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

InSANIty … Part Deux

insanity day 2

By Phil Hecken, back again with SQL

Here we are back in the colored sani wonderland with an in-depth look at the teams of the Senior Circuit. In case you missed the first part, there’s the linky. Let’s get right into things:

National League East

Mets: I know I’m treading on thin ice, tinkering with yours and Paul’s favorite team’s uni and quite frankly I can understand that many may cringe at the sight of this. Even I, with my orange bias in full throttle mode, cannot fully get over the ‘bullfighter” effect of this one (especially blatant in the Keith Hernandez pictures) Grade: B- (Didn’t I tell you I loooved orange?)

Braves: Time to take on my own favourite team. I came up with two looks here: blue on red and red on blue and both end up being equal letdowns. The red stirrups fit the pant piping better but I like the red socks more… In the end, I think the nerdy way Smoltzie wears his pants doesn’t really help my case here… Grade: D-

Marlins: Holy Guacamole! I absolutely adore this one. I think it looks way better with the road grays than plain white sanis would do. The sweet bicolour shoes displayed by the D-Train also help a lot by providing a nice counterpoint to the black stirrups. Grade: A+

Phillies: Another bicolour conundrum, the reigning Champs never the less leave an escape route with the oh-so subtle touch of blue on their current unis. All in all, I probably should have abstained from this one and concentrated my work on one of the all time great looks: the Mike Schmidt era pinstriped maroon beauties. The colored socks work quite well here but with the move to white we lose the stirrup/piping coordination which contributed to make the look so good in the first place. Grade: F (Actual) C- (Retro)

Nationals: It’s actually quite hard to keep track of the Nats uniform changes from France (except of course for their regular miscues) since they’re, for the most part, pretty irrelevant and I realized too late that I had used a no longer worn version of their road uniform for this mock up. Too bad because both versions look quite nice even though the burgundy one takes the cake IMHO. The home duds look pretty neat too, when paired with the gold socks, but I assume it’s all about the stirrups here, as white sanis would also do the trick. Grade: B (Road) C (Home)

National League Central

Brewers: One of the teams that actually sported the colored sani look before, the Brewers fail to recapture the magic of the good old days here. As always the stirruped look looks mighty fine but the gold socks aren’t that much of an improvement over traditional white ones. Maybe a little bit more with the road version. Grade: D (Home) D+ (Road)

Cubs: As bad as it looks when associated with the home uniform (and bad it is), the look almost manages to make it with the solid blue away jersey. In the end its demise comes from the overall clutter of the whole and the fact that this blue jersey just sucks to begin with. Grade: F (Home) C- (Road)

Astros: With their unwavering decision to stick to the solid brick top on the road, the Astros are a prime candidate for the colored sani program. Just looking at the Hunter Pence pictures is enough to realize that brick red socks are a much better fit than white ones for this team. The Lance Berkman shot is just here to make the point more obvious. Just for kicks, I tried my hand at the infamous tequila sunrise duds and was happy to discover that not even striped socks could alter their unmitigated awesomeness. Grade: A+ (Road) C (Retro)

Pirates: So this is why they’re calling it striking gold! If this one isn’t a home run, it’s at the very least a 3 RBI triple. Why haven’t the Buccos (who spent the last few seasons wearing a red vest and the best part of the 70’s dressed as bumblebees on acid) ever tried this one? Doesn’t it seem completely natural for them? Has Oakland copyrighted the look? Anyway this is one of my favourites and I think the Pirates should make the switch right away. Grade: A++

Cardinals: Tinkering with such a classic look as the Cards’ almost feel sacrilegious, especially when it involves their unearthly beautiful striped stirrups. Fortunately their despicable road caps give us an excuse to try it anyway and for the record navy doesn’t look better down there than it does up here. Grade: F–

Reds: Why would a team called the Reds would ever consider wearing any color outside of crimson, scarlet or gore is beyond the reach of my feeble mind. But anyway, since this black eye of a uni gives us an opportunity to work with, that the classic two-tone look would have precluded, I suppose we should all be thankful…Not. The bitter lesson as always: you can’t polish a turd. And putting a cherry on top of it won’t turn it into a birthday cake. Grade: D

National League West

Rockies: Saddled with the worst look in all the majors the poor Rockies are in dire need of a sartorial overhaul (And I’m not even a purple hater). The purple socks do just that, working well with both versions of the uniform, particularly with the solid jersey. All in all, a solid improvement (which may not mean a lot considering the pits we’re starting from). Grade: A

Diamondbacks: The D-Backs have so many different uniform combinations that maybe one of the lot would look right with colored socks. This one sure isn’t. Grade: D-

Padres: The off-gold sanis look good with the solid blue top but would probably make your eyes bleed if paired with ‘urine’ toned away uniform. The throwback look is so good to begin with, that the gold socks only make it more cluttered. Sometimes, less is more. Grade: B (Current) B- (Throwback)

Giants: The Jints are a tricky case because of their wearing of an off-white cream home uni. Basically there’s no white whatsoever in their uniform and you could say the white sanis almost clash with it. In a perfect world that would make them the poster child of the colored sani movement. The cold reality is a bit harsher. With White shoes perhaps? Grade: F

