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

Pumpa-Pumpa Burnin’ Lovie (Or: Got Gas in Pocket)

infla-e.gif

During Sunday’s Bears/Seahawks game, I got about half a dozen e-mails asking about the “extra nipple” on Lovie Smith’s jacket. Nobody could figure out what it was (neither could I), and it didn’t appear to be included on any of the Bears jackets currently available for retail sale.

Yesterday I chatted with a Reebok spokesman, who patiently explained the whole thing:

Uni Watch: So was that a pump on Lovie Smith’s jacket, or an iPod attachment, or what?

Reebok: It’s a pump jacket. It’s not for sale yet — it’s just being wear-tested. Basically, it’s to keep you warmer. The idea is that you inflate the jacket and your body heat warms the air.

UW: Are any teams besides the Bears using it?

RBK: The Buccaneers used it earlier, and I think some others — I’d have to check.

UW: So although my readers and I first noticed it this past Sunday, it had actually debuted a few weeks or even months earlier?

RBK: Yes. I mean, it’s not like it’s being worn all across the sidelines. It’s just been a couple of different guys.

UW: Is it only for extreme cold weather? Or could you also wear it on a moderately chilly day?

RBK: Yeah, sure.

UW: And the user can regulate the amount of air he puts in there?

RBK: Correct. There’s a valve up on the right shoulder, and then the actual pump actuators are in the pocket.

UW: The pump what?

RBK: Actuator.

UW: So you, like, squeeze something with your hand in the pocket?

RBK: Exactly. The pump itself is almost like a grip.

UW: So you stick your hand in —

RBK: — in the pocket, and you can squeeze it up as far as you want it to go.

UW: Just one pocket?

RBK: Both pockets.

UW: So you can just be standing there with your hands in your pockets, talking to someone, or whatever, and meanwhile you could be pumping up the jacket?

RBK: Exactly.

UW: And the little nub is the valve to release the air?

RBK: Yes.

UW: What’s printed above and beneath the valve?

RBK: The half-circle around the top reads “Pressure Release Valve,” and underneath it says “the Pump.”

UW: Is there an official name for this yet?

RBK: It’s officially called the Pump Sideline Jacket. Like I said, it’s just being wear-tested — it won’t retail until later.

UW: “Later” meaning, what, next winter?

RBK: We hope so, yeah.

So there you have it. Inflatable jackets are nothing new, natch (especially if you’ve seen Sleeper), and neither are extra nipples. But those in-pocket pumps are pretty intriguing. Given that most NFL head coaches are total control freaks who are wound tighter than a drum, it’s not hard to imagine some of these guys getting in the habit of reflexively pumping the “actuator” every time there’s an interception or a missed tackle, until they blow up like the Michelin Man. Might give new meaning to the term “blowhard.”

Uni Watch News Ticker: Reggie Bush’s high school team sure wore some killer socks (video clip here, with thanks to Brian Terreson). … Ryan Muraro reports that the Milwaukee Admirals will wear “Hawaiian-themed” jerseys this Friday. Not sure if there are any Uni Watch readers in Hawaii, but let’s all apologize to the whole state, just in case. … Had a good e-mail back-and-forth yesterday with Tyler Kepner, who covers the Yankees for the New York Times. “I used to cover the Seattle Mariners in 1998-99,” he wrote at one point. “One day they just decided to wear their BP top for the games. It was the strangest thing. I remember thinking, ‘Can they do that? Isn’t there some uniform czar to regulate this stuff?’ ” … Back in October, I linked to this page, in which Capitals owner Ted Leonsis said, “We will eventually go back to red, white, and blue [as the team’s colors].” The latest development on that front comes from Washington Post reporter Dan Steinberg, as noted by reader Dan Franko: “In Steinberg’s blog, he says that he was talking to Mystics President Sheila Johnson (the Mystics and Caps are both owned by Ted Leonsis’s Lincoln Holdings, along with part of the Wizards.) She mentions that the Mystics are looking to go “to red white and blue, too,” but that they have to wait until the Caps do it, so the two teams can do it together.” The full blog entry he refers to is here. … Jeremy Brahm, in a rare non-Asian-related contribution, reports that Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech, who suffered a fractured skull three months ago is returning to action in a rugby helmet (full details here). … According to this article, Chris Webber is wearing No. 84 at the suggestion of “his 6-year-old nephew, who had a dream in which Uncle Chris was wearing that number.” Let’s all be glad six-year-olds can’t count any higher than that.

 

203 comments to Pumpa-Pumpa Burnin’ Lovie (Or: Got Gas in Pocket)

  • Jonathon | January 17, 2007 at 8:33 am |

    I think I called it a couple days ago with the Reebok Pump jacket. Of course, I said you could fill it with Bill Belichick’s hot air and keep you warm. Not exactly correct, but pretty darn close.

  • J.D. | January 17, 2007 at 8:49 am |

    Will the Pump jacket still inflate if a coach cuts off the sleeves?

  • Robert | January 17, 2007 at 8:50 am |

    I volunteer to be the Uniform Czar for MLB. I will be stern, but fair. Ok, no I won’t. I will be arbitrary and vicious. A “No Pajamas” edict will be the first order issued by my administration.

  • Jerry | January 17, 2007 at 8:54 am |

    Webber couldn’t wear 4 in Detroit, because that number hangs from the rafters at the Palace. He’s the best player in the city to wear number 84.

  • Jerry | January 17, 2007 at 8:56 am |

    [quote comment=”42545″]I volunteer to be the Uniform Czar for MLB. I will be stern, but fair. Ok, no I won’t. I will be arbitrary and vicious. A “No Pajamas” edict will be the first order issued by my administration.[/quote]

    Robert I agree. Also gloves will be either brown or black. Can’t wait for that orange Jose Mesa glove.

  • ryan | January 17, 2007 at 8:56 am |

    Is that Joe Dumars with Webber, or Kanye West?

  • Richard | January 17, 2007 at 8:59 am |

    [quote comment=”42544″]Will the Pump jacket still inflate if a coach cuts off the sleeves?[/quote]

    The only problem with the pump is now you won’t be able to tell whether or not it’s the jacket or the coach in some situations

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 9:01 am |

    [quote comment=”42549″]Is that Joe Dumars with Webber, or Kanye West?[/quote]

    Joe Dumars. Kanye would never work for the Pistons. He’s better than that.

  • Richard | January 17, 2007 at 9:05 am |

    [quote comment=”42547″]Webber couldn’t wear 4 in Detroit, because that number hangs from the rafters at the Palace. He’s the best player in the city to wear number 84.[/quote]

    Not ever. Herman Moore takes that cake, though this shot when he was an honorary captain looks horrible.

  • Michael Starghill | January 17, 2007 at 9:29 am |

    I think Webber is full of it with that 6 year old nephew story. Webber is from Detroit and he’s a huge Tigers fan (he talks about it in Mitch Albom’s book, Fab Five. He also wants to win a championship in his rapidly declining career. The last time the Tigers won a title was in 84…so thats my theory.

  • Burrill | January 17, 2007 at 9:33 am |

    Thanks, Richard. I, too, was going to revive the memory of Herman Moore. Yet another great athlete (with a pretty good attitude, too) to suffer through a career with the Lions. Without a doubt, I’d give Detroit’s 84 to Moore.

    Plus, he’s still involved in the area. He owns several businesses in southeast Michigan.

  • BCrisp | January 17, 2007 at 9:33 am |

    Thanks for clearing up Lovie’s jacket, I thought it was something like that. As you can see from my guess on Monday: comment 35

  • Stuby | January 17, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    I wonder if Reebok will make an inflatable suit for Nolan and Del Rio.

    I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?

  • tessa | January 17, 2007 at 9:43 am |

    I could use one of those jackets today. The heat is out in my side of the building here at work. I am in Harrisburg, PA. It is not warm here. I would love to be in my own little air bubble of warmth.

  • Allen Kunt | January 17, 2007 at 9:51 am |

    I love how he said “Reggie Bush’s High School”, not Alex Smith’s High School.

  • David N | January 17, 2007 at 9:51 am |

    I remember the D-Backs wearing their black BP tops with there purple hats for a couple games. Can’t remember exactly when it happened, but I think it was either the ’03 or ’04 season. They had been on a losing streak and were trying to change their luck. I cannot find any pics, but I’ll keep trying.

  • Scott W | January 17, 2007 at 9:54 am |

    Reggie Bush’s high school (Helix HS) is the same one that current Niners QB Alex Smith attended. They were in the same backfield for at least one year, i think two. I’m unsure if it’s Smith in the given picture/video though. He’s wearing #11, so I’m thinkin’ it is.

  • Mark in Shiga | January 17, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    [quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    George Mikan’s no whackjob!

  • Scott W | January 17, 2007 at 9:55 am |

    No way Allen! You submitted your comment while i was typing mine and watching the highlight video. Haha. It may also be “Alex Smith’s high school,” but it was certainly Reggie Bush’s team. All Smith had to do was hand it to the guy…he took over from there.

  • tedkerwin | January 17, 2007 at 10:03 am |

    Clearly I have not been visting this sight long enough. I am a Chelsea fan and read the stories on Cech coming back and I was just happy to hear he was coming back and the uni related part of the story never entered my mind.

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 10:07 am |

    I await Paul’s comments regarding the new NHL jerseys today. Not a picture or a description… but rather his comments.

    I’m still peeved at the NHL for their inane “news conference that no one can talk about until we say so” today.

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 10:09 am |

    [quote comment=”42568″]No way Allen! You submitted your comment while i was typing mine and watching the highlight video. Haha. It may also be “Alex Smith’s high school,” but it was certainly Reggie Bush’s team. All Smith had to do was hand it to the guy…he took over from there.[/quote]

    So Alex Smith was Matt Winchel to Reggie Bush’s Boobie Miles? Well, before Boobie got hurt and screwed up his whole football career by coming back to early.

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 10:10 am |

    [quote comment=”42571″]I await Paul’s comments regarding the new NHL jerseys today. Not a picture or a description… but rather his comments.[/quote]

    I will not be commenting in any way until Monday at 2pm. That’s the deal I agreed to.

  • JJD | January 17, 2007 at 10:11 am |

    [quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    More like, “pay attention to ME!”

    Interesting uni-related Beckham comment from Grant Wahl on SI.com. I know a lot of the MLS kit are being redone but are they all being redone?

    2. Why should fans hold off buying a green-and-gold Galaxy jersey with Beckham’s name on the back?

    Simple answer: because Becks will never wear green and gold with the Galaxy. The team is deep into the process of rebranding itself with new colors, a new shield and new uniforms. “We made a decision that it was time to start thinking through how we create a more worldly brand,” Lewieke says. “We have a good name. Galaxy works. But we need a more legendary, traditional kind of look that’s more of a soccer look.”

  • Jason | January 17, 2007 at 10:14 am |

    Wow, the Admirals found the only possible way to make that logo worse. Put it on a surfboard with flowery colors. Please, make them stop!

  • Richard | January 17, 2007 at 10:14 am |

    [quote comment=”42575″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    More like, “pay attention to ME!”

