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

The Devil in My Own Back Yard

Quad.jpeg

A few weeks ago I asked baseball players who wear their pants low-cuffed to tell me why they do so. I got a ton of interesting responses, but none more surprising than the one that came from our own resident scholar and sock stripe stickler, Rick “Ricko” Pearson, who I never would’ve figured for a low-cuffer. Here’s the communiqué he sent me a few days ago:

I cannot tell a lie.

For competitive ball, I wear ankle-length pants with elastic under the arch of my cleats. Why?

• It’s the most comfortable way to wear baseball pants I’ve ever found, and I’ve tried ’em all in the last 55 or so years.

• Stirrups, while great looking, are a hassle. At least the way I wear them — I tape the the undersocks, tape the stirrups (hate it when they sag), so after awhile (say in a long tournament day of four or more games) they actually start to hurt. Plus, if you’re changing in the car after work for a regular weeknight league game, they’re just one extra thing to screw around with.

• Sometimes I do have need of wearing a shin pad of some sort [which is better tucked under the long pants].

• Style, like it or not, is a factor in baseball/softball, etc. Stirrups with stripes showing haven’t been even remotely common/typical in MLB since the late ’60s to early ’70s. I believe the last time I was on a team with team-issued striped stirrups, or even non-ribbon stirrups, was 1978. Over 30 years ago. I don’t wear Edwardian suits these days, either.

• I even understand the bagginess thing (not the excessive bagginess, but a bit of it). Having played through the era of super-tight double-knits, I know that the bit of movement the baggies provide keeps air moving on your legs. That keeps you a little cooler.

I love the stirrups, particularly of the ’50s and early ’60s. But all things considered they aren’t terribly workable.

I was stunned by all this, to put it mildly. Never would’ve guessed in a million years that our own Ricko would be sleeping with the enemy — in the enemy’s pajama pants, no less! I was particularly intrigued by his use of the elastic strap (which is, of course, its own type of stirrup, but not the kind we usually laud around here), so we had a quick back and forth about that:

Paul: How long have you been wearing the elastic strap? Did you get the idea from Barry Bonds [who was doing it in the late 1990s], or were you doing it before he did?

Ricko: Since the mid-’90s, I think. First noticed it on Jose Offerman of the Dodgers. His were worn inside the shoes, though, but it was apparent because the pant legs were being pulled down by something. I suspect Jose Lind and others did the same thing. Also, as a kid I noticed in the old Hoppy movies that whenever Hoppy would go “undercover” as a fancy-dressed gambler or cattle buyer or such, he had elastic under the arch of his boots to hold his pants down (really apparent when he was on horseback). It was the gentlemanly fashion of that era (see: Rhett Butler). I remembered that, so I figured that was what Offerman was up to.

Also, being almost 6’3″, it was extremely difficult back then for me to find pants that were long enough. Often I’d turn down the seams after removing the elastic, just leave the bottom frayed, perhaps put a little Shoe Goo to seal the loosest spots, then add the elastic keep the damn things from looking like “flood pants,”

In the hunt for “long enough,” I bought several pair of MLB game-used pants on eBay (Jamie Navarro, White Sox home; Ryan Minor, Orioles home; Albert Belle, Orioles road). A pair of Red Sox home (can’t remember whose they were) had the bottom of a red stirrup sock sewn into them, but up inside aways. That way, the stirrup was to be worn inside the shoe, but the pant leg could drape over it. I subsequently removed it and added elastic because wearing the stirrup outside the shoe looked really stupid, not to mention wearing through the sock. Hey, if it was good enough for Hoppy…

I was, I guess, influenced by Bonds, in the sense of seeing him do what I was already doing. Also Gary Sheffield, who started doing it about the same time. It sure made more sense than wearing the stirrup outside, which I’d originally done with my Red Sox pants. It kept the pants from bunching up at the tongue and heel of the cleats, too; didn’t look so sloppy. So I went ahead and redid all my long pants with the elastic to be worn outside.

Paul: Do you sew the elastic on yourself?

Ricko: Yes. And, starting four or five years ago (again because pants aren’t always quite long enough, and because I rarely wear medium- or or high-cut cleats), I starting tacking a bit of loop Velcro vertically inside the heel or the pants and Shoo Goo-ing hook Velcro vertically to the heel of most of my cleats. That holds the pants down (a lot less messy than Sheffield’s StickUm method, btw [actually, Sheffield also used Velcro — PL]).

Paul: I see that you sometimes used black elastic and sometimes white. Is there any intentional rhyme/reason to this, or is it just what you had available at the time?

Ricko: Elastic’s easy enough to find. Still have both white and black on hand all the time, because I was buying pants fast and furious there for awhile. I use what I think will work with the color cleats I’m most likely to wear with them, or what will look least odd. Most are black, but I did put white on my plain whites, for example, because the black’s just TOO obvious if I wear white cleats and do an A’s look. Also used white on those orange/black striped babies because I was going to wear white that year but changed my mind at the last minute because my Achilles were bothering me and went to shoes I knew I could trust.

=========

Of course, a less charitable, more churlish person might suggest that if you can’t find pants that are long enough, that’s probably a sign that you shouldn’t be wearing them low, ya dumb-ass! But I’d never offer that type of smart-ass commentary myself.

By this point in our dialogue, Ricko sensed that I was sorely pained by the revelation of his low-cuffery, so he offered a few more thoughts to allay my fears that he’d fully gone over to the Dark Side:

Now…IN MY DEFENSE…

When I play with the 55+ crowd on Tues. and Thurs. a.m., the teams are named after the 1947 American Association. They scramble the rosters three times every summer, so I’m always a Saint, Miller, Redbird, Mudhen, Indian, or Star (should be Blues, but guy who originally ran the league had a brain fart and thought they were Kansas City Stars; I continue to lobby to no avail for a correction). For those games, I do most often turn back the clock and wear the right gear. Not jerseys, but have all the right hats, sleeves, pants (home and road), and stirrups for same. Not actual stuff, of course, but the same “look,” decent facsimiles. When a local CBS affiliate did a feature on us, mention was made of “one guy who has a uniform for everything,” with a quick shot of me in my RedBirds uni.

I often do that for my Sunday pickup game a couple times a month, too (depends on if I roll out of bed early enough). The younger guys kind of enjoy playing “Name that Uni.” I let ’em guess for awhile. Hey, might as well teach ’em something.

My theory on why jammies have become popular?: Warm-up pants replacing cotton sweatpants (which definitely do make you sweat), both in pickup sports and as streetwear. Just so damn comfortable that they eventually worked their way into MLB. Well, that and the advent of high-tops in baseball. Look big and clunky and players would just as soon use the pants to sort of “spat” them.

I believe the last time I was on a team with team-issued striped stirrups, or even non-ribbon stirrups, was 1978. Over 30 years ago.

Finally, here’s a photo from 1970, showing a teammate with his three-striped team-issued socks and me with my high ones. Oh, shit, I’m wearing white shoes, too. Damn.

Nice try, Ricko, but the damage has been done — and it’s spreading. Have you noticed that longtime high-cuffer Jason Varitek has been going low-cuffed lately? Even more shocking, St. Looey stirrups standard-bearer Brendan Ryan went low-cuffed yesterday (“Probably because he went into Sunday hitting .186,” says reader Jason Cobb, as if that were a suitable excuse). Fortunately, these alarming developments were slightly ameliorated by the sight of low-cuffer Evan Longoria wearing stirrups yesterday.

In any case, I appreciate the characteristically thorough treatment of the topic from our resident expert. Big thanks to Ricko, low cuffs and all.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Last Friday I asked about the black arm/shoulder bands being worn by the Giants in this photo. That prompted this analysis from Mart Lukk: “From what I can gather, this photo is from the 1983 season (being the only season I could find with both kicker Ali Haji-Sheikh and QB/holder Scott Brunner listed on a Giants roster). That year saw the tragic deaths of assistant coach Bob Ledbetter and former star running back Doug Kotar, so I’m imagining that’s who the memorial stripe could be for.” I think it was probably for Kotar, and Mart’s right about it being from 1983 — I checked some old photos from that season and came up with shots showing the black stripe at home and on the road. I was a sophomore in college that season and certainly watched my share of Jints games on the teevee, but I confess that I have zero memory of that stripe. … New uniforms for the WNBA refs. Not bad, but of course it’s the WNBA, so who really cares? (Kevin Brown does, that’s who.) … Never seen these NBAPA jerseys before (with thanks to Chris Flinn). … Interesting helmet decal — in fact, interesting uni all around — for Centreville High in Ohio (nice find by Doug McConnell). … Last week’s mention of the Jose Jimenez face-off reminded Paul Wiederecht of something really obsure and really good: “The other day I’m driving in NJ and listening to the ballgame on the radio and the pitcher was Jose Jimenez — and just then I passed a truck with the name ‘Dana’ on the side!” If you don’t get the connection, he’s referring to comedian Bill Dana, whose famous alter ego was Jose Jimenez! … Andy McNeel notes that Texas A&M appears to have added the school’s “T-star” logo to its football jersey, above the nameplate. … Mike Rowinski spotted this and wonders if that’s the new Warriors logo. Having seen the new logo, I can neither confirm nor deny, but let’s put it this way: That’s some nice work by Mike. … El yawno. Although I suppose this pooch might disagree (both courtesy of Tim Burke). … What’s worse than being picked off second base? Being picked off while wearing baggy pajama pants with the elastic removed from the cuffs, which allows the cuffs to slide up your leg and reveal your geeky Brewers logo socks (as spotted by Ryan Adams). … Brian Cheung notes that Trevor Cahill is yet another A’s player wearing a gray underbill. I asked A’s equipment manager Steve Vucinich about this and he said, “Some players still prefer the gray and specifically ask for it, but I only have a few left. You’re seeing the last of them.” … Bit of a soccer kerfuffle in the UK, as David Raglin explains: “Fulham FC has very improbably reached the final of the Europa League. Fulham’s main color is white, with black and red being the secondary colors. Their opponent, Atletico Madrid, which has been designated the home team, wears a red and white striped shirt. Fulham’s home kit is white and the away kit is red, so they have to wear their ‘change kit.’ The change kit is often not in the team’s official colors, and this year it’s midnight blue, which happens to be close to the main color of their hated Chelsea neighbors. Anyway, there are more than a few Fulham fans who are upset about having to have their club play in that kit in their first European final ever. Here is a link to one of the leading fan posting sites which has several posts about the controversy.” … Francisco Cervelli appears to be wearing the same annoying logo socks that A-Rod’s been wearing. … Hmmm, is this how Muhammad Ali got started? … I’m not in love with the Giants’ orange jerseys, but they sure look better when paired with the striped hose. … Great find by Bruce Menard, who found this 1939 shot of a minor league reunion game for Minneapolis baseball figures in Cooperstown. Note the amazing socks, the white belt tunnels on the guy on the right, and the baseball centennial patch. And speaking of the centennial patch, Bruce also found a rare version of the design featuring Uncle Sam, which is from the 1939 Play Ball America pamphlet. … New 10th-anniversary patch for the Wild. Additional details here. … Nothing says “I love you” like having your wedding ring adorned with a bunch of Penguins logos (with thanks to Dan Falloon). … Kyle Wilson wore white cleats trimmed in blue while at Boise State — and appears to be wearing those very same cleats now that he’s a Jet (as spotted by Brian McCrodden). … Major discovery by Doug Spets, who writes: “While going thru my sock drawer I came across this incredible set of stirrups from the Kewanee (Illinois) Boilermaker basketball team. I grew up in Kewanee and these were passed down to me by my brother, who was a friend of the Boilers’ coach. Kewanee reached the state quarterfinals for the 1970-71 season, losing to Quinn Buckner-led Dolton Thornridge at the Assembly Hall in Champaign. They team quit wearing the stirrups by 1974.” … After I suggested in last week’s ESPN column that Shane Mosley would wear either Everlast or Reyes gloves for his bout against Floyd Mayweather Jr., he surprised everyone by going with Grant gloves. … Interesting note from Paul Kingsmen, who writes: “During the Western Hockey League Finals, both teams are required to wear Memorial Cup patches, in addition to the WHL patch and Reebok logo they always wear. For the Tri-City Americans, with their ridiculous shoulder piping, it means they’ve been forced to shift the Memorial Cup logo to their torso, right beside their main crest.” … Liverpool wore a new jersey yesterday. Details here (with thanks to Ashley Wilkes). … Dartmouth’s baseball field is FieldTurf and doesn’t have dirt cut-outs around the bases — they just have a dirt-colored faux infield painted onto the FieldTurf carpet. All of which results in a shower of rubber pellets when someone slides (with thanks to Tris Wykes). … Michael Orr has been keeping track of all the 2010-11 Premier League uniforms. Here’s what’s out there so far. … Ah, I love ringer tees. I also love pro athletes — in this case Roy Jefferson of the Redskins — holding cigarettes (great find from Ricko‘s files). … The A’s no longer wear the solid-green helmet — except for Jake Fox’s catcher’s helmet (with thanks to A’s scholar Brandon Davis). … Also from Brandon: Gio Gonzalez usually wears these white cleats, but he switched to mostly black cleats when wearing the team’s black alt jersey. … You know how NFL rookies will wear a strip of tape with their name on their helmets? The Bucs print the names in their team typeface (good spot by Brinke Guthrie). … In a related item, some rookie hazing rituals create themselves (as submitted by Adam Triesler). … Wow, that’s some chest logo — and check the label!

 

215 comments to The Devil in My Own Back Yard

  • Jeff | May 3, 2010 at 8:12 am |

    Everything Ricko says about uni pants and stirrups? Agreed. I don’t go with elastic under the arch, but my cuffs are at the ankle, too. This, after 35 years of playing ball.

  • Russell | May 3, 2010 at 8:14 am |

    Regarding the grey A’s underbills: Does anyone know if these grey-billed caps are still made of wool (as all 59/50s were during the grey-bill era) or simply modified versions of the new polyester models? While I, as someone who doesn’t wear wool, was generally THRILLED about the changeover to polyester, I must concede that the grey-bills were far more aesthetically appealing. It’d be interesting (at least to me) to know whether or not a fusion variety cap does in fact exist, even if its availability would almost assuredly be limited to sartorially discerning big-leaguers.

  • Russell | May 3, 2010 at 8:17 am |

    [quote comment=”388636″]Everything Ricko says about uni pants and stirrups? Agreed. I don’t go with elastic under the arch, but my cuffs are at the ankle, too. This, after 35 years of playing ball.[/quote]

    Where do you people find these amazing adult leagues? Ricko’s definitely sporting a pretty swank uniform; I’d sign up just for the two colored cap.