Dodgers: This one is more of a stylistic exercise as it’s quite clear from the start that the blue stirrups/white sock combo is by far the best for this team (even though all current members of the roster somehow fail to grasp that basic fact). The Uni is so good anyway that it almost pulls the red socks look. Almost. Grade: D

~~~~~~~~~~

Thus endeth the colored sani project of SQL. Quite an impressive job, even if we don’t agree on the finished product. SQL has a few of his own post-mortems on the project, so here he is again:

Now that we’ve cornered all the individual teams and clearly establish that not all uniforms are tailored to fit the colored sanis variation, I think we may try to single out a few ground rules about what makes the look work or not:

1. Solid colored jerseys help. Like a lot. Just look back at the Rockies and Astros for visual confirmation.

2. As do two-toned caps. In this case the stirrups matches the crown while the sock matches the lid (See Orioles and Indians).

3. Road Unis are a better fit. Actually, it’s because road grays aren’t that great a fit for the white sanis because, wait for it … they hardly contain any white.

4. Low cut stirrups are probably the way to go. Too much color exposed, especially for the pastel tones, may provoke the now dreaded ‘Bullfighter’ effect.

5. Some teams are better suited than others. Be it because they’ve been mired in uni limbo for so long (Twins, Nationals, Rangers, Rockies ) that any move would be a good one at this point or because it just look good for them (Jays, Marlins, Pirates). Not all teams are created equal when it comes to colored hosiery.

6. Dark on top makes you hop, light on top makes you throw up. The stirrups have to be darker than the sanis. It’s not even negociable (see A’s or Giants).

7. Stay away from the classics. Adding a mustache to Mona Lisa can be fun but it’s hardly an improvement.

Well, here we are I hope you’ve enjoyed the ride and I can’t wait to hear your take on some of these.

Many thanks to Phil for lending me is soapbox for a while. Now, if you don’t mind I must go back to work: I have a big project centred around what MLB teams would look if they had all tried white sox style short pants. Just kidding.

Wow. Again, many thanks to SQL for undertaking this visual cornucopia. I don’t have a lot to add to his six points above, as they are quite excellent (and I gave you my thoughts on this in “Part the First”). I will say that I really like the look for the Pirates, and especially for the San Diego Padres throwback. Unfortunately, they didn’t wear colored sanis when they wore that uni, and it’s basically a one-off and not a regular uniform choice. I think a couple of the others were interesting possibilities, but like SQL said, most of the colored sanis work better with the alternate tops, I’m not really going to be advocating for that anytime soon.

So, give a big hearty thanks to SQL for this undertaking, and let us know, Uni Watchers, what you think of the “colored sani project.” Anything strike your fancy? Anything worth pursuing? Surely there is something here you like (and probably some things you don’t). Talk about it below.

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: This one shouldn’t be too difficult, since there are plenty of clues right there on the scoreboard. The pic comes courtesy of Tom Farley. Remember, don’t post the result, just put the linky in the comments. Ready? Guess The Game.

If you guys have any scoreboard pics (the date of which you can identify, or at least have an idea), please send ’em my way. Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

PrimaryFC And we don’t just track MLB teams here, we even have guys who do it for the Minor Leagues. Tyler Maun who is employed by, and tracks, the Myrtle Beach Pelicans, checks in with this report:

We’ve got three different jerseys and another one that has found its way into the mix this year (I’ll explain later). The Pelicans’ color scheme is a cross somewhere between the Tampa Bay Rays and the throwback San Diego Chargers/UCLA Bruins look. We have three primary colors: navy and powder blue (officially known as Midnight and Pelicans Blue) and yellow (Sun Gold). The standard home and road look is a vest for each; white home and gray road per usual. The piping around the sleeves and down the pants on each is supposed to echo nautical/dock rope and tie into the dock rope surrounding the circular backdrop to the team’s primary logo. The franchise’s official history says, “the Pelicans are the first professional sports team to use the unique shade of Pelicans Blue,” but team management has said it was inspired at least in part by the Chargers and Bruins. Both vests are worn over powder blue sleeves with powder blue caps to match, one with the team’s interlocking “MB” logo and one with the Pelican head. The color scheme and new uni set was adopted when the franchise was bought by Greenberg Sports Group in 2006. A third Pelicans Blue alternate is mixed in a lot, equally at home and on the road. The alternates are mesh, so the guys like to wear them on hot nights. However, they show sweat considerably more than the vests which is an unfortunate side effect in a place that regularly has humidity somewhere in the quadruple digits on summer nights. With a 24-39 overall record (a rough year for a team that won more games than any team in Minor League Baseball last year), here’s our record breakdown as it stands after a June 16th doubleheader:

Home white: 5-11
Pelicans Blue alternate: 10-12
Road gray: 8-14
Batting practice jerseys: 1-2

Obviously that last one stands out. I don’t travel with the team on every road trip, but as the story goes, earlier this year on the road, the guys were mired in a seven-game losing streak and decided something needed to change. So they went with the club’s navy blue BP two-button pullovers but apparently tried wearing them with the powder blue Pelican head cap instead of their matching navy blue BP hat. Manager Rocket Wheeler, as the story goes, saw the first few guys come out of the clubhouse and said, “Absolutely not. Get back inside and change those hats.”

The Pelicans wear powder blue stirrups with pant legs hiked up night in and night out, as required by a Braves’ organizational rule for minor league affiliates. In fact, the team was featured in an April 21 Wall Street Journal story about stirrups in the minors (in which Paul was quoted). By and large, the guys don’t like them much, but nobody complains. I know the powder blue stirrups probably didn’t look great on the day they went with the navy blue BP jerseys and caps because that’s the look we see the team rock for batting practice everyday. The team embraces its identity, though. A lot of the guys have commented on how nice it is to play on the only team in the organization with a unique moniker. The Pelicans are the only Braves’ affiliate not named the Braves. (AAA Gwinnett, AA Mississippi, A Rome, rookie-level Danville and the rookie-level Gulf Coast League squad all sport the name of the parent club.)

Thanks Tyler!