    Interesting uni-related Beckham comment from Grant Wahl on SI.com. I know a lot of the MLS kit are being redone but are they all being redone?

    2. Why should fans hold off buying a green-and-gold Galaxy jersey with Beckham’s name on the back?

    Simple answer: because Becks will never wear green and gold with the Galaxy. The team is deep into the process of rebranding itself with new colors, a new shield and new uniforms. “We made a decision that it was time to start thinking through how we create a more worldly brand,” Lewieke says. “We have a good name. Galaxy works. But we need a more legendary, traditional kind of look that’s more of a soccer look.”[/quote]

    aren’t most of them being redone because Adidas changed their kit designs as Paul mentioned last week? The Galaxy might redesign their logo and team colors, but something tells me they’ll use one of the new Adidas kit templates.

  • Jason | January 17, 2007 at 10:16 am |

    Also, is this the first time we’ve had animation in the lead story? Pretty sweet!

  • TBDRO | January 17, 2007 at 10:20 am |

    I take it there won’t be any pictures taken at todays NHL uniform press conference?

    I still can’t believe nothing leaked and no word on major/minor logo or design changes.

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 10:26 am |

    [quote comment=”42579″]I take it there won’t be any pictures taken at todays NHL uniform press conference?[/quote]

    I don’t know if there will be professional photographers there; I do know that I was told that I would not be permitted to take photos, not even just for my own reference.

    [quote comment=”42578″]Also, is this the first time we’ve had animation in the lead story? Pretty sweet![/quote]

    I was waiting for someone to mention that! Looks great, no? I was just lucky enough to stumble upon that animated gif file.

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 10:30 am |

    [quote comment=”42574″]
    I will not be commenting in any way until Monday at 2pm. That’s the deal I agreed to.[/quote]

    I would never ask you to risk your journalistic credibility by doing something you can’t, Paul. I have more respect for what you do than that.

    I’m simply trying to release my frustration over this entire debacle.

  • Kim | January 17, 2007 at 10:33 am |

    [quote comment=”42577″][quote comment=”42575″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    More like, “pay attention to ME!”

    Interesting uni-related Beckham comment from Grant Wahl on SI.com. I know a lot of the MLS kit are being redone but are they all being redone?

    2. Why should fans hold off buying a green-and-gold Galaxy jersey with Beckham’s name on the back?

    Simple answer: because Becks will never wear green and gold with the Galaxy. The team is deep into the process of rebranding itself with new colors, a new shield and new uniforms. “We made a decision that it was time to start thinking through how we create a more worldly brand,” Lewieke says. “We have a good name. Galaxy works. But we need a more legendary, traditional kind of look that’s more of a soccer look.”[/quote]

    aren’t most of them being redone because Adidas changed their kit designs as Paul mentioned last week? The Galaxy might redesign their logo and team colors, but something tells me they’ll use one of the new Adidas kit templates.[/quote]

    Yeah, it’s likely that they’ll use a new design if they re-do their look.

  • Anthony Verna | January 17, 2007 at 10:34 am |

    Give Reebok credit for continuing to use “the pump” in various new ways.

    THE PUMP is a registered trademark in the USA – No. 1943292. (I just looked it up.)

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 10:35 am |

    [quote comment=”42581″][quote comment=”42574″]
    I will not be commenting in any way until Monday at 2pm. That’s the deal I agreed to.[/quote]

    I would never ask you to risk your journalistic credibility by doing something you can’t, Paul. I have more respect for what you do than that.

    I’m simply trying to release my frustration over this entire debacle.[/quote]

    I hear ya. I was just making it clear (to everyone, not just to you) that I won’t be able to discuss what goes on today. I should have an ESPN column running promptly at 2pm on Monday, however.

  • Banker Bill | January 17, 2007 at 10:40 am |

    [quote comment=”42576″]Wow, the Admirals found the only possible way to make that logo worse. Put it on a surfboard with flowery colors. Please, make them stop![/quote]

    Geez, I thought it was unique. No worse than the “Pink for Breast Cancer” thing – admit it – how hot would it be to see a woman in that jersey with a flowery bikini underneath?

  • Banker Bill | January 17, 2007 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”42584″][quote comment=”42581″][quote comment=”42574″]
    I will not be commenting in any way until Monday at 2pm. That’s the deal I agreed to.[/quote]

    I would never ask you to risk your journalistic credibility by doing something you can’t, Paul. I have more respect for what you do than that.

    I’m simply trying to release my frustration over this entire debacle.[/quote]

    I hear ya. I was just making it clear (to everyone, not just to you) that I won’t be able to discuss what goes on today. I should have an ESPN column running promptly at 2pm on Monday, however.[/quote]

    Then I shall be at the ESPN website at 1:59 hitting refresh until I see it. I am really anxious to see these.

    I second the animation kudos by the way – lovin it!

  • Matthew H | January 17, 2007 at 10:54 am |

    Pretty decent article on what’s coming from the NHL/Reebok:

    http://news.yahoo.co...

  • todd krevanchi | January 17, 2007 at 10:54 am |

    [quote comment=”42562″]I love how he said “Reggie Bush’s High School”, not Alex Smith’s High School.[/quote]

    or bill walton’s.

  • Rich Bruns | January 17, 2007 at 10:57 am |

    Not to be a jerk to Jeremy Brahm or anything. But regarding Petr Cech’s headgear… check out the third comment from Sunday, January 7, it appears that he’s trying out a few different styles of headgear.

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 10:59 am |

    Yep, that’s Alex Smith (11) doing what he did best in high school, hand the ball to Reggie.

  • Ian K | January 17, 2007 at 11:01 am |

    [quote comment=”42590″][quote comment=”42562″]I love how he said “Reggie Bush’s High School”, not Alex Smith’s High School.[/quote]

    or bill walton’s.[/quote]

    I was really hoping that Helix High School somehow incorporated a double helix into their sock design.

  • Mike | January 17, 2007 at 11:02 am |

    Interesting article here… towards the bottom it says that part of Lyle Overbays extension with the Jays was him getting the number 17. Seems like kind of a tongue-in-cheek comment, but interesting still.

  • Miguel | January 17, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    I wonder why they would test the Pump on a “midweight” jacket, rather than a heaveyweight jacket.

    As an aside, I don’t normally like anything Weebok, but these are my favorite Pumps of all time.

  • Allan Chandler | January 17, 2007 at 11:06 am |

    Had a good e-mail back-and-forth yesterday with Tyler Kepner, who covers the Yankees for the New York Times. “I used to cover the Seattle Mariners in 1998-99,” he wrote at one point. “One day they just decided to wear their BP top for the games. It was the strangest thing. I remember thinking, ‘Can they do that? Isn’t there some uniform czar to regulate this stuff?’ ”

    Back in September of 1983, the Reds were playing the Giants at Candlestick park, wearing not their road grays, but a red version of that jersey. The announcers said that the red jersey would be the Reds’ road jersey the next season. That didn’t happen, but it was kind of curious as to why the Reds chose to pick a September game in SF to try out a new uniform choice.

  • Bob | January 17, 2007 at 11:16 am |

    Wow. The above link to the Yahoo! News story concerning the new NHL threads is a good one.
    A few points:
    First, the article says that the fit will not be as tight as that of the Olympic jerseys worn last winter. While that’s good news, I didn’t think the Olympic jerseys were that tight. In fact, I was expecting something tighter from Reebok.
    Additionally, as we’ve sort of touched on before, baggy uniforms have really just become popular in the past ten years or so. Before that, NHLers wore their sweaters fairly tight. So long as the NHL doesn’t mandate a tuck-in, which they won’t, and they allow teams to use their current sweater designs, as much of a traditionalist as I am, I suppose I would give the change a “thumb’s up.” If, however, the NHL forces teams to use Buffalo Sabre-like or Anaheim Duck-like designs, I’m moving to Ontario and making the OHL my new NHL.
    Is there still hope that my beloved (and hated) Blackhawks will have the same sweater striping next year that they’ve had for the last 40 years?
    Also, here’s a question only this group could answer: two and a half seasons removed from Boston, Nomar Garciaparra continues to wear black and red batting gloves and wrist bands. In late 2004, after the trade to the Cubs, he even wore black shoes instead of the Cubs’ blue. Does anybody know what gives?

  • Mike | January 17, 2007 at 11:20 am |

    I don’t think I’ll ever really beleive that these new uniforms aren’t constricting until I get a chance to wear one myself. Obviously I haven’t seen the final product, and the players say its not as bad as the original concept (then again, they were told what they are and aren’t allowed to say about them) but every player brings up the tightness of them, even if its to say ‘its not so bad’, they still bring it up. They’ve only worn them for a practice or two, it’ll be interesting to see their opinions after wearing them for a real game first, and then a whole season. Unless there is a big improvement for the players, this all seems like a waste of time and money to me. To change the design of something that has worked for at least a few decades seems frivilous to me.

    One more comment on the new jerseys, what levels will be wearing them… if they are more custom fit and tight, they’ll never work at the minor hockey level where the same uniforms are used by teams for years. That means one more thing players will have to get used to as they move up to the CHL/NHL/College/who knows.

  • Hoss | January 17, 2007 at 11:21 am |

    [quote comment=”42582″][quote comment=”42577″][quote comment=”42575″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    More like, “pay attention to ME!”

    Interesting uni-related Beckham comment from Grant Wahl on SI.com. I know a lot of the MLS kit are being redone but are they all being redone?

    2. Why should fans hold off buying a green-and-gold Galaxy jersey with Beckham’s name on the back?

    Simple answer: because Becks will never wear green and gold with the Galaxy. The team is deep into the process of rebranding itself with new colors, a new shield and new uniforms. “We made a decision that it was time to start thinking through how we create a more worldly brand,” Lewieke says. “We have a good name. Galaxy works. But we need a more legendary, traditional kind of look that’s more of a soccer look.”[/quote]

    aren’t most of them being redone because Adidas changed their kit designs as Paul mentioned last week? The Galaxy might redesign their logo and team colors, but something tells me they’ll use one of the new Adidas kit templates.[/quote]

    Yeah, it’s likely that they’ll use a new design if they re-do their look.[/quote]

    Seems odd that the Galaxy would change their color scheme to match the old San Jose Earthquakes. If MLS ever put an expansion franchise back in San Jose, I’d imagine they would try and use the same colors and name as before the team moved to Houston.

  • Mike | January 17, 2007 at 11:25 am |

    One more thing I forgot to add to my last comment, which is kind of obvious if you think about…

    These are Reebok jerseys, so only Reebok leagues will be able to wear them (which includes the OHL I know for sure, no clue about anywhere else). And what happens when reebok loses the NHL contract? Do we go through this entire process again with Bauer-Nike (or whoever)?

  • todd krevanchi | January 17, 2007 at 11:37 am |

    [quote comment=”42595″][quote comment=”42590″][quote comment=”42562″]I love how he said “Reggie Bush’s High School”, not Alex Smith’s High School.[/quote]

    or bill walton’s.[/quote]

    I was really hoping that Helix High School somehow incorporated a double helix into their sock design.[/quote]

    it was either discussed in this blog’s infancy or in on the dot com posts, but kansas already took the double helix design.

