‘Now pitching, number 38 — or is it 30?’

Screen shot 2010-04-28 at 11.27.52 AM.png

Weird scene at Shea the other day, as Dodgers reliever Ramon Troncoso entered the first game of Tuesday’s twin bill with a piece of tape on his uni number — a development that did not escape the notice of the L.A. broadcast team:

Eric Collins: Not sure exactly why, but Ramon Francoso’s having a bit of a uniform issue. You can see the back of his jersey, No. 38, there’s a piece of tape bisecting the 8, the middle part of the 8.

Steve Lyons: I think that’s probably six innings of messin’ around down in the bullpen. Somebody probably just messin’ with him and stuck a piece of tape on his jersey.

Collins: From a distance it looks like he’s wearing No. 30.

A few batters later, Rafael Furcal approached the mound and removed the tape, prompting the following from Collins: “Rafael Furcal just got tired of looking at the tape on the back of Troncoso’s jersey. He takes it off. That’s a good teammate for ya.” (Thanks to Keith Owen for tipping me off to this one.)

New ESPN column today — look here.

Stirrup Club Reminder: Remember, Robert Marshall is currently taking orders for the latest round of Uni Watch Stirrup Club finery. Details here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Several Orioles fans have alerted me to the NOB permutations of Luis Montañez, who’s had several tours of duty with the team over the past few seasons. At first his NOB was tilde-free, but late last year he finally achieved tilde status. Two nights ago, however, his tilde was positioned over the wrong letter. Last night it was back where it belonged. … Can you spot the errors in this recent New Yorker cartoon? At least one person did, and he wrote this incisive letter to the editor (with thanks to Seth Horowitz). … More pitchers wearing specs on the mound: Kevin Gregg and Luis Atilano (as noted by Andy Chalifour). … Oh man, how awesome are these early-’50s MLB team emblems. Naturally, I especially like the Dodgers version, but they’re all pretty great (tremendous find by Ben Traxel). … Here’s an interesting Colt .45s jersey. Note the upside-down numeral and the explanation of same near the top of the auction listing (with thanks to Mike Hersh). … Can’t recall a home plate ump wearing such a royal blue chest protector like the one Ted Barrett has been wearing lately. … I love that Ilya Bryzgalov’s mask has artwork done by his young children. There’s a little more info about it here (with thanks to Dave Leiphart.) … Throwbacks apparently on tap for the L.A. Kings (with thanks to Chris Ashworth). … Also from Chris: FNOB alert. That’s Joe Watson (duh) of the Flyers, 1976. … Peter Amrhein recently went to a Lids outlet on Long Island and had the following experience: “While I was there, I overheard the manager saying how New Era had sent them Pittsburgh Pirates hats with the wrong color outline [it's the one on the left]. She said only 300 were made and there were only two left, so I grabbed one to add to my collection.” … I noticed yesterday that Dodgers third base coach Larry Bowa is wearing a very unusual helmet. That is not a flapless S100; I think it’s a flapless version of this Wilson helmet (which is also what A.J. Pierzynski wears). Whatever it is, it sure looks weird out there. The irony, of course, is that Bowa is the guy who went ballistic when helmets became mandatory for base coaches. … Tuesday night’s benefit dinner for the City Reliquary was a financial success, and also featured some seriously massive sirloins. Pretty damn tasty, I’m happy to report. … New cycling kits for Lance Armstrong’s Radio Shack team (with thanks to Sean Clancy). … Wanna see the new World Cup rings? Sure you do (with thanks to Damian Diaz). … What do Joe Maddon and Bill Belichick have in common? Hint: rhymes with “woodie.” … Skip Schumaker went high-cuffed last night. And those are real stirrups, not those bogus two-in-ones. According to a mention in the middle of this article, he did it “to change his look and his luck,” and it worked — he reached base four times. Also, the article refers to the Cards’ hosiery design as “ringtail socks” — I like that (with thanks to Micah Sage). … Good query from Ryan Perkins, who asks: “What are these rubber rings on this facemask? It’s from a Jackson State helmet shown in an NFL Network piece on Walter Payton. Never seen those before, and I can’t figure out how they’d have any utility.” Anyone? … New 2010-11 kit for FC Barcelona (with thanks to Joe Schmidt). … Not uni-related, but I’m highly amused by the news of MLB trying to control the Twitter-verse. Bud Selig probably doesn’t even know what Twitter is, so this is presumably the work of some mid-level functionary with control-freak issues. Which basically narrows it down to, oh, everyone who works in the MLB offices.

 

99 comments to ‘Now pitching, number 38 — or is it 30?’

  • Matthew Robins | April 29, 2010 at 7:48 am |

    Facial hair on a Yankee? Hmmmm…

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 7:50 am |

    RE: Cartoon

    Yankee road jersey in the bottom of the 9th?

  • Terry Proctor | April 29, 2010 at 8:09 am |

    The catcher appears to be left-handed.

  • Kris Fulton | April 29, 2010 at 8:11 am |

    I’ve seen those rubber wraps on hockey facemasks before – they’re used on the portion of the mask that connects to the helmet to ensure a tighter fit, so there’s no play or rattle.

  • Matthew Robins | April 29, 2010 at 8:13 am |

    [quote comment="388163"]The catcher appears to be left-handed.[/quote]
    If he is left-handed, he better get a batting helmet that protects his right ear. PS: Where is the Nike Swoosh on his collar?

  • JAson | April 29, 2010 at 8:16 am |

    One of Uni Watch’s sponsors, Homage, has a new Brooklyn shirt that goes right along with that emblem

    http://www.homageclo...

  • Nick | April 29, 2010 at 8:17 am |

    Is it just me, or is the “N” in the latest version of Luis Montañez’s jersey now backwards?

  • Rob Ullman | April 29, 2010 at 8:18 am |

    I spotted this cartoon flying back from Atlanta a couple weeks ago, and thought it was fairly hilarious. I’m as concerned about uni consistency (especially when it comes to illustration) as anyone, but boy is that letter writer a tightass.

  • War Damn Eagle | April 29, 2010 at 8:20 am |

    How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.