~~~~~~~~~~

Couple of things: First, I want to pass along my well-wishes to John Okray (“Johnny O”) who was going to be joining with me this weekend on a US Open-inspired article, but he had a bit of a personal matter and that is going to have to wait. In addition, I went to the US Open practice round Tuesday (took the camera, still haven’t had time to see if anything good came out), and slogged through the still-soaked course yesterday (although the weather was beautiful). It was great following Mr. Michelson around for half his round and having the gallery absolutely worshiping me everywhere I walked. All those screams of “You da man, Phil” really made me feel welcome. But I was going to incorporate all that into the post with Johnny O, so that’s going to be postponed.

And I wanted to thank everyone for being on your best behavior and being extremely supportive of my efforts while I filled in for Paul this past week. You guys are great. And to all of my co-collaborators, I thank you all for your suggestions and your efforts!

I have a couple of things I can run for tomorrow, so we can have a full column if you’d like. Or, we can have kind of a “Father’s Day Open Thread” and open the board up to you all. I know I’ll be spending a majority of the day away from the board, and I imagine a number of you have plans as well. But I’ll leave it up to you: if you want a full column, that’s cool, or if you think maybe an Open Thread is the way to go, we can do that as well. If you care, or have a preference, maybe post it in the comments.

Other than that, everyone have a great Saturday. No matter where you live, I hope the weather is great, your health is good, and your spirits are up. Peace.

 

65 comments to InSANIty … Part Deux

  • Ben | June 20, 2009 at 8:14 am |

    I love when I have the time to be the first to solve the board- http://www.baseball-...

  • SlimAndSlam | June 20, 2009 at 8:28 am |

    Curse you, Ben:
    http://www.retroshee...

  • Matt Lesser | June 20, 2009 at 8:36 am |

    If you guys are gonna’ slam the Reds, you should at least get the right uniform.

    http://exhibits.base...

    Sheesh. I’m pretty upset you’d do that.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 8:54 am |

    While most of them are nauseating, some of those colored sani mock-ups look pretty good: Mets, Giants (black over orange), Brewers, Marlins. I even like the D-backs’ red over gold and I think the Astros might look OK with a similar look.

    And I agree that the Pirates look great and they should go to that look yesterday.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I think I really like those Pelicans’ unis, but am I alone in thinking they should go with the full powder blues on the road?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Open thread vs. full entry tomorrow? Well, I’m going to be out pretty much the whole day, so an open thread works for me.

    Of course, I can always catch up in the evening if there’s a full entry…

  • James Craven | June 20, 2009 at 9:57 am |

    For the Gillette Civil Rights Game tonight, the White Sox and Reds will wear their 1964 unis, which menas lower NOBs on the back of the Reds’ vests and powder blue roadies for the Pale Hose.

  • JimV19 | June 20, 2009 at 10:33 am |

    Pirates, Mets, Marlins and throwback Padres all get an A in my book. Thanks, SQL!

    I think, though, that after seeing both leagues in this, I’d rather see white sannies (except for Boston) with striped stirrups. The stripes really make a difference. Put 2 or 3 gold stripes on the Pirates’ stirrups and they get an A+++.

    In fact, if some players won’t wear the stirrups, how about a striped sock? And for the guys who insist on the pajama bottoms, how about striped legs? Nah, but I do like the striped sock idea.

    Hey Rockies; your new uniforms have arrived, but they say “Myrtle Beach” and “Pelicans” on them. Order a new set with your name on them instead, and wear them immediately.

  • blt | June 20, 2009 at 10:34 am |

    Howston, we have a problem?

    Perhaps this has been discussed here before, but watching the Twins/Astros game last night (in which both teams were wearing the alts) it became apparent that Houston suffers from the Dbaacks’ old problem. On the red unis the u on a number of players — especially Hunter Pence — looked more like a double u.

    Jeff Keppinger: http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Miguel Tejada: http://d.yimg.com/a/...

  • JimV19 | June 20, 2009 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment=”336006″]Howston, we have a problem?

    Perhaps this has been discussed here before, but watching the Twins/Astros game last night (in which both teams were wearing the alts) it became apparent that Houston suffers from the Dbaacks’ old problem. On the red unis the u on a number of players — especially Hunter Pence — looked more like a double u.

    Jeff Keppinger: http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Miguel Tejada: http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Yeah, I’m seeing that so much that I’d rather teams with buttoned jerseys go with a logo on the side, like the Tigers home whites or the Nats red alterantes. Although if you have a name with two words, then script would work if you break it up at the buttons.

    I’d like to see this jersey in white and gray as well: http://cache.daylife...

  • LarenR | June 20, 2009 at 11:01 am |

    Man, that is one angry pelican in Myrtle Beach. Why are logos always so angry? Even the grapes are cranky! I mean these creatures get to play ball for a living, shouldn’t they be happy about it?

  • LarenR | June 20, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment=”336008″]Man, that is one angry pelican in Myrtle Beach. Why are logos always so angry? Even the grapes are cranky! I mean these creatures get to play ball for a living, shouldn’t they be happy about it?[/quote]
    I know. The Moose play puck. Still, it should be happy to play at all.

  • leon | June 20, 2009 at 11:06 am |

    Why are logos always so angry?

    under the influence of amphetamines

  • Mike Engle | June 20, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”336008″]Man, that is one angry pelican in Myrtle Beach. Why are logos always so angry? Even the grapes are cranky! I mean these creatures get to play ball for a living, shouldn’t they be happy about it?[/quote]
    Chief Wahoo always looked pretty jolly to me.

  • JimV19 | June 20, 2009 at 11:14 am |

    [quote comment=”336009″][quote comment=”336008″]Man, that is one angry pelican in Myrtle Beach. Why are logos always so angry? Even the grapes are cranky! I mean these creatures get to play ball for a living, shouldn’t they be happy about it?[/quote]
    I know. The Moose play puck. Still, it should be happy to play at all.[/quote]

    I agree. There’s too much scowling and such in the world of sports. Lighten up, logos! Besides, it’s even more intimidating when you’re being beaten by someone who’s smiling.