  • Jason | January 17, 2007 at 11:44 am |

    Geez, I thought it was unique. No worse than the “Pink for Breast Cancer” thing

    I’m not dogging the concept, its a pretty good one in my opinion. The logo needs to go, however.

  • Jason | January 17, 2007 at 11:47 am |

    Sorry, bad link I guess.

  • Burrill | January 17, 2007 at 11:47 am |

    Bob, it’s funny you should mention the OHL: next week I’m going to a Plymouth Whalers game for the first time. I’m looking forward to it.

  • Ryan | January 17, 2007 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment=”42586″][quote comment=”42576″]Wow, the Admirals found the only possible way to make that logo worse. Put it on a surfboard with flowery colors. Please, make them stop![/quote]

    Geez, I thought it was unique. No worse than the “Pink for Breast Cancer” thing – admit it – how hot would it be to see a woman in that jersey with a flowery bikini underneath?[/quote]

    … how about the jersey part is left out, and we just have a sexy woman in a flower bikini?

    (Why an emphasis on “sexy”? Have you ever seen that SNL skit where they wish for hot lesbians making out and the wish is granted, only to have the lesbians be old and ugly but just so happen to be hot temperature wise? Just makin’ sure nothin’ happens to my mental pictures… and that jersey would also ruin my mental pictures)

  • Robert | January 17, 2007 at 11:55 am |

    [quote comment=”42598″]Back in September of 1983, the Reds were playing the Giants at Candlestick park, wearing not their road grays, but a red version of that jersey. The announcers said that the red jersey would be the Reds’ road jersey the next season. That didn’t happen, but it was kind of curious as to why the Reds chose to pick a September game in SF to try out a new uniform choice.[/quote]

    Photos of the Reds playing in those jerseys are few and far between. In fact, I do not think that I have ever seen an action photo of a player wearing that jersey.

  • Steve Z | January 17, 2007 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”42584″]

    I hear ya. I was just making it clear (to everyone, not just to you) that I won’t be able to discuss what goes on today. I should have an ESPN column running promptly at 2pm on Monday, however.[/quote]

    When is the public unveiling scheduled for? Will we have seen them by the time your column comes out?

    Also, when is today’s event scheduled for?

  • Stuby | January 17, 2007 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”42567″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    George Mikan’s no whackjob![/quote]
    I’m not saying he was.

    I’m just saying that in today’s game, if a player has a number higher than 55, he’s usually a nut.

  • Bob A | January 17, 2007 at 12:02 pm |

    Nobody picked up on the Pretenders reference yet (I might have missed something by just skimming comments). Chrissie Hynde uses more eye black than most baseball players.

    Will I lose my UniWatch union card when I admit the Milwaukee Admirals tropical sweaters are kind of cool.

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”42614″][quote comment=”42584″]

    I hear ya. I was just making it clear (to everyone, not just to you) that I won’t be able to discuss what goes on today. I should have an ESPN column running promptly at 2pm on Monday, however.[/quote]

    When is the public unveiling scheduled for? Will we have seen them by the time your column comes out?

    Also, when is today’s event scheduled for?[/quote]

    Today’s event (very small, no info to be shared): 2pm

    Public unveiling in Dallas: Monday, 2pm

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 12:09 pm |

    [quote]Also, here’s a question only this group could answer: two and a half seasons removed from Boston, Nomar Garciaparra continues to wear black and red batting gloves and wrist bands. In late 2004, after the trade to the Cubs, he even wore black shoes instead of the Cubs’ blue. Does anybody know what gives?[/quote]

    I would refuse to give up on Boston if they ever traded me away too. I don’t blame him for holding on to a few things.

    But seriously, if you noticed the batting gloves and cleats I’m sure you are a close Nomar observer. Which means you have also noticed that he is probably the most superstitious MLB player that I have ever seen, well, him and Wade Boggs, but we won’t speak of him after his tearful horse ride. I’m assuming he got used to wearing the red and black batting gloves, which he is prone to playing with between pitches, which I am sure you have noticed. Same for the cleats which he also tapped on the ground in the batter’s box before every pitch. Seems to me if those are the two things he has kept going, and those are his two most obvious rituals then it would make sense that he kept them because he is so superstitious.

  • Mike | January 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm |

    Paul, could you let us know roughly how many people are there after the event (or now, if you know). And if it was mostly well known guys, or guys such as yourself? I’m just curious.

  • Paulio | January 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm |

    I nominate Bill Schroeder for the best #84 to come out of a DIII school in Wisconsin and play in Michigan.

  • baude | January 17, 2007 at 12:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”42620″]if it was mostly well known guys, or guys such as yourself?[/quote]

    HA! I’m sure no offense was taken, but you probably could have omitted that last part.

  • Jon in SLC | January 17, 2007 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”42593″]Yep, that’s Alex Smith (11) doing what he did best in high school, hand the ball to Reggie.[/quote]

    That may have gotten him scouted and recruited a little better, but he certainly took advantage of the opportunity. Beats BYU twice, wins the Fiesta Bowl and goes number one overall. Sure looks like just handing off to Bush was what he was all about.

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 12:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”42615″][quote comment=”42567″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    George Mikan’s no whackjob![/quote]
    I’m not saying he was.

    I’m just saying that in today’s game, if a player has a number higher than 55, he’s usually a nut.[/quote]

    Drew Gooden? He wears 90 and he isn’t really a nut. Although that hair cut is wierd.

    Antoine Walker wore #88 his first few games back with the Celtics. Unless you consider shooting far too many threes and fluctuating in weight odd then he isn’t really a nut.

    I also wouldn’t claim Webber is a nut. Just a little full of himself, but what NBA player isn’t really? Rodman and Artest I’ll give you but Scott Pollard just looks wierd, he isn’t a nut.

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 12:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”42627″][quote comment=”42615″][quote comment=”42567″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    George Mikan’s no whackjob![/quote]
    I’m not saying he was.

    I’m just saying that in today’s game, if a player has a number higher than 55, he’s usually a nut.[/quote]

    Drew Gooden? He wears 90 and he isn’t really a nut. Although that hair cut is wierd.

    Antoine Walker wore #88 his first few games back with the Celtics. Unless you consider shooting far too many threes and fluctuating in weight odd then he isn’t really a nut.

    I also wouldn’t claim Webber is a nut. Just a little full of himself, but what NBA player isn’t really? Rodman and Artest I’ll give you but Scott Pollard just looks wierd, he isn’t a nut.[/quote]

    Oh yea, the point of my post. What other NBA players have worn high numbers like that? I can’t think of that many.

  • Original Jim | January 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm |

    Paul, I know you’re sworn to secrecy, but I do have a question about the press conference.

    Not one mention in any of the articles I’ve read has mentioned the AHL. And I think it would not be very logical to introduce a new line of equipment for the majors and not send it down the line to the AHL (and ECHL, etc).

    So, is it possible that the question could be asked at the press conference, or if you can let us know if the changes to the NHL uniforms will apply down the line to the minors?

    Thanks

  • todd krevanchi | January 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”42626″][quote comment=”42593″]Yep, that’s Alex Smith (11) doing what he did best in high school, hand the ball to Reggie.[/quote]

    That may have gotten him scouted and recruited a little better, but he certainly took advantage of the opportunity. Beats BYU twice, wins the Fiesta Bowl and goes number one overall. Sure looks like just handing off to Bush was what he was all about.[/quote]

    just remember that bush and smith were teammates and not classmates. smith was 02 bush 03.
    smith would have had an established reputation and would have been recruited by the time bush lit things up…

  • Metsfan AZ | January 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    Burrill makes TMQ! Not sure that link is working but you know where to look. Well said Mr. Strong.

  • Ian K | January 17, 2007 at 12:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”42560″]I wonder if Reebok will make an inflatable suit for Nolan and Del Rio.

    I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    I tend to agree when it comes to baseball uni numbers above 59. Examples include Turk Wendell #99, Barry Zito #75, Joe Beimel #97 (that drunk). Can’t think of any others, and unfortunately my theory isn’t that great, since it doesn’t apply to Bill Lee or Mark Fidrych.

  • Jon in SLC | January 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”42633″][quote comment=”42626″][quote comment=”42593″]Yep, that’s Alex Smith (11) doing what he did best in high school, hand the ball to Reggie.[/quote]

    That may have gotten him scouted and recruited a little better, but he certainly took advantage of the opportunity. Beats BYU twice, wins the Fiesta Bowl and goes number one overall. Sure looks like just handing off to Bush was what he was all about.[/quote]

    just remember that bush and smith were teammates and not classmates. smith was 02 bush 03.
    smith would have had an established reputation and would have been recruited by the time bush lit things up…[/quote]

    True, But it was widely reported that the reason Utah even went to see his games were to recruit Bush. I’m sure it was when Bush was younger and not as accomplished because otherwise we can’t recruit on the levels of USC, Arizona, and most of the Pac-10. If I remember right Smith only had scholarship offers from Utah and one other school.

  • Kenny | January 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”42626″][quote comment=”42593″]Yep, that’s Alex Smith (11) doing what he did best in high school, hand the ball to Reggie.[/quote]

    That may have gotten him scouted and recruited a little better, but he certainly took advantage of the opportunity. Beats BYU twice, wins the Fiesta Bowl and goes number one overall. Sure looks like just handing off to Bush was what he was all about.[/quote]

    Of course he’s more than handing off to Bush…he hands off to Gore now

  • Mike | January 17, 2007 at 1:01 pm |

    HA! I’m sure no offense was taken, but you probably could have omitted that last part.

    I actually had another couple sentences in my post, but I took them out, I guess the part where I said “No offence” was in there somewhere, because it was there originally. I think/hope Paul knows what I meant. He doesn’t seem to be bothered by much.

  • Banker Bill | January 17, 2007 at 1:10 pm |

    High basketball numbers – didn’t Gheorge Muresan wear 77? I seem to remember that…

    I’ve never liked players wearing “0” or “00” – technically a number has to have a value – and “0” and “00” have no value by their very nature….

  • Philly Bill | January 17, 2007 at 1:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”42635″][quote comment=”42560″]
    I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    I tend to agree when it comes to baseball uni numbers above 59. Examples include Turk Wendell #99, Barry Zito #75, Joe Beimel #97 (that drunk). Can’t think of any others, and unfortunately my theory isn’t that great, since it doesn’t apply to Bill Lee or Mark Fidrych.[/quote]

    I think Rodman is entirely responsible for the “High Number = Crazy” thing; he wore #91, #70, and #73.

    With baseball, like 70-80 people get invited to spring training and many are obviously assigned high numbers; every once in a while someone decides to keep their spring training number. I think that’s why former Oriole Alan Mills always wore #75 and Ryan Madson wears #63.

    The Montreal Canadiens have a ton of retired numbers, and I know that Mike Ribeiro wore #71 with the Canadiens because that’s just the number they gave him in training camp his rookie year.

    Famed child-rescuer J.T. Snow wore #84 with the Red Sox last year in tribute to his father.