  • Keith | May 3, 2010 at 8:23 am |

    Forget those NBAPA jerseys, look at Jordan’s shoes!

  • Bob | May 3, 2010 at 8:25 am |

    Giants’ orange jerseys would look better with the orange-billed cap.

  • Russell | May 3, 2010 at 8:31 am |

    [quote comment=”388640″]Giants’ orange jerseys would look better with the orange-billed cap.[/quote]

    Agreed, and it would also nicely compliment the new striped hose by replicating the substantial orange accenting. I love the “traditional” Giants cap, but it actually seems incongruous in this particular uni configuration.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 8:55 am |

    [quote comment=”388638″][quote comment=”388636″]Everything Ricko says about uni pants and stirrups? Agreed. I don’t go with elastic under the arch, but my cuffs are at the ankle, too. This, after 35 years of playing ball.[/quote]

    Where do you people find these amazing adult leagues? Ricko’s definitely sporting a pretty swank uniform; I’d sign up just for the two colored cap.[/quote]

    Well, in my case, the two-tone hat team is a Minneapolis 60+ travelling team (photo taken in Quad Cities). The orange is from a four-day Florida-based 50+ tournament I played in for a couple years just north of Orlando.

    Here, btw, from the first year in Orlando is an actual photograph of me dealing with the issue that led me to start doing the Velcro bit.
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • War Damn Eagle | May 3, 2010 at 9:02 am |

    I’ll fess up like Ricko. I wear the pajama pants. I think they’re more comfortable, and I wear high tops, which don’t look good with high-cuffed pants. This is for the Auburn alumni team (those who don’t wear pants, wear orange shorts)

    http://www.flickr.co...

    I used to wear the longer pants with the elastic, but I hated that.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    When I finally found some affordable pants with the open bottom, I bought a pair.

    My brother has gone with the high cuffs. But he’s recently switched to a longer pair of Montreal Expos road grays b/c they match our red/royal uni combo for our men’s league team. I don’t have a pic, but it looks a lot like Orlando Cabrera from his days in Montreal. No elastic, but they taper towards the bottom of the leg.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    http://c.photoshelte...

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 9:04 am |

    the more i see of the rays powder blues the less i like them…of course seeing them play the royals when both teams wear softball tops makes it even worse

  • Paul Dunklebarger | May 3, 2010 at 9:10 am |

    The logo on Rodriguez and Cervelli’s non-stirrups seems to denote SSK origin:

    http://www.ssksports...

    -They still make the best fungo bats around

  • Ohio Mike | May 3, 2010 at 9:39 am |

    It’s “Centerville” High, not “Centreville” (which in Ohio would doubtless be pronounced sen-tray-vill).

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 9:48 am |

    What’s worse than being picked off second base? Being picked off while wearing baggy pajama pants with the elastic removed from the cuffs, which allows the cuffs to slide up your leg and reveal your geeky Brewers logo socks (as spotted by Ryan Adams)
    http://farm5.static....

    Now, see, if he’d had elastic under is arch… ;)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 9:54 am |

    [quote comment=”388643″]I’ll fess up like Ricko. I wear the pajama pants. I think they’re more comfortable, and I wear high tops, which don’t look good with high-cuffed pants. This is for the Auburn alumni team (those who don’t wear pants, wear orange shorts)

    http://www.flickr.co...

    I used to wear the longer pants with the elastic, but I hated that.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    When I finally found some affordable pants with the open bottom, I bought a pair.

    My brother has gone with the high cuffs. But he’s recently switched to a longer pair of Montreal Expos road grays b/c they match our red/royal uni combo for our men’s league team. I don’t have a pic, but it looks a lot like Orlando Cabrera from his days in Montreal. No elastic, but they taper towards the bottom of the leg.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    http://c.photoshelte...

    Auburn alumni team? That a league or a tournament?

    There’s an annual Big Ten Alumni Co-Rec softball tournament here in town. Gophers, not surprisingly, always seem to find enough players. So far I have been, in years past, a Spartan, a Hawkeye, a Spartan again and a Hoosier.

    Can you spell “ringer”? :)

    —Ricko

  • Ben | May 3, 2010 at 9:56 am |

    I’m pretty sure UniWatch has done a story on Centerville’s helmet before. The helmets start solid black with the logo on the side. Then the “starburst” like decals on the front are added as the season goes along, piece by piece, as credit for good games/plays.

  • oilfan | May 3, 2010 at 10:02 am |

    Right now, I’m happy just trying to find a professional grade pant with the traditional cut. I’m only 5’7″, so these pajama pants just won’t do unless I want to tailor baseball pants from 35″ inseams to 30″ inseams.

    I have found a store in Edmonton that has a wide variety, but until I make my next trip up from Calgary, I’m still wearing my old school Expos pants that I picked up online with 30″ inseams.

    On another note, does anyone know where I can find a 1996 World Cup of Hockey patch? I managed to pick up a brand new, authentic 1996 Bauer Team Canada jersey, complete with the original tags and manufacturing date tag. Out of Idaho of all places. Since this is my favourite Canada jersey of all time save the Canada Cup jerseys, I want to do this right. If anyone has a line on one, or where I can get one, please get back to me at hama@lycos.com

    Thanks

  • Terry D. | May 3, 2010 at 10:03 am |

    Centerville High School’s football uniform is the University of Miami template the U’s been wearing since 2008.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 10:04 am |

    [quote comment=”388650″]Right now, I’m happy just trying to find a professional grade pant with the traditional cut. I’m only 5’7″, so these pajama pants just won’t do unless I want to tailor baseball pants from 35″ inseams to 30″ inseams.

    I have found a store in Edmonton that has a wide variety, but until I make my next trip up from Calgary, I’m still wearing my old school Expos pants that I picked up online with 30″ inseams.

    On another note, does anyone know where I can find a 1996 World Cup of Hockey patch? I managed to pick up a brand new, authentic 1996 Bauer Team Canada jersey, complete with the original tags and manufacturing date tag. Out of Idaho of all places. Since this is my favourite Canada jersey of all time save the Canada Cup jerseys, I want to do this right. If anyone has a line on one, or where I can get one, please get back to me at hama@lycos.com

    Thanks[/quote]

    ebay can be your friend when seeking baseball pants.

    —Ricko

  • frankenslade | May 3, 2010 at 10:10 am |

    Not quite a Uni note, but hopefully close enough. It turns out Phils’ bench coach Pete Mackanin is a slave-to-style guy when it comes to filling out a lineup card.

    http://www.philly.co...

  • Phil | May 3, 2010 at 10:20 am |

    Is it just me, or does Ricko have a bit of Wilson from Home Improvement in him. Lots of pictures, very few showing his face.

  • Jason C | May 3, 2010 at 10:22 am |

    Evan Longoria is latest to rock the stirrups

    http://www.raysindex...

  • concealed78 | May 3, 2010 at 10:25 am |

    Long pants look like shit. And I don’t care if the color brown hasn’t been in vogue since the 1970s, I’m still going to wear a brown shirt, sweatcoat or jacket because it looks good. Life is not comfortable, and baseball players should wear stirrups or high socks. I’m just… so annoyed with modern ballplayers.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 10:28 am |

    Yesterday the Indians starter (Perez?) appeared to be wearing cleats that were mostly red and white. Indians, of course, wear black cleats. Even with their creams, which they wore yesterday.

    Didn’t get a good look cuz they pulled him about four pitches after I started watching the game.

    Haven’t found any photos online, either.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”388657″]Yesterday the Indians starter (Perez?) appeared to be wearing cleats that were mostly red and white. Indians, of course, wear black cleats. Even with their creams, which they wore yesterday.

    Didn’t get a good look cuz they pulled him about four pitches after I started watching the game.

    Haven’t found any photos online, either.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Oops, sorry. Perez came in in relief. Huff started.

  • Big Matt | May 3, 2010 at 10:48 am |

    Atta boy Ricko! Kudos for being flexible, a quality lacking in many people (not just Uni-Watchers).
    And a bigger kudos for still playing ball. I’m 39 and I can’t imagine not playing, so I get inspiration from ‘old-timers’ like yourself!

  • inkracer | May 3, 2010 at 10:52 am |

    Just thought I would pass along, the Eagles will be wearing 1960 Kelly Green Throwbacks against the Packers on September 12th. No good shots of the whole uni yet, but here is the jersey.

    http://product.image...

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 10:56 am |

    [quote comment=”388654″]Is it just me, or does Ricko have a bit of Wilson from Home Improvement in him. Lots of pictures, very few showing his face.[/quote]

    cognitive dissonance is when pieces of our lives no longer make sense…beliefs we’ve always held true seem to be false so we have to re-order our way of thinking

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”388659″]Atta boy Ricko! Kudos for being flexible, a quality lacking in many people (not just Uni-Watchers).
    And a bigger kudos for still playing ball. I’m 39 and I can’t imagine not playing, so I get inspiration from ‘old-timers’ like yourself![/quote]

    “You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”

    (Seen many times on t-shirts at Senior Softball tournaments)

    —Ricko

  • Jeremy | May 3, 2010 at 11:02 am |

    Was this discussed in the comments over the weekend? Does anyone know the story here?- this certainly takes the softball look to a new level. http://yfrog.com/5nf...

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 11:12 am |

    As much as it pains this Gunner to say it, those Hotspur kits are nice. Understated, and unique.

    Of course they’ll probably ruin it by placing an oversized sponsor on them.

  • Teebz | May 3, 2010 at 11:17 am |

    [quote comment=”388650″]Right now, I’m happy just trying to find a professional grade pant with the traditional cut. I’m only 5’7″, so these pajama pants just won’t do unless I want to tailor baseball pants from 35″ inseams to 30″ inseams.

    I have found a store in Edmonton that has a wide variety, but until I make my next trip up from Calgary, I’m still wearing my old school Expos pants that I picked up online with 30″ inseams.

    On another note, does anyone know where I can find a 1996 World Cup of Hockey patch? I managed to pick up a brand new, authentic 1996 Bauer Team Canada jersey, complete with the original tags and manufacturing date tag. Out of Idaho of all places. Since this is my favourite Canada jersey of all time save the Canada Cup jerseys, I want to do this right. If anyone has a line on one, or where I can get one, please get back to me at hama@lycos.com

    Thanks[/quote]

    Home Run Sports in Winnipeg for your pants. They outfit basically anyone with anything for decent prices.

    River City Sports in Winnipeg for the patch. They have them all. They charge an arm and a leg, though.

  • Dan | May 3, 2010 at 11:20 am |

    Warriors’ logo looks good, and nice that they’re going back to the standard yellow and blue. Looking forward to seeing the jerseys.

  • Teebz | May 3, 2010 at 11:24 am |

    I go high-cuffed or pyjama pants depending on the location of the game and the time of year.

    Right now, pyjama pants are essential at nights because it’s still damned cold at night in the Great White North. However, as the season warms up, I go high-cuffed. Long pants come in handy in cool weather (start and end of season) and when the blood-sucking insects come out.

    There is one set of diamonds located outside the city near the river, and long pants are a way of life there. The mosquitoes are insane there, and high-cuffs have me swiping at legs all night as the damned skeeters try to remove as much blood as they can. Long pants are essential where they don’t fog, and most rural municipalities don’t have the budget to fog everywhere except high population areas. Beautiful diamonds, but hell with high cuffs.

    Unlike Rick, I fold my socks under the elastic when I go high-cuffed, but he’s right: after a few hours, it begins to hurt.

    Therefore, at tournaments, I go both. Most often, I start high and will end the day with pyjama pants to give my elastic-cut legs a break.

    I know it sounds complicated, but I’m one of the few that don’t wear shorts or sweats in our league. Baseball/softball is about fun, but you still have to take pride in how your team looks.

  • The Ol Goaler | May 3, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    One goalie’s opinion… this looks comfortable; maybe less-tailored pants could bring back stirrups!

    But whadda I know? I used compression pants to hold my hockey socks up; I’d used sweatpants under my pads before then!

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 11:25 am |

    I’m not sure what to think about all these UW pajama confessions… feel a little betrayed.

    When I was playing in HS I made it a point to go high cuffed, wrapping the too loose hand-me-down stirrups twice around my foot just to get a full calf of forrest green.

    I still went high cuffed in my most recent league, but it was impossible to do otherwise with the team issue knickers.

  • Hank | May 3, 2010 at 11:35 am |

    Eagles will be wearing the Kelly Green throwbacks for their opener against the Packs. Commemoration of the 1960 Championship. Never thought I’d see the day the Lurie Regime would go back to the real uniforms, even for a day. Too bad they will have the NOB, but better than nothing.

    http://www.philadelp...

  • Hank | May 3, 2010 at 11:37 am |

    Sorry for double post on the Birds throwbacks. Didn’t see the first post.

  • oilfan | May 3, 2010 at 11:53 am |

    [quote comment=”388665″]

    Home Run Sports in Winnipeg for your pants. They outfit basically anyone with anything for decent prices.

    River City Sports in Winnipeg for the patch. They have them all. They charge an arm and a leg, though.[/quote]

    For pants – I can still make do with my Expos pants and the grey Saxons I’ve been wearing for the last little bit. I’m making a trip to Edmonton in the next couple of weeks, so I should be able to get standard pro pants with little issue.

    I’ve already checked with RCS for the WCOH patch – they have 2004, but not 1996. I’m hoping someone here might be able to have access one as scouring ebay for the last month or so has had no luck.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”388646″]It’s “Centerville” High, not “Centreville” (which in Ohio would doubtless be pronounced sen-tray-vill).[/quote]

    Not necessarily. After all, we have Mantua, which the locals pronounce “Man-away.”

    I’m assuming the helmet logo has something to do with the roads leading to the center of Centerville?

  • Chance Michaels | May 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”388666″]Warriors’ logo looks good, and nice that they’re going back to the standard yellow and blue. Looking forward to seeing the jerseys.[/quote]

    Presuming that’s genuine, I flat-out love that they’re using the new Eastern span of the Bay Bridge.

  • Teebz | May 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”388672″]
    I’ve already checked with RCS for the WCOH patch – they have 2004, but not 1996. I’m hoping someone here might be able to have access one as scouring ebay for the last month or so has had no luck.[/quote]

    They’re full of crap, oilfan. They can order in patches like nobody’s business. I should know – I used to work there.

    The only reason they won’t do it is because they order in lots of 20 at a time to reduce their costs. The reason they won’t do it for you is because it kills their profit margin.

    What’s good for the customer isn’t good for business.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”388673″][quote comment=”388646″]It’s “Centerville” High, not “Centreville” (which in Ohio would doubtless be pronounced sen-tray-vill).[/quote]

    Not necessarily. After all, we have Mantua, which the locals pronounce “Man-away.”