  • Duluth Homer | April 29, 2010 at 8:33 am |

    Looks like the cutting board under that damn tasty sirloin appears similar to an Epicurean board, which are manufactured here in lovely Duluth.

  • chiarams | April 29, 2010 at 8:34 am |

    Also wrong with the cartoon:

    VIP box seats at New Yankee Stadium full?

  • Andy | April 29, 2010 at 8:40 am |

    [quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    This has been covered. The Giants’ striped socks have the soccer-esque stripe placement, but the stirrups have them in the correct location, just like the Cardinals’ stirrups shown in the ticker today (at least it looked that way based on the spring training photo of the players’ legs).

  • Ryan | April 29, 2010 at 8:40 am |

    The chest protector Ted Barret is wearing may be a Cece Carlucci model. Cece made these by hand and to exact specifications for each wearer. They were the “cream of the crop” and very sought after. Cece has passed on, so Ted probably had this done while he was in the minors.

  • Paul Lukas | April 29, 2010 at 8:41 am |

    [quote comment="388167"]Is it just me, or is the “N” in the latest version of Luis Montañez’s jersey now backwards?[/quote]

    Hmmm, it does look that way:
    http://farm4.static....

    It also appears backwards in this shot from the 1st inning:
    http://farm4.static....

    But here’s another screen shot from last night, 4th inning, in which the N appears to be correct:
    http://farm4.static....

    Could he have changed jerseys in the middle of the game?

  • frankenslade | April 29, 2010 at 8:46 am |

    Good thing the hot-headed Bowa has found a helmet that provides so much ventillation.

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 8:53 am |

    if one really wanted to nick pits about the yankee cartoon, one could argue the thin double loops in the belt channel are spaced too far apart and the on deck batter is missing the left sleeve patch

    anything else?

  • floormaster squeeze | April 29, 2010 at 9:14 am |

    I do not think Radio Shack has new jersey’s. Lance (and Levi and Jason MacCartney) gets to compete in the Tour de Gila as a member of “Mellow Johnny’s” team (which is his bike store, because with Lance it is all about Lance). Radio Shack luckily gets to sponsor “Lance’s team”. While this may be confusing, Lance’s “Trek Livestrong” team is also competing in this race which does not feature Lance but it does get to promote Lance and his charidee.

    This is not a sanctioned UCI race so UCI riders like Lance do not have to compete on their UCI sanctioned team (“Radio Shack”). Historically, this was considered illegal and riders competing in unsanctioned events were punished and fined. I am not sure if it is still against the rules or not but once Lance decided (after all, rules are beneath Lance) he wanted to promote other commercial interests in these unsanctioned races the rules started being ignored.

  • frankenslade | April 29, 2010 at 9:15 am |

    It’s hard to see exactly where it may be placed, but judging where his right hand blocks his jersey I would think the second button from the top should be visible. You know how the first two buttons are closer together than the rest?

  • Ry Co 40 | April 29, 2010 at 9:22 am |

    [quote comment="388176"]if one really wanted to nick pits about the yankee cartoon, one could argue the thin double loops in the belt channel are spaced too far apart and the on deck batter is missing the left sleeve patch

    anything else?[/quote]

    yeah! how you gonna squeeze all those circles into the stands with no sections or aisles! and whats up with BFBS yanks?!?!

  • Matt | April 29, 2010 at 9:39 am |

    I’m sure those Wilson flapless helmets, while “funny-looking,” are a damned sight cooler for the wearer than the “normal-looking” version everyone else wears.

    It’s almost looks like they’ve rummaged through the team’s old equipment room and found George Scott or Dick Allen’s old flapless helmets and are using those!!

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 9:39 am |

    [quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • StLMarty | April 29, 2010 at 9:45 am |

    [quote comment="388176"]if one really wanted to nick pits about the yankee cartoon, one could argue the thin double loops in the belt channel are spaced too far apart and the on deck batter is missing the left sleeve patch

    anything else?[/quote]
    The people in the crowd don’t have faces.

    Yesterday, a coworker complained to me about not being able to watch a baseball game without noticing their pants. He blames me.

    Last night, another coworker texted me, telling me that Schumaker was wearing stirrups.

    Run your mouth enough about something that is interesting, and they will listen.

  • Matthew | April 29, 2010 at 9:49 am |

    [quote comment="388177"]I do not think Radio Shack has new jersey’s. Lance (and Levi and Jason MacCartney) gets to compete in the Tour de Gila as a member of “Mellow Johnny’s” team (which is his bike store, because with Lance it is all about Lance). Radio Shack luckily gets to sponsor “Lance’s team”.

    While this may be confusing, Lance’s “Trek Livestrong” team is also competing in this race which does not feature Lance but it does get to promote Lance and his charidee.

    This is not a sanctioned UCI race so UCI riders like Lance do not have to compete on their UCI sanctioned team (“Radio Shack”). Historically, this was considered illegal and riders competing in unsanctioned events were punished and fined. I am not sure if it is still against the rules or not but once Lance decided (after all, rules are beneath Lance) he wanted to promote other commercial interests in these unsanctioned races the rules started being ignored.[/quote]

    An explanation can be found in the first 2 paragraphs of this article:

    http://velonews.comp...

  • War Damn Eagle | April 29, 2010 at 9:50 am |

    [quote comment="388181"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

  • David Wagner | April 29, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    aside from unveiling the new US home jersey for the World Cup today (http://ussoccerstore...), they also displayed the original 1950 WC warmup jacket (http://twitpic.com/1...). Which inspired their current warmup jacket (http://twitpic.com/1...). Worn here by manager Bob Bradley (left) and US Soccer legend and father of NFL kickers Walter Bahr.

  • RS Rogers | April 29, 2010 at 10:16 am |

    On those vintage emblems, whatever the Giants’ ogre is doing with his hands, it doesn’t look wholesome. And the Yankees represented by a cap that says, “Yankees,” that’s either the most disappointing sports graphic ever, or the most perfect summation of the spirit of the Yankees ever. I can’t decide.