    Seeing the Manitoba Moose logo reminded me: I was looking in my ’71 Pirates souvenir book last night. They had a section with family photos. Pitcher Bob Moose’s wife was shown – her name is Alberta. Yep, Alberta Moose. Well, she knew what she was getting into…

  • mmwatkin | June 20, 2009 at 11:15 am |

    My favorite part of the scoreboard:

    Paid attendance: 10,554
    Ladies: 5586
    Total: 16,140
    –Thanks

    I am going to assume there is a ladies night promotion? Also, I guess MLB does not recognize unpaid attendance?

    http://www.baseball-...

  • david | June 20, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    [quote comment=”336002″]If you guys are gonna’ slam the Reds, you should at least get the right uniform.

    http://exhibits.base...

    Sheesh. I’m pretty upset you’d do that.[/quote]

    I agree actually. I was shocked to see them use a uniform that the team has not played in since 2006… not exactly an overnight switch.

  • mmwatkin | June 20, 2009 at 11:25 am |

    For the Uniwatch/Star Wars/Bobblehead fans:

    http://woot.com/

  • Mike Engle | June 20, 2009 at 11:26 am |

    [quote comment=”336014″][quote comment=”336002″]If you guys are gonna’ slam the Reds, you should at least get the right uniform.

    http://exhibits.base...

    Sheesh. I’m pretty upset you’d do that.[/quote]

    I agree actually. I was shocked to see them use a uniform that the team has not played in since 2006… not exactly an overnight switch.[/quote]
    I guess MLB news travels slowly across the Atlantic?
    Though to be fair, the new uniforms have the same colors to work with, so the look in question still would have looked like sh*t.
    (And on a related note, the Reds’ gray uniforms actually have a good deal of white in them. The normal white sanitaries under red stirrups should look fine regardless.)

  • Tony Miller | June 20, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    Here’s the game:
    Box score

  • Jeff | June 20, 2009 at 11:48 am |

    Open thread, perhaps themed to fathers and unis? Did your dad teach you how to wear something a certain way. Maybe just learning how to tie a tie.
    Enjoy the day, Phil!

  • Tony Miller | June 20, 2009 at 11:49 am |

    [quote comment=”336017″]Here’s the game:
    Box score[/quote]
    take two.

  • Mike Engle | June 20, 2009 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”336018″]Open thread, perhaps themed to fathers and unis? Did your dad teach you how to wear something a certain way. Maybe just learning how to tie a tie.
    Enjoy the day, Phil![/quote]
    Sure. Cap brim goes straight out front. Seemed so uncool back in the day, but now I know it’s the only way to wear a cap. (Apologies to the backwards crowd, no apologies to the CC Sabathia Oblique Cap Club.) Especially with my wool 5950’s, I form-shrink them to custom-fit forwards, so they feel terrible any other way!

  • Brandon | June 20, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

    I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.

  • Mike Engle | June 20, 2009 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”336021″]I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.[/quote]
    What’s the problem?
    “Hey, let’s see how our team would look if we did this!”
    “Nice idea, but our colors don’t work for that. It’s terrible.”
    Should be a perfectly normal thing to do at the design table.

  • Fight | June 20, 2009 at 12:40 pm |

    Just wondering, but why did you all not use the Reds current uniforms? Perhaps I missed something?

  • =bg= | June 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm |

    Brian Wilson Bobble
    http://img.photobuck...

    Jon Miller Bobble
    http://img.photobuck...

    They got the Wilson one right..but not sure about Miller. Maybe it’s the glasses missing.
    http://royals.mlblog...

  • david | June 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”336016″][quote comment=”336014″][quote comment=”336002″]If you guys are gonna’ slam the Reds, you should at least get the right uniform.

    http://exhibits.base...

    Sheesh. I’m pretty upset you’d do that.[/quote]

    I agree actually. I was shocked to see them use a uniform that the team has not played in since 2006… not exactly an overnight switch.[/quote]
    I guess MLB news travels slowly across the Atlantic?
    Though to be fair, the new uniforms have the same colors to work with, so the look in question still would have looked like sh*t.
    (And on a related note, the Reds’ gray uniforms actually have a good deal of white in them. The normal white sanitaries under red stirrups should look fine regardless.)[/quote]

    Well, they have the same colors, but not the same distribution of those colors. Now on the home uniforms the only black at appears is in drop shadows, in the uniforms shown they often wore black caps, sleeves and socks. The road uniforms currently still have the black brim on the cap, but besides that black only appears as the drop shadows.

    So while I agree they would still look terrible, they would look terrible for completely different reasons… if that makes any sense.

  • CJ | June 20, 2009 at 2:03 pm |

    My Phightin’ Phils might look good with a blue sock over red sani in the alternates. If MLB2k8 was any indication last year, the Phillies were supposed to wear blue socks with the alternate uniform anyway.

    Speaking of the beautiful cream alts, they’re not listed at Dressed to the Nines. Odd.