  • Philly Bill | January 17, 2007 at 1:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”42641″]High basketball numbers – didn’t Gheorge Muresan wear 77? I seem to remember that…

    I’ve never liked players wearing “0” or “00” – technically a number has to have a value – and “0” and “00” have no value by their very nature….[/quote]

    Don’t forget, though, Al Oliver claimed to wear an “O,” not a zero.

    Rick White may be a little loony, but he got to be the only person to ever wear six zeroes on his jersey at once when he played for the Phillies.

  • Jim | January 17, 2007 at 1:18 pm |

    Interesting picture on the ESPN.com’s Baseball Front Page (“Dice Game” story about Daisuke Matsuzaka)

    Look at the “name” on #19s jersey.

  • Dave A | January 17, 2007 at 1:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”42642″]With baseball, like 70-80 people get invited to spring training and many are obviously assigned high numbers; every once in a while someone decides to keep their spring training number. I think that’s why former Oriole Alan Mills always wore #75 and Ryan Madson wears #63.[/quote]

    In Ball Four, Jim Bouton said something along the lines of the reason he wore 56 was that players that had little chance of making the club were always given high numbers and he kept it to remind him of how close he always was to not making the team.

  • Mark in Shiga | January 17, 2007 at 1:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”42644″]Interesting picture on the ESPN.com’s Baseball Front Page (“Dice Game” story about Daisuke Matsuzaka)

    Look at the “name” on #19s jersey.[/quote]

    The lettering is too small to make out, but I recognize the character “nin” meaning “endure”, second from right. The 19 is also pinned on to the jersey; look closely and you’ll see that it’s in a different font. I wonder if that player is pasting stuf fover his regular name and number in an effort to honor someone. When was this picture taken?

    And I’m another person who hates high numbers… but the really outlandish ones don’t bother me for some reason. In baseball, seeing Zito’s 75 or Beimel’s 97 doesn’t bother me nearly as much as seeing numbers in the 50s and 60s, which for some reason look ugly. It must be because as a kid in the late 1980s, the Cubs and Mets didn’t give out many numbers higher than 50.

    There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.

  • Mark in Shiga | January 17, 2007 at 1:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”42646″]
    In Ball Four, Jim Bouton said something along the lines of the reason he wore 56 was that players that had little chance of making the club were always given high numbers and he kept it to remind him of how close he always was to not making the team.[/quote]

    Didn’t Bouton have an even higher number during his very first spring training? 63 or something like that?

  • Jeremy Brahm | January 17, 2007 at 1:58 pm |

    To Rich Burns,

    I had only saw the article on Petr Cech yesterday from Who Ate All the Pies. I then looked at Cech’s homepage and found some pictures.

    I had not seen the posting in the comments earlier, because I normally do not look at the comments everyday.

    I had not intended to take credit for someone else’s findings. It is often that we as a whole (readers) find things and hope that they will be put on the site.

    It was just something that I hadn’t seen and thought would be interesting and sent it to Paul, and he posted it.

  • Anthony Verna | January 17, 2007 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”42649″]There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Shawn Bradley wore #76, played for the 76ers, and had some kind of $7.6-million contract.

  • Richard | January 17, 2007 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”42643″][quote comment=”42641″]High basketball numbers – didn’t Gheorge Muresan wear 77? I seem to remember that…

    I’ve never liked players wearing “0” or “00” – technically a number has to have a value – and “0” and “00” have no value by their very nature….[/quote]

    Don’t forget, though, Al Oliver claimed to wear an “O,” not a zero.

    Rick White may be a little loony, but he got to be the only person to ever wear six zeroes on his jersey at once when he played for the Phillies.[/quote]

    If you think people with “00” are cooky, tell that to The Chief. Also, check out the stripes in the socks (picture 7), and how the Big 3 aren’t wearing the same striping.

  • Minna H. | January 17, 2007 at 2:07 pm |

    I like the Admiral logo. I know that I am probably in the company of five. However, I do not think he looks very good in a ‘Hawaiian’ setting.

    Burrill, congrats on making TMQ. I was on there, too, but just to note that Koren Robinson’s jersey was no longer for sale a few hours after Gregg had printed it was (after Robinson was arrested for a DWI).

    I do not read Bill Simmons, however, so there is no holy triumverate for me. Unless you count the fact that I had an email printed in Michael Silver’s (SI) mailbag.

    I like the higher numbers, even if they do look odd. I would like to see triple digit numbers, but I doubt that would happen in the US. I thought Dennis Rodman needed his own area code since he lived in his own world. I liked him as a player, though.

  • Billy B. | January 17, 2007 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”42641″]High basketball numbers – didn’t Gheorge Muresan wear 77? I seem to remember that…

    I’ve never liked players wearing “0” or “00” – technically a number has to have a value – and “0” and “00” have no value by their very nature….[/quote]
    Gilbert Arenas wears 0 because thats how many minutes he was told that he would play at Arizona.

  • Allison | January 17, 2007 at 2:13 pm |

    I was told today that all MLB Umpires are required to wear black underwear on the job…any truth?

    I’m beginning the research process now…

  • Original Jim | January 17, 2007 at 2:16 pm |

    Maybe black undershorts, like compression gear or UnderArmour stuff. I have a pair of compression shorts with a pocket for a cup, and they’re gray, but generally stuff comes in either black or white.

  • Matty L. | January 17, 2007 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”42603″]One more thing I forgot to add to my last comment, which is kind of obvious if you think about…

    These are Reebok jerseys, so only Reebok leagues will be able to wear them (which includes the OHL I know for sure, no clue about anywhere else). And what happens when reebok loses the NHL contract? Do we go through this entire process again with Bauer-Nike (or whoever)?[/quote]
    I’m pretty sure the entire CHL wears Reebok jerseys and the AHL. A redesign of the AHL Hamtilon Bulldogs (I mention them all the time I know but they’re my hometown team) took them from Canadiens jerseys with their logo in place of the C to wearing this as of this season.

    On an unrelated note a local sportscaster and PA voice of the Bulldogs lost his battle with cancer yesterday, Paul would have loved him, his name was Bill Stirrup. He shall be missed.

  • DRob | January 17, 2007 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”42602″][quote comment=”42582″][quote comment=”42577″][quote comment=”42575″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    More like, “pay attention to ME!”

    Interesting uni-related Beckham comment from Grant Wahl on SI.com. I know a lot of the MLS kit are being redone but are they all being redone?

    2. Why should fans hold off buying a green-and-gold Galaxy jersey with Beckham’s name on the back?

    Simple answer: because Becks will never wear green and gold with the Galaxy. The team is deep into the process of rebranding itself with new colors, a new shield and new uniforms. “We made a decision that it was time to start thinking through how we create a more worldly brand,” Lewieke says. “We have a good name. Galaxy works. But we need a more legendary, traditional kind of look that’s more of a soccer look.”[/quote]

    aren’t most of them being redone because Adidas changed their kit designs as Paul mentioned last week? The Galaxy might redesign their logo and team colors, but something tells me they’ll use one of the new Adidas kit templates.[/quote]

    Yeah, it’s likely that they’ll use a new design if they re-do their look.[/quote]

    Seems odd that the Galaxy would change their color scheme to match the old San Jose Earthquakes. If MLS ever put an expansion franchise back in San Jose, I’d imagine they would try and use the same colors and name as before the team moved to Houston.[/quote]

    Who said anything about rebranding the Galaxy in Earthquake colors. The trophies, name, logo, and colors for the Earthquakes are reserved for them, until a new San Jose franchise comes along (if they ever do).

  • Ian K | January 17, 2007 at 2:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”42653″][quote comment=”42649″]There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Shawn Bradley wore #76, played for the 76ers, and had some kind of $7.6-million contract.[/quote]

    He’s also 7’6″. My brother and I saw him at DFW Airport a few years back (he’s hard to miss). He puts his height in his signature too.

  • Pantherfid | January 17, 2007 at 2:37 pm |

    I NEED SOME HELP…

    I am going to order a UniWatch t-shirt today…should I get a “basic T” or the “fitted T?” Has anybody order one over the holidays? Which one fits better?

    Thanks

  • Burrill | January 17, 2007 at 2:38 pm |

    Metsfan, thanks for noting the TMQ thing. I wondered if he’d use it, but I hadn’t thought to check this week yet.

    Minna, I think you’re being a bit optimistic about five people liking the new death-friendly Admiral logo. In fact, you’ve been disturbingly optimistic the last few days. As the cynical intern, I have to ask: are you okay?

    Oh, and Paul, I love today’s post title. Very creative.

  • todd krevanchi | January 17, 2007 at 2:44 pm |

    in reading about the rumored relationship between tom brady and (the smoking hot) giselle bundchen today in gallo’s jump on dot com, i couldnt help but to laugh at the tomkat/benifer/brangelina name they have been assigned.

    gisom

    genius. utter genius. i hope it (pardon the pun) sticks, because i will be laughing everytime the folks on ET, access hollywood, the daily 10, etc. say it.

  • Pat | January 17, 2007 at 2:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”42653″][quote comment=”42649″]There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Shawn Bradley wore #76, played for the 76ers, and had some kind of $7.6-million contract.[/quote]

    Also he was 7’6″. Which is why he wore 76 and Gheorge Muresan wore 77 (he was 7’7″).

    The NBA has a history of players wearing 0 and 00, they are the only sport that it is worn frequently. Baseball, Football (not allowed to wear it at all), and Hockey haven’t had a big history of 0 and 00 numbers. That’s why I like it in the NBA.

    Cheif
    Walter McCarty
    Eric Montross (Couldn’t find him wearing 0 with the Celtics but here is a picture of him at UNC)
    Tony Delk – Pistons, Hornets, Kentucky
    Johnny Moore
    Hibachi: Arizona, Warriors, Wizards

    I’m sure there are more that I am missing.

  • Evan | January 17, 2007 at 2:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”42649″][quote comment=”42644″]Interesting picture on the ESPN.com’s Baseball Front Page (“Dice Game” story about Daisuke Matsuzaka)

    Look at the “name” on #19s jersey.[/quote]

    The lettering is too small to make out, but I recognize the character “nin” meaning “endure”, second from right. The 19 is also pinned on to the jersey; look closely and you’ll see that it’s in a different font. I wonder if that player is pasting stuf fover his regular name and number in an effort to honor someone. When was this picture taken?

    And I’m another person who hates high numbers… but the really outlandish ones don’t bother me for some reason. In baseball, seeing Zito’s 75 or Beimel’s 97 doesn’t bother me nearly as much as seeing numbers in the 50s and 60s, which for some reason look ugly. It must be because as a kid in the late 1980s, the Cubs and Mets didn’t give out many numbers higher than 50.

    There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Scot Pollard, who typically wears 31, wore 62 when he was with the Indiana Pacers. Reggie Miller was still playing then, and he clearly had dibs on 31 – which happens to be the best number of all time.

  • todd krevanchi | January 17, 2007 at 3:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”42668″]I NEED SOME HELP…

    I am going to order a UniWatch t-shirt today…should I get a “basic T” or the “fitted T?” Has anybody order one over the holidays? Which one fits better?