    I’m assuming the helmet logo has something to do with the roads leading to the center of Centerville?[/quote]

    Pays to read before posting…

    [quote comment=”388649″]I’m pretty sure UniWatch has done a story on Centerville’s helmet before. The helmets start solid black with the logo on the side. Then the “starburst” like decals on the front are added as the season goes along, piece by piece, as credit for good games/plays.[/quote]

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”388655″]Evan Longoria is latest to rock the stirrups

    http://www.raysindex...

    How about Eva Longoria rocking some stirrups with this?
    http://z.about.com/d...

  • Bernard | May 3, 2010 at 12:25 pm |

    Next week in Uni Watch Confessions, Doug Keklak reveals his true colors…

    http://www.flickr.co...

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”388664″]As much as it pains this Gunner to say it, those Hotspur kits are nice. Understated, and unique.

    Of course they’ll probably ruin it by placing an oversized sponsor on them.[/quote]

    Agreed. It’s better than the ones they’re wearing now. Who came up with yellow strips on a Spurs kit?

    Also, regarding that Liverpool kit, this came from the web site:
    “The decision for Liverpool F.C. to change sponsorship was mostly due to a more lucrative financial offer by Standard Chartered. The ban on alcohol advertising in sports that is already in effect in certain European Union countries also contributed. Another factor was the inability to sell the shirts in countries which ban alcohol.”

    Gee, here’s an idea – why don’t you just offer a sponsorless jersey for the masses to buy? You already do it for kids’ jerseys (when the sponsor is a brewer), why not the same for the adults? Isn’t it enough that the players are walking billboards?

    I’d wear a Liverpool jersey, but not with boring old “Standard Chartered” on it. I might have worn one with “Carlsberg” on it, but I’d defintiely wear a sponsorless one.

  • Bob Loblaw | May 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388653″]Not quite a Uni note, but hopefully close enough. It turns out Phils’ bench coach Pete Mackanin is a slave-to-style guy when it comes to filling out a lineup card.

    http://www.philly.co...
    That’s awesome!

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388678″]Next week in Uni Watch Confessions, Doug Keklak reveals his true colors…

    http://www.flickr.co...

    Man, that’s worse than Phil putting me in Borat’s swimsuit. Better hope Doug doesn’t catch you in a dark alley!

  • Bob Loblaw | May 3, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388663″]Was this discussed in the comments over the weekend? Does anyone know the story here?- this certainly takes the softball look to a new level. http://yfrog.com/5nf...
    Ack!!!
    those are the pants/shorts my 7th. grade gym teacher used to pair off w/ spotbilt shoes and calf socks. shit! i’m gonna have nightmares tonight!

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?

  • William Ginn | May 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

    Centerville is pronounced “Center-ville” just like it’s spelled. And the decals on the front of the helmet are “hitting stripes” and are consider rewards for great hits/plays. The players accumulate more stripes as the season progress and they’re placed in that configuration on the fronts of the helmets.

    The team’s nickname is the “Elks” so the stripes bear some resemblance to elk horns as well.

  • inkracer | May 3, 2010 at 12:39 pm |

    I’m still not finding any really good shots of the whole Eagles uniform, but the Eagles home page has a better shot of the jerseys and the helmets..
    (http://www.philadelp...)

    I like the helmets, and I can live with the NOBs, but the NFL Equipment shield and the RBK logos take away from the jersey, IMO.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”388685″]I’m still not finding any really good shots of the whole Eagles uniform, but the Eagles home page has a better shot of the jerseys and the helmets..
    (http://www.philadelp...)

    I like the helmets, and I can live with the NOBs, but the NFL Equipment shield and the RBK logos take away from the jersey, IMO.[/quote]

    Compared to what they wear now, I’ll take it!

  • David | May 3, 2010 at 12:42 pm |

    Interesting blog post on the Nationals’ uniforms – and I had no idea the Orioles 1989-1994 uniforms were designed with input from a radio sports guy!

    http://masnsports.co...

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 12:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”388678″]Next week in Uni Watch Confessions, Doug Keklak reveals his true colors…

    http://www.flickr.co...

    been a busy morning, eh?

  • Jeremy | May 3, 2010 at 12:49 pm |

    Cardigans are the new fashion trend for NBA stars-Carmelo even wore a cardigan (with PINK pants) to match the team bus. http://asternwarning...

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 12:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”388683″][quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?[/quote]

    Damn straight.
    Although I haven’t looked at a breaking ball like that for a long, long time.

    Can I use a big red Snoopy bat, maybe?
    Nothing quite like the “thoink” of the bat, is there.

    —Ricko

  • Bernard | May 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”388688″][quote comment=”388678″]Next week in Uni Watch Confessions, Doug Keklak reveals his true colors…

    http://www.flickr.co...

    been a busy morning, eh?[/quote]

    Oh, it took me months of exhaustive research to uncover those incriminating photos.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”388690″][quote comment=”388683″][quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?[/quote]

    Damn straight.
    Although I haven’t looked at a breaking ball like that for a long, long time.

    Can I use a big red Snoopy bat, maybe?
    Nothing quite like the “thoink” of the bat, is there.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    If the wind is blowing in, you can use a Snoopy bat. You’ll need it.

    Even with wiffleballs, I can’t do much of a curve. I stick to knuckleballs and submarine pitches.

  • Andy | May 3, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”388690″][quote comment=”388683″][quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?[/quote]

    Damn straight.
    Although I haven’t looked at a breaking ball like that for a long, long time.

    Can I use a big red Snoopy bat, maybe?
    Nothing quite like the “thoink” of the bat, is there.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I prefer the three foot long skinny yellow bat myself. There’s nothing like hitting the sweet spot of that stick and leaving a nice set of wiffle welts on the pitchers hand as he puts it up to protect his mug.

    Uni-related: how awesome is the color of that eagles jersey, or, to put it in perspective, how much more awesome is it than the Eagles’ current midnight green color?

  • rpm | May 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm |

    i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. and all the reasons given for not wearing stirrups are reasons to wear them. follow the trend people, go ahead, see if i care, i’ll be the one in uni~heaven standing next to nap lajoie when it is all said and done, and the rest of you can say hello to the uni~satan in the eternal burning fires of uni~hell.

  • jesse | May 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388687″]Interesting blog post on the Nationals’ uniforms – and I had no idea the Orioles 1989-1994 uniforms were designed with input from a radio sports guy!

    http://masnsports.co... Wood is an incredibly knowledgable DC baseball guy. I hope he’s right.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”388689″]Cardigans are the new fashion trend for NBA stars-Carmelo even wore a cardigan (with PINK pants) to match the team bus.

    http://asternwarning...

    From Bob Newhart’s classic “Abe Lincoln’s Press Agent” routine:

    What else have you changed, Abe?
    You’re not wearing the SHAWL anymore.
    Um, what ARE you wearing, Abe?
    A “sort of cardigan”???

    —Ricko

  • inkracer | May 3, 2010 at 1:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”388693″]

    Uni-related: how awesome is the color of that eagles jersey, or, to put it in perspective, how much more awesome is it than the Eagles’ current midnight green color?[/quote]

    It is nice to see the Kelly green return, since they went with the Midnight Green because the Eagles and the Jets had uniforms that looked really similar. Hopefully the 1960 Throwback goes the way of the Flyers Throwback. From Alt one year, to Primary the next.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”388693″][quote comment=”388690″][quote comment=”388683″][quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?[/quote]

    Damn straight.
    Although I haven’t looked at a breaking ball like that for a long, long time.

    Can I use a big red Snoopy bat, maybe?
    Nothing quite like the “thoink” of the bat, is there.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I prefer the three foot long skinny yellow bat myself. There’s nothing like hitting the sweet spot of that stick and leaving a nice set of wiffle welts on the pitchers hand as he puts it up to protect his mug.

    Uni-related: how awesome is the color of that eagles jersey, or, to put it in perspective, how much more awesome is it than the Eagles’ current midnight green color?[/quote]

    Um…didn’t the Cunningham era Eagles have a pronounced black edge on the numbers?
    http://insidetheiggl...

    Or are they there and just don’t show up well in the news conference “reveal” photos?

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. [/quote]

    to quote judge smails from the shack, in describing al czervik, “the man’s a menace

    quintessential “look at me” athlete that ricko ;)

    but in his defense, the man is playing softball…so, like those big leaguers who we decry on a daily basis for looking like softball players with their softball tops and pajama bottoms…ricko’s actually dressing the part

    and roberto…c’mon…whom amongst us didn’t rock the rups a tad higher than normal in the 70’s? unless you were a member of the big red machine…

    even though i knew 99% of what ricko told to paul before reading today’s article, i still learned some things…glad he was honest and forthright…

    and hopefully, some of the younger guys learned a bit aboot why the pajama look took hold

    i don’t agree with it, but i understand it

  • Jeremy | May 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”388698″][quote comment=”388693″][quote comment=”388690″][quote comment=”388683″][quote comment=”388662″]”You don’t stop playing games when you grow old.
    You grow old when you stop playing games.”[/quote]

    Does that mean when you’re in NE Ohio I can count on you for a wiffleball game?[/quote]

    Damn straight.
    Although I haven’t looked at a breaking ball like that for a long, long time.

    Can I use a big red Snoopy bat, maybe?
    Nothing quite like the “thoink” of the bat, is there.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I prefer the three foot long skinny yellow bat myself. There’s nothing like hitting the sweet spot of that stick and leaving a nice set of wiffle welts on the pitchers hand as he puts it up to protect his mug.

    Uni-related: how awesome is the color of that eagles jersey, or, to put it in perspective, how much more awesome is it than the Eagles’ current midnight green color?[/quote]

    Um…didn’t the Cunningham era Eagles have a pronounced black edge on the numbers?
    http://insidetheiggl...

    Or are they there and just don’t show up well in the news conference “reveal” photos?[/quote]

    Here are the 1960 uniforms that these are modeled after- http://electivedecis...

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm |

    Ah, it’s the 1960 team.

    In that case, no black.

    If pants are silver, should have no stripes.
    Believe they may have begun the season with their old silver pants, but for most of 1960 was white pants with two narrow kelly stripes.
    http://sportsillustr...

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 1:32 pm |

    Not that I ever called it the “Fed Ex Orange Bowl,” but now no one else will be calling it that either.
    http://sports.espn.g...
    Has it really been 21 years? Wow.

  • inkracer | May 3, 2010 at 1:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388701″]Ah, it’s the 1960 team.

    In that case, no black.

    If pants are silver, should have no stripes.
    Believe they may have begun the season with their old silver pants, but for most of 1960 was white pants with two narrow kelly stripes.
    http://sportsillustr...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    From what I’ve seen, the pants are white, with 2 narrow Kelly Green stripes.

  • Schmeltzer | May 3, 2010 at 1:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. and all the reasons given for not wearing stirrups are reasons to wear them. follow the trend people, go ahead, see if i care, i’ll be the one in uni~heaven standing next to nap lajoie when it is all said and done, and the rest of you can say hello to the uni~satan in the eternal burning fires of uni~hell.[/quote]
    I wore my Oakland Athletics stirrups on my bike ride to work this morning (and still wearing them under my pants at work). A fellow cyclist hollered something at me as he passed in the other direction and since I had headphones in, I couldn’t hear him, but turned around and he was giving me a thumbs up. There was really nothing else remarkable about me this morning, so I think he liked my stirrups. I’m going to go ahead and assume that, actually.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

    good color photo of the jersey worn in ’60 (although i don’t think that’s from that same season)…love chuck bednarik…

    (although not the hit he laid on giff)

    classic post-championship pic

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”388704″][quote comment=”388701″]Ah, it’s the 1960 team.

    In that case, no black.

    If pants are silver, should have no stripes.
    Believe they may have begun the season with their old silver pants, but for most of 1960 was white pants with two narrow kelly stripes.
    http://sportsillustr...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    From what I’ve seen, the pants are white, with 2 narrow Kelly Green stripes.[/quote]

    Great.

    Now the next question is, How long before someone looks at the SI cover Jeremy and I posted simultaneously and says, “I dunno, that looks forest green to me”?

    —Ricko

  • Snowdan | May 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

    Random question: Anyone know where I could get a helmet decal for a DYI project? I’m looking at the 1968 Gophers helmet and am having trouble locating a good website. Thanks!

    Dan

  • flip | May 3, 2010 at 1:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”388688″][quote comment=”388678″]Next week in Uni Watch Confessions, Doug Keklak reveals his true colors…

    http://www.flickr.co...

    been a busy morning, eh?[/quote]

    And soon we’ll learn Paul’s real passion for purple.

  • Sean | May 3, 2010 at 1:45 pm |

    The “Dolphin Dick” is former University of Arkansas QB Casey Dick, played for the Razorbacks from 2005-08.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”388699″][quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. [/quote]

    to quote judge smails from the shack, in describing al czervik, “the man’s a menace

    quintessential “look at me” athlete that ricko ;)

    but in his defense, the man is playing softball…so, like those big leaguers who we decry on a daily basis for looking like softball players with their softball tops and pajama bottoms…ricko’s actually dressing the part

    and roberto…c’mon…whom amongst us didn’t rock the rups a tad higher than normal in the 70’s? unless you were a member of the big red machine…

    even though i knew 99% of what ricko told to paul before reading today’s article, i still learned some things…glad he was honest and forthright…

    and hopefully, some of the younger guys learned a bit aboot why the pajama look took hold

    i don’t agree with it, but i understand it[/quote]

    I have a question.

    If an NFL player wears white knee highs, people here say it’s “Look at me”, but if an MLB baseball player decides to be the only one on the field with red striped legs…isn’t that sorta the same thing?

    I know, one’s violating a rule. But the other isn’t the only brave soul ADHERING to a rule, either. There’s still personal choice involved.

    Toss it around.
    I’ll get ready to duck.

    —Ricko

  • Roger | May 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm |

    Jordan is wearing Adidas.

    http://www.stumbleup...

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”388693″]I prefer the three foot long skinny yellow bat myself. There’s nothing like hitting the sweet spot of that stick and leaving a nice set of wiffle welts on the pitchers hand as he puts it up to protect his mug.[/quote]

    That’s what I use as well. That way you earn your home runs.

    By the way, if this is my standard wiffleball attire, http://farm4.static.... should I add stirrups or just leave things as they are? I was considering the ’67 Senators.

  • Roger | May 3, 2010 at 1:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”388712″]Jordan is wearing Adidas.

    http://www.stumbleup...

    Whoops. I meant Converse. He’s wearing Converse.

