5

  • whiteshark | July 14, 2006 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment=”2693″]Another thing to notice about the team colored MLB logos. The Devil Rays is opposite of all the other teams. All the other teams is dark on the left light, on the right. The Devil Rays are dark on the right, light on the left. Also, wouldn’t make more sense if the Nats MLB logo was blue and red, not blue and gold? I’m suprised the Tigers are the only team with 2 different MLB logos in the age of alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    Not true. The Rockies and Blue Jays also have a darker color on the right of their designs.

  • JTH | July 14, 2006 at 10:21 am |

    Regarding Harmon Killebrew’s likeness on the MLB Logo:

    A few years ago, I was watching a game (probably either White Sox vs. Twins or Cubs vs. Twins, but I really can’t remember) and Killebrew was in the broadcast booth when one of the announcers (Hawk Harrelson? Chip Caray?) asked him if it’s really his image on the logo. Killebrew said that it’s true.

  • StevenWyder | July 14, 2006 at 10:26 am |

    I didn’t get the eddie guardardo number transposed thing ? Photo shop paul ?

    Also I have been railing against those bad hats by lids for about 3 years now. I get the lids “fresh lids friday” email blast just to see the bad hats.

  • Brett | July 14, 2006 at 10:29 am |

    The article on the “thug” caps is funny, but the guy really blows it on the LA Angels cap, since that is a throwback to when they were in LA, and wore those hats from 1961 – 1964.

    Details people, details. ;-)

  • StevenWyder | July 14, 2006 at 10:29 am |

    [quote comment=”2699″]I didn’t get the eddie guardardo number transposed thing ? Photo shop paul ?

    Oh I see he changed to #81 last night. Cool

  • Wooster Oh | July 14, 2006 at 10:36 am |

    Hey, there is an article in today’s Wall Street Journal (Section W, page 7c) titled Major-League Nostalgia. All about retro baseball logos, retro teams and comparisons of the different companies. Images in the paper include: the Braves and Giants (blah), the old Astros logo (yes!) and the Seattle Rainers, and Montreal Royals (Awesome!)

  • yoggi | July 14, 2006 at 10:39 am |

    The UNC Tarheels baseball team wears white hats with carolina blue brim.

  • Brett | July 14, 2006 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”2706″]The UNC Tarheels baseball team wears white hats with carolina blue brim.[/quote]
    Several NCAA teams wear white hats. Texas as an almost everyday hat, but Rice and Clemson as alternates. I sure there are others.

  • jesse | July 14, 2006 at 11:10 am |

    My favorite part of Guradado wearing 81 is that the Bengals don’t have an 81 on their team.

    It kind of makes me wonder about how many numbers have been taken by players in all four major sports in a city at a time. I’m sure it’s more than I think, but how many could it really be?

  • Jack H. | July 14, 2006 at 11:19 am |

    [quote comment=”2693″]Another thing to notice about the team colored MLB logos. The Devil Rays is opposite of all the other teams. All the other teams is dark on the left light, on the right. The Devil Rays are dark on the right, light on the left. Also, wouldn’t make more sense if the Nats MLB logo was blue and red, not blue and gold? I’m suprised the Tigers are the only team with 2 different MLB logos in the age of alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    Ironic, because they’re about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.

  • mike | July 14, 2006 at 11:46 am |

    watched the A’s/Sox game last night and saw that long time bare handed hitter Jason Kendall was sporting batting gloves on both hands…maybe he’s hoping it will increase his power!

  • Micah | July 14, 2006 at 11:50 am |

    Kenji Johjima sure is kitted on in Nike; he’s even got a Swooshified elbow pad and customized armband with his logo on it.

  • JTH | July 14, 2006 at 12:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”2709″]It kind of makes me wonder about how many numbers have been taken by players in all four major sports in a city at a time. I’m sure it’s more than I think, but how many could it really be?[/quote]

    The one that immediately comes to my mind is 23, which in the early 90s was worn by Michael Jordan, Ryne Sandberg, Robin Ventura, Shaun Gayle and Stu Grimson (Bulls, Cubs, Sox, Bears, Hawks, respectively). The reason I remember this is because every player that wore the number was an all-star/pro-bowler except for Grimson, who was pretty much just a goon.