    Thanks[/quote]

    a basic t is really any type of t you would get at an event, concert, or store. wheras a fitted t is a tighter cut, sleeves are shorter. fit to show off a toned torso. often time plain colored fitted t’s are worn with blazers. often seen on muscle guys…

    [quote comment=”42672″]Scot Pollard, who typically wears 31, wore 62 when he was with the Indiana Pacers. Reggie Miller was still playing then, and he clearly had dibs on 31 – which happens to be the best number of all time.[/quote]

    requested im sure because it is 2 31’s. in high school, the day we were issued our uniforms for baseball, a friend of mine who was a major met fan and even a bigger doc gooden fan, snagged #32. when i saw that, and when i saw that #16 wasnt taken yet, i asked him why he didnt go for doc’s #16. his response, i want to be twice as good as gooden… all around.

  • Jon in SLC | January 17, 2007 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”42671″][quote comment=”42653″][quote comment=”42649″]There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Shawn Bradley wore #76, played for the 76ers, and had some kind of $7.6-million contract.[/quote]

    Also he was 7’6″. Which is why he wore 76 and Gheorge Muresan wore 77 (he was 7’7″).

    The NBA has a history of players wearing 0 and 00, they are the only sport that it is worn frequently. Baseball, Football (not allowed to wear it at all), and Hockey haven’t had a big history of 0 and 00 numbers. That’s why I like it in the NBA.

    Cheif
    Walter McCarty
    Eric Montross (Couldn’t find him wearing 0 with the Celtics but here is a picture of him at UNC)
    Tony Delk – Pistons, Hornets, Kentucky
    Johnny Moore
    Hibachi: Arizona, Warriors, Wizards

    I’m sure there are more that I am missing.[/quote]

    Dont forget Osterfat.

  • PDXclark | January 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm |

    There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone

    Its funny you say that- when I was kid (late 80’s) I had an NBA comforter on my bed that had all the logos, and two guys in “NBA” jerseys with #’s 63 & 64. I always thought it was weird, but now realize it was probably to avoid some one sueing for use of their likeness.

  • dchis | January 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm |

    Excerpt form Jim Caples Page 2 article:

    “As it is, the most challenging part of Baseball-Reference.com is convincing your spouse that you aren’t surfing for porn — that you really can spend that many hours staring at the computer screen without a single salacious image.

    Unless you count stirrup socks as erotic (there is a link to a Hall of Fame page displaying every uniform).”

  • hotrodd | January 17, 2007 at 3:30 pm |

    From the dot com page 2 article about baseball-reference.com

    As it is, the most challenging part of Baseball-Reference.com is convincing your spouse that you aren’t surfing for porn — that you really can spend that many hours staring at the computer screen without a single salacious image.

    Unless you count stirrup socks as erotic (there is a link to a Hall of Fame page displaying every uniform).

    It just struck me as something that shouldn’t go unnoticed

  • James | January 17, 2007 at 3:31 pm |

    Benito Santiago wore 09 in 1991 and 1992 so people could read the number on his back when he was wearing the chest protector. I can’t find visual proof, but here is the Padres roster in the Baseball Almanac.

  • hotrodd | January 17, 2007 at 3:32 pm |

    It just struck me as something that shouldn’t go unnoticed

    (count me as one of the people that has trouble turning the italics off)

  • hotrodd | January 17, 2007 at 3:42 pm |

    ah screw it

  • Banker Bill | January 17, 2007 at 3:47 pm |

    there

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”42691″]there[/quote]

    Is that better?

  • Brooks | January 17, 2007 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”42687″]Benito Santiago wore 09 in 1991 and 1992 so people could read the number on his back when he was wearing the chest protector. I can’t find visual proof, but here is the Padres roster in the Baseball Almanac.[/quote]

    I remember this as well, I actually tried to come up with pics of it a couple of months ago to post on here, when a similar topic was being discussed, but was unable to do so.

  • mike k | January 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”42670″]in reading about the rumored relationship between tom brady and (the smoking hot) giselle bundchen today in gallo’s jump on dot com, i couldnt help but to laugh at the tomkat/benifer/brangelina name they have been assigned.

    gisom

    genius. utter genius. i hope it (pardon the pun) sticks, because i will be laughing everytime the folks on ET, access hollywood, the daily 10, etc. say it.[/quote]

    Pretty funny, but wouldn’t a better name for these two have been ‘The Brady Bundchen”? ;)

  • DH | January 17, 2007 at 3:51 pm |

    The NCAA released new “sport” logos today that will go into use in 2007. I couldnt find a picture to link, but I have seen the booklet that shows them all and they are, whats the word, very….elementary. Someone got paid a lot of money to design some very simple and unimaginative logos.

  • Anthony Verna | January 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm |

    Here’s hoping simple HTML can end the italics.

  • hotrodd | January 17, 2007 at 3:56 pm |

    i just want to apologise to everyone for breaking the site.

    *crawls away in shame*

  • sope | January 17, 2007 at 3:57 pm |

    Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.

  • Anthony Verna | January 17, 2007 at 3:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Hmmmmmmmm. But I guess we think of 00 differently than 0.
    [/quote]

    You know?

  • Billy B. | January 17, 2007 at 4:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”42666″][quote comment=”42653″][quote comment=”42649″]There have been several guys in the 70s (add Shawn Bradley, who had 76 thanks to his height), 80s, and 90s, but has anyone in the NBA ever worn a number in the 60s? I can’t think of anyone.[/quote]

    Shawn Bradley wore #76, played for the 76ers, and had some kind of $7.6-million contract.[/quote]

    He’s also 7’6″. My brother and I saw him at DFW Airport a few years back (he’s hard to miss). He puts his height in his signature too.[/quote]
    I thought that Illinois forward Brian Carwell was tall and he is 6’11”. I got his autograph at my high school’s basketball game last year and I was only a foot above his waist. Too bad he only wore 33 in high school and 21 this year at U of I.

  • Billy B. | January 17, 2007 at 4:07 pm |
  • Randy Miller | January 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm |

    In the high-number discussion, don’t forget the best high-number uniform of all time…Boston Brave and New York Giant pitcher Bill Voiselle, number 96 in your program.

    And proud resident of Ninety-Six, South Carolina.

  • Heaps | January 17, 2007 at 4:17 pm |

    I remember hearing on the radio that Barry Zito was offered #57.
    For some reason he wanted numbers that added up to 12 maybe?
    And they asked him why he chose 75 over 57, and he said, as if it were obvious, “Because 57 is a lame number.”

    P.S. Ken Burroughs wore #00 for the Oilers but I don’t think the NFL allows that number any more.

  • Deron Steinke | January 17, 2007 at 4:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”42687″]Benito Santiago wore 09 in 1991 and 1992 so people could read the number on his back when he was wearing the chest protector. I can’t find visual proof, but here is the Padres roster in the Baseball Almanac.[/quote]

    BenitoSantiago also wore 09 with the marlins

  • Heaps | January 17, 2007 at 4:21 pm |

    Oh yeah!
    Speaking of high numbers, Don Zimmer keeps changing his number every year to reflect how many years he’s been in baseball. He will wear #59 this year for the Devil Rays.
    And today is Zimmer’s birthday.
    Happy birthday, Zimmer. Thanks for the good times.

  • James | January 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.

  • Nolan | January 17, 2007 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”42669″]
    Oh, and Paul, I love today’s post title. Very creative.[/quote]
    This may be one of the overlooked bits of genius on this site. The post titles are always entertaining.

  • Deron Steinke | January 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”42719″][quote comment=”42687″]Benito Santiago wore 09 in 1991 and 1992 so people could read the number on his back when he was wearing the chest protector. I can’t find visual proof, but here is the Padres roster in the Baseball Almanac.[/quote]

    BenitoSantiago also wore 09 with the marlins[/quote]

    this is better
    http://www.grandstan...

  • Nolan | January 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”42723″][quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.[/quote]
    Well aside from the fact that 00 and 0 are the same number as are 09 and 9. 99 ≠ 9.

  • Heaps | January 17, 2007 at 4:41 pm |

    The mention of Turk Wendell just inspired me to accidentally write a little poem. I know nobody asked for it, but here’s the poem anyway:

    A Poem About Turk Wendell, #99

    Weird as a Cub
    Weird as a Phillie
    Weird as a Met
    Basically Silly.

    (takes bow)

  • dchis | January 17, 2007 at 4:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”42728″][quote comment=”42723″][quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.[/quote]
    Well aside from the fact that 00 and 0 are the same number as are 09 and 9. 99 ≠ 9.[/quote]

    But zero in a mathematical sense represents a value. It’s in the middle. It is neither a positive or a negative but, it still is a number. If that means to you that because the Celtics retired “00” they couldn’t give out “0” then it would hold true that any number with the number “0” in it could not be given out either. “0” and “00” are two seperate numbers just like “10” or “20.” So how exactly is “09” wrong if a team had retired “9”????

  • Burrill | January 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”42726″]This may be one of the overlooked bits of genius on this site. The post titles are always entertaining.[/quote]

    I try to do the same (on my site, not here!), so I do notice them, and I would agree — the titles are consistently amusing.

    Consider your work complimented, Paul.

  • Richard | January 17, 2007 at 4:58 pm |

    woohoo – the italics is gone!!!

  • Phil | January 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm |

    this is better
    http://www.grandstan
    Maybe Benito Santiago wore 09 because he was born in 1909. Did you see that picture?

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 5:00 pm |

    I’m back from the NHL shindig. As you know, I can’t discuss any aspect of it, so don’t ask. But I will say this: I was seated at a round table, just two chairs away from the Commish. I kept imagining what Teebz would have done if he’d been sitting where I was. Wasn’t pretty.

  • Minna H. | January 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”42669″]Metsfan, thanks for noting the TMQ thing. I wondered if he’d use it, but I hadn’t thought to check this week yet.

    Minna, I think you’re being a bit optimistic about five people liking the new death-friendly Admiral logo. In fact, you’ve been disturbingly optimistic the last few days. As the cynical intern, I have to ask: are you okay?

    Oh, and Paul, I love today’s post title. Very creative.[/quote]

    Heh. Never fear, my dear intern, Burrill—I am fine. I was going to say, “I am probably the only one…” until I remembered that I don’t like it when other people say that. I stuck in five because it is a reasonably low number, and I recall at least two other people claiming to like the logo.

    The optimist pokes her head out now and then—but I usually manage to bash her unconscious before she gets out of control.

    I like ’00’ as a uni number, but not ‘0’.

  • Anthony Verna | January 17, 2007 at 5:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”42737″]I’m back from the NHL shindig. As you know, I can’t discuss any aspect of it, so don’t ask. But I will say this: I was seated at a round table, just two chairs away from the Commish. I kept imagining what Teebz would have done if he’d been sitting where I was. Wasn’t pretty.[/quote]

    The big question is: toupee or real?

  • that guy | January 17, 2007 at 5:07 pm |

    was bothering me

  • that guy | January 17, 2007 at 5:08 pm |

    (i was way off with the italics, which is what i was referring to)

  • Minna H. | January 17, 2007 at 5:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”42737″]I’m back from the NHL shindig. As you know, I can’t discuss any aspect of it, so don’t ask. But I will say this: I was seated at a round table, just two chairs away from the Commish. I kept imagining what Teebz would have done if he’d been sitting where I was. Wasn’t pretty.[/quote]

    Wow. You were in the present of hockey royalty (court jester), and all you could think of was the apoplectic fit Teebz would have if he were in your place? Way to infiltrate Paul’s brain, Teebz!