  • rent | May 3, 2010 at 1:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”388703″]Not that I ever called it the “Fed Ex Orange Bowl,” but now no one else will be calling it that either.
    http://sports.espn.g...
    Has it really been 21 years? Wow.[/quote]

    I actually appreciate the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl … how about a logical “Florida Citrus Growers’ Orange Bowl”?

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”388713″]if this is my standard wiffleball attire, http://farm4.static.... should I add stirrups or just leave things as they are? I was considering the ’67 Senators.[/quote]

    nah…leave it be…we know you enjoy this look

    /ricko’s favorite photo

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 2:02 pm |

    [quote comment=\”388711\”]I have a question.

    If an NFL player wears white knee highs, people here say it\’s \”Look at me\”, but if an MLB baseball player decides to be the only one on the field with red striped legs…isn\’t that sorta the same thing?

    I know, one\’s violating a rule. But the other isn\’t the only brave soul ADHERING to a rule, either. There\’s still personal choice involved.

    Toss it around.
    I\’ll get ready to duck.[/quote]

    I see what you mean, if others don\’t. While the pajama look may not be the best, if one player rocks the stirrups, that\’s not exactly uniform, is it?

  • War Damn Eagle | May 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”388648″][quote comment=”388643″]I’ll fess up like Ricko. I wear the pajama pants. I think they’re more comfortable, and I wear high tops, which don’t look good with high-cuffed pants. This is for the Auburn alumni team (those who don’t wear pants, wear orange shorts)

    http://www.flickr.co...

    I used to wear the longer pants with the elastic, but I hated that.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    When I finally found some affordable pants with the open bottom, I bought a pair.

    My brother has gone with the high cuffs. But he’s recently switched to a longer pair of Montreal Expos road grays b/c they match our red/royal uni combo for our men’s league team. I don’t have a pic, but it looks a lot like Orlando Cabrera from his days in Montreal. No elastic, but they taper towards the bottom of the leg.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    http://c.photoshelte...

    Auburn alumni team? That a league or a tournament?

    There’s an annual Big Ten Alumni Co-Rec softball tournament here in town. Gophers, not surprisingly, always seem to find enough players. So far I have been, in years past, a Spartan, a Hawkeye, a Spartan again and a Hoosier.

    Can you spell “ringer”? :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s a league in DC metro area. 70 schools participate in the softball league with teams randomly assigned to 9 divisions. 14-game regular season, and a double-elimination tourney that is the mother of all tailgate/softball combo events. Auburn has had a team since 2005, and I joined in 2006.

    http://www.dcalum.or...

    Even the Gophers have a team, Ricko.

  • GoTerriers | May 3, 2010 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”388715″][quote comment=”388703″]Not that I ever called it the “Fed Ex Orange Bowl,” but now no one else will be calling it that either.
    http://sports.espn.g...
    Has it really been 21 years? Wow.[/quote]

    I actually appreciate the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl … how about a logical “Florida Citrus Growers’ Orange Bowl”?[/quote]

    Sunkist Orange Bowl???

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”388719″][quote comment=”388715″][quote comment=”388703″]Not that I ever called it the “Fed Ex Orange Bowl,” but now no one else will be calling it that either.
    http://sports.espn.g...
    Has it really been 21 years? Wow.[/quote]

    I actually appreciate the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl … how about a logical “Florida Citrus Growers’ Orange Bowl”?[/quote]

    Sunkist Orange Bowl???[/quote]

    That makes more sense than the Sunkist Fiesta Bowl did:
    http://www.youtube.c...

    Great game – first thing I ever taped when we got our first VCR.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”388718″][quote comment=”388648″][quote comment=”388643″]I’ll fess up like Ricko. I wear the pajama pants. I think they’re more comfortable, and I wear high tops, which don’t look good with high-cuffed pants. This is for the Auburn alumni team (those who don’t wear pants, wear orange shorts)

    http://www.flickr.co...

    I used to wear the longer pants with the elastic, but I hated that.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    When I finally found some affordable pants with the open bottom, I bought a pair.

    My brother has gone with the high cuffs. But he’s recently switched to a longer pair of Montreal Expos road grays b/c they match our red/royal uni combo for our men’s league team. I don’t have a pic, but it looks a lot like Orlando Cabrera from his days in Montreal. No elastic, but they taper towards the bottom of the leg.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    http://c.photoshelte...

    Auburn alumni team? That a league or a tournament?

    There’s an annual Big Ten Alumni Co-Rec softball tournament here in town. Gophers, not surprisingly, always seem to find enough players. So far I have been, in years past, a Spartan, a Hawkeye, a Spartan again and a Hoosier.

    Can you spell “ringer”? :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s a league in DC metro area. 70 schools participate in the softball league with teams randomly assigned to 9 divisions. 14-game regular season, and a double-elimination tourney that is the mother of all tailgate/softball combo events. Auburn has had a team since 2005, and I joined in 2006.

    http://www.dcalum.or...

    Even the Gophers have a team, Ricko.[/quote]

    Ah, yes, could work in D.C.
    Some many people from all over the country.
    Also why the metro area passes a collective kidney stone if it snows a quarter of an inch.
    Citywide panic. Special newscasts. Stay off the roads. Huge traffic jams on the Beltway. Three hours from Gaithersburg to Langley. Is Reagan still open? How ’bout Dulles? Is there school today, Mom? ;)

    —Ricko

  • rpm | May 3, 2010 at 2:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”388699″][quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. [/quote]

    to quote judge smails from the shack, in describing al czervik, “the man’s a menace

    quintessential “look at me” athlete that ricko ;)

    but in his defense, the man is playing softball…so, like those big leaguers who we decry on a daily basis for looking like softball players with their softball tops and pajama bottoms…ricko’s actually dressing the part

    and roberto…c’mon…whom amongst us didn’t rock the rups a tad higher than normal in the 70’s? unless you were a member of the big red machine…

    even though i knew 99% of what ricko told to paul before reading today’s article, i still learned some things…glad he was honest and forthright…

    and hopefully, some of the younger guys learned a bit aboot why the pajama look took hold

    i don’t agree with it, but i understand it[/quote]

    i thought i was light handed, what i can’t tease the guy? he knows i loves ’em. and i am not shocked he would wear pajamas, no big deal, his choice, rick rocks the fashion of the day, i don’t. but i wear short fat ties and cardigans(which are now in?!).

    and no, i was not on the big red machine, but i never wore high stirrups,i always thought it was ridiculous. i am on record in my first post that when i was issued high stirrups i double wrapped them so i wouldn’t look like a goof.

    call me catholic, er, a stirruplic, but if you break one of nap’s commandments you go to uni~hell. sorry, i wish it wasn’t true, but you can’t covet and take names and such without consequences from up above, that’s just the way it is. i will be getting one of those old school buses to paint up all rad, and pitch tents(sic) around the country in an effort to save people soon. and yes i still need a tambourine player if anybody wants in.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388716″][quote comment=”388713″]if this is my standard wiffleball attire, http://farm4.static.... should I add stirrups or just leave things as they are? I was considering the ’67 Senators.[/quote]

    nah…leave it be…we know you enjoy this look

    /ricko’s favorite photo[/quote]

    Yeah, I can relate:
    http://farm3.static....

  • War Damn Eagle | May 3, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    There’s definitely some teams that take more pride in their uniforms than others.

    We (Auburn) switched to Under Armour a couple seasons ago to coincide with the univeristy’s switch. They’re also much more breathable than our old cotton unis. We stuck with a traditional vertical arch name in collegiate block lettering, pairing the navy jerseys with orange shorts and navy socks.

    http://www.ontaponli...

    Some of the other schools that have great unis:

    Pitt – they used the old color scheme and script logo, which is fantastic.
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Texas – they use the correct color orange and a nice simple letter font.
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Villanova – Traditional navy button-ups with the undertail
    http://www.ontaponli...

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 2:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”388723″][quote comment=”388716″][quote comment=”388713″]if this is my standard wiffleball attire, http://farm4.static.... should I add stirrups or just leave things as they are? I was considering the ’67 Senators.[/quote]

    nah…leave it be…we know you enjoy this look

    /ricko’s favorite photo[/quote]

    Yeah, I can relate:
    http://farm3.static....

    Towson’s better backwards.
    Who could resist cheering for NOSWOT.

  • kj | May 3, 2010 at 2:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. and all the reasons given for not wearing stirrups are reasons to wear them. follow the trend people, go ahead, see if i care, i’ll be the one in uni~heaven standing next to nap lajoie when it is all said and done, and the rest of you can say hello to the uni~satan in the eternal burning fires of uni~hell.[/quote]

    Preach on, comrade.

    Meanwhile, yesterday in a Minneapolis park, I was doing my part for the revolution (even if you can’t see the sides in that picture), despite battling my new pants which kept sliding down. I’m 6’5″, and somehow the legs on my pants are too long. Bwuh?

    Note that my stirrups are in bad shape. Can’t wait to get our new jerseys and those new stirrups!

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 2:23 pm |

    Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko

  • War Damn Eagle | May 3, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”388727″]Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko[/quote]

    UVA’s uniforms are atrocious in this league. They have a new uni this year, and it’s not an improvement from their ’09 jersey.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388728″][quote comment=”388727″]Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko[/quote]

    UVA’s uniforms are atrocious in this league. They have a new uni this year, and it’s not an improvement from their ’09 jersey.[/quote]

    those worth mayhem pants are awful

    even jim vilk wouldn’t wear those

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388726″][quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. and all the reasons given for not wearing stirrups are reasons to wear them. follow the trend people, go ahead, see if i care, i’ll be the one in uni~heaven standing next to nap lajoie when it is all said and done, and the rest of you can say hello to the uni~satan in the eternal burning fires of uni~hell.[/quote]

    Preach on, comrade.

    Meanwhile, yesterday in a Minneapolis park, I was doing my part for the revolution (even if you can’t see the sides in that picture), despite battling my new pants which kept sliding down. I’m 6’5″, and somehow the legs on my pants are too long. Bwuh?

    Note that my stirrups are in bad shape. Can’t wait to get our new jerseys and those new stirrups![/quote]

    Man, what field is that? Not saying I know ’em all, but usually I can come up with a good guess. Looks like the neighborhood around Baasen, but field doesn’t seem to be sitting right for any of the diamonds there.

    Bryn Mawr, maybe?

    —Ricko

    —Ricko

  • rpm | May 3, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    kj~ we were separated at birth.

    rick~i never chastise players for that, NEVER. and i am not touching that topic with a ten foot pole, it is way to explosive if you really look at the real answer as to why some people’s brain~pans would be so free swing one being personal choice and the other being look at me. but if i were to ignore that aspect, i would argue that one is steeped in tradition, the other is not. you wear pajamas, don’t change the subject.

  • kj | May 3, 2010 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388730″]Man, what field is that? Not saying I know ’em all, but usually I can come up with a good guess. Looks like the neighborhood around Baasen, but field doesn’t seem to be sitting right for any of the diamonds there.

    Bryn Mawr, maybe?
    [/quote]
    Actually, it’s Northeast; we were on field 7.

  • yeti | May 3, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

    i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    its 2010 for crying out loud! uniforms are no longer simply used to distinguish one from another. its SPORTS FASHION now, and fashion goes by trends.

    yes the look of juan pierre or ian kinsler is nice to see on occasion, but lets face it, baseball IS long-baggy now. THAT is the trend.

    just like the mid 80s’ trend was, tight-high cuffed and the single white strip of color, the tight-baggy is NOW.

    basketball shorts have changed. no more belt loops and the knee length inseem. football jerseys have changed from loose and heavy mesh to tight and specialty textile. all trends (some which have lasted longer than others)

    out of curiosity, how many of you guys still tight roll your jeans? thats right, none. because the trend ended.

    i watch baseball now and anyone in high pants and a lot of sock looks goofy. why? because it is THEY who stick out like a sore thumb not following the current style of sport fashion.

    i see highlights from the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and everyone has that period of sport fashion on and it looks appropriate. its out of place now.

    kudos to all who accept the long-baggy look, and who think the dark alternate or “softball” jersey looks good as well. its nice to see at least some people are current with the times…

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”388732″][quote comment=”388730″]Man, what field is that? Not saying I know ’em all, but usually I can come up with a good guess. Looks like the neighborhood around Baasen, but field doesn’t seem to be sitting right for any of the diamonds there.

    Bryn Mawr, maybe?
    [/quote]
    Actually, it’s Northeast; we were on field 7.[/quote]

    Woulda been my next guess, but haven’t played there for, like, 20 years and wasn’t sure how it was looking these days. So would been, just that, a guess.

    –Ricko

  • War Damn Eagle | May 3, 2010 at 3:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”388729″][quote comment=”388728″][quote comment=”388727″]Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko[/quote]

    UVA’s uniforms are atrocious in this league. They have a new uni this year, and it’s not an improvement from their ’09 jersey.[/quote]

    those worth mayhem pants are awful

    even jim vilk wouldn’t wear those[/quote]

    UVA’s new unis are orange and have a front logo that I can only describe as a kissin’ cousin of the Cam Cameron-era Indiana football logo.

    http://fantastikspor...

    We had a weekend double-header a couple weeks ago, and a few of us paid homage to Komrade Marshall (I’m in the background)

    http://www.flickr.co...

  • Matt | May 3, 2010 at 3:06 pm |

    Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

  • Andy | May 3, 2010 at 3:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    its 2010 for crying out loud! uniforms are no longer simply used to distinguish one from another. its SPORTS FASHION now, and fashion goes by trends.

    yes the look of juan pierre or ian kinsler is nice to see on occasion, but lets face it, baseball IS long-baggy now. THAT is the trend.

    just like the mid 80s’ trend was, tight-high cuffed and the single white strip of color, the tight-baggy is NOW.

    basketball shorts have changed. no more belt loops and the knee length inseem. football jerseys have changed from loose and heavy mesh to tight and specialty textile. all trends (some which have lasted longer than others)

    out of curiosity, how many of you guys still tight roll your jeans? thats right, none. because the trend ended.

    i watch baseball now and anyone in high pants and a lot of sock looks goofy. why? because it is THEY who stick out like a sore thumb not following the current style of sport fashion.

    i see highlights from the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and everyone has that period of sport fashion on and it looks appropriate. its out of place now.

    kudos to all who accept the long-baggy look, and who think the dark alternate or “softball” jersey looks good as well. its nice to see at least some people are current with the times…[/quote]

    On the other hand, don’t trends usually develop as a sort of rebellion to tradition; an attempt to break the conformity and create a new, stylish look?