  • KimK | April 29, 2010 at 10:20 am |

    Don’t have a picture handy, but the complimenting the FNOB Joe Watson should be a FNOB Jim Watson, his brother and teammate.

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 10:26 am |

    [/quote]Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    The scoreboard indicates CHI v CIN, yet the guy sliding into the base has the letters ST showing…(plus I’ve never seen that shot from 8 men out)

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 10:30 am |

    [quote comment="388184"][quote comment="388181"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    Not now, because after decades of endless farting around, the White Sox have settled on a look…

    But 25 or so years ago, when there were still all over place sartorially, had it been up to me I’d have dressed them in a contemporary version of that, much like they wore in that seminal TBTC game.

    Let’s see, White Sox…

    Going by their unis since I started paying attention in about ’54, their colors have been…
    Black & Red
    Black & White
    Navy & White
    Royal & White
    Navy & White
    Red & White
    Navy & White
    Navy, Red & White (two sets with that color scheme)
    Black & Silver (current set)

    So, yeah, good to seem ‘em stabilized for a couple decades. Finally.

    —Ricko

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 10:36 am |

    [quote comment="388188"][/quote]Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    The scoreboard indicates CHI v CIN, yet the guy sliding into the base has the letters ST showing…(plus I’ve never seen that shot from 8 men out)[/quote]

    It looks like St. Louis possibly? I hate when movies make mistakes like that…details…details…details

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 10:38 am |

    (one more, then I am done…the scoreboard is Game 3 of the world series, at least THAT’s correct)

  • Jeremy | April 29, 2010 at 10:41 am |

    nice new striped socks for German soccer club Schalke 04 http://www.footballs...

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    [quote comment="388188"][/quote]Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    The scoreboard indicates CHI v CIN, yet the guy sliding into the base has the letters ST showing…(plus I’ve never seen that shot from 8 men out)[/quote]

    Simple. It’s a production still, a PR photo. Probably shot during a run-through and from nowhere near the position of the shot for the film.

    Set likely was dressed for W-S, but there’s no reason you can’t shoot film footage vs. the Browns (or any other White Sox home game) on that set. Just keep the scoreboard out of the shot. Makes sense financially, why screw around with changing the scoreboard? Time is money.

    The still photographer and the PR person probably never even thought about the scoreboard.

    —Ricko

  • Bob Loblaw | April 29, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    [quote comment="388162"]RE: Cartoon

    Yankee road jersey in the bottom of the 9th?[/quote]
    Exactly… what do we expect from the ‘eggheads’ at the New Yorker????????

  • Mark in Shiga | April 29, 2010 at 10:44 am |

    I remember having an old Fleer baseball card of Steve Carlton in which he had only sanitaries.

    They cut his picture out to put it on a blue background, so maybe the stirrups just got snipped or airbrushed out somehow, but I remember it looking really weird.

  • Mark in Shiga | April 29, 2010 at 10:46 am |

    I love the internet and its capacity to preserve all kinds of old ephemera. Here’s the Steve Carlton card I was talking about in post #34.

    It looks like he really does have only sanitaries on. I wonder why that was.

  • interlockingtc | April 29, 2010 at 10:49 am |

    I not particularly fond of the airbrushed goalie masks, but I’ll make an exception for Ilya Bryzgalov. That is beautiful.

    (Slightly sports related photo on my blog today, if you click on my name).

  • Bob Loblaw | April 29, 2010 at 10:53 am |

    Wow…. what an incredibly HUMAN thing for Bill Belichek to do!!!!! I have no doubt that someone in Belichek’s inner circle came up and executed that gesture… personally, I can’t see the automatron pulling that off.

    either way, Belichek better thread lightly–his slip (humanity) is showing.

  • Kevin Z. | April 29, 2010 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment="388176"]if one really wanted to nick pits about the yankee cartoon, one could argue the thin double loops in the belt channel are spaced too far apart and the on deck batter is missing the left sleeve patch

    anything else?[/quote]

    Yankees sit in the third base dugout at home, so the on deck batter should not be visible.

  • mmwatkin | April 29, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment="388176"]if one really wanted to nick pits about the yankee cartoon, one could argue the thin double loops in the belt channel are spaced too far apart and the on deck batter is missing the left sleeve patch

    anything else?[/quote]

    As nit picky the Yankees are about their uniforms, I wonder why they don’t use the Detroit Tigers style belt loops instead of the standard style. It would look a lot better, IMO

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 11:04 am |

    [quote comment="388196"]I love the internet and its capacity to preserve all kinds of old ephemera. Here’s the Steve Carlton card I was talking about in post #34.

    It looks like he really does have only sanitaries on. I wonder why that was.[/quote]

    Good bet? Spring training. Maybe shot when he was just getting his throwing in on a mound off to the side somewhere. Maybe an early intra-squad game. Even during those damn 7 a.m. “pitcher covers first” drills. Odds pretty good it’s something like that. Can easily imagine a guy wandering out there and thinking, “Shit, forgot to put on my stirrups.” And, it being Lefty, no one made a big deal out of it.

    I mean, if he’d traditionally warmed up sans stirrups before his starts you’d think we’d have heard about it.

    —Ricko

  • MPowers1634 | April 29, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    Bowa’s helmet is available online:

    http://www.ump-attir...

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 11:41 am |

    [quote comment="388189"][quote comment="388184"][quote comment="388181"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    Not now, because after decades of endless farting around, the White Sox have settled on a look…

    But 25 or so years ago, when there were still all over place sartorially, had it been up to me I’d have dressed them in a contemporary version of that, much like they wore in that seminal TBTC game.

    Let’s see, White Sox…

    Going by their unis since I started paying attention in about ’54, their colors have been…
    Black & Red
    Black & White
    Navy & White
    Royal & White
    Navy & White
    Red & White
    Navy & White
    Navy, Red & White (two sets with that color scheme)
    Black & Silver (current set)

    So, yeah, good to seem ‘em stabilized for a couple decades. Finally.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The current set has some ties to the old sets, as the “Sox” is the same as the “Sox” on the red set of the early 1970s, and black is not that far removed from the navy set of the late 1970s. Plus, with navy, black, and red, they haven’t strayed too far on the color spectrum, unlike some teams that have been all over the board in terms of colors (Padres, Astros, Diamondbacks, Rays, to name a few).