  • D Schmitt | July 14, 2006 at 12:31 pm |

    You beat me to it, JTH – growing up in the Subs of Chicago, that’s the whole reason 23 is my favorite number.

  • BStu | July 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm |

    How much better would this page look with the MLB logo in Uni Watch colors? This much better.

    Here’s the logo on its own for anyone suitably interested or if the bandwidth on the large picture is maxed out.

  • Cork | July 14, 2006 at 12:41 pm |

    The NFL used to use a logo featuring a player much like the MLB logo and the NBA logo. The player used by the NFL was my childhood idol, Doug Williams. Unfortunately i have been unable to locate this logo yet. If anybody out there can find one, I would love a link to it.

    Thanks
    raysindex@gmail.com
    raysindex.blogspot.com

  • Rick V | July 14, 2006 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”2710″][quote comment=”2693″]
    Ironic, because [the Tigers are] about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Yankees have and never will wear alternate uniforms, never, ever, ever.

  • Greg | July 14, 2006 at 12:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”2716″]How much better would this page look with the MLB logo in Uni Watch colors? This much better.

    Here’s the logo on its own for anyone suitably interested or if the bandwidth on the large picture is maxed out.[/quote]

    Ha, it looks Portugese!

    Paul, nice catch with that hat article. It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one who hates the idea of raping sports logos for the sake of fashion.

  • Scott Turner | July 14, 2006 at 1:02 pm |
  • JTH | July 14, 2006 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”2719″]The Yankees have and never will wear alternate uniforms, never, ever, ever.[/quote]

    Never? How do you explain these?

    http://baseballhallo...
    http://baseballhallo...

  • Carl Keenan | July 14, 2006 at 1:15 pm |

    Paul-

    Thanks for bringing up the subtle intricacies of the MLB colors for each team. I have another specific oddity to note. The Royals changed their colors on the logo in the offseason when they re-introduced more gold into their colors and uniforms as to replace black. Therefore, they changed the second color (with blue being the obvious first) on the MLB logo from gray to gold. This new colored MLB logo appears on all the jerseys and merchandise now. However, the hats being worn on the field by the players and being sold everywhere still reflect the old gray color on the MLB logo. I have yet to see an MLB logo with blue and gold on a Royals player’s hat. I’m guessing the equipment guys have a lot of old blue and gray colored models to use up before getting ones with the new gold color. Incidentally, I’m not sure what color the MLB logo would be if you were to say order a new Royals cap from New Era. In other words, I’m not sure if New Era takes much stock in the subtle color changes in each team’s MLB logo from year to year.

  • whiteshark17 | July 14, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    “I need a hat that looks like a f**king s’more like I need Bill Simmons writing another article about the Red Sox.”

    Lol, that is hillarious. Quote from the hat article that Paul linked to. I love Bill Simmons writing style but I swear, he is too much of a homer. An article now and then about his home teams and his love for them would be OK, but every day it’s Sox this or Pats that.

  • Jared | July 14, 2006 at 1:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”2713″]Kenji Johjima sure is kitted on in Nike; he’s even got a Swooshified elbow pad and customized armband with his logo on it.[/quote]

    Joh is bad ass…. I LOVE is “Joh-man” logo ala the Jumpman or Swingman …….

    Little Matusi is also FULLY Decked out by Nike ….

    http://i39.photobuck...

  • Micah | July 14, 2006 at 1:37 pm |

    Jared, nice pic of Kaz; I noticed that about him when he came into the league; Nike put his nickname in Japanese kanji on his batting gloves. That Joh-Man logo is definitely hot; they should put that on his cleats!

  • DrBear | July 14, 2006 at 1:40 pm |

    How about requiring any baseball player with a number over 59 to give a reason before being assigned? Call it the Bill Voiselle rule. He’s the pitchre who wore No. 96 because he grew up in Ninety Six, S.C.