  • Minna H. | January 17, 2007 at 5:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”42742″][quote comment=”42737″]I’m back from the NHL shindig. As you know, I can’t discuss any aspect of it, so don’t ask. But I will say this: I was seated at a round table, just two chairs away from the Commish. I kept imagining what Teebz would have done if he’d been sitting where I was. Wasn’t pretty.[/quote]

    Wow. You were in the present of hockey royalty (court jester), and all you could think of was the apoplectic fit Teebz would have if he were in your place? Way to infiltrate Paul’s brain, Teebz![/quote]

    Presence, not present—but I bet you guys knew that.

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm |

    Paul, I will be eternally jealous that you had a chance to speak to the most powerful Munchkin known to man.

    However, I would have had many questions. I’m sure security would have escorted me out, and the NYPD would have had “a car waiting for me”.

    A la Milton in Office Space, I would have burned the building down.

  • Aaron | January 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm |

    According to this article:
    http://tsn.ca/nhl/ne...
    The Oilers will wear 1980’s throwbacks on February 27th when they retire Mark Messier’s number 11.

  • GoTerriers | January 17, 2007 at 5:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”42627″][quote comment=”42615″][quote comment=”42567″][quote comment=”42560″]I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    George Mikan’s no whackjob![/quote]
    I’m not saying he was.

    I’m just saying that in today’s game, if a player has a number higher than 55, he’s usually a nut.[/quote]

    Actually in today’s game if a player has a number higher than 55, he has to have permission from the League Office. The NBA wants the officials to be able to signal player numbers to the Scorer’s Table more easily so the uniforms tend to stop at 55 since you can hold up your hands and show the scorer the number (“five-five”). Numbers higher than that require math on the part of the referee’s (What do you hold up for 8? two fours? a five and a three?) You can see where it might get complicated for a referee . . .

    Okay, checking my anti-ref sarcasm at the door.

    As for the NFL not allowing double zero . . .Jim Otto

  • Bob | January 17, 2007 at 5:47 pm |

    Nice. The Oilers will wear ’80s throwbacks to commemorate Messier’s career. If the Oilers did that for me, I would request that they spend the extra $1,000 (probably less) to buy the players shells for their pants so that the pants matched the socks and sweaters. On top of that, wear white so the helmet matches, and the only thing that may be slightly off-color will be the gloves. Of course, no team ever does this; they allow their players to take the ice looking like crap on these special occassions that warrant special jerseys.

  • bg | January 17, 2007 at 5:51 pm |

    Noticed in the new “Happyness” Will Smith movie (set early 80s in SF)—they used the current Niners logo. Oops.

  • Jason | January 17, 2007 at 5:54 pm |

    I swear that Benny Santiago changed to 09 because the two-digit number helped his balance behind the plate.

    I’ve searched and searched for proof of this quote (with no luck) but I remember it vividly.

  • sope | January 17, 2007 at 5:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”42731″][quote comment=”42728″][quote comment=”42723″][quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.[/quote]
    Well aside from the fact that 00 and 0 are the same number as are 09 and 9. 99 ≠ 9.[/quote]

    But zero in a mathematical sense represents a value. It’s in the middle. It is neither a positive or a negative but, it still is a number. If that means to you that because the Celtics retired “00” they couldn’t give out “0” then it would hold true that any number with the number “0” in it could not be given out either. “0” and “00” are two seperate numbers just like “10” or “20.” So how exactly is “09” wrong if a team had retired “9”????[/quote]

    I’m not sure that I agree that #0 and #00 are different numbers. 0-00=0. All I’m saying is if Walter McCarty #0 and Tony Delk #00 were on the same team the roster would look wierd.

    As far as #09 being wrong if a team retired #9, could you imagine someone on the Yankees wearing #03? Not a chance.

  • Sammy | January 17, 2007 at 6:01 pm |

    It seems odd to me that NHLers seem to have high numbers all the time (Gretzky 99, Fedorov 91), but rarely in baseball or basketball. Why are they different?

    To add my two cents to the dispute about whether a player should be allowed to wear 0 if 00 has been retired, I think he should. Wearing 00 is a concious decision as much as choosing any other number, 0-99 is. The whole purpose is to not sully the identification of one great by allowing a current player to wear the same number, and so as far as I am concerned, 00 is different than 0.

  • Matthew S. | January 17, 2007 at 6:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”42759″]It seems odd to me that NHLers seem to have high numbers all the time (Gretzky 99, Fedorov 91), but rarely in baseball or basketball. Why are they different?

    To add my two cents to the dispute about whether a player should be allowed to wear 0 if 00 has been retired, I think he should. Wearing 00 is a concious decision as much as choosing any other number, 0-99 is. The whole purpose is to not sully the identification of one great by allowing a current player to wear the same number, and so as far as I am concerned, 00 is different than 0.[/quote]

    I don’t know about basketball, but baseball numbers used to be assigned by position in the batting order when they first started appearing on uniforms in the 1920s. Babe Ruth usually hit 3rd in the batting order, thus, his #3.

    http://newyork.yanke...

  • Jeff Wilcox | January 17, 2007 at 6:11 pm |

    A lot of the high NHL numbers have to do with Europeans and dates. Alexander Mogilny wore 89 because that’s when he escaped the Soviet Union. Jagr wears 68 because of a Czech uprising against the Soviets in 1968, I think… Could be wrong about the event, but it is political in nature. I recall several other Euro players having similar reasoning.

  • C.N. | January 17, 2007 at 6:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”42560″]I wonder if Reebok will make an inflatable suit for Nolan and Del Rio.

    I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    It could be argued that it never functioned too well to begin with…

  • James | January 17, 2007 at 6:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”42757″]I swear that Benny Santiago changed to 09 because the two-digit number helped his balance behind the plate.

    I’ve searched and searched for proof of this quote (with no luck) but I remember it vividly.[/quote]
    This article explains that Santiago wore the number 09 because he was traded to a team with a player who already wore #9. I don’t think it is right, though, because he wore both #9 and #09 with the Padres in 1991. Could a team have one player with uni #9 and another with uni #09?

  • Chad G | January 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”42759″]It seems odd to me that NHLers seem to have high numbers all the time (Gretzky 99, Fedorov 91), but rarely in baseball or basketball. Why are they different?

    To add my two cents to the dispute about whether a player should be allowed to wear 0 if 00 has been retired, I think he should. Wearing 00 is a concious decision as much as choosing any other number, 0-99 is. The whole purpose is to not sully the identification of one great by allowing a current player to wear the same number, and so as far as I am concerned, 00 is different than 0.[/quote]

    I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but in college basketball the players can only wear digits 0-5. So the highest number you’ll ever see is 55. I think this is so the refs can indetify the player they called a foul on using theyre fingers. So numbers 6-9 can’t be worn either or numbers such as AS 16, 28, 37, 49, etc…here is the UCLA roster, check it out

  • Billy B. | January 17, 2007 at 6:17 pm |

    Looks like we’ll being seeing this if Sosa makes the big league roster. Maybe he’s grown a little since he last played with the Rangers.

    I remember when Sammy was my favorite player. I was 7 years old in 1998 so I didn’t know any better.

  • ACC (the Brain) | January 17, 2007 at 6:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”42560″]I wonder if Reebok will make an inflatable suit for Nolan and Del Rio.

    I associate weird basketball uni numbers with whack jobs like Rodman, Artest, or Scot Pollard. Is this a sign that Webber has lost his mind?[/quote]

    He’s lost his defensive agility.

    I think only if you’re playing for the league minumum should you wear a uniform # higher than 55.

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 6:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”42591″]Not to be a jerk to Jeremy Brahm or anything. But regarding Petr Cech’s headgear… check out the third comment from Sunday, January 7, it appears that he’s trying out a few different styles of headgear.[/quote]

    Jeremy is a valued reader who has probably contributed more material to the ticker than anyone else. If anyone goofed here, it’s me, since I posted Jeremy’s contribution without realizing that similar ground had been covered in the Sunday comments. Pointing out redundancies is fine; picking on other readers is not.

  • Greg | January 17, 2007 at 6:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”42765″][quote comment=”42759″]It seems odd to me that NHLers seem to have high numbers all the time (Gretzky 99, Fedorov 91), but rarely in baseball or basketball. Why are they different?

    To add my two cents to the dispute about whether a player should be allowed to wear 0 if 00 has been retired, I think he should. Wearing 00 is a concious decision as much as choosing any other number, 0-99 is. The whole purpose is to not sully the identification of one great by allowing a current player to wear the same number, and so as far as I am concerned, 00 is different than 0.[/quote]

    I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, but in college basketball the players can only wear digits 0-5. So the highest number you’ll ever see is 55. I think this is so the refs can indetify the player they called a foul on using theyre fingers. So numbers 6-9 can’t be worn either or numbers such as AS 16, 28, 37, 49, etc…here is the UCLA roster, check it out[/quote]
    This is my understanding as well, so the ref could ID the player’s number when calling the foul at the scorer’s table using only one hand. And it was done that way back in my Indiana High School Basketball days…when they had a one class state tournament.

  • redemske | January 17, 2007 at 6:47 pm |

    I remember hearing Santiago wore 09 because the strap from his chest protector rubbed too much on the single 9. It went between the numbers on 09.

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 7:00 pm |

    High numbers in the NHL normally do have meaning.

    As someone pointed out, Mogilny wore his #89 for the year he defected.

    Jagr and Palffy both wore #68 for a while to represent the Czechoslovakian uprising versus the USSR, and the resulting independance of Czechoslovakia.

    Sidney Crosby wears #87 as his birthday is August 7, 1987.

    Wayne Gretzky started wearing #99 in Ste. Sault Marie when he played in the OHL. He wanted the number “9” – Gordie Howe’s number – but it was already taken. His coach suggested doubling it to “99” and from then on, it became his playing number.

    There are others, but those quick off my head. :o)

  • Bill T. | January 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm |

    The 1950-51 NBA Champ Rochester Royals had players numbered 07 and 03 as seen here, lower right. Knicks fans may notice Red Holtzman at the lower center of the pic.

  • Heaps | January 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm |

    Yeah I remember Jim Otto wore #00 for Oakland.

    And Ken Burroughs was wearing #00 for the Houston Oilers.

    What I meant was, they don’t allow it now.

    Isn’t that right?

  • john | January 17, 2007 at 7:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”42761″]A lot of the high NHL numbers have to do with Europeans and dates. Alexander Mogilny wore 89 because that’s when he escaped the Soviet Union. Jagr wears 68 because of a Czech uprising against the Soviets in 1968, I think… Could be wrong about the event, but it is political in nature. I recall several other Euro players having similar reasoning.[/quote]

    That’s exactly the reason. Ziggy Palffy wore the number when he broke in with the Islanders. Sergei Fedorov wears 91, I’m guessing, to represent his first year in the league (90-91) after defecting from the SU.