  • LI Phil | June 20, 2009 at 2:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”336022″][quote comment=”336021″]I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.[/quote]
    What’s the problem?
    “Hey, let’s see how our team would look if we did this!”
    “Nice idea, but our colors don’t work for that. It’s terrible.”
    Should be a perfectly normal thing to do at the design table.[/quote]

    pretty much what mike said

    SQL approached me with his idea for a “what if”…what if teams wore colored sanis underneath their colored stirrups…there was historical precedent for this (i’ve posted the pics before, but currently the a’s are the only team to do this [if they actually do wear stirrups at all], but in the past the giants, padres, white sox, brewers and others have done this)

    i thought it might be a great idea if he wanted to create the colored sani look for a few teams, just so we could see how it might look — SQL ended up doing ALL 30 teams…

    the exercise wasn’t one to see how great (because, once you get the visuals, it’s obvious it’s not) it would look, but rather — just to conceptualize it…

    maybe it’s not something the “younger” guys ever thought of, but i grew up during the period when baseball design was taking huge risks (failing a lot, but trying) and the polyknit pullovers, white cleats, high stirrups and bold colors were everywhere…i’d often wondered how teams might have looked with the colored sanis

    now i know

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    in a similar vein, you guys know how much i hate the colored (softball) tops, and how i’ve said, if they’re going to wear them, they should wear matching (i.e. similarly hued) pants…there is also historical precedent for that

    i’ve been working on this for a time, and will post on it…lets just say, it’s probably not a look many will be calling for, but at least we’d have something to point to and say — hmmm maybe this isn’t a good idea

    better to have tried and failed than not have tried at all

  • drewdez | June 20, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  • mtjaws | June 20, 2009 at 2:25 pm |

    The Pirates one is the absolute best. It balances nicely with the simple, but effective cap.

    I like the Marlins’ look, but think the teal should be just a tad darker. Maybe it’s just the photoshop work that might not create a perfect color match.

    Anyway, cool topic about seeing what works and doesn’t work.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 3:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”336024″]Jon Miller Bobble
    http://img.photobuck...
    [/quote]
    A Barbecue Night bobblehead?

    Allow me to explain…

    At first glance, I thought that little monitor was an oven mitt on his right hand. From there, my mind made the logical leap that he was standing at a grill and the microphone was a pair of tongs in his left hand.

  • ChillicotheCraig | June 20, 2009 at 3:43 pm |

    I find the angry logo talk very interesting. Something I never really thought about, but probly should have. Found this analysis of the NHL at Puckdrawn.com

    Then checked out my local collegiate wood bat team, the Chillicothe Paints, and fellow Prospect League teams.

    The Prospect League Logo pitcher is a silouhette. So the league logo is emotionally neutral as are the logos for the Butler Blue Sox, Danville Dans (another silouhette nicely done IMHO) Quincy Gems and Dubois County Bombers.

    The angry logos would include an angry Chillicothe Paint (painted horse), Hannibal Caveman and Springfield Slider (an angry turtle.)

    Somewhat difficult to call is the Northcoast Knight. He appears imposing enough but he could be smiling under his face shield.

    Finally the Slippery Rock Slider logo is a very happy baseball and the Dupage Dragon (have to go to the actual website) has, for lack of a better term, a sort of come hither over the shoulder look!?

    Gonna go look for an angry baseball! Thanks for blowing my day UniWatchers!!

  • ChillicotheCraig | June 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm |

    Found an angry baseball logo!

    Slow day at work.

  • ChillicotheCraig | June 20, 2009 at 4:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”336032″]Found an angry baseball logo!

    Slow day at work.[/quote]

    Try again.

  • Jeremiah | June 20, 2009 at 4:21 pm |

    [quote comment=\”336022\”][quote comment=\”336021\”]I don\’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.[/quote]
    What\’s the problem?
    \”Hey, let\’s see how our team would look if we did this!\”
    \”Nice idea, but our colors don\’t work for that. It\’s terrible.\”
    Should be a perfectly normal thing to do at the design table.[/quote]

    Well said. This week I loved the Pirates and Marlins looks in particular. I would like the Giants in the orange sanis with a black (I know, I know) alternate top. That would totally work. I thought this was a very interesting topic. I enjoyed the topic. Nice job.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”336031″]I find the angry logo talk very interesting. Something I never really thought about, but probly should have. Found this analysis of the NHL at Puckdrawn.com[/quote]
    yeah, Johnny’s a regular contributor. His “If the Anaheim Ducks were around in the ’80s” logo concept was mentioned in the ticker a few days ago.

    Anyway, it’s kind of funny to me that the Pens were considered to be one of the “angry” logos because my wife and I were watching game 7 of the Finals together (really) and she decided that she was rooting for the Penguins because she thought the logo looked happy and there aren’t enough happy logos in sports.

  • mike 2 | June 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm |

    The Giants wore black over orange from 1977-1980 on the road and it looked pretty good. Mets blue over orange also looks great.

    The trend I see is that the brightly coloured sanitaries look best (orange, yellow).

    But my favourite of the bunch is the San Diego throwbacks – I just have a thing for the striped stirrups like the old-style St. Louis and Boston. San Diego would look great in those. Pittsburgh would also look great in a striped yellow-black stirrup.

    Anyway, great work and very interesting weekend reading.

  • jude | June 20, 2009 at 6:55 pm |

    Jordan Bastian, the MLB.com beat writer covering the Toronto Blue Jays, just tweeted: “The fans dressed as umps behind home plate yesterday (and for one game earlier this year), got to meet the Jays today at the team’s request.”

    I’ll follow up with a Toronto Star story if one materializes.

    – jude

  • Dan | June 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm |

    full column please…

  • Puff | June 20, 2009 at 7:51 pm |

    Looks like the Reds and White Sox have huge “Civil Rights Game” patches on the back of the collar where the MLB logo usually is. It’s stitched into the side of the cap too. The unis would look great without that patch…and with more stirrups showing.

  • James Craven | June 20, 2009 at 7:55 pm |

    Agreed, Puff Daddy. BTW, both teams weaing regular batting helmets…

  • Puff | June 20, 2009 at 8:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”336041″]It’s stitched into the side of the cap too.[/quote]

    I mean the words, not the actual patch there. My b.

  • adam bertucci | June 20, 2009 at 8:41 pm |

    Honestly im not that big a fan of stirrups. I think that they are very very overrated.