  • Rico Suave | July 14, 2006 at 1:41 pm |

    I was watching (ahem) the “World Cup of Softball” at the bar last night (the Twins were on another TV, so…), and while looking for some images I came across:
    China Softball Uniform
    Canada vs. Japan

    But what I really wanted to share was the Great Britain team’s batting helmet… It looked like somebody slapped one of those oval European driving stickers on the front of the helmet.

  • Jared | July 14, 2006 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”2727″]Jared, nice pic of Kaz; I noticed that about him when he came into the league; Nike put his nickname in Japanese kanji on his batting gloves. That Joh-Man logo is definitely hot; they should put that on his cleats![/quote]

    i remember the ESPN the Mag article on Kazuo, I was like oh shit Nike HOOKS him UP!!!

    too bad his game didn’t translate very well to the Bigs …

    As for Joh, being in Seattle of course I’m more than a little enamoured with Joh, he is a BEAST.

    I’ve been trying to get a hold of some of those wristbands for like 6 months…… NO luck yet :(

    If he has 2 “good” years (Nomo anyone?), I’m sure Nike will put out a Joh sig shoe, and no doubt it’ll have the Joh-man……

  • Luke | July 14, 2006 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”2719″][quote comment=”2710″][quote comment=”2693″]
    Ironic, because [the Tigers are] about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Yankees have and never will wear alternate uniforms, never, ever, ever.[/quote]

    Not only the Yankees, but the Tigers, Cardinals, and Phillies (besides hats with STL and PHI) all stick to just 2 unis. And I believe the Giants and Dodgers, who both wore an alternate at some point the last 4 or 5 years, have bucked the trend as well…

  • Latrell | July 14, 2006 at 2:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”2696″]The Pirates MLB logo needs to be black and gold, not black and red. I dont think the Pirates even use red in their uni colors anymore.
    [/quote]

    The Pirates MLB logo is black and red. Check out any of the pictures on the Pirates’ site or ESPN.com’s photo galleries.

  • Chris Coleman | July 14, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    The article on “really stupid hip-hop baseball caps” was way overdue. However, to include the angel’s LA Halo caps under the banner “hip-hop” is just retarded! I think this cap is a classic! The guys comments on this cap make no sense. Who is this guy? What is he talking about?

  • Tim | July 14, 2006 at 3:50 pm |

    This is way off topic, but they should REALLY make Greg Maddux wear an undershirt. Seriously.

  • Jared | July 14, 2006 at 4:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”2736″]This is way off topic, but they should REALLY make Greg Maddux wear an undershirt. Seriously.[/quote]

    Agreed

  • Ian | July 14, 2006 at 4:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”2735″]The article on “really stupid hip-hop baseball caps” was way overdue. However, to include the angel’s LA Halo caps under the banner “hip-hop” is just retarded! I think this cap is a classic! The guys comments on this cap make no sense. Who is this guy? What is he talking about?[/quote]

    This article should’ve mentioned the idiots who leave the New Era sticker on the bill of the cap. That irks me to no end.

  • Sean | July 14, 2006 at 4:21 pm |

    Funny that the MLB logo on the Pirates uniforms is black and red.

    Link Name

    But the MLB logo on the 2006 All-Star Game logo is black and gold.

    Link Name

    Apparently MLB allows their logo colors to be changed when used in another logo. I think that the black and gold MLB logo would blend into their uniforms better even though they occasionally use red as an accent color.

  • Brian | July 14, 2006 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”2693″]Ironic, because they’re about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Phillies don’t have an alternate uni either, although they could really use one…

  • Tyler | July 14, 2006 at 4:31 pm |

    Paul,
    You would be happy to know that the newly called up Chris Denorfia for the Cincinnati Reds was showing a lot of sock. Hopefully he will start the trend in Cincy

  • frank | July 14, 2006 at 5:34 pm |

    I was guessing that Eddie Guardado was a big Carl Eller fan. Perhaps I was mistaken.