  • Aaron | January 17, 2007 at 7:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”42782″]High numbers in the NHL normally do have meaning.

    As someone pointed out, Mogilny wore his #89 for the year he defected.

    Jagr and Palffy both wore #68 for a while to represent the Czechoslovakian uprising versus the USSR, and the resulting independance of Czechoslovakia.

    Sidney Crosby wears #87 as his birthday is August 7, 1987.

    Wayne Gretzky started wearing #99 in Ste. Sault Marie when he played in the OHL. He wanted the number “9” – Gordie Howe’s number – but it was already taken. His coach suggested doubling it to “99” and from then on, it became his playing number.

    There are others, but those quick off my head. :o)[/quote]
    That uprising was known as the Prague Spring, and I believe Jagr’s Father or grandfather was either hurt or killed in it.

  • Aram | January 17, 2007 at 7:09 pm |

    I thought NCAA and NBA basketball players were prohibited from wearing numbers higher than 55 due to the limited fingers on referee’s hands when signaling fouls to the scorers’ table. How can Webber be wearing 84?

  • Jarred | January 17, 2007 at 7:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”42751″]Nice. The Oilers will wear ’80s throwbacks to commemorate Messier’s career. If the Oilers did that for me, I would request that they spend the extra $1,000 (probably less) to buy the players shells for their pants so that the pants matched the socks and sweaters. On top of that, wear white so the helmet matches, and the only thing that may be slightly off-color will be the gloves. Of course, no team ever does this; they allow their players to take the ice looking like crap on these special occassions that warrant special jerseys.[/quote]

    The Vancouver Canucks wear matching helmets, gloves, jersey, pants, and socks when they wear the home and away version of the stick jersey. Which, btw, they’ll be wearing the white stick jersey against Buffalo this Friday while the Sabres wear their retro blue jerseys.

  • PDXclark | January 17, 2007 at 8:02 pm |

    Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.
    Well aside from the fact that 00 and 0 are the same number as are 09 and 9. 99 ≠ 9.

    OK- this has actually bugged me for a long time. Uniform numbers are granted for identification purposes, so actual numerical value doesn’t have anything to do with their purpose. On a uniform 0 doesn’t equal 00 for the same reason that 9 doesn’t equal 99, even though the hold the same numerical value. Mathwise the same, identifier-wise, different. So assuming that the league allows 0 prefixes, a team could have both a 0 & 00, or 09 & 9, etc. Although its weird to think about in team sports, its quite common in car racing. Think General Lee from the Dukes of Hazzard. Sorry, but I’m too lazy to post pics.

    Regarding the ageless Benito, I too, remember the quote about 09 making him more balanced. I’d never heard the protector strap story, but its interesting.

  • Jeff Wilcox | January 17, 2007 at 8:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”42786″][quote comment=”42782″]High numbers in the NHL normally do have meaning.

    As someone pointed out, Mogilny wore his #89 for the year he defected.

    Jagr and Palffy both wore #68 for a while to represent the Czechoslovakian uprising versus the USSR, and the resulting independance of Czechoslovakia.

    Sidney Crosby wears #87 as his birthday is August 7, 1987.

    Wayne Gretzky started wearing #99 in Ste. Sault Marie when he played in the OHL. He wanted the number “9” – Gordie Howe’s number – but it was already taken. His coach suggested doubling it to “99” and from then on, it became his playing number.

    There are others, but those quick off my head. :o)[/quote]
    That uprising was known as the Prague Spring, and I believe Jagr’s Father or grandfather was either hurt or killed in it.[/quote]

    I believe his father was imprisoned, but not positive.

  • DrBear | January 17, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    A late addition to striped socks fotos:


    University of Wisconsin hockey, circa 1930.

  • S Bennett | January 17, 2007 at 8:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”42785″][quote comment=”42761″]A lot of the high NHL numbers have to do with Europeans and dates. Alexander Mogilny wore 89 because that’s when he escaped the Soviet Union. Jagr wears 68 because of a Czech uprising against the Soviets in 1968, I think… Could be wrong about the event, but it is political in nature. I recall several other Euro players having similar reasoning.[/quote]

    That’s exactly the reason. Ziggy Palffy wore the number when he broke in with the Islanders.

    Ziggy did wear teh 68, but it wasn’t for political reasond. In fact, the equipment manager at the time thought he’d like waring the number because of the significance it held for Czech players, but Ziggy was pretty indifferent about politics/ In fact, he wound up changing his number while with the Isles to get away from the pressure of the comparisons. So, what did they give him? Another low stress Isles number.

    In LA and Pittsburgh, he wore 33. In international competiton, he wore a different number again.

  • Dane | January 17, 2007 at 8:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”42702″][quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Hmmmmmmmm. But I guess we think of 00 differently than 0.
    [/quote]

    You know?[/quote]

    If 0 and 00 are different on the roulette table, then they must be different on a sports uniform. Man Law(TM).

  • Bill T. | January 17, 2007 at 9:01 pm |

    I’m sure that when Benito Santiago wore 09 with the Padres, the Padres would have been forbidden to issue 9 to any other player at he same time. Ergo, 09 = 9 and 00 = 0.

    As a Celtic fan, I felt that it was a slight to the Chief when they issued Eric Montross 0 and then later, Walter McCarty.

  • Paul Lukas | January 17, 2007 at 9:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”42798″]A late addition to striped socks fotos:


    University of Wisconsin hockey, circa 1930.
    [/quote]

    Oh. My. God.

  • Original Jim | January 17, 2007 at 9:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”42787″]I thought NCAA and NBA basketball players were prohibited from wearing numbers higher than 55 due to the limited fingers on referee’s hands when signaling fouls to the scorers’ table. How can Webber be wearing 84?[/quote]

    The number rule does not apply to the NBA. Remember, up until this season, Kobe wore #8.

  • Aaron | January 17, 2007 at 9:38 pm |

    Read all about it! An authentic personalized All-Star jersey with the new fabric and all, will cost. . .425 dollars! Hopefully this will deter any people from buying them.
    http://shop.nhl.com/...

    Paul, can you even give us a price of the new jerseys, or is that forbidden also?

  • KU Student | January 17, 2007 at 9:39 pm |

    I think that the numbers that the refs cannot do with their hands are still technically illegal and the players have to pay a fine. I think it is along the same lines as the fine for wearing different colored sneakers. Nike used to pay Michael Jordans for years.

  • Kenny | January 17, 2007 at 9:39 pm |

    In Japanese baseball, we frequently see a player wearing #0 and another player wearing #00 on the same team. Teams in Japan carry so many players on their top team and farm team that good numbers are scarce and as a result, any number is basically fair game. Some players even wear triple digit numbers-usually on the farm team, although former Red Sox pitcher Robinson Checo wore #106 in 1995 for the Hiroshima Carp.

    Also, after Benito Santiago’s silly stunt, Hanshin Tigers 3rd baseman Hiromi Matsunaga shortly thereafter changed his number from #2 to #02.

    This is off the numbers topic, but shortly after that, Yokohama BayStars 1st baseman Norihiro Komada started to imitate John Olerud by wearing a helmet while playing 1st base (sorry, no pics…).

  • Stuby | January 17, 2007 at 9:40 pm |

    I know Eric Montross wore #00 at Carolina, but I can’t think of any other 0s or 00s in college hoops (did Arenas wear 0 at Arizona?). I’m sure as soon as I post this, I’ll think up about twelve of ’em.

  • Anthony Edwards | January 17, 2007 at 9:43 pm |

    Kevin Duckworth wore “00” his whole career. (I believe)

  • Mark Mayall | January 17, 2007 at 9:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”42805″]I’m sure that when Benito Santiago wore 09 with the Padres, the Padres would have been forbidden to issue 9 to any other player at he same time. Ergo, 09 = 9 and 00 = 0.

    As a Celtic fan, I felt that it was a slight to the Chief when they issued Eric Montross 0 and then later, Walter McCarty.[/quote]

    How do you feel about Leon Powe wearing it this season?

  • Johnny O | January 17, 2007 at 9:50 pm |

    I like Tampa Bay’s anniversary patch. Nice, very different. Anyone hear is Arizona will be having an anniversary patch as well? I looked at their website and as of now I couldn’t see one. Anyone from that area know anything?

    Anniversary patch

  • Gibby | January 17, 2007 at 10:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”42806″][quote comment=”42798″]A late addition to striped socks fotos:


    University of Wisconsin hockey, circa 1930.
    [/quote]

    Oh. My. God.[/quote]

    Not sure if there is any further info available on this pic, but the team is standing on a beach. No snow to be seen. Very interesting place for a team photo. Also the “keeper” has a different sweater than the rest of the team. Good stuff

  • redemske | January 17, 2007 at 10:06 pm |

    That Tampa Bay patch is telling. Note that it doesn’t say ’10 years of excellence,’ or even ’10 years of adequacy.’ Just ’10 seasons,’ as in “We’re delighted to still have a franchise.”

  • Aaron | January 17, 2007 at 10:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”42833″]That Tampa Bay patch is telling. Note that it doesn’t say ’10 years of excellence,’ or even ’10 years of adequacy.’ Just ’10 seasons,’ as in “We’re delighted to still have a franchise.”[/quote]
    It should say “10 seasons of ineptitude”

  • Beats | January 17, 2007 at 10:09 pm |

    A nit picky detail about Jagr wearing 68 if it is a refernce for what became known as The Prague Spring, the Czech uprising in 1968 which did not result in Czech independence (as previously posted) as Czechoslovakia was an independent nation at the time. However the uprising was an atempt to distance themselves from control by the Soviets as Czechoslovakia fell under Soviet control in the Soviet bloc but still technically remaind independent. The uprising failed and Czechoslavakia remained under Soviet influence until the collapse of the Soviet Union…Just a small detail from a History major, but hey if theres a place for small details this blog is it

  • redemske | January 17, 2007 at 10:32 pm |

    I believe Mario Lemieux’s No. 88 came about because of his agent. When Lemieux was ready to enter the league, they wanted something distinctive, and went with 88. Not nearly as inspiring as Jagr’s No. 68.

  • sope | January 17, 2007 at 10:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”42831″]I like Tampa Bay’s anniversary patch. Nice, very different. Anyone hear is Arizona will be having an anniversary patch as well? I looked at their website and as of now I couldn’t see one. Anyone from that area know anything?

    Anniversary patch[/quote]

    I haven’t heard anything about the Diamondbacks wearing a 10th Anniversary patch. The new owners have tried to distance themselves so much from the Jerry Colangelo era (ie changing the colors, logo, unis, and booting Gonzo) that I’d be surprised if they did anything to commemorate their first season.

  • Stuby | January 17, 2007 at 11:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”42837″]I believe Mario Lemieux’s No. 88 came about because of his agent. When Lemieux was ready to enter the league, they wanted something distinctive, and went with 88. Not nearly as inspiring as Jagr’s No. 68.[/quote]
    Lemieux wore 66; Lindros wore 88

  • C.N. | January 17, 2007 at 11:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”42824″]I think that the numbers that the refs cannot do with their hands are still technically illegal and the players have to pay a fine. I think it is along the same lines as the fine for wearing different colored sneakers. Nike used to pay Michael Jordans for years.[/quote]

    No, the NBA has no such rule, only the NCAA.