  • scott | April 29, 2010 at 11:51 am |

    [quote comment="388190"]It looks like St. Louis possibly? I hate when movies make mistakes like that…details…details…details[/quote]

    And yet director John Sayles is known for being meticulous with his craft.

  • Piping Mike | April 29, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment="388165"][quote comment="388163"]The catcher appears to be left-handed.[/quote]
    If he is left-handed, he better get a batting helmet that protects his right ear. PS: Where is the Nike Swoosh on his collar?[/quote]

    Boy, both you got it wrong. First, how does he appear left handed? The webbing is closest to the 1st base dugout point of view of the cartoon, therefore a glove on the left hand and thus a righthanded catcher.

    As for the follow up comment “if he is left handed…,” how do you draw that conclusion Mr. Robins? Proctor was referring to the catcher, not the batter as you are.

    Sorry to be so direct, but the comments are usually pretty good on this site with regard to deatil, but this one was 0 for 2.

  • Paul Lukas | April 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm |

    Today’s ESPN column is up:
    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment="388205"][quote comment="388190"]It looks like St. Louis possibly? I hate when movies make mistakes like that…details…details…details[/quote]

    And yet director John Sayles is known for being meticulous with his craft.[/quote]

    We have not uncovered an error in EIGHT MEN OUT. What we HAVE discovered is neither the PR Department nor the photographer noticing that the scoreboard and visitors’ uni didn’t match in the publicity still they’d set up.

    Certainly we here all know how movies are shot. In bits and pieces, that is.

    Much of the field could be tricked out for the W-S at all times, and they’d still be able to shoot tons of footage of moments in other White Sox home games. Just keep the W-S specific stuff out of the shots.

    They wouldn’t have had only unis/players from one visiting team on the lot on any given day, wouldn’t shoot it a game at a time Story line isn’t relevant, just the day’s shooting schedule, the shots they want to get from the camera setups they’ll do that day.

    If no one remembers that shot from the film, there’s good reason. It is, as said above, a pr/production still…with an oops.

    —Ricko

  • Andy | April 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    Also on the cartoon, the Yankees dugout is on the first base side, so the batting circle would be over there as well.

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote comment="388204"][quote comment="388189"][quote comment="388184"][quote comment="388181"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    Not now, because after decades of endless farting around, the White Sox have settled on a look…

    But 25 or so years ago, when there were still all over place sartorially, had it been up to me I’d have dressed them in a contemporary version of that, much like they wore in that seminal TBTC game.

    Let’s see, White Sox…

    Going by their unis since I started paying attention in about ’54, their colors have been…
    Black & Red
    Black & White
    Navy & White
    Royal & White
    Navy & White
    Red & White
    Navy & White
    Navy, Red & White (two sets with that color scheme)
    Black & Silver (current set)

    So, yeah, good to seem ‘em stabilized for a couple decades. Finally.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The current set has some ties to the old sets, as the “Sox” is the same as the “Sox” on the red set of the early 1970s, and black is not that far removed from the navy set of the late 1970s. Plus, with navy, black, and red, they haven’t strayed too far on the color spectrum, unlike some teams that have been all over the board in terms of colors (Padres, Astros, Diamondbacks, Rays, to name a few).[/quote]

    Didn’t say they were the only ones.
    Or even the worst.
    Just that they were one team that had a noticeable history of messing with things quite often for a few decades there (they changed a lot prior to the mid-’50s, too).

    The Indians, for another, changed uni looks often in roughly the same era, but never strayed from the basic navy, red and white scheme after it was established in the ’40s.

    —Ricko

  • JimWa | April 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

    All the heads in the stands are the same size … everyone knows the fans in the front row have the biggest heads of anyone who pays admission.

    For the person that suggested the lack of a swoosh was an error, there may be some around here who suggest that’s one thing they got RIGHT! ;)

    As for the “NEW YORK” on the jersey … that could be commentary that in some future day, the artist would like to see the Yankees work a deal with MLB to hold all their games at Yankee Stadium, and that they will have last at bat in every game, but make the concession to wear gray jerseys for all games that would otherwise have been played in another city. ‘Cause THAT’S a New York state of mind.

  • mike 2 | April 29, 2010 at 1:14 pm |

    In the cartoon, the on-deck batter is warming up with two bats. I haven’t seen a batter use two bats in years – nowadays its always either a donut or a weighted bar.

  • Ry Co 40 | April 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm |

    an UWer’s in vegas? if so… hit me up, i’ll be there tonight till tuesday

    ryco40 gmail

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment="388213"]an UWer’s in vegas? if so… hit me up, i’ll be there tonight till tuesday

    ryco40 gmail[/quote]

    So if you check the length on Keno girls’ skirts or shorts you can say it’s for UW?

    Sounds like a plan.

    —Ricko

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment="388210"][quote comment="388204"][quote comment="388189"][quote comment="388184"][quote comment="388181"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    Or Giants could change name to, oh, say, San Francisco Hotspur, maybe?

    I kid. Zito can wear his socks any way he wants.
    I just hope it doesn’t catch on with others.
    All those soccer socks in baseball would be just…weird.
    Don’t think I’d like seeing the top of Brendan Ryan’s stripes covered by his pantlegs and then a foot of solid red between them and the shoetops. At that point, why bother with the stripes?

    This is sort of the flip-flip of the “pulled up stirrups” debate of almost 40 (yes, 40) years ago. Many said, “If you’re gonna pull ‘em up so high that nothing but sanitary shows, why bother with the stirrups?”

    Calvin Griffith got so pissed about it he took the Twins stirrups away for a couple games in spring training and they wore only sanis.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Without stirrups, Rod Carew looks similar to these guys:

    http://www.dgorton.c...

    Not now, because after decades of endless farting around, the White Sox have settled on a look…

    But 25 or so years ago, when there were still all over place sartorially, had it been up to me I’d have dressed them in a contemporary version of that, much like they wore in that seminal TBTC game.