    On the one hand, I dislike that you’re giving kudos to people who are accepting a breach of baseball tradition and conforming like minions to a trend, but on the other hand, I can see how the few who do go high-cuffed are trying to create a new trend, which, eventually, people will conform to like minions.

    The prime issue is that the current minority fashion has more historical root in baseball, and that’s why I’m on the side of the revolution.

  • Jason S. | May 3, 2010 at 3:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388641″][quote comment=”388640″]Giants’ orange jerseys would look better with the orange-billed cap.[/quote]

    Agreed, and it would also nicely compliment the new striped hose by replicating the substantial orange accenting. I love the “traditional” Giants cap, but it actually seems incongruous in this particular uni configuration.[/quote]

    Either Larry Baer or Brian Sabean, on KNBR 680’s Razor and Mr. T drive-time show, said that it was the team’s plan to wear the new orange-billed caps with the new orange jerseys. But, the 2 oranges are not exactly alike, so they have stayed away from that combo.

  • rpm | May 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

    yeti~
    yeah, it’s a big conspiracy to brainwash people. drat! the cats out’a the bag boys, we better pack up our gear move to another site and start from the first brick again. maybe you don’t get it, but i have to deliver 15 striped youth stirrups to someone who does now.

    later folks

  • kj | May 3, 2010 at 3:12 pm |

    And, really, it just looks better.

    I’m not an ultra-traditionalist; in fact, many of the UniWatch postings make me roll my eyes.
    In a way, stirrups are a big “bumper sticker”, as this site likes to say; some stickers are better than others. I don’t hate all trim on football jerseys, as Paul, et al, may, but I’m with them on the stirrups: much, much love.

  • DenverGregg | May 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    …[/quote]

    This is a site about “athelteic aesthetics”. The current look is not aesthetically appealing. It’s slovenly (and not especially unique as slovenliness has become quite popular). If you want to start a site about the most functional or the trendiest athletic attire, knock yourself out.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 3:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”388737″]I can see how the few who do go high-cuffed are trying to create a new trend, which, eventually, people will conform to like minions.[/quote]

    one can only hope

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”388738″]Either Larry Baer or Brian Sabean, on KNBR 680’s Razor and Mr. T drive-time show, said that it was the team’s plan to wear the new orange-billed caps with the new orange jerseys. But, the 2 oranges are not exactly alike, so they have stayed away from that combo.[/quote]
    The cap and jersey are supposed to match? That’s crazy talk.

  • Ray | May 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

    That would have been me admiring your (Schmeltzer) Oakland A’s stirrups on the Greenway in Minneapolis this morning.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”388729″][quote comment=”388728″][quote comment=”388727″]Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko[/quote]

    UVA’s uniforms are atrocious in this league. They have a new uni this year, and it’s not an improvement from their ’09 jersey.[/quote]

    those worth mayhem pants are awful

    even jim vilk wouldn’t wear those[/quote]

    Well…

    At least not that low, I wouldn’t.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 3:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”388745″][quote comment=”388729″][quote comment=”388728″][quote comment=”388727″]Let’s be clear on one thing, though.
    In Yoda speak…
    “Dead I would not be caught in pants like these.”
    http://www.ontaponli...

    Unless they were, ugh, team issue or team standard.

    –Ricko[/quote]

    UVA’s uniforms are atrocious in this league. They have a new uni this year, and it’s not an improvement from their ’09 jersey.[/quote]

    those worth mayhem pants are awful

    even jim vilk wouldn’t wear those[/quote]

    Well…

    At least not that low, I wouldn’t.[/quote]

    They make those in shorts?

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 3:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”388741″][quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    …[/quote]

    This is a site about “athelteic aesthetics”. The current look is not aesthetically appealing. It’s slovenly (and not especially unique as slovenliness has become quite popular). If you want to start a site about the most functional or the trendiest athletic attire, knock yourself out.[/quote]

    I got the idea watching guys play cricket in long white pants. Figured, what the hell, stirrups are gone, pants are down to ankles with stupid elastic and make me look a farmer or something…and THAT (meaning cricket slacks) looks like it would be more comfortable. Given the way things were going at the time.

    Right or wrong? I dunno. Just made sense.

    And, in a curious way it’s also “traditional”, to whatever extent baseball is derived from cricket.

    Now, if one of my teams said, “We’re gonna wear stirrups this year”, I go digging for a pair of matching shorter pants in heartbeat.

    But I ain’t wearing Borat short shorts for basketball. Don’t CARE if Elgin Baylor wore ’em. No, sir. Sometimes things DO change. They aren’t just trends.

    You gotta go back to ’87 to see any players with striped stirrups in a World Series (a few Cardinals). Before that, it’s ’75 (many of the Red Sox). That’s one time in the past 35 years in baseball’s showcase.

    Will they come back? Who knows. I’d love it if they did. And maybe they are already. Time will tell.

    —Ricko

  • Doug in GA | May 3, 2010 at 3:33 pm |

    I have to pick a nit with David Raglin about the Fulham kit kerfuffle.

    The white kit is the primary kit. The red kit is the change kit and the midnight blue is their third kit (or strip). There is no such thing as an “away kit”, even though Fulham will probably never wear their red kits at Craven Cottage (their home pitch) except for maybe a preseason friendly. Most teams now have three strips because of their possible inclusion in competitions like the Champions League or Europa League.

    When you say away kit, you sound like a Yank.

  • Jeremy | May 3, 2010 at 3:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?

  • inkracer | May 3, 2010 at 3:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    Great find.

    With the Eagles Announcement today, that makes the Packers, the Bears, the Pats, and the Eagles with Throwback 3rd jerseys, and the Cards with a BFBS one. Any other teams supposed to be getting new 3rd jerseys? (I thought I heard a rumor about the Colts getting a throwback one..)

  • Bernard | May 3, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”388738″][quote comment=”388641″][quote comment=”388640″]Giants’ orange jerseys would look better with the orange-billed cap.[/quote]

    Agreed, and it would also nicely compliment the new striped hose by replicating the substantial orange accenting. I love the “traditional” Giants cap, but it actually seems incongruous in this particular uni configuration.[/quote]

    Either Larry Baer or Brian Sabean, on KNBR 680’s Razor and Mr. T drive-time show, said that it was the team’s plan to wear the new orange-billed caps with the new orange jerseys. But, the 2 oranges are not exactly alike, so they have stayed away from that combo.[/quote]

    I am of the opinion that pairing the orange jersey with the orange-brimmed hat (and the striped socks/stirrups) would be overkill. I think the regular hat, on the other hand, works just fine.

  • Matt | May 3, 2010 at 3:54 pm |

    More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 3:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”388749″][quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?[/quote]

    That would be great if they could play there. I believe the last pro football game played at Franklin was the Stallions/Stars playoff game in 1984.
    No footage of that, but here’s an ’83 playoff game:
    http://www.youtube.c...

    By the way, Phil, speaking of Stallions, THIS is how I remember Scott Norwood:
    http://www.youtube.c...

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 4:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”388753″][quote comment=”388749″][quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?[/quote]

    That would be great if they could play there. I believe the last pro football game played at Franklin was the Stallions/Stars playoff game in 1984.
    No footage of that, but here’s an ’83 playoff game:
    http://www.youtube.c...

    By the way, Phil, speaking of Stallions, THIS is how I remember Scott Norwood:
    http://www.youtube.c...

    Damn, I miss the USFL. Especially about this time of year, of course.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

    man…it’s good to be swoop

    the socks on the left look as good as the socks on the right

  • Geeman | May 3, 2010 at 4:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”388741″][quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    …[/quote]

    This is a site about “athelteic aesthetics”. The current look is not aesthetically appealing. It’s slovenly (and not especially unique as slovenliness has become quite popular). If you want to start a site about the most functional or the trendiest athletic attire, knock yourself out.[/quote]

    I don’t care if players wear socks or stirrups, high or low, but it seems that baseball should at least be as tough as the NFL in requiring every player to at least wear something. Especially players on the AL franchises in Chicago and Boston.

  • Jeremy | May 3, 2010 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”388749″][quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?[/quote]

    just thinking quickly, the Redskins at RFK are the only team I can think of unless you count teams that relocated- Raiders playing at LA Coliseum, Rams at Anaheim.

  • Geeman | May 3, 2010 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.

  • Seth H | May 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

    “How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?”

    More than you probably think at first guess.

    Patriots — Harvard Stadium
    Giants — Yale Bowl (Won’t count the new Yankee Stadium)
    Rams — LA Coliseum
    Raiders — LA Coliseum
    Redskins — RFK Stadium
    Titans — Astrodome
    Bears — Wrigley Field
    Lions — Silverdome (in disrepair)
    Cardinals — Tempe Stadium
    Panthers — Clemson Memorial Stadium

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388757″][quote comment=”388749″][quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?[/quote]

    just thinking quickly, the Redskins at RFK are the only team I can think of unless you count teams that relocated- Raiders playing at LA Coliseum, Rams at Anaheim.[/quote]

    bears at wrigley

  • Flip | May 3, 2010 at 4:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    What are those things on the upper arms? Sleeves?

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 4:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”388756″][quote comment=”388741″][quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    …[/quote]

    This is a site about “athelteic aesthetics”. The current look is not aesthetically appealing. It’s slovenly (and not especially unique as slovenliness has become quite popular). If you want to start a site about the most functional or the trendiest athletic attire, knock yourself out.[/quote]

    I don’t care if players wear socks or stirrups, high or low, but it seems that baseball should at least be as tough as the NFL in requiring every player to at least wear something. Especially players on the AL franchises in Chicago and Boston.[/quote]

    As I understand it (and I’m perfectly willing for someone to clarify one way or the other), about the only rule now is that the pant leg can NOT extend to under the heel.

    If so, that’s pretty much tacit approval of jammies.

    Again, not saying is right. Just wondering what actually IS.

    —Ricko

  • Flip | May 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”388758″][quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.[/quote]

    I would second that motion. A vote?

  • Seth H | May 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    Or course, I forgot:

    Patriots — Fenway Park

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”388754″]Damn, I miss the USFL. Especially about this time of year, of course.[/quote]

    You and I, Ricko…

    At least this year the sting has been lessened a bit, because I managed to get my hands on some old MISL tapes. But come July, when it was playoff time, I’ll be missing the USFL big time.

    I never got to see the ’83 championship game, except for some Youtube highlights. I wish they’d replay that the way they did the ’85 game.

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”388757″][quote comment=”388749″][quote comment=”388736″]Here is a good shot of the pants and helmet of the new Eagles 1960 throwback jerseys:

    http://www.philly.co...

    interesting note in the article that they were looking into playing the game at Franklin Field, but couldn’t sort out the logistics (parking, bathrooms, etc.) How many other NFL teams could still play a game in a “throwback” stadium?[/quote]

    just thinking quickly, the Redskins at RFK are the only team I can think of unless you count teams that relocated- Raiders playing at LA Coliseum, Rams at Anaheim.[/quote]
    I have no idea how many of these are still logistically feasible (pretty sure Kezar and Balboa in their current configurations are out of the question), but off the top of my head, here are former stadia NFL teams once called home (in their current markets) that still exist.

    Bears (Wrigley Field)
    Patriots (Fenway Park)
    Bengals (Nippert Stadium)
    Cowboys (Cotton Bowl)
    49ers/Raiders (Kezar Stadium)
    Chargers (Balboa Stadium)
    Redskins (RFK)
    Seahawks (Husky Stadium)
    Cardinals (Sun Devil Stadium)
    Panthers (Death Valley)

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 4:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”388763″][quote comment=”388758″][quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.[/quote]

    I would second that motion. A vote?[/quote]

    Call for the question.

    Far more tired of alts than throwbacks, but…”Aye”.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 4:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”388767″][quote comment=”388763″][quote comment=”388758″][quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.[/quote]

    I would second that motion. A vote?[/quote]

    Call for the question.

    Far more tired of alts than throwbacks, but…”Aye”.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I’m just tired of shitty alts. I like good ones.

    I’m in favor of the Eagles’ throwbacks (even though it looks like they *may* have gotten the socks wrong) so I’m gonna have to cast a nay vote.

  • doogie | May 3, 2010 at 4:25 pm |

    Ricko, your Nike lowtop Clippers with white tongues are amazing.

    The Barrie Colts of the OHL also are forced to have their Mem Cup patch in an awkward location.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”388747″]But I ain’t wearing Borat short shorts for basketball. Don’t CARE if Elgin Baylor wore ’em. No, sir. Sometimes things DO change. They aren’t just trends.[/quote]

    Aw, come one, how timeless is this?
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    Actually, I just bought a pair of black shorts to go with my Spurs jersey t-shirt, and they go all the way down…to the top of the knees. Any further and they’d meet my high socks, and that would just be silly….

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 4:28 pm |

    *NAY*

    Even though the throwback idea has been corrupted and a good number of alts should be left in the closet, it gets people thinking/talking about athletic aesthetics, and that is DEFINITELY a good thing.

    Always brings a smile to my face when an announcer mentions NNOB or stirrups, or when throwbacks are a catalyst for a b-roll of old footage.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    As they had been for a number of seasons, the 1960 Eagles socks were kelly stirrups with two white stripes spaced rather far apart (see sleeves on road whites). For most (but not all) players their white crew socks probably covered the bottom stripe.

    Similar thing with Falcons throwback socks last year; bottom half of 1966 NW stripe pattern just not there.

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | May 3, 2010 at 4:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388768″][quote comment=”388767″][quote comment=”388763″][quote comment=”388758″][quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.[/quote]

    I would second that motion. A vote?[/quote]

    Call for the question.

    Far more tired of alts than throwbacks, but…”Aye”.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I’m just tired of shitty alts. I like good ones.

    I’m in favor of the Eagles’ throwbacks (even though it looks like they *may* have gotten the socks wrong) so I’m gonna have to cast a nay vote.[/quote]

    Hear, hear!

  • Schmeltzer | May 3, 2010 at 4:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”388744″]That would have been me admiring your (Schmeltzer) Oakland A’s stirrups on the Greenway in Minneapolis this morning.[/quote]

    Awesome! I figured it was someone from the Uni-verse. Thanks for the thumbs up!

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 4:34 pm |

    Baywatch would have been better with these…?
    http://s.ecrater.com...

    Just tough to know what’s change, and what’s a trend, isn’t it.

  • Geeman | May 3, 2010 at 4:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”388767″][quote comment=”388763″][quote comment=”388758″][quote comment=”388752″]More pictures of the Eagles 1960 throwbacks:

    http://www.philly.co...

    I’m tired of throwbacks. I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, especially of different colors. Pick your team colors, pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine), and stick with it.[/quote]

    I would second that motion. A vote?[/quote]

    Call for the question.