  • Brandon T. | July 14, 2006 at 6:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”2729″]How about requiring any baseball player with a number over 59 to give a reason before being assigned? Call it the Bill Voiselle rule. He’s the pitchre who wore No. 96 because he grew up in Ninety Six, S.C.[/quote]

    Absolutely not. There is no reason to justify number allotment based on position or restriction to numbers over 59. Numbers in baseball serve no function other than to identify the player. A baseball player will never be an ineligible receiver (football) and he will never have a foul called on him where his name will be called back to the scorers table (basketball), so there’s absolute no need to restrict them based on personal preference or any other hierarchal system. I love pitchers who wear high numbers (e.g. Barry Zito), I would probably wear 71 if I played baseball.

    This isn’t soccer friend, we don’t need to be trapped in #’s 1-23 (or 1-59), so let’s explore all the double-digit integers if we so desire.

    BT

  • Bryan S | July 14, 2006 at 6:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”2745″][quote comment=”2693″]Ironic, because they’re about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Phillies don’t have an alternate uni either, although they could really use one…[/quote]
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    and as for the Phils who could “really use” an alt. jersey…. Think again

  • Chris In CA | July 14, 2006 at 6:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”2742″][quote comment=”2735″]The article on “really stupid hip-hop baseball caps” was way overdue. However, to include the angel’s LA Halo caps under the banner “hip-hop” is just retarded! I think this cap is a classic! The guys comments on this cap make no sense. Who is this guy? What is he talking about?[/quote]

    This article should’ve mentioned the idiots who leave the New Era sticker on the bill of the cap. That irks me to no end.[/quote]

    And let us not forget in the mid 90’s when it used to be popular to keep the hang tag on a hat.

    I can’t believe there really is a “Ninety Six, S.C.” Almost as funny as “Hell, MI”

  • L. Vasquez | July 14, 2006 at 6:30 pm |

    I say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

  • smcs | July 14, 2006 at 6:48 pm |

    Bryan S said:
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    The elephant is there because that is the Philadelphia Athletics and their logo is an elephant, there is still an elephant as part of the Oakland A’s uniform.

    The only difference I can spot is that the belt loops are different colours. In the closer image, they are blue and in the alternate, they are white.

  • Jared | July 14, 2006 at 7:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”2755″] Bryan S said:
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    The elephant is there because that is the Philadelphia Athletics and their logo is an elephant, there is still an elephant as part of the Oakland A’s uniform.

    The only difference I can spot is that the belt loops are different colours. In the closer image, they are blue and in the alternate, they are white.[/quote]

    And, look At the collars…….

  • Jason | July 14, 2006 at 8:10 pm |

    The elephant logo comes from Connie Mack’s $100,000 infield. John McGraw’s Giants had a lot of success against the A’s and he said that the $100,000 infield was more like a bunch of white elephants. Mack used the slight to motivate his club and had a white elephant stitched onto the A’s uniforms.

  • Tako | July 14, 2006 at 9:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”2736″]This is way off topic, but they should REALLY make Greg Maddux wear an undershirt. Seriously.[/quote]

    i third it, but i also do have sort of a soft spot in my heart for maddux and jamie moyer who still rock the not quite up, not quite down, and quite goofy and old fashioned pants lengths.

    Maddux in those stupid striped, faking stirrups socks he sometimes wears

    Moyer, and oddly enough pitching in the Nike dot-matrix sleeves

  • Alex | July 14, 2006 at 9:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”2752″][quote comment=”2745″][quote comment=”2693″]Ironic, because they’re about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Phillies don’t have an alternate uni either, although they could really use one…[/quote]
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    and as for the Phils who could “really use” an alt. jersey…. Think again[/quote]

    The difference in the 1948 alt uniforms, is in the belt loops, believe it or not. The belt loops are blue on the normal jerseys, and grey on the alternates. Some difference!

  • Josh W | July 14, 2006 at 9:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”2760″][quote comment=”2736″]This is way off topic, but they should REALLY make Greg Maddux wear an undershirt. Seriously.[/quote]

    i third it, but i also do have sort of a soft spot in my heart for maddux and jamie moyer who still rock the not quite up, not quite down, and quite goofy and old fashioned pants lengths.

    Maddux in those stupid striped, faking stirrups socks he sometimes wears

    Moyer, and oddly enough pitching in the Nike dot-matrix sleeves[/quote]

    no joke, i was about to comment on how i dont like that look. either wear them up, or down, not in the middle. i’d take the pajama look over the jaimie moyer look. and white socks with a white uni, i’m not a fan of maddux’s look either, even though i’m a fan of him.