    Let’s see, White Sox…

    Going by their unis since I started paying attention in about ’54, their colors have been…
    Black & Red
    Black & White
    Navy & White
    Royal & White
    Navy & White
    Red & White
    Navy & White
    Navy, Red & White (two sets with that color scheme)
    Black & Silver (current set)

    So, yeah, good to seem ‘em stabilized for a couple decades. Finally.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The current set has some ties to the old sets, as the “Sox” is the same as the “Sox” on the red set of the early 1970s, and black is not that far removed from the navy set of the late 1970s. Plus, with navy, black, and red, they haven’t strayed too far on the color spectrum, unlike some teams that have been all over the board in terms of colors (Padres, Astros, Diamondbacks, Rays, to name a few).[/quote]

    Didn’t say they were the only ones.
    Or even the worst.
    Just that they were one team that had a noticeable history of messing with things quite often for a few decades there (they changed a lot prior to the mid-’50s, too).

    The Indians, for another, changed uni looks often in roughly the same era, but never strayed from the basic navy, red and white scheme after it was established in the ’40s.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The current Sox set is more black and white than black and silver. Silver is a throw-away trim color, much like black in the football Cardinals’ uniform was (until last week, that is). And it’s similar to the red set they had in the 1970s, only with black instead of red. At least the Sox seem to have built on some of their history with each successive uniform.

  • JTH | April 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment="388215"]The current Sox set is more black and white than black and silver. Silver is a throw-away trim color, much like black in the football Cardinals’ uniform was (until last week, that is). And it’s similar to the red set they had in the 1970s, only with black instead of red. At least the Sox seem to have built on some of their history with each successive uniform.[/quote]
    Their current marketing slogan backs this up.

  • Matthew Robins | April 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm |

    [quote comment="388206"][quote comment="388165"][quote comment="388163"]The catcher appears to be left-handed.[/quote]
    If he is left-handed, he better get a batting helmet that protects his right ear. PS: Where is the Nike Swoosh on his collar?[/quote]

    Boy, both you got it wrong. First, how does he appear left handed? The webbing is closest to the 1st base dugout point of view of the cartoon, therefore a glove on the left hand and thus a righthanded catcher.

    As for the follow up comment “if he is left handed…,” how do you draw that conclusion Mr. Robins? Proctor was referring to the catcher, not the batter as you are.

    Sorry to be so direct, but the comments are usually pretty good on this site with regard to deatil, but this one was 0 for 2.[/quote]

    Sorry! Suspend me for the rest of the day I guess.

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

    [quote comment="388216"][quote comment="388215"]The current Sox set is more black and white than black and silver. Silver is a throw-away trim color, much like black in the football Cardinals’ uniform was (until last week, that is). And it’s similar to the red set they had in the 1970s, only with black instead of red. At least the Sox seem to have built on some of their history with each successive uniform.[/quote]
    Their current marketing slogan backs this up.[/quote]

    Yeah, now watch them come out with a silver alternate jersey, LOL.

  • Ry Co 40 | April 29, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment="388214"][quote comment="388213"]an UWer’s in vegas? if so… hit me up, i’ll be there tonight till tuesday

    ryco40 gmail[/quote]

    So if you check the length on Keno girls’ skirts or shorts you can say it’s for UW?

    Sounds like a plan.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    ha! not sure, i usually get slapped before i can blurt out any words or statements!

    “At some point on Saturday night, Shane Mosley and Floyd Mayweather Jr. will lace up the gloves for their welterweight mega-bout”

    …and i’ll be there (my fist live fight)!!!

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    I threw in the silver cuz the White Sox sort of added it to the palette.

    And I’m not indicting them or criticizing them.
    Just noting that they were, along with the Indians, a team you could count on during those years to re-invent themselves, uniwise, more than others did.

    And it was fun. Nice that SOMEBODY did.

    Reds were pretty good at mixing it up some, too. From ’55 up to doubleknit era.

    Braves scrambled around a bit (in ’70s and ’80s), going from navy to royal and back again, and wearing several different designs in the meantime.

    As I said, God bless ‘em. If every MLB game looked the Yankees at Detroit, there probably wouldn’t be enough discussion for this site to exist.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | April 29, 2010 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment="388218"][quote comment="388216"][quote comment="388215"]The current Sox set is more black and white than black and silver. Silver is a throw-away trim color, much like black in the football Cardinals’ uniform was (until last week, that is). And it’s similar to the red set they had in the 1970s, only with black instead of red. At least the Sox seem to have built on some of their history with each successive uniform.[/quote]
    Their current marketing slogan backs this up.[/quote]

    Yeah, now watch them come out with a silver alternate jersey, LOL.[/quote]
    Well, they do have the rarely-seen gray alternate. That’s pretty close to silver.

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

    Before someone goes ballistic and says I don’t like the look of Yankees at Tigers…

    I didn’t say that.
    I said “if every MLB game looked like” that.

    Point: We wouldn’t know the difference.

    Anyone ever walked into your work space and said, “Damn, I forgot to check, was the UPS guy wearing brown today?”

    —Ricko

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 2:14 pm |

    [quote comment="388222"]Before someone goes ballistic and says I don’t like the look of Yankees at Tigers…

    I didn’t say that.
    I said “if every MLB game looked like” that.

    Point: We wouldn’t know the difference.

    Anyone ever walked into your work space and said, “Damn, I forgot to check, was the UPS guy wearing brown today?”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Our UPS guy wears navy & orange…

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment="388222"]Before someone goes ballistic and says I don’t like the look of Yankees at Tigers…

    I didn’t say that.
    I said “if every MLB game looked like” that.

    Point: We wouldn’t know the difference.

    Anyone ever walked into your work space and said, “Damn, I forgot to check, was the UPS guy wearing brown today?”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    You’re exactly right. Which is why I like alternate, colored jerseys, if used with discretion.

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    I don’t think we would like it if every football game was between one team in white and the other in black. But that’s what you get when every baseball team wears white or grey.

  • JimWa | April 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm |

    [quote comment="388223"][quote comment="388222"]Before someone goes ballistic and says I don’t like the look of Yankees at Tigers…

    I didn’t say that.
    I said “if every MLB game looked like” that.