    Far more tired of alts than throwbacks, but…”Aye”.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Don’t get me wrong — some throwbacks are great. Love the Bears’ old look (though they should keep the current look, of course). Wear them once every few years, not several games a season along with an alternate uniform.

    Alternates are probably more out of hand, agreed. But I am a fan of the alternate colored baseball jersey once a week or so (derisively referred to by some as the softball top).

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”388758″]I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, … pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine)[/quote]

    wait…what?

    and lets define the sport…no way does any football team need more than one alt…and that should be a good one, if at all

    baseball needs no alts, but if you INSIST on an alt, at least let it be an alt uni, not just a softball top you want to toss out there for the fuck of it

    basketball? who cares…let them wear 7 different unis, like the cavs…

    hockey? white at home is all i care about

  • Geeman | May 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm |

    In the cluttered, attention-deficit society that we live in, perhaps few are noticing that throwbacks and alternates are devaluing the product. Watching the Jazz game the other night you could see several guys in the stands in the Jazz’ dark blue and light blue jerseys, and a few in the green throwbacks they wore this year. Funny, but I’ll always associate that team with the purple unis they wore for years. And when the made the NBA Finals the second time, they had those uniforms with the mountains on them. So there’s five uniforms of different colors right there. Where’s the team identity?

    Watch a Lakers game, by contrast, and you pretty much have the same jersey, with tweaks, year after year, and always in the same colors (purple, gold, white). Yankees, Steelers, Alabama football, UCLA basketball — consistency year after year, and championships.

  • yeti | May 3, 2010 at 4:39 pm |

    yes, it is about athletic aesthetics i understand that, and I think that aesthetically, high pants look absolutely ridiculous on the modern player. its a look that belongs in the 50’s.

    this “look” is an aesthetic in athletics and its a shame that whenever people disagree with the opinions of administration on this site (long pants, softball jerseys, nike or the swoosh, purple, etc), its regarded as “wrong”.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 4:40 pm |

    [quote comment=”388766″]Chargers (Balboa Stadium)[/quote]

    LA Coliseum

  • Geeman | May 3, 2010 at 4:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”388777″][quote comment=”388758″]I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, … pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine)[/quote]

    wait…what?

    and lets define the sport…no way does any football team need more than one alt…and that should be a good one, if at all

    baseball needs no alts, but if you INSIST on an alt, at least let it be an alt uni, not just a softball top you want to toss out there for the fuck of it

    basketball? who cares…let them wear 7 different unis, like the cavs…

    hockey? white at home is all i care about[/quote]

    The 1970s A’s had it right for alternates in baseball.

    The Lakers have it right now (not the Cavs, for sure; what are their colors anyway?).

    White at home in hockey would be nice.

    Football? Have a home uniform, a road uniform, and an alternate for either (green jersey for Notre Dame, black for Georgia, orange pants at home for Clemson, maybe dark pants on the road for some teams).

  • rent | May 3, 2010 at 4:51 pm |

    Wrigley Field? Who’s suggesting Da Bears aren’t ALREADY playing in a throwback stadium?

    http://checkraise.co...

    (where’s the sarcasm tag again?)

  • Schmeltzer | May 3, 2010 at 4:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”388779″]yes, it is about athletic aesthetics i understand that, and I think that aesthetically, high pants look absolutely ridiculous on the modern player. its a look that belongs in the 50’s.

    this “look” is an aesthetic in athletics and its a shame that whenever people disagree with the opinions of administration on this site (long pants, softball jerseys, nike or the swoosh, purple, etc), its regarded as “wrong”.[/quote]

    I think you forget that most of us enjoy this site because most of us are like-minded and agree on certain things. We don’t just agree with “the opinions of administration on this site” to fit in. To insinuate that we all just follow along like sheep is insulting.

    When you have an opinion that is different than the majority, the majority of people are going to disagree. That’s just math. Hopefully those disagreements can be respectful on both sides (and yes, I know sometimes they are not).

  • Andy | May 3, 2010 at 4:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”388772″]As they had been for a number of seasons, the 1960 Eagles socks were kelly stirrups with two white stripes spaced rather far apart (see sleeves on road whites). For most (but not all) players their white crew socks probably covered the bottom stripe.

    Similar thing with Falcons throwback socks last year; bottom half of 1966 NW stripe pattern just not there.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I was going to bring this up as well. These Eagles’ socks and the Falcons’ socks from their 1966 throwbacks are knitted so that they appear to be a two-piece sock (a white sanitary sock pulled up over a striped stirrup). These particular socks had such large stripe designs that many players ended up covering up the bottom half of the stripes when they pulled their white sanitaries on over the stirrup. Thus these socks are a football two-in-one of sorts, attempting to replicate the look of a sanitary over a stirrup in much the same way a baseball two-in-one attempts to replicate the look of a stirrup over a sanitary. The lower white part is even a much thicker knit so that (as you can see in the photos) it really does appear thicker as if there is a white sock pulled up over the colored area.

    Personally, I’d rather have the full socks or see both stripes visible as they were originally intended, but at least all the players will be uniform this way.

  • Andy | May 3, 2010 at 4:58 pm |

    The Cavs’ colors?

    Easy. Dark red, wine, metallic gold, yellow, navy blue, black, royal blue, orange, light blue… and oh yeah, white.

  • Mark in Shiga | May 3, 2010 at 4:59 pm |

    I was an early returner the the stirrup world when I joined my Japanese company’s baseball team in 2000. At a towering 5′ 11″, my pants weren’t long enough to pull down, so I just went the opposite way. Here’s my photo. And I’m glad I chose the timeless look, because something tells me that in 20 years we’ll be looking at today’s pajamas the same way we look at most of the ’70s and ’80s innovations.

    Incidentally, Japanese high school players *always* wear stirrups. We’ve got multi-striped socks with white bottoms, powder blues, and rugby-style white-background jersey numbers, all at once!

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 5:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”388780″][quote comment=”388766″]Chargers (Balboa Stadium)[/quote]

    LA Coliseum[/quote]
    Yeah, but the Los Angleles Chargers played there, not the San Diego Chargers.

    Coulda said Cotton Bowl for the Chiefs. Or Vanderbilt Stadium for the Titans, too.

    Although I guess the New England Patriots never played at Fenway, either.

  • yeti | May 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”388783″][quote comment=”388779″]yes, it is about athletic aesthetics i understand that, and I think that aesthetically, high pants look absolutely ridiculous on the modern player. its a look that belongs in the 50’s.

    this “look” is an aesthetic in athletics and its a shame that whenever people disagree with the opinions of administration on this site (long pants, softball jerseys, nike or the swoosh, purple, etc), its regarded as “wrong”.[/quote]

    I think you forget that most of us enjoy this site because most of us are like-minded and agree on certain things. We don’t just agree with “the opinions of administration on this site” to fit in. To insinuate that we all just follow along like sheep is insulting.

    When you have an opinion that is different than the majority, the majority of people are going to disagree. That’s just math. Hopefully those disagreements can be respectful on both sides (and yes, I know sometimes they are not).[/quote]

    as a reader (i rarely if ever respond) i think i enjoy this site because i am like minded. i pay attention to uniform detail, i notice when things are different, i recognize these happenings and the general minutae.
    BUT, it bothers me that administration write in such a way that their way is the ONLY way. with little or no regard for other opinion.
    for example, how many times was ricko referred to as some sort of antichrist in today’s entry. i know it was done jokingly, and in a “just bustin’ balls” kind of way, but there IS some sort of truth behind it.
    i would feel more welcome at this site if i felt that my opinion was recognized as just that, and not wrong.
    i thought this site was the study of athletic aesthetics (all athletic aesthetics) and not just the ones which administration finds appropriate.

  • jesse | May 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”388787″][quote comment=”388780″][quote comment=”388766″]Chargers (Balboa Stadium)[/quote]

    LA Coliseum[/quote]
    Yeah, but the Los Angleles Chargers played there, not the San Diego Chargers.

    Coulda said Cotton Bowl for the Chiefs. Or Vanderbilt Stadium for the Titans, too.

    Although I guess the New England Patriots never played at Fenway, either.[/quote]
    Um, yeah they did.

  • Mark in Shiga | May 3, 2010 at 5:13 pm |

    Yeti, I feel you. Just try getting a word in edgewise against the “road uniforms must be gray” cabal. They use every sneaky linguistic trick in the book — calling road uniforms in general “road grays” so as to establish themselves as the standard; claiming that Minnesota “finally grew up” when they went to plain dull pinstripeless gray road unis (as if other colors don’t look <a href="http://farm4.static....>mature enough); referring to any other color top as “softball” — I’d honestly prefer the “ball-busting” style to the subtle haughtiness of the gray-supporters!

  • Mark in Shiga | May 3, 2010 at 5:14 pm |

    Oops, botched the link. Cubs in the years around 1910; awesome dark blue.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm |

    whoa there, mark…

    a “softball top” is just that — a solid top which is worn IN AND OF ITSELF and worn with the “regular” pants

    i’ve NEVER opined that all unis should only be white or gray (although it’s tough to make too many other colors work)…but they should be UNIFORMS! not some alternate top thrown out there and worn with the normal pants

    i love the indians & phils creams, and the mets and twins new creams are growing on me…i even like the pods sands, but they could have chosen a better color, and i hope more teams would wear powder blue (but again, that’s a very tricky color)…but the rays/royals powder blue top, by itself over white pants?

    looks like shit, and looks like a softball top

    i’d totally advocate for more colored uniforms to be worn, home or road (tho road would be more appropriate)…

    my ONLY complaint is the softball look is awful…

    those japanese kids you showed in the powderblue? awesome…stirrups are a bouns as well

    maybe you were referring to paul and not me with the “only gray is good” … please don’t put words into my mouth…i never said ONLY gray is good…but if you’re going to wear gray pants, your top better be gray as well

    if you’re going to wear a red softball top — then make sure your pants are red to match…but there’s a reason why that look never caught on

  • DenverGregg | May 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm |

    Everybody is sometimes at variance with the majority – not just at this site (heck, I like the Cubs’ powder blue pins, which are widely denigrated), but with life in general. As a friend of mine puts it “I do have some opinions that aren’t very respectable”.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 5:28 pm |

    oh…and minnesota finally grew up when they finally took the pins off the roads

  • frankenslade | May 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”388644″]the more i see of the rays powder blues the less i like them…of course seeing them play the royals when both teams wear softball tops makes it even worse[/quote]

    I caught the highlights out of the corner of my eye last night and thought it was a Royals-Rangers game. The Rays’ baby blues look great…if they’re playing a game in which they’re paying homage to the Royals. The Royals, meanwhile, look silly in royal blue. In my mind they should wear white or powder blue. Plus, both teams should not be allowed to wear white pants. Ever. I’m an NL guy, so maybe I should have complained about all this earlier…

  • kj | May 3, 2010 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”388794″]oh…and minnesota finally grew up when they finally took the pins off the roads[/quote]

    I still prefer the road pins, and it’s not even close in my mind. The new “grown-up” look is dull and drab, plus their script looks awful. (And don’t get me started about the home throwback script… that’s a hot mess there.)

  • StLMarty | May 3, 2010 at 6:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”388733″]i guess ive never understood the belief that “stirups are right; all else is wrong” or “high cuffed pants are right; all else is wrong”.

    its about time that people here show that they have a mind of their own and are not drawn in to what seems to be brainwashing by the administration of the above beliefs.

    its 2010 for crying out loud! uniforms are no longer simply used to distinguish one from another. its SPORTS FASHION now, and fashion goes by trends.

    yes the look of juan pierre or ian kinsler is nice to see on occasion, but lets face it, baseball IS long-baggy now. THAT is the trend.

    just like the mid 80s’ trend was, tight-high cuffed and the single white strip of color, the tight-baggy is NOW.

    basketball shorts have changed. no more belt loops and the knee length inseem. football jerseys have changed from loose and heavy mesh to tight and specialty textile. all trends (some which have lasted longer than others)

    out of curiosity, how many of you guys still tight roll your jeans? thats right, none. because the trend ended.

    i watch baseball now and anyone in high pants and a lot of sock looks goofy. why? because it is THEY who stick out like a sore thumb not following the current style of sport fashion.

    i see highlights from the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s and everyone has that period of sport fashion on and it looks appropriate. its out of place now.

    kudos to all who accept the long-baggy look, and who think the dark alternate or “softball” jersey looks good as well. its nice to see at least some people are current with the times…[/quote]
    This site belongs to the administrator. He can say whatever he wants, and you can choose to not tune in.
    I do fear at times, that readers are sometimes swayed. I hope it is far and few between. Ultimately, everyone needs to think for one’s self.
    The fact that you use the word “trend” is most alarming. Trend leads to trendy, and trendy is bad. It is not style. It is not good design. It is people following the masses for comfort and approval. That is bad.
    I know that you don’t like tight rolling your jeans, but I bet you have a few graphic tees.
    Don’t you?

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm |

    There always will be trends. To a great extent, they keep life interesting. Change, permanent change, can only be assessed over time. That’s why I posted that old-time tanktop men’s bathing suit. Even Ralph Lauren couldn’t bring that thing back into style, I don’t think.

    No one ever said, “I’m gonna write a great American novel” and then did it. That’s for others–and time–to decide.

    The macarena was dopey and trendy and fun. But 60 years from now, I doubt a reknowned dance company will perform it as “classic dance” and lament it’s passing into history.

    As far as Paul busting my chops, what can I say. I didn’t expect my wearing long pants was gonna change his mind about anything. ;)

    Were I playing softball only once a week, I’d probably wear stirrups. But up until about three years ago, every summer I played Sunday a.m. tripleheaders (5-inning games), Monday night doubleheaders, Tuesday a.m. doubleheaders, Wednesday night, Thursday a.m. doubleheaders and Thursday night, plus one or two weekend tournaments a month.

    Somewhere in a schedule like that you just gonna weave convenience into things. And comfort.

    I will, however, tell you this. If I ever start playing golf regularly again and get back to consistently playing bogey golf (about 90), you can bet your ass I’ll probably start wearing Plus Fours. Maybe even a necktie and a cardigan once in a while. :)

    —Ricko

  • StLMarty | May 3, 2010 at 6:43 pm |

    “The macarena was dopey and trendy.”
    That’s giving dope a bad name.
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    Trends are bad.

  • Squiddie | May 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm |

    Life photo of the 1960 Eagles.

    Two points:

    Kickers with a high number? Did Chuck Bednarik kick?

    Look at that field!