  • Dwayne | June 20, 2009 at 8:50 pm |

    As for the Reds Civil Rights uniforms, they look good except:

    1. The names on the back are 3″ two-color numbers where the 1964 were 4″ two-color numbers.

    2. They are sleeveless jerseys, and not true vests.

    3. The players are wearing their pants in pajama-style that looks like shit.

    I am glad that Manny Ramirez isn’t playing in this game.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 9:22 pm |

    Looks like the Civil Rights game has given us a new Stirrup Nation convert: DJ Carrasco. He’s usually a high socks guy, but not stirrups. I’m wondering if it’s a one-off for the throwback unis, but that height is certainly not period-appropriate.

    There was some chatter between the White Sox’ announcers about it as well. Now they’re having a little fun at the Reds’ pitcher’s expense (Daniel Ray Herrera) for his enormous-looking (and flat-brimmed) cap.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”336041″]Looks like the Reds and White Sox have huge “Civil Rights Game” patches on the back of the collar where the MLB logo usually is. It’s stitched into the side of the cap too. The unis would look great without that patch…and with more stirrups showing.[/quote]
    And why are those on the back of the White Sox jerseys? I can see why they did it with the Reds, but there’s plenty of space on the Sox’ right sleeves.

  • rpm | June 20, 2009 at 9:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”336027″][quote comment=”336022″][quote comment=”336021″]I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.[/quote]
    What’s the problem?
    “Hey, let’s see how our team would look if we did this!”
    “Nice idea, but our colors don’t work for that. It’s terrible.”
    Should be a perfectly normal thing to do at the design table.[/quote]

    pretty much what mike said

    SQL approached me with his idea for a “what if”…what if teams wore colored sanis underneath their colored stirrups…there was historical precedent for this (i’ve posted the pics before, but currently the a’s are the only team to do this [if they actually do wear stirrups at all], but in the past the giants, padres, white sox, brewers and others have done this)

    i thought it might be a great idea if he wanted to create the colored sani look for a few teams, just so we could see how it might look — SQL ended up doing ALL 30 teams…

    the exercise wasn’t one to see how great (because, once you get the visuals, it’s obvious it’s not) it would look, but rather — just to conceptualize it…

    maybe it’s not something the “younger” guys ever thought of, but i grew up during the period when baseball design was taking huge risks (failing a lot, but trying) and the polyknit pullovers, white cleats, high stirrups and bold colors were everywhere…i’d often wondered how teams might have looked with the colored sanis

    now i know

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    in a similar vein, you guys know how much i hate the colored (softball) tops, and how i’ve said, if they’re going to wear them, they should wear matching (i.e. similarly hued) pants…there is also historical precedent for that

    i’ve been working on this for a time, and will post on it…lets just say, it’s probably not a look many will be calling for, but at least we’d have something to point to and say — hmmm maybe this isn’t a good idea

    better to have tried and failed than not have tried at all[/quote]

    i have really liked these posts. i love the idear of coloured sanitary hose. but i don’t agree with the rule about the light on top, it might be right a lot of the time, but it is far from an absolute. i would agree it works best with a small stirrup opening, but still.

    another look at the hose/stirup would be to add classic stripes to today’s uni.

    “I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors.”~puh-lease. the point is to look at it and then assess if it works, nobody is trashing your team silly.

    i can already see how people will judge the all colour look…dark good, bright bad. again i will disagree with that assessment before it is even written. (if you need help with that one phil, let me know)

  • Mike Engle | June 20, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”336049″][quote comment=”336027″][quote comment=”336022″][quote comment=”336021″]I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors. Both stirrup/sani entries the last two weekends while a novel idea at first have been complete busts.[/quote]
    What’s the problem?
    “Hey, let’s see how our team would look if we did this!”
    “Nice idea, but our colors don’t work for that. It’s terrible.”
    Should be a perfectly normal thing to do at the design table.[/quote]

    pretty much what mike said

    SQL approached me with his idea for a “what if”…what if teams wore colored sanis underneath their colored stirrups…there was historical precedent for this (i’ve posted the pics before, but currently the a’s are the only team to do this [if they actually do wear stirrups at all], but in the past the giants, padres, white sox, brewers and others have done this)

    i thought it might be a great idea if he wanted to create the colored sani look for a few teams, just so we could see how it might look — SQL ended up doing ALL 30 teams…

    the exercise wasn’t one to see how great (because, once you get the visuals, it’s obvious it’s not) it would look, but rather — just to conceptualize it…

    maybe it’s not something the “younger” guys ever thought of, but i grew up during the period when baseball design was taking huge risks (failing a lot, but trying) and the polyknit pullovers, white cleats, high stirrups and bold colors were everywhere…i’d often wondered how teams might have looked with the colored sanis

    now i know

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    in a similar vein, you guys know how much i hate the colored (softball) tops, and how i’ve said, if they’re going to wear them, they should wear matching (i.e. similarly hued) pants…there is also historical precedent for that

    i’ve been working on this for a time, and will post on it…lets just say, it’s probably not a look many will be calling for, but at least we’d have something to point to and say — hmmm maybe this isn’t a good idea

    better to have tried and failed than not have tried at all[/quote]

    i have really liked these posts. i love the idear of coloured sanitary hose. but i don’t agree with the rule about the light on top, it might be right a lot of the time, but it is far from an absolute. i would agree it works best with a small stirrup opening, but still.

    another look at the hose/stirup would be to add classic stripes to today’s uni.