    Point: We wouldn’t know the difference.

    Anyone ever walked into your work space and said, “Damn, I forgot to check, was the UPS guy wearing brown today?”

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Our UPS guy wears navy & orange…[/quote]

    Does your UPS guy have an arrow in his logo?

  • pk | April 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    (that was the joke, I forgot the [sarcasm] tags)

  • Frank from B-more | April 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment="388221"][quote comment="388218"][quote comment="388216"][quote comment="388215"]The current Sox set is more black and white than black and silver. Silver is a throw-away trim color, much like black in the football Cardinals’ uniform was (until last week, that is). And it’s similar to the red set they had in the 1970s, only with black instead of red. At least the Sox seem to have built on some of their history with each successive uniform.[/quote]
    Their current marketing slogan backs this up.[/quote]

    Yeah, now watch them come out with a silver alternate jersey, LOL.[/quote]
    Well, they do have the rarely-seen gray alternate. That’s pretty close to silver.[/quote]

    I honestly clicked on the link expecting to see a new jersey. Funny how the ChiSox wear their black alternate more then the actual roady. You got me.

  • Mike Engle | April 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment="388225"]I don’t think we would like it if every football game was between one team in white and the other in black. But that’s what you get when every baseball team wears white or grey.[/quote]
    Time to put on my Ricko hat.
    No. Different paradigms. In baseball, white home bases and gray road bases don’t factor into the look. The hat, the sleeves, the lettering, the socks (whether striped or solid), and sometimes the shoes do.

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment="388225"]I don’t think we would like it if every football game was between one team in white and the other in black. But that’s what you get when every baseball team wears white or grey.[/quote]

    that’s why caps, piping, logos and stirrups are so important to baseball…and why it’s unique among the sporting world

    as ricko pointed out in the past, go look at the dressed to the nines from any decade in the 50s…you’ll see every team in white/gray, many of which have similar colors — but because of the caps, logos/script, striping and stirrups…every team had a unique look…you knew your team from sight

    now…there are EIGHT TEAMS who have a solid red alt…

    EIGHT

    and legitimately 5 more teams could wear one

    that’s what happens when teams get away from what made them great and unique, and need the “alt” look (well that, and to sell shit)

  • Nick | April 29, 2010 at 2:41 pm |

    Ohio State basketball might be one of the next programs to get Nike’s hyperelite unis

    From the Columbus Dispatch blog
    http://blog.dispatch...

    “– For those who asked during the season when Ohio State was getting new uniforms, the answer is: next season.

    Assistant coach Jeff Boals tweeted tonight that a Nike representative was in the basketball office today to show the staff pictures of the new threads. “Very interesting the thought put into the back of them,” Boals wrote.

    As Nike did with other teams’ uniforms last season — such as Kentucky’s — there will be a faint design, personalized for Ohio State, on the back of each jersey.”

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 2:44 pm |

    [quote comment="388230"][quote comment="388225"]I don’t think we would like it if every football game was between one team in white and the other in black. But that’s what you get when every baseball team wears white or grey.[/quote]

    that’s why caps, piping, logos and stirrups are so important to baseball…and why it’s unique among the sporting world

    as ricko pointed out in the past, go look at the dressed to the nines from any decade in the 50s…you’ll see every team in white/gray, many of which have similar colors — but because of the caps, logos/script, striping and stirrups…every team had a unique look…you knew your team from sight

    now…there are EIGHT TEAMS who have a solid red alt…

    EIGHT

    and legitimately 5 more teams could wear one

    that’s what happens when teams get away from what made them great and unique, and need the “alt” look (well that, and to sell shit)[/quote]

    That just means teams need to wear different colors. The “alt” look has gotten out of hand only to the extent that teams feel the need to have two different jerseys of the same color (Mets, Phils, Indians, all at home, as examples).

    And football has helmets, sleeves, and socks to differentiate teams too, so that argument doesn’t fly. If you prefer baseball teams to have only whites and greys for tradition’s sake, that’s perfectly fine, but from an asthetic point I am glad baseball broke the color barrier in the 1970s. Of course, I confess that my favorite unis growing up were the A’s and Orioles (maybe even Pirates, though I shudder to admit that now), so maybe I’m showing my true colors here.

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm |

    [quote comment="388232"]If you prefer baseball teams to have only whites and greys for tradition’s sake, that’s perfectly fine, but from an asthetic point I am glad baseball broke the color barrier in the 1970s. Of course, I confess that my favorite unis growing up were the A’s and Orioles (maybe even Pirates, though I shudder to admit that now), so maybe I’m showing my true colors here.[/quote]

    while i prefer traditional whites and grays, my problem is NOT and has NEVER BEEN with color in uniforms… but in baseball, the SOFTBALL top is what annoys me…

    the teams you speak of (and i’d wager we’re very close to the same age), i grew up with them too — but the difference was those uniforms were just that UNIFORM…except for the mix and match bumblebees, (and the a’s — but as we discussed, shoe wise yesterday…they fall into their own category)…

    all i want to see, with very few derivations, is for tops and bottoms to match…if a team MUST wear a softball top, teh bottoms should be designed ONLY for that top, and they should match in color…

    i’d allow for SOME derivations, such as the giants, who went with orange sanis — and not on a regular basis, but once in a vida blue moon odom…

    but these teams who have a gorgeous home pinstriped uni…then pair those same pants with some garish solid vest that matches NOTHING…

    looks like a beer league team

    and if you could somehow restrict teams to wearing a solid alt maybe once a week…or less…i might back off my stance…but these teams, who are increasingly wearing the solids more and more…and every team (except the few we’ve discussed — cards, yanks, tigers…and a couple teams who have two home unis)…has one

  • Andrew T. | April 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm |

    Rob Johnson of the Mariners has also started wearing the Wilson Sleek Pro helmet that Bowa and Pierzynski have. He wore a regular helmet the first few weeks of the season, but he was definitely wearing it yesterday in Kansas City. I can’t find a photo online yet, but I’ll keep looking since I need one for my Mariners uniform site.