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 7:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”388789″][quote comment=”388787″][quote comment=”388780″][quote comment=”388766″]Chargers (Balboa Stadium)[/quote]

    LA Coliseum[/quote]
    Yeah, but the Los Angleles Chargers played there, not the San Diego Chargers.

    Coulda said Cotton Bowl for the Chiefs. Or Vanderbilt Stadium for the Titans, too.

    Although I guess the New England Patriots never played at Fenway, either.[/quote]
    Um, yeah they did.[/quote]
    Home games. I meant home games.

  • JTH | May 3, 2010 at 7:11 pm |

    Or did you mean the Pats, Jesse?

    My point was that the *Boston* Patriots called Fenway home. That’s why I specifically referred to them as the New England Patriots.

  • yeti | May 3, 2010 at 7:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”388799″] [/quote]
    This site belongs to the administrator. He can say whatever he wants, and you can choose to not tune in.

    I do fear at times, that readers are sometimes swayed. I hope it is far and few between. Ultimately, everyone needs to think for one’s self.
    quote]

    absolutely this site belongs to administration, but when it is labeled as a site for athletics aesthetics, then study ALL portions of it. dont discount a part of it just because you dont like it.

    its like writing a history book and keeping portions of it out because you dont agree with it.

    hey I GET that the majority prefers stirrups, and dislikes long pants, I GET that the majority hates the colored shirt (softball jersey), I GET that the majority hates nike and the swoosh, I GET IT!

    but how often do we have to read that? dont make those of us who prefer long-baggy, with a colored jersey wearing nikes feel like second class readers because we dont agree with the majority opinion. i read this blog and i feel put down day after day because its stirrup this and high pants that. at least acknowledge that there are other athletic aesthetic tastes, and they also make up the readership.

  • Teebz | May 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm |

    I finally received my stirrups today, and in good time! If they did not arrive today, I would have been forced to go high socks in tomorrow night’s season opener! Now, I will proudly wear the 1967 Sens ‘rups on the mound tomorrow eve!

    Wednesday night sees the co-ed team break out the summertime reds, and I’ll be proudly sporting the 1957 Reds ‘rups for that game!

    WOO! Comrade Marshall has brought many fortunes to my life of the positive nature with his gift!

  • M.Princip | May 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”388801″]”The macarena was dopey and trendy.”
    That’s giving dope a bad name.
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    Trends are bad.[/quote]

    Never a truer word spoken.

  • Teebz | May 3, 2010 at 7:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”388805″][quote comment=”388799″] [/quote]
    This site belongs to the administrator. He can say whatever he wants, and you can choose to not tune in.

    I do fear at times, that readers are sometimes swayed. I hope it is far and few between. Ultimately, everyone needs to think for one’s self.
    quote]

    absolutely this site belongs to administration, but when it is labeled as a site for athletics aesthetics, then study ALL portions of it. dont discount a part of it just because you dont like it.

    its like writing a history book and keeping portions of it out because you dont agree with it.

    hey I GET that the majority prefers stirrups, and dislikes long pants, I GET that the majority hates the colored shirt (softball jersey), I GET that the majority hates nike and the swoosh, I GET IT!

    but how often do we have to read that? dont make those of us who prefer long-baggy, with a colored jersey wearing nikes feel like second class readers because we dont agree with the majority opinion. i read this blog and i feel put down day after day because its stirrup this and high pants that. at least acknowledge that there are other athletic aesthetic tastes, and they also make up the readership.[/quote]

    You’re taking something that Paul and Phil like and making it about you. Why do you feel so personally offended? Perhaps it’s because the high-cuffed look challenges the establishment of “baseball trends”?

    I wear pyjama pants. I admit it. I have to if I (a) don’t want to freeze in the spring and fall and/or (b) would like to have enough blood to stay conscious. However, the high-cuffed look in the summer is cooler while still providing protection for my legs when I slide. I’d love to wear shorts if it didn’t mean sand- and gravel-filled raspberries all summer long.

    I’m no baseball historian, and I barely even follow the professional game unless I need something to watch in the summer when hockey is over. However, there is something magical about the way Jim Thome looks with his socks showing compared to looking like everyone else.

    What Thome is doing is breaking the mold. That is, he prefers to wear his pants up to show his socks when 80-90% of baseball prefers their pants down to, or past, their cleats.

    Feel free to disagree, but the majority of major league players are sheep when it comes to their pants. Thome, in this instance, is going against the grain by wearing his pants high-cuffed, and refusing to drop into the pyjama trend. Isn’t that the very thing you want more players to do – challenge the establishment?

  • StLMarty | May 3, 2010 at 7:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”388807″][quote comment=”388801″]”The macarena was dopey and trendy.”
    That’s giving dope a bad name.
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    Trends are bad.[/quote]

    Never a truer word spoken.[/quote]
    Thank you for your support.
    By the way, neat stuff yesterday. As I stated in the comments, My uni epiphany was also with the Seahawks in 1977.
    You said that you post Seahawk redesigns on your blog? I think that some of the ones I did in the early 90’s were shown on this site back in August of 2007.

  • Kevin Z. | May 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”388699″][quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. [/quote]

    to quote judge smails from the shack, in describing al czervik, “the man’s a menace

    quintessential “look at me” athlete that ricko ;)

    but in his defense, the man is playing softball…so, like those big leaguers who we decry on a daily basis for looking like softball players with their softball tops and pajama bottoms…ricko’s actually dressing the part

    and roberto…c’mon…whom amongst us didn’t rock the rups a tad higher than normal in the 70’s? unless you were a member of the big red machine…

    even though i knew 99% of what ricko told to paul before reading today’s article, i still learned some things…glad he was honest and forthright…

    and hopefully, some of the younger guys learned a bit aboot why the pajama look took hold

    i don’t agree with it, but i understand it[/quote]

    Never seen pajama pants in softball. They always wear pants high when not wearing shorts.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 7:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”388807″][quote comment=”388801″]”The macarena was dopey and trendy.”
    That’s giving dope a bad name.
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    Trends are bad.[/quote]

    Never a truer word spoken.[/quote]

    Trends not inherently evil.

    Thirty-five years ago, THE STING and JAWS begin trend away from heavy-handed, preachy films:
    Good.
    Thirty years ago, trend toward more baseball and football on TV:
    Good.
    Ten years ago, trend toward reality TV shows:
    Bad.
    Five years ago, half-hour infomercials start trend of TV channels using them to fill unattractive time slots for advertisers:
    Bad.
    Thesesdays, trends trending to be on a downward trend:
    Bad.

    Now “trendy”, that’s a whole other issue.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 7:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”388810″][quote comment=”388699″][quote comment=”388694″]i am not at all shocked by ricko’s counter revolutionary bent. it only proves my point, look at his olde pixtures, he is going large loop on the stirrup, and that in itself is counter revolutionary stirrup killing nonsense, of course he would go in for pajamas. [/quote]

    to quote judge smails from the shack, in describing al czervik, “the man’s a menace

    quintessential “look at me” athlete that ricko ;)

    but in his defense, the man is playing softball…so, like those big leaguers who we decry on a daily basis for looking like softball players with their softball tops and pajama bottoms…ricko’s actually dressing the part

    and roberto…c’mon…whom amongst us didn’t rock the rups a tad higher than normal in the 70’s? unless you were a member of the big red machine…

    even though i knew 99% of what ricko told to paul before reading today’s article, i still learned some things…glad he was honest and forthright…

    and hopefully, some of the younger guys learned a bit aboot why the pajama look took hold

    i don’t agree with it, but i understand it[/quote]

    Never seen pajama pants in softball. They always wear pants high when not wearing shorts.[/quote]

    Guess that depends on where you play, both geographically and on what level, doesn’t it? Styles vary in diffrent parts of the country. I’ve seen that firsthand. Also, frankly, to a great extent on the age of the players. Long pants most common, around here, on higher level teams, particulary if it’s younger guys, and on teams of older guys (40+) in general. Not saying what’s right or wrong, just what I see.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 8:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”388810″]
    Never seen pajama pants in softball. They always wear pants high when not wearing shorts.[/quote]

    well then

    exhibit a

    exhibit b

    exhibit c

    and in the non-ricko category…

    thisthisthisthis…and cetera

  • Kevin Z. | May 3, 2010 at 8:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”388813″][quote comment=”388810″]
    Never seen pajama pants in softball. They always wear pants high when not wearing shorts.[/quote]

    well then

    exhibit a

    exhibit b

    exhibit c

    and in the non-ricko category…

    thisthisthisthis…and cetera[/quote]

    I guess I am sexist or reverse-sexist or something, but when I think of softball I think of girl’s and women’s softball, so that was what I meant by my comment. Isn’t women’s softball where the term “softball jersey” for colored jerseys comes from?

    In any case, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a women’s softball game with pajama pants.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 8:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”388814″][quote comment=”388813″][quote comment=”388810″]
    Never seen pajama pants in softball. They always wear pants high when not wearing shorts.[/quote]

    well then

    exhibit a

    exhibit b

    exhibit c

    and in the non-ricko category…

    thisthisthisthis…and cetera[/quote]

    I guess I am sexist or reverse-sexist or something, but when I think of softball I think of girl’s and women’s softball, so that was what I meant by my comment. Isn’t women’s softball where the term “softball jersey” for colored jerseys comes from?

    In any case, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a women’s softball game with pajama pants.[/quote]

    Yeah, can’t say I have, either.
    And obviously you don’t play softball.
    No offense, just an observation. :)

    —Ricko

  • Kevin Z. | May 3, 2010 at 8:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”388815″]
    I guess I am sexist or reverse-sexist or something, but when I think of softball I think of girl’s and women’s softball, so that was what I meant by my comment. Isn’t women’s softball where the term “softball jersey” for colored jerseys comes from?

    In any case, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a women’s softball game with pajama pants.[/quote]

    Yeah, can’t say I have, either.
    And obviously you don’t play softball.
    No offense, just an observation. :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    None taken and correct.

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 8:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”388801″]
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    [/quote]

    Just be thankful your team didn’t choose it as their theme song

  • interlockingtc | May 3, 2010 at 8:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”388777″][quote comment=”388758″]I’m tired of multiple alternate uniforms, … pick your uniform (an alternate or two is fine)[/quote]

    wait…what?

    and lets define the sport…no way does any football team need more than one alt…and that should be a good one, if at all

    baseball needs no alts, but if you INSIST on an alt, at least let it be an alt uni, not just a softball top you want to toss out there for the fuck of it

    basketball? who cares…let them wear 7 different unis, like the cavs…

    hockey? white at home is all i care about[/quote]

    The perfect response. (Though there was a time when I did love the traditional 1 home/1away basketball uniform. Now? zzzzz)

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 8:47 pm |

    I’ve finally placed where I’ve seen that horrible Reds font before: here.

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 8:49 pm |

    what’s with luis’ 49% yellow cleats?

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 8:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”388820″]what’s with luis’ 49% yellow cleats?[/quote]

    New alts, I suppose.

  • Bernard | May 3, 2010 at 9:08 pm |

    All this back-and-forth about pajama pants, high pants, softball tops and road pins, when we could be admiring the beauty that is this:

    http://scores.espn.g...

    Flyers at Bruins looks GOOD…

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 9:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”388796″]The Royals, meanwhile, look silly in royal blue. In my mind they should wear white or powder blue.[/quote]

    I know where you’re coming from, but that just sounds odd.

    Yeah, historically the Royals wore powder, but they are the ROYALS after all. :)

    And they can wear it as an all-royal uni or as a softball top in my book. I know that doesn’t jive with the majority, but I respect their opinion. And yes, I know “Royals” implies royalty, not color, but still…

  • LI Phil | May 3, 2010 at 10:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”388823″][quote comment=”388796″]The Royals, meanwhile, look silly in royal blue. In my mind they should wear white or powder blue.[/quote]

    I know where you’re coming from, but that just sounds odd.

    Yeah, historically the Royals wore powder, but they are the ROYALS after all. :)

    And they can wear it as an all-royal uni or as a softball top in my book. I know that doesn’t jive with the majority, but I respect their opinion. And yes, I know “Royals” implies royalty, not color, but still…[/quote]

    actually, jim…the team is named after the american royal livestock show

    but i’ll agree that royal is a fine color…and i wouldn’t mind seeing them try an all royal uni…just for shits and giggles…problem with that is, they’d need a contrasting color stirrup…and gold won’t cut it

    *heads off to photoshop to work that one up*

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 10:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”388824″][quote comment=”388823″][quote comment=”388796″]The Royals, meanwhile, look silly in royal blue. In my mind they should wear white or powder blue.[/quote]

    I know where you’re coming from, but that just sounds odd.

    Yeah, historically the Royals wore powder, but they are the ROYALS after all. :)

    And they can wear it as an all-royal uni or as a softball top in my book. I know that doesn’t jive with the majority, but I respect their opinion. And yes, I know “Royals” implies royalty, not color, but still…[/quote]

    actually, jim…the team is named after the american royal livestock show

    but i’ll agree that royal is a fine color…and i wouldn’t mind seeing them try an all royal uni…just for shits and giggles…problem with that is, they’d need a contrasting color stirrup…and gold won’t cut it

    *heads off to photoshop to work that one up*[/quote]

    How about they just stick to royal and white? Like it’s impossible to design a good looking uni using only royal and white? Maybe go back to powder on the road if they want to “own” the powder. That would be unique and ballsy. Adding a half-assed home Alt is neither.

    Until this recent business powder has never been anything but their alternative to gray base garment color on the road. Unlike the Blue Jays and Rays, it is not, and has never been, a trim color on the homes. In fact, they dropped it altogether for a few years.

    We may associate powder with the Royals, but I don’t think it’s ever been a team color per se. Could be wrong; they may have added it recently to justify the Alts. But I doubt it was when they were wearing it on the road during the Brett/Jackson era. All it was then was “not gray.”

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”388824″][quote comment=”388823″][quote comment=”388796″]The Royals, meanwhile, look silly in royal blue. In my mind they should wear white or powder blue.[/quote]

    I know where you’re coming from, but that just sounds odd.

    Yeah, historically the Royals wore powder, but they are the ROYALS after all. :)

    And they can wear it as an all-royal uni or as a softball top in my book. I know that doesn’t jive with the majority, but I respect their opinion. And yes, I know “Royals” implies royalty, not color, but still…[/quote]

    actually, jim…the team is named after the american royal livestock show

    but i’ll agree that royal is a fine color…and i wouldn’t mind seeing them try an all royal uni…just for shits and giggles…problem with that is, they’d need a contrasting color stirrup…and gold won’t cut it

    *heads off to photoshop to work that one up*[/quote]

    The livestock show sounds like something right up Paul’s alley:
    “The American Royal is an annual eight-week season of barbecue competition, rodeos, livestock shows, equestrian events and agricultural activities benefiting youth and education. The barbecue contest is divided into several categories: brisket, pork ribs, pork shoulder, chicken, sausage, side dishes and dessert.”