    “I don’t understand how you create something yourself and then slam the teams for their colors.”~puh-lease. the point is to look at it and then assess if it works, nobody is trashing your team silly.

    i can already see how people will judge the all colour look…dark good, bright bad. again i will disagree with that assessment before it is even written. (if you need help with that one phil, let me know)[/quote]
    To be fair, we only saw solid stirrups, except for the Cardinals. I think the white White Sox stirrups worked because of the stripes that matched the blue sani. Similarly, I don’t think solid white stirrups would have worked over those same blue sanis, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that none of the light solid stirrups seemed to work with darker sanis.

  • Puff | June 20, 2009 at 9:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”336048″][quote comment=”336041″]And why are those on the back of the White Sox jerseys? I can see why they did it with the Reds, but there’s plenty of space on the Sox’ right sleeves.[/quote]

    I can’t see why they’re not sleeve patches for both teams (if it has to be on there at all). And the Majestic logos on the Sox’ sleeves/Reds’ shoulder and pants are annoying. Ugh.

  • Big Jake | June 20, 2009 at 10:15 pm |
  • Teebz | June 20, 2009 at 10:21 pm |

    SQL, well done for both leagues. Very good look at bringing some colour to the diamonds. :o)

  • rpm | June 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”336053″]SQL, well done for both leagues. Very good look at bringing some colour to the diamonds. :o)[/quote]

    ditto, forgot to mention that.

    and mike’s response was also right, we might look at them different if the light colours had the dark stripes. i was considering that fact when i said some of the light over darks worked. i know it was difficult enough just putting the colour onto the sani, let alone adding the proper stripes, so i assumed it in my brain pan.

  • Michael Emody | June 20, 2009 at 10:38 pm |

    Here’s a much longer critique of tonight’s Civil Rights Game throwback uni’s than anyone needs to read, but here goes:

    White Sox:

    Overall colors: caps, numbers, letters – that’s it – it’s a rich, dark blue. I’d call it navy, but I’m not sure we’re all on the same page with that term. Not so dark that that you wonder if it’s black, but dark enough that the regular black batting helmets don’t seem mismatched. Powder blue – sure looks great! Seems a shade or two too dark – but I’m enjoying it too much to wish for a lighter shade.

    Caps: right.

    Piping: the white/blue/white striping is too wide. The originals were thin and close to the neck at the collar. The thicker stripes stand out nicely at the neck, but are more noticeably wrong on the pants.

    Front lettering: the block “Chicago” is very cool in navy without trim. The letters are taller than the originals, but from a distance, it works.

    TV numbers: outstanding.

    Names and numbers: the font looks fine. Nice to see that the standard numbers haven’t been slapped on the jersey. It’s just that… the back half of throwback jerseys seem to be subcontracted or left to the interns. It’s the back HALF. When the White Sox (and the Reds) were pioneering NOB’s, the numbers were small and the names were huge. Ok, 4 inches, which many guys want to believe is huge. Check this out. Or this. Here’s 1970 -should look the same.

    Socks: you know… THIS is the uniform they were shooting for (the powder blue is bleached in the flash). I’m pretty sure stripes can be manufactured into stirrups. I’ll know for sure when the mail arrives in a few weeks. (Sox announcers Ken Harrelson and Steve Stone had a brief exchange over Sox pitcher DJ Corrasco’s stirrups with extremely high white sanitaries. Hawk mentioned that if he were a pitcher, he’s wear his socks like that every game. It’s about hiding the release of the ball from the batter. Great comment – I never thought of that.)

    Reds:

    (I’m starting to bore myself, or get tipsy, so I’ll quickly wrap it up.)

    GREAT job on the Reds uniforms except for … you know… the half of the jersey no one sees in the mirror.
    Nice to see navy as the secondary color with the Reds, instead of black.

    I’d deduct points from the Sox for the piping, and from both teams for backs. Otherwise, very enjoyable.

  • JTH | June 20, 2009 at 11:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”336055″]Sox announcers Ken Harrelson and Steve Stone had a brief exchange over Sox pitcher DJ Corrasco’s stirrups with extremely high white sanitaries. Hawk mentioned that if he were a pitcher, he’s wear his socks like that every game. It’s about hiding the release of the ball from the batter.[/quote]
    I caught that exchange, too. He said he “wouldn’t be wearing those long pants all the way down” and that he’d wear “big, high white socks and a psychedelic-colored glove.” But if you think about it, isn’t that a case FOR wearing long pants down to your shoetops? At least with the home whites?

    And from the “credit where credit’s due department” Stone was actually the one who mentioned camouflaging the ball’s release (but it was the point that Harrelson was getting to).

  • JimV19 | June 20, 2009 at 11:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”336031″]I find the angry logo talk very interesting. Something I never really thought about, but probly should have. Found this analysis of the NHL at Puckdrawn.com

    Then checked out my local collegiate wood bat team, the Chillicothe Paints, and fellow Prospect League teams.

    The Prospect League Logo pitcher is a silouhette. So the league logo is emotionally neutral as are the logos for the Butler Blue Sox, Danville Dans (another silouhette nicely done IMHO) Quincy Gems and Dubois County Bombers.

    The angry logos would include an angry Chillicothe Paint (painted horse), Hannibal Caveman and Springfield Slider (an angry turtle.)

    Somewhat difficult to call is the Northcoast Knight. He appears imposing enough but he could be smiling under his face shield.

    Finally the Slippery Rock Slider logo is a very happy baseball and the Dupage Dragon (have to go to the actual website) has, for lack of a better term, a sort of come hither over the shoulder look!?

    Gonna go look for an angry baseball! Thanks for blowing my day UniWatchers!![/quote]

    Anytime! I like the Slippery Rock logo. I think you can be intimidating with a smile on your face…after all, how many people are afraid of clowns? Ever see Ghostbusters? That Sta-Puff Marshmallow Man just kept going with that big smiley face and it was freaky. Ever been in a fight with a guy who just kept smiling while beating on you? I haven’t either, but it would give me the creeps. A scowling tough guy just makes me think he’s overcompensating for something.