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 3:39 pm |

    [quote comment="388233"][quote comment="388232"]If you prefer baseball teams to have only whites and greys for tradition’s sake, that’s perfectly fine, but from an asthetic point I am glad baseball broke the color barrier in the 1970s. Of course, I confess that my favorite unis growing up were the A’s and Orioles (maybe even Pirates, though I shudder to admit that now), so maybe I’m showing my true colors here.[/quote]

    while i prefer traditional whites and grays, my problem is NOT and has NEVER BEEN with color in uniforms… but in baseball, the SOFTBALL top is what annoys me…

    the teams you speak of (and i’d wager we’re very close to the same age), i grew up with them too — but the difference was those uniforms were just that UNIFORM…except for the mix and match bumblebees, (and the a’s — but as we discussed, shoe wise yesterday…they fall into their own category)…

    all i want to see, with very few derivations, is for tops and bottoms to match…if a team MUST wear a softball top, teh bottoms should be designed ONLY for that top, and they should match in color…

    i’d allow for SOME derivations, such as the giants, who went with orange sanis — and not on a regular basis, but once in a vida blue moon odom…

    but these teams who have a gorgeous home pinstriped uni…then pair those same pants with some garish solid vest that matches NOTHING…

    looks like a beer league team

    and if you could somehow restrict teams to wearing a solid alt maybe once a week…or less…i might back off my stance…but these teams, who are increasingly wearing the solids more and more…and every team (except the few we’ve discussed — cards, yanks, tigers…and a couple teams who have two home unis)…has one[/quote]

    This is where we part ways. Seems like you would prefer this.

    http://media.photobu...

    Whereas, I woud prefer Vida’s look above (white pants with orange jersey) once or twice a week.

    And I don’t think dark jerseys look bad with white pinstriped pants. But to each his own.

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 3:48 pm |

    [quote comment="388235"]
    This is where we part ways. Seems like you would prefer this.

    http://media.photobu...

    Whereas, I woud prefer Vida’s look above (white pants with orange jersey) once or twice a week.

    And I don’t think dark jerseys look bad with white pinstriped pants. But to each his own.[/quote]

    orange is almost impossible to pull off as a full uni (IN ANY SPORT, but especially not baseball)…i could accept the vida look, or if the orioles wore that top with white pants, but the stirrups would need to have orange sanis…now that could look sharp…or if they looked like the new giants RUPS (that the minor leaguers are wearing, not zito’s soccer socks)…with orange sanis…i bet that would look sharp

    but still…why do we even need the alt tops?

    just because current unis suck and are worn as pajamas?…let em get better unis that can make use of proper stirrups and such…

  • Geeman | April 29, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment="388236"][quote comment="388235"]
    This is where we part ways. Seems like you would prefer this.

    http://media.photobu...

    Whereas, I woud prefer Vida’s look above (white pants with orange jersey) once or twice a week.

    And I don’t think dark jerseys look bad with white pinstriped pants. But to each his own.[/quote]

    orange is almost impossible to pull off as a full uni (IN ANY SPORT, but especially not baseball)…i could accept the vida look, or if the orioles wore that top with white pants, but the stirrups would need to have orange sanis…now that could look sharp…or if they looked like the new giants RUPS (that the minor leaguers are wearing, not zito’s soccer socks)…with orange sanis…i bet that would look sharp

    but still…why do we even need the alt tops?

    just because current unis suck and are worn as pajamas?…let em get better unis that can make use of proper stirrups and such…[/quote]

    You’re right about the current state of wear of the unis. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the need for colored alternate tops.

    You’ll hate this, but if I were redesigning the Mets’ unis, I would have the white pinstripe home uniform, the grey road uniform, and a blue alternate jersey for use both home and away. They already did the road thing in the 1980s. The home thing would look something like this:

    http://3.bp.blogspot...

  • Aaron | April 29, 2010 at 4:32 pm |

    On the ESPN story, there’s a link to a Purdue baseball jersey in red and blue. Is that not a Purdue University jersey, or were the colors not always old gold and black as I’ve been led to believe?

  • Dwayne | April 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm |

    The more I see of the current rage of white bell-bottomed baseball pants and white shoes, the more it reminds me of John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever. At least Travolta wore black shoes.

    I am surprised that Reebok, Mizuno, adidas, Nike et al, isn’t screaming because their corporate brand is being covered up by the pajama pants.

  • BurghFan | April 29, 2010 at 6:39 pm |

    In the mid ’60s, Willie Stargell was photographed with white sleeves for his baseball cards.

  • Ricko | April 29, 2010 at 7:21 pm |

    This is “interesting”, I guess.
    Not commenting, just offering the link…
    http://msn.foxsports...

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 7:27 pm |

    [quote comment="388242"]This is “interesting”, I guess.
    Not commenting, just offering the link…
    http://msn.foxsports...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    so…the indians are the most despised team in baseball?

    yeah…that makes sense…who was the focus group, the PC police?

    intersting quote from the article, which is sad, but id say fairly accurate: “‘Even Yankee fans don’t hate the Mets these days,’ says Benjamin Kabak, a writer for the River Avenue Blues Yankees blog. ‘We just feel bad for them.'”

    mr. kabak can suck it of course…and he can (at least for one more day) take a look at the standings and bite me

  • M. Sullivan | April 29, 2010 at 7:30 pm |

    What exactly is this Uni Watch Stirrup Club, and how does one go about becoming a member?

  • rpm | April 29, 2010 at 7:39 pm |

    [quote comment="388172"][quote comment="388169"]How come the Cardinals’ “ringtail” striped socks can have the stripes in the middle of the sock, while the Giants’ new striped hose have the stripes on the top? We’ve got to get those Giants stripes lowered, for Ricko’s sake.[/quote]

    This has been covered. The Giants’ striped socks have the soccer-esque stripe placement, but the stirrups have them in the correct location, just like the Cardinals’ stirrups shown in the ticker today (at least it looked that way based on the spring training photo of the players’ legs).[/quote]

    two different manufacturers. tck makes the stirrups, some company in san fran makes the socks.