  • Bryan S | July 14, 2006 at 11:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”2756″][quote comment=”2755″] Bryan S said:
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    The elephant is there because that is the Philadelphia Athletics and their logo is an elephant, there is still an elephant as part of the Oakland A’s uniform.

    The only difference I can spot is that the belt loops are different colours. In the closer image, they are blue and in the alternate, they are white.[/quote]

    And, look At the collars…….[/quote]

    Nice catch!

  • Ralph | July 15, 2006 at 12:30 am |

    No better ambassador for baseball than Harmon Killebrew. The most under-appreciated player in the history of the game. He didn’t bring attention to himself. Just let his bat to the talking.

  • Adam | July 15, 2006 at 12:32 am |

    A little tidbit on Yankees all-star helmets, from the blog of a White Sox VP:

    “For some reason, ARod and Jeter shared the same helmet for each at-bat. Although each Yankee had his own helmet, it was funny to see these superstars switching helmets like Little Leaguers. Maybe one fit better than the other …”

  • Filby | July 15, 2006 at 3:15 am |

    The uni number worn at the same time in the same city? How about 3 out of 4 in Cincinnati?

    #14 – Pete Rose – Reds
    #14 – Ken Anderson – Bengals
    #14 – Dennis Sobchuk – (WHA) Stingers

    …and for good measure…

    #14 – Oscar Robertson – Royala
    (Yes, I do know that he left for Milwaukee before the mid-’70’s.)

  • Alex | July 15, 2006 at 5:34 am |

    It’s not all 4 teams at the same time, but there was at least one season – 1992, I believe – where both the Phillies and the Flyers had a player with the same number and last name – Dale Murphy and Gord Murphy, #3. I’m sure it’s happened plenty of times that 4 players have worn the same number in the same city, but are there any other instances of the same name?

  • JTH | July 15, 2006 at 10:32 am |

    [quote comment=”2768″]It’s not all 4 teams at the same time, but there was at least one season – 1992, I believe – where both the Phillies and the Flyers had a player with the same number and last name – Dale Murphy and Gord Murphy, #3. I’m sure it’s happened plenty of times that 4 players have worn the same number in the same city, but are there any other instances of the same name?[/quote]
    Here’s one: Frank Thomas and Anthony Thomas.

  • Brinke | July 15, 2006 at 1:34 pm |

    Man is that article on hip-hope baseball caps funny. True, too. Those designs are pure crapola. New Era should be quite ashamed. Wait, they’re rtoo busy counting their money.

  • GoMac | July 15, 2006 at 9:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”2707″][quote comment=”2706″]The UNC Tarheels baseball team wears white hats with carolina blue brim.[/quote]
    Several NCAA teams wear white hats. Texas as an almost everyday hat, but Rice and Clemson as alternates. I sure there are others.[/quote]

    UMiami wear almost all white.

  • The Sports Logo Pundit | July 16, 2006 at 3:10 am |

    The hip-hop cap article is great. Like I commented over there, the only thing it was missing was pictures of caps with the size sticker still attached. I’m waiting for the day that New Era starts embroidering that sticker right on the bill.

  • Michael | July 16, 2006 at 7:17 am |

    INCREDIBLE throwbacks at the Detriot-KC game today, the tigers uniform (white hat, blue stripe down the middle with a red “R” and blue letters for the rest of “Detriot”) has to be the best throwback ive ever seen.

  • Josh W | July 16, 2006 at 12:42 pm |

    Ok, while watching the Braves vs. Padres game last night, i thought i saw Mark Bellhorn wearing his away batting helmet, the one with the beige logo, as compaired to the home white one. Couldn’t find any pictures, but I dont understand how one could mix up their batting helmets. Their away one, should never see home games.

  • Ryan | July 17, 2006 at 1:08 am |

    [quote comment=”2744″]Funny that the MLB logo on the Pirates uniforms is black and red.

    Link Name

    But the MLB logo on the 2006 All-Star Game logo is black and gold.