    I don’t know…maybe gold could work as a stirrup.

    Oh, and I’ll see your wiki and raise you another:
    http://en.wikipedia....
    “The “Royals” name may also have been selected as a respectful recognition of the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro League. This is reflected in the similarity of the Royals logo to that of the Monarchs.”

    I always thought they had the Monarchs and Chiefs in the back of their minds when they named the Royals.

  • adam | May 3, 2010 at 10:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”388802″]Life photo of the 1960 Eagles.

    Two points:

    Kickers with a high number? Did Chuck Bednarik kick?

    Look at that field![/quote]

    in 1960, the Eagles kicker was Bobby Walston. Van Brocklin did the punting. Chuck Bednarik never attempted a FG in a real game. he did punt 12 times in 1953, prolly due to someone’s injury.

    http://www.pro-footb...

    And squiddie, my sincere thanks to you for providing me the rare joy of reciting one of the stupid facts that 12 year old me learned, and grown-up me had long since given up waiting for someone to query.

    thanks.

    adam

  • StLMarty | May 3, 2010 at 11:07 pm |

    The Royals should be wearing purple.
    I don’t think that would be a bad thing.
    Every league needs a little purple, and the American League has none.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 11:08 pm |

    Maybe a royal stirrup with three white stripes? That could work with an all-royal uni.

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 11:11 pm |

    A little blue on blue for KC… could be worse.

  • JimV19 | May 3, 2010 at 11:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”388828″]The Royals should be wearing purple.
    I don’t think that would be a bad thing.
    Every league needs a little purple, and the American League has none.[/quote]

    How about the Twins instead? Then they wouldn’t look like a cross between the Indians and Nationals, plus they could identify with the Vikings. And Prince could write a fight song for the team…

    Just don’t do this:
    http://images.footba...

    Besides, if the Royals did it, they might break out a powder purple alt. Not sure even I would wear that, either.

  • Ricko | May 3, 2010 at 11:32 pm |

    [quote comment=”388830″]A little blue on blue for KC… could be worse.[/quote]

    That’s how many here think it should look.
    This is how it likely WOULD look…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | May 3, 2010 at 11:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”388809″][quote comment=”388807″][quote comment=”388801″]”The macarena was dopey and trendy.”
    That’s giving dope a bad name.
    The macarena summer was a terrible time for America.
    Trends are bad.[/quote]

    Never a truer word spoken.[/quote]
    Thank you for your support.
    By the way, neat stuff yesterday. As I stated in the comments, My uni epiphany was also with the Seahawks in 1977.
    You said that you post Seahawk redesigns on your blog? I think that some of the ones I did in the early 90’s were shown on this site back in August of 2007.[/quote]

    I probably have it in my folders, however, I’d love to feature it at my site eventually. Could you send it to me so I know who to give credit to? Thanks for the comments on the article yesterday.

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2010 at 11:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”388832″][quote comment=”388830″]A little blue on blue for KC… could be worse.[/quote]

    That’s how many here think it should look.
    This is how it likely WOULD look…
    http://farm5.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Kinda reminds me of these

  • war eagle jeffrey | May 4, 2010 at 12:05 am |

    [quote comment=”388718″][quote comment=”388648″][quote comment=”388643″]I’ll fess up like Ricko. I wear the pajama pants. I think they’re more comfortable, and I wear high tops, which don’t look good with high-cuffed pants. This is for the Auburn alumni team (those who don’t wear pants, wear orange shorts)

    http://www.flickr.co...

    I used to wear the longer pants with the elastic, but I hated that.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    When I finally found some affordable pants with the open bottom, I bought a pair.

    My brother has gone with the high cuffs. But he’s recently switched to a longer pair of Montreal Expos road grays b/c they match our red/royal uni combo for our men’s league team. I don’t have a pic, but it looks a lot like Orlando Cabrera from his days in Montreal. No elastic, but they taper towards the bottom of the leg.

    http://www.flickr.co...

    http://c.photoshelte...

    Auburn alumni team? That a league or a tournament?

    There’s an annual Big Ten Alumni Co-Rec softball tournament here in town. Gophers, not surprisingly, always seem to find enough players. So far I have been, in years past, a Spartan, a Hawkeye, a Spartan again and a Hoosier.

    Can you spell “ringer”? :)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s a league in DC metro area. 70 schools participate in the softball league with teams randomly assigned to 9 divisions. 14-game regular season, and a double-elimination tourney that is the mother of all tailgate/softball combo events. Auburn has had a team since 2005, and I joined in 2006.

    http://www.dcalum.or...

    Even the Gophers have a team, Ricko.[/quote]

    damn you guys are good…4-0, outscored opponents 92-18. keep it up…wde!

  • yeti | May 4, 2010 at 12:08 am |

    [quote comment=”388808″] Isn’t that the very thing you want more players to do – challenge the establishment?[/quote]

    no. what i want players to do is look the “period”. there is a reason why clothing stores are still in business. we ourselves change our wardrobes as styles change (or at least i change with the times, i cant speak on behalf of an entire blog)
    from strictly an aesthetic viewpoint a player who wears his uni like evan longoria normally does looks like a player whereas a player who wears his uni like hunter pence looks like an absolute goof.
    when were stirrups and high pants a baseball staple last? would YOU be wearing the same fashions of that era today?

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 12:25 am |

    [quote comment=”388836″][quote comment=”388808″] Isn’t that the very thing you want more players to do – challenge the establishment?[/quote]

    no. what i want players to do is look the “period”. there is a reason why clothing stores are still in business. we ourselves change our wardrobes as styles change (or at least i change with the times, i cant speak on behalf of an entire blog)
    from strictly an aesthetic viewpoint a player who wears his uni like evan longoria normally does looks like a player whereas a player who wears his uni like hunter pence looks like an absolute goof.
    when were stirrups and high pants a baseball staple last? would YOU be wearing the same fashions of that era today?[/quote]
    Your argument makes no sense because if everybody always “looks the ‘period'” then the style will never change unless everyone changes their look at the exact same time.

    I think it’s pretty clear. You like the jammy-pants look — end of story. Stop trying to rationalize it.

  • LI Phil | May 4, 2010 at 12:29 am |

    glad this only took two hours…(will probably post tomorrow because of it)…

    but ricko was entirely correct in correcting ben’s nice mock…

    because, with pajamas in vogue…

    monochrome royal royals

    however…

    look at how much better this looks when we add rups:

    monochrome royals WITH stirrups

    i could live with that…

  • ab | May 4, 2010 at 12:31 am |

    Looking at photos from tonight’s game, only do I realize how odd it looks that Kris Versteeg tucks the back of his jersey in.

    here’s a good reference point

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 12:31 am |

    [quote comment=”388838″]glad this only took two hours…(will probably post tomorrow because of it)…

    but ricko was entirely correct in correcting ben’s nice mock…

    because, with pajamas in vogue…

    monochrome royal royals

    however…

    look at how much better this looks when we add rups:

    monochrome royals WITH stirrups

    i could live with that…[/quote]
    Wow. Yeah. It’s amazing how much better that is.

    Wait. What?

  • LI Phil | May 4, 2010 at 12:31 am |

    [quote comment=”388838″]glad this only took two hours…(will probably post tomorrow because of it)…

    but ricko was entirely correct in correcting ben’s nice mock…

    because, with pajamas in vogue…

    monochrome royal royals

    however…

    look at how much better this looks when we add rups:

    monochrome royals WITH stirrups

    i could live with that…[/quote]

    but…it’s a good argument both against softball tops…and monochrome unis

    but i DO think it could work, under certain circumstances, and on a very limited basis

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 12:42 am |

    [quote comment=”388842″][quote comment=”388840″][quote comment=”388838″]glad this only took two hours…(will probably post tomorrow because of it)…

    but ricko was entirely correct in correcting ben’s nice mock…

    because, with pajamas in vogue…

    monochrome royal royals

    however…

    look at how much better this looks when we add rups:

    monochrome royals WITH stirrups

    i could live with that…[/quote]
    Wow. Yeah. It’s amazing how much better that is.

    Wait. What?[/quote]

    look again — i posted the wrong second link

    /fixed now[/quote]
    I stand by my “Wait. What?”.

    I really don’t think royal blue works as a uni color. Black, navy, powder, beige, sand, yellow/gold… OK.

    Forest green… maybe.

    Red, orange, royal, purple, kelly green… probably not.

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 12:42 am |

    Dammit. You deleted your follow-up, didn’t you?

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 12:55 am |

    I’ll give the Royals credit for something with those blue shirts. Sure, it’s a tallest midget type thing, but theirs look a lot better than anyone else’s royal blue jersey (Cubs, Rangers, am I missing one?). Like, WAY better. That solid white on blue really looks pretty nice.

    The Cubs’ red numbers/letters look terrible and the Texases’ goofy font is just… goofy-looking.

  • JimV19 | May 4, 2010 at 1:13 am |

    [quote comment=”388843″]I really don’t think royal blue works as a uni color. Black, navy, powder, beige, sand, yellow/gold… OK.

    Forest green… maybe.

    Red, orange, royal, purple, kelly green… probably not.[/quote]

    You’d only play with a box of eight crayons when Crayola makes a box of 64? Not saying I’d use every one, but I wouldn’t restrict myself to what you said.

    It was one thing when there were only 16 teams in the majors and most of them looked similar. It’s another when there are 30 teams. You want to cut down on the amount of goofy designs teams use to stand out? Expand the color palette a bit.

  • JimV19 | May 4, 2010 at 1:29 am |

    [quote comment=”388836″][quote comment=”388808″] Isn’t that the very thing you want more players to do – challenge the establishment?[/quote]

    no. what i want players to do is look the “period”. there is a reason why clothing stores are still in business. we ourselves change our wardrobes as styles change (or at least i change with the times, i cant speak on behalf of an entire blog)
    from strictly an aesthetic viewpoint a player who wears his uni like evan longoria normally does looks like a player whereas a player who wears his uni like hunter pence looks like an absolute goof.
    when were stirrups and high pants a baseball staple last? would YOU be wearing the same fashions of that era today?[/quote]

    Yep.

    And I thank you for not speaking on behalf of me. ;)

    Although I have updated my wardrobe over the years, I would still wear some of the fashions of that era today (the fashions, not the fads). I’ll add something new only when it’s an improvement, not because I want to look the period.

    What I’d like to see is a world where there’s no need to challenge the establishment and there’s no need to enforce an NFL-style dress code. Some basic guidelines with room for a LITTLE personality sound just about right to me. I don’t want athletes looking like soldiers or robots, nor do I want them looking as if anything goes.

  • yeti | May 4, 2010 at 2:45 am |

    [quote comment=”388837″]I think it’s pretty clear. You like the jammy-pants look — end of story. Stop trying to rationalize it.[/quote]

    its not that im trying to rationalize this, its more that im trying exhibit that there is a faction of people who actually do like the look of long pants, solid jerseys, nike, and any number of other athletic aesthetics which continually get beraded on this site as wrong, and not as one option.
    do i not “get it” because i think stirrups and tight high pants looks ridiculous on todays player?
    like i said before, i thought this site was for the study of athletic aesthetics, and not just the study of athletic aesthetices preferred by administration.

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 7:36 am |

    [quote comment=”388848″][quote comment=”388837″]I think it’s pretty clear. You like the jammy-pants look — end of story. Stop trying to rationalize it.[/quote]

    its not that im trying to rationalize this, its more that im trying exhibit that there is a faction of people who actually do like the look of long pants, solid jerseys, nike, and any number of other athletic aesthetics which continually get beraded on this site as wrong, and not as one option.
    do i not “get it” because i think stirrups and tight high pants looks ridiculous on todays player?
    like i said before, i thought this site was for the study of athletic aesthetics, and not just the study of athletic aesthetices preferred by administration.[/quote]
    Dude, this is a blog, not Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

  • JTH | May 4, 2010 at 7:42 am |

    [quote comment=”388846″][quote comment=”388843″]I really don’t think royal blue works as a uni color. Black, navy, powder, beige, sand, yellow/gold… OK.

    Forest green… maybe.

    Red, orange, royal, purple, kelly green… probably not.[/quote]

    You’d only play with a box of eight crayons when Crayola makes a box of 64? Not saying I’d use every one, but I wouldn’t restrict myself to what you said.

    It was one thing when there were only 16 teams in the majors and most of them looked similar. It’s another when there are 30 teams. You want to cut down on the amount of goofy designs teams use to stand out? Expand the color palette a bit.[/quote]
    So you think, for example, having the Orioles make another attempt at the solid orange or the Indians going back to the red-over-red would help to cut down on the amount of goofy designs teams use to stand out?

    Not me. Tribe in solid navy or the O’s in solid black? Maybe.

  • Mark in Shiga | May 4, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    Phil, I’m not attacking *you*! I’m just against the general love of gray road uniforms — I think they’re dull and boring and are only considered “tradition” because of nostalgia for the 1920s to 1950s, when they were standard. The gray-lovers don’t get anywhere near the dissent on this board that the stirrup-lovers or the anti-black people get.

    Paul’s hatred for purple, and the “Ditch the Black” movement, are just over-the-top enough that you can laugh even if your preferences are the exact opposite of most other Uni Watchers, but the Gray Cabal is sneakier and subtler. I’m going to start a pro-color, anti-gray movement. “Gray Must Go”? “Do Away With Gray”?

  • JimV19 | May 4, 2010 at 10:55 am |

    [quote comment=”388851″][quote comment=”388846″][quote comment=”388843″]I really don’t think royal blue works as a uni color. Black, navy, powder, beige, sand, yellow/gold… OK.

    Forest green… maybe.

    Red, orange, royal, purple, kelly green… probably not.[/quote]

    You’d only play with a box of eight crayons when Crayola makes a box of 64? Not saying I’d use every one, but I wouldn’t restrict myself to what you said.

    It was one thing when there were only 16 teams in the majors and most of them looked similar. It’s another when there are 30 teams. You want to cut down on the amount of goofy designs teams use to stand out? Expand the color palette a bit.[/quote]
    So you think, for example, having the Orioles make another attempt at the solid orange or the Indians going back to the red-over-red would help to cut down on the amount of goofy designs teams use to stand out?

    Not me. Tribe in solid navy or the O’s in solid black? Maybe.[/quote]

    I think it would work with some minor tweaks. In both examples, the striping looks too big. Fix the Orioles’ sleeves and the Tribe’s