  • rpm | April 29, 2010 at 7:51 pm |

    [quote comment="388244"]What exactly is this Uni Watch Stirrup Club, and how does one go about becoming a member?[/quote]

    it isn’t really a club with membership. just go to the site, and see if there is anything you want. new stirrups are things that have not been ordered yet, so in exchange for waiting the month, you get them at cost, a la cartes are the extra ones i order, but they are more. some of the sold outs will be re~ordered tomorrow. don’t ask which ones people, i have not decided, but whatever budget allows. rpmarshallart@gmail if you have any questions

  • M. Sullivan | April 29, 2010 at 8:17 pm |

    [quote comment="388246"][quote comment="388244"]What exactly is this Uni Watch Stirrup Club, and how does one go about becoming a member?[/quote]

    it isn’t really a club with membership. just go to the site, and see if there is anything you want. new stirrups are things that have not been ordered yet, so in exchange for waiting the month, you get them at cost, a la cartes are the extra ones i order, but they are more. some of the sold outs will be re~ordered tomorrow. don’t ask which ones people, i have not decided, but whatever budget allows. rpmarshallart@gmail if you have any questions[/quote]

    Ok I get it. Thanks alot. I’ll definitely check it out.

  • besty | April 29, 2010 at 8:37 pm |

    Funny thing about the Rod Carew picture: I played in the Twins minor league system for a few years and in spring training or instructional league if you were injured you weren’t allowed to wear stirrups on the field. It was so the coaches would know you were limited in what you could do. It was a big incentive for me to stay healthy, especially since we had the stirrups with the “M” on the side. Don’t know what they do now with the long pants in vogue.

  • Kurt Monaco | April 29, 2010 at 8:39 pm |

    Check out these stirrups that LSU recently wore against Arkansas. And good luck with coming up with a style name for those helmets. They’re wearing them right now against Georgia on ESPN. Georgia is wearing black from head to toe with red lettering (no stirrups, solid black socks). Sorry no screen grabs on the LSU vs. Georgia.

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

  • LI Phil | April 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm |

    is this the chick who just hit the home run to set the record?

  • rpm | April 29, 2010 at 8:59 pm |

    [quote comment="388249"]Check out these stirrups that LSU recently wore against Arkansas. And good luck with coming up with a style name for those helmets. They’re wearing them right now against Georgia on ESPN. Georgia is wearing black from head to toe with red lettering (no stirrups, solid black socks). Sorry no screen grabs on the LSU vs. Georgia.

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    they are called over-edges

  • rpm | April 29, 2010 at 9:00 pm |

    sorry, the stirrups are called over-edges

  • Ron Elkins | April 29, 2010 at 9:01 pm |

    New Yorker cartoon: batter hitting in bottom of ninth is wearing road uni – cartoonist draws an error!

  • The Hemogoblin | April 29, 2010 at 9:08 pm |

    [quote comment="388250"]is this the chick who just hit the home run to set the record?[/quote]
    What a softball uniform…

  • scott | April 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm |

    [quote comment="388233"]and if you could somehow restrict teams to wearing a solid alt maybe once a week…or less…i might back off my stance…but these teams, who are increasingly wearing the solids more and more…and every team (except the few we’ve discussed — cards, yanks, tigers…and a couple teams who have two home unis)…has one[/quote]

    And it’s terribly annoying when two teams are both wearing softball jerseys in the same game. When MLB Network was showing White Sox in black tops and Rangers in blue tops today, I couldn’t stomach watching the game because it was too hard to tell the teams apart on my TV.

  • JTH | April 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm |

    [quote comment="388255"][quote comment="388233"]and if you could somehow restrict teams to wearing a solid alt maybe once a week…or less…i might back off my stance…but these teams, who are increasingly wearing the solids more and more…and every team (except the few we’ve discussed — cards, yanks, tigers…and a couple teams who have two home unis)…has one[/quote]

    And it’s terribly annoying when two teams are both wearing softball jerseys in the same game. When MLB Network was showing White Sox in black tops and Rangers in blue tops today, I couldn’t stomach watching the game because it was too hard to tell the teams apart on my TV.[/quote]
    And that was the THIRD GAME this series for dark vs. dark. The Texases wore their blue tops last night and their red ones the night before.

  • ren | April 29, 2010 at 9:52 pm |

    sorry its not recent, but the nationals third base coach st. claire has no mlb patch on the back of his jersey, yet the jersey is clearly authentic
    http://mlb.mlb.com/v...

  • Buckeye Mike | April 30, 2010 at 12:16 am |

    As for the LSU Softball team, UCLA has been wearing them for a while too. I know this is from this year, but you can see the picture here http://www.uclabruin... and I know they were wearing them last season too.

    I thought it’s kind of cool, I just found out Nick, the person who posted this OSU info, is someone who has been following me on Twitter for some time now, never would have guessed I’d find out who it was on UniWatch.

    [quote comment="388231"]Ohio State basketball might be one of the next programs to get Nike’s hyperelite unis

    From the Columbus Dispatch blog
    http://blog.dispatch...

    “– For those who asked during the season when Ohio State was getting new uniforms, the answer is: next season.

    Assistant coach Jeff Boals tweeted tonight that a Nike representative was in the basketball office today to show the staff pictures of the new threads. “Very interesting the thought put into the back of them,” Boals wrote.

    As Nike did with other teams’ uniforms last season — such as Kentucky’s — there will be a faint design, personalized for Ohio State, on the back of each jersey.”[/quote]

  • Shaun | April 30, 2010 at 3:44 am |
  • teenchy | April 30, 2010 at 6:58 am |

    Apropos of nothing: Ran across this photo of South Carolina’s Waccamaw High School. Mildly interesting use of the Nats’ curly W and an Exposesque beach umbrella-style crown. Something similar might make a fair alt for the Nats, allowing them to acknowledge their Montreal roots.

  • rpm | April 30, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    fearless leader~
    i must call onto the factory floor today to request production, so very good timing on an intelligence request. if they are tight lipped, i will put them in a dark dank room with a swaying light bulb and beat the information out of them.
    ~cadre 91200