    Link Name

    Apparently MLB allows their logo colors to be changed when used in another logo. I think that the black and gold MLB logo would blend into their uniforms better even though they occasionally use red as an accent color.[/quote]

    Actually, in the first picture, isn’t it black and red on his jersey, but black and gold on his batting helmet?

  • Robert Eden | July 17, 2006 at 9:08 am |

    [quote comment=”2729″]How about requiring any baseball player with a number over 59 to give a reason before being assigned? Call it the Bill Voiselle rule. He’s the pitchre who wore No. 96 because he grew up in Ninety Six, S.C.[/quote]

    I like that idea. In this way, we can protect the game (and us) from players who choose high numbers for either no reason or a stupid reason, while permitting those with legitimate arguments to have their desired numbers.

  • Tom O'Grady | July 18, 2006 at 12:20 am |

    Then again, the NBA folks deny that their logo is based on Jerry West, even though everyone knows it is. Draw your own conclusions; personally, though, I prefer to think that the MLB logo is a generic, all-purpose batter, rather than anyone specific.

    http://msn.foxsports...

    Did anyone think to ask the guy who oversaw “logoman” for 13 years and knows the “real” story about Jerry West? And has an NBA Basketball Issue from 1967-68 with the picture and the typeface for the current NBA logo? Nah, why ask?

    And does anyone want a the real story about the WNBA logo and a #1 NBA Draft Pick who is very “tied” to Logowoman? Nah.

    And does anyone want to know who the NBDL logo was modeled after who is not a former #1 Draft Pick but might want to check with the NBA attorneys when you find out who he really is? Nah.

    These articles although great reading are flawed.

    T.

  • Tom O'Grady | July 18, 2006 at 12:25 am |

    Several of yesterday’s comment contributors discussed the hosiery on display at the Triple-A All-Star Game, but Michael Kramer points out another noteworthy item from that game: the ridiculously large All-Star Game logo decal plastered on the side of each batting helmet.

    And the ridiculous AAA All-Star Game logo as well.

    T.

  • Tom O'Grady | July 18, 2006 at 12:34 am |

    http://editorial.get...

    A Call Out to the Red Sox Nation UniWatchers.

    I need your help? Why is Manny Ramirez wearing a bandanna on his head and what is the story behind it?

    Please help.

    T

  • Ben | July 18, 2006 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”2868″]http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=71141746&cdi=0

    A Call Out to the Red Sox Nation UniWatchers.

    I need your help? Why is Manny Ramirez wearing a bandanna on his head and what is the story behind it?

    Please help.

    T[/quote]
    Manny has been wearing a bendana under his hat on and off for several years now. I’m not sure why he does but my best explaination would be it’s Manny being Manny, and if Manny is comfortable one way, he’s not going to change.

  • Bill | July 27, 2006 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”2752″][quote comment=”2745″][quote comment=”2693″]Ironic, because they’re about the only team that doesn’t have alternate uniforms.[/quote]

    The Phillies don’t have an alternate uni either, although they could really use one…[/quote]
    I was checking up on the Phillie alt. uni status, and I found This
    any explanation for the elephant??

    I also found This Phillies alt…. but I can’t really tell the difference from the regular jersey.

    and as for the Phils who could “really use” an alt. jersey…. Think again[/quote]

    The elephant is because Philadelphia back then was the Philadelphia Athletics, and the Athletics STILL use an elephant in their logo. The differences in the two uniforms in the one picture are the beltloops – one had dark and one had light.

    That red Phillies uni need not EVER be brought to light again!

  • Alex | December 31, 2006 at 12:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”2729″]How about requiring any baseball player with a number over 59 to give a reason before being assigned? Call it the Bill Voiselle rule. He’s the pitchre who wore No. 96 because he grew up in Ninety Six, S.C.[/quote]
    [quote comment=”2729″]How about requiring any baseball player with a number over 59 to give a reason before being assigned? Call it the Bill Voiselle rule. He’s the pitchre who wore No. 96 because he grew up in Ninety Six, S.C.[/quote]

    That some what makes sense but how many excuses can you use. If that rule was in affect and I played, I would be 69 with the excuse that I’m good at it.