    Besides, I’m one of those “Isn’t sports supposed to be fun?” people, so I like the happy logos. Let’s see more of them.

  • david | June 21, 2009 at 12:07 am |

    I just got back from the civil rights game, and sadly the nicest jerseys belonged to Ali and Cosby in the pre game. I would almost put money on the fact that the Reds just re-used blanks from their old uni-set.

    They looked decent in person, I think if they dropped the pinstripes and made the uniform cream colored it would be an amazing third jersey.

  • Mike Miller | June 21, 2009 at 1:52 am |

    [quote comment=”336008″]Man, that is one angry pelican in Myrtle Beach. Why are logos always so angry? Even the grapes are cranky! I mean these creatures get to play ball for a living, shouldn’t they be happy about it?[/quote]

    Would you prefer a smiling Pelican with a bunch of teeth showing? (since birds don’t have teeth). A Pelican is kind of pissy looking to begin with, it’s actually a pretty legit drawing.

    http://www.photoseek...

    http://sdakotabirds....

  • Mike Miller | June 21, 2009 at 1:56 am |

    [quote comment=”336048″][quote comment=”336041″]Looks like the Reds and White Sox have huge “Civil Rights Game” patches on the back of the collar where the MLB logo usually is. It’s stitched into the side of the cap too. The unis would look great without that patch…and with more stirrups showing.[/quote]
    And why are those on the back of the White Sox jerseys? I can see why they did it with the Reds, but there’s plenty of space on the Sox’ right sleeves.[/quote]

    Yeah, the patches were huge.

    For the White Sox, the right sleeves had “TV numbers” on them. so that wouldn’t have worked.

    http://sports.espn.g...

    Left sleeves could have worked though.

    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Mike Miller | June 21, 2009 at 2:17 am |

    [quote comment=”336045″]As for the Reds Civil Rights uniforms, they look good except:

    1. The names on the back are 3″ two-color numbers where the 1964 were 4″ two-color numbers.

    2. They are sleeveless jerseys, and not true vests.

    3. The players are wearing their pants in pajama-style that looks like shit.

    I am glad that Manny Ramirez isn’t playing in this game.[/quote]

    No, they were actual vests. I was at the game too and I could see the grey of Arthur Rhodes’ undershirt peaking out of the armhole. I would have taken a picture, but my camera was out of batteries at that point.

    Here’s a picture of Bruce Dickinson that also illustrates the point.

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Missed this during the game, but Jerry Hairston Jr. had a nice pants rip.

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    Not sure how common this is, but Ryan Hanigan wears his cap under his hockey-style mask.

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    I’ll let others judge this because my navy/black detector doesn’t work well (I’m known to buy navy socks or pants when I’m looking for black and vice versa), but it sure looks like Scotty Pods is wearing his normal black socks.

    http://d.yimg.com/a/...

    I took some pictures with some other neat things I noticed (The Cos gets it, he was wearing stirrups, the scoreboard had special graphics for the evening, including period-correct logos, pictures of the “screwed up” replica jerseys they were handing out, etc.) I’ll try to get those posted in the next day or two.

  • Dwayne | June 21, 2009 at 3:11 am |

    [quote comment=”336061″]No, they were actual vests. I was at the game too and I could see the grey of Arthur Rhodes’ undershirt peaking out of the armhole. I would have taken a picture, but my camera was out of batteries at that point.
    [/quote]

    I beg to differ.

    These are vest:
    http://www.mearsonli...

    http://www.jimyackel...

    These are not:
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    Vests were cut higher away from the shoulder. Not just bigger armholes or jerseys with out sleeves.

  • Greenie | June 21, 2009 at 3:12 am |

    Has any team ever actually worn plain white stirrups on a colored sanitary?

    Looks so weird in his mockups.

    -Greenie

  • Dwayne | June 21, 2009 at 3:14 am |

    [quote comment=”336058″]I would almost put money on the fact that the Reds just re-used blanks from their old uni-set.
    [/quote]

    Did you notice that the C-Reds logo was different and not a wishone C?

    I would imagine that the reason that the CR patch was sewn on the back instead of the sleeves was for uniformity.

  • david | June 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”336064″][quote comment=”336058″]I would almost put money on the fact that the Reds just re-used blanks from their old uni-set.
    [/quote]

    Did you notice that the C-Reds logo was different and not a wishone C?

    [/quote]

    Yeah, which is why I said they looked to be blanks. Blanks would have no logos or numbers on them what-so-ever, you can buy a lot of blank uniforms on Ebay.

    And for the guy who said they were actually vests, I was at the game too and they were just sleeveless uniforms, not vests. You could see some of the grey on the undershirt on some players because of the size of jersey/undershirt a player chose to wear. If you wear a larger undershirt with a regular size top you will be able to see that grey… but I was about 10 feet away from the actual field of play, and it was painfully obvious that those were NOT vests.

    A vest would have had a more tailored cut, the sleeveless uniforms on the other hand create somewhat of a V with the widest point being at the players shoulder.

    Definately NOT vests last night.

  • Doug Lathrop | June 21, 2009 at 11:03 pm |

    Has any team ever actually worn plain white stirrups on a colored sanitary?

    Yes, the White Sox did in 1969 and 70. White over blue.

    http://www.thatsmybo...

  • CaptainKirk | June 23, 2009 at 12:04 am |

    I absolutely hate how my favorite team, the Astros, wear only red on the road unless forced to don the grays. They had to wear grays four games in a row this season and that was a first in two years+. I’m sure the Rangers forced that on purpose. Traditional grays is what I prefer on the road.