  • Dave A | January 17, 2007 at 11:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”42841″][quote comment=”42837″]I believe Mario Lemieux’s No. 88 came about because of his agent. When Lemieux was ready to enter the league, they wanted something distinctive, and went with 88. Not nearly as inspiring as Jagr’s No. 68.[/quote]
    Lemieux wore 66; Lindros wore 88[/quote]

    Lemieux wore 66 when he played in the Quebec Junior League as well. If I recall correctly, I believe he wore 66 as an homage of sorts to Wayne Gretzky (66 is 99 upside down) because there were so many comparisons to Lemieux as The Next One.

  • Matt | January 17, 2007 at 11:26 pm |

    To clear up the identification of numbers, refs hold their hands vertically for numbers 1-5 and horizontally for numbers 6-10. So i f the hand is horizontal, it is a given that the scorer adds five to whatever he is holding up.

  • Teebz | January 17, 2007 at 11:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”42835″]A nit picky detail about Jagr wearing 68 if it is a refernce for what became known as The Prague Spring, the Czech uprising in 1968 which did not result in Czech independence (as previously posted) as Czechoslovakia was an independent nation at the time. However the uprising was an atempt to distance themselves from control by the Soviets as Czechoslovakia fell under Soviet control in the Soviet bloc but still technically remaind independent. The uprising failed and Czechoslavakia remained under Soviet influence until the collapse of the Soviet Union…Just a small detail from a History major, but hey if theres a place for small details this blog is it[/quote]

    Good clarification. I had forgotten many details in my explanation of “independance”, and I applaud this effort. Well done, Beats!

  • Bob A | January 17, 2007 at 11:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”42806″][quote comment=”42798″]A late addition to striped socks fotos:


    University of Wisconsin hockey, circa 1930.
    [/quote]

    Oh. My. God.[/quote]

    They love their stripes in Badgerland!

  • tessa | January 17, 2007 at 11:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”42787″]I thought NCAA and NBA basketball players were prohibited from wearing numbers higher than 55 due to the limited fingers on referee’s hands when signaling fouls to the scorers’ table. How can Webber be wearing 84?[/quote]

    Maybe they have a specialized, one fingered gesture in mind to indicate Mr. Webber. :P

    Also, in the great 0 vs. 00 and 9 vs. 09 debate – if the purpose of numbering is not only visually identifying players but also communicating to others verbally, 0 and 00 (and 9 and 09) would be said “zero” and “nine” respectively. I am sure that you could say “double zero” and “oh-nine,” but this is annoying and unnecessary when there are so many “real” numbers from which to choose.

  • john | January 17, 2007 at 11:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”42790″]
    The Vancouver Canucks wear matching helmets, gloves, jersey, pants, and socks when they wear the home and away version of the stick jersey. Which, btw, they’ll be wearing the white stick jersey against Buffalo this Friday while the Sabres wear their retro blue jerseys.[/quote]

    Close, but no cigar. Only Lunongo goes fully matched.

    Still looks pretty sharp.

  • john | January 17, 2007 at 11:54 pm |

    Luongo. I’m tired

  • bg | January 18, 2007 at 12:19 am |

    [quote comment=”42779″]I remember hearing Santiago wore 09 because the strap from his chest protector rubbed too much on the single 9. It went between the numbers on 09.[/quote]

    That’s right. He wanted 09 so that you could still see the entire “9” when he had his gear on.

  • Stuby | January 18, 2007 at 12:33 am |

    I’m waiting for someone to bust out with a PI symbol on his back. ‘Now batting, number 3.14159…’

  • Minna H. | January 18, 2007 at 12:54 am |

    [quote comment=”42855″]I’m waiting for someone to bust out with a PI symbol on his back. ‘Now batting, number 3.14159…'[/quote]

    Stuby, you cracked me up, but I think that would be excellent.

  • calvin12 | January 18, 2007 at 1:06 am |

    Remember this is Wisconsin we are talking about. There is a lake right behind them, I’d wager thats where they played.

  • Chris | January 18, 2007 at 1:07 am |

    [quote comment=”42827″]Kevin Duckworth wore “00” his whole career. (I believe)[/quote]

    Aww, and I was sure I was gonna be the first to mention him! Nice catch ;)

    I’m pretty sure youre right that he kept it for the entirety of his career- i have found pics in Milwaukee, Portland and Washington with the 00.

  • Jarred | January 18, 2007 at 1:55 am |

    [quote comment=”42851″][quote comment=”42790″]
    The Vancouver Canucks wear matching helmets, gloves, jersey, pants, and socks when they wear the home and away version of the stick jersey. Which, btw, they’ll be wearing the white stick jersey against Buffalo this Friday while the Sabres wear their retro blue jerseys.[/quote]

    Close, but no cigar. Only Lunongo goes fully matched.

    Still looks pretty sharp.[/quote]

    The shorts are clearly different than what they usually wear. The colours looked different because the shorts are wet and thus are a little darker.

  • austin | January 18, 2007 at 5:22 am |

    [quote comment=”42826″]I know Eric Montross wore #00 at Carolina, but I can’t think of any other 0s or 00s in college hoops (did Arenas wear 0 at Arizona?). I’m sure as soon as I post this, I’ll think up about twelve of ’em.[/quote]
    How about a guy that wore both. Oregon point guard Aaron Brooks wore 00 as a freshman but now wares 0

  • Mark in Shiga | January 18, 2007 at 8:13 am |

    Kenny, have you noticed the unspoken agreement among publishers and teams that 00 is somehow less than regular 0? Every team in Japan makes use of both numbers now, and every time I see 00 listed above 0 when the players are ordered by number.

    In Japan, amateur baseball has strict rules for player numbers. Only 0-30 (and 00) are to be worn, and the manager must wear 30 and the captain has to be number 10. Numbers over 30 can be assigned if the team has more than 30 players (the J-League in soccer has a similar rule).

    So on my company team, I requested 37, and they decided to wait until a 36th person joins our club (there are now 34) before ordering my jersey!

  • chris | January 18, 2007 at 8:24 am |

    for what it’s worth, the owner of the Phillies’ all time biggest bonehead play, Mitch Williams, wore #99.

  • chris | January 18, 2007 at 8:26 am |

    oh yeah… here’s the link

  • Tape | January 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”42832″][quote comment=”42806″][quote comment=”42798″]A late addition to striped socks fotos:


    University of Wisconsin hockey, circa 1930.
    [/quote]

    Oh. My. God.[/quote]

    Not sure if there is any further info available on this pic, but the team is standing on a beach. No snow to be seen. Very interesting place for a team photo. Also the “keeper” has a different sweater than the rest of the team. Good stuff[/quote]

    That would, in all likelihood, be Lake Mendota. the UW campus is situated along its southern shore. Various buildings that used to be athletic facilities are, in fact, right along the lakeshore.

    I find it interesting that they got the team all gussied up (skates and all) and laid down towels to protect the skate blades from the sand. doesn’t really even appear to be a cold day (no snow in sight, lake not frozen).

  • Evan | January 18, 2007 at 4:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”42758″][quote comment=”42731″][quote comment=”42728″][quote comment=”42723″][quote comment=”42701″]Something always bothered me about Walter McCarty wearing #0 in Boston. Parrish’s #00 is retired. Shouldn’t that prohibit anyone from wearing any form of zero? After all Benny Santiago wouldn’t have been able to wear #09 if the Pads had #9 retired.[/quote]

    Following that logic, if a team retired #22, then no player could ever wear #2 either. Also, no NHL player could ever wear #9.[/quote]
    Well aside from the fact that 00 and 0 are the same number as are 09 and 9. 99 ≠ 9.[/quote]

    But zero in a mathematical sense represents a value. It’s in the middle. It is neither a positive or a negative but, it still is a number. If that means to you that because the Celtics retired “00” they couldn’t give out “0” then it would hold true that any number with the number “0” in it could not be given out either. “0” and “00” are two seperate numbers just like “10” or “20.” So how exactly is “09” wrong if a team had retired “9”????[/quote]

    I’m not sure that I agree that #0 and #00 are different numbers. 0-00=0. All I’m saying is if Walter McCarty #0 and Tony Delk #00 were on the same team the roster would look wierd.

    As far as #09 being wrong if a team retired #9, could you imagine someone on the Yankees wearing #03? Not a chance.[/quote]

    Yeah, the roster would look weird. It also wouldn’t exist.

    When I was much younger, I attended a basketball camp run by then-NBA player Dan Schayes. During a question-and-answer session, Mr. Schayes was asked about uniform numbers. I don’t remember how exactly the subject of 0 vs 00 came up, but Mr. Schayes told us that NBA teams are prohibited from having players with 0 and 00 on the same roster.

    That always puzzled me because I was under the impression that 00 was the uniform equivalent of 100. Whatever.

  • Joe | January 20, 2007 at 11:05 am |

    FYI – The Milwaukee Admirals have enjoyed a 3000 percent increase in apparel sales in the six months since introducing the new logo. That is not a misprint. 3000 percent. Somebody is buying all that stuff, and it’s not because they hate it.

    [quote comment=”42669″]Metsfan, thanks for noting the TMQ thing. I wondered if he’d use it, but I hadn’t thought to check this week yet.

    Minna, I think you’re being a bit optimistic about five people liking the new death-friendly Admiral logo. In fact, you’ve been disturbingly optimistic the last few days. As the cynical intern, I have to ask: are you okay?

    Oh, and Paul, I love today’s post title. Very creative.[/quote]

  • Eric | January 20, 2007 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”42751″]The NBA wants the officials to be able to signal player numbers to the Scorer’s Table more easily so the uniforms tend to stop at 55 since you can hold up your hands and show the scorer the number (“five-five”). Numbers higher than that require math on the part of the referee’s (What do you hold up for 8? two fours? a five and a three?) You can see where it might get complicated for a referee . . .[/quote]

    i’ve talked to a couple refs who said something similar. more specifically, no part of a jersey number is supposed to be higher than five making it easier to signal jersey numbers to the scorer’s table one-handed after a foul. the ref usually only has one hand available since the ball is in his other hand. signaling “five-five” one-handed is much easier than signaling “two-eight.”

    the rule isn’t enforced as strictly as it used to be.

  • Colby Taylor | January 23, 2007 at 6:44 am |

    Innovative Sports makes a way better heated jacket. Its been in use on sidelines and in MLB since 2003. We have a hard time keeping a straight face reading this story. We think we have them licked. Ask anybody who knows. Do a google search for “Heated Jacket”. Or, try going to http://www.heatedjac.... Try a google video search for Heated Jacket, or Innovative Sports. Anybody ever seen “The Heater” pitching sleeve? http://www.heatsleev... It beats the heck of and air pump.

  • Ryan | January 28, 2007 at 8:54 pm |

    Not sure of anyone has mentioned this, but RBK uses “The Pump” in some of their hockey skates for ankle support.

    I guess hey are branching out into puffy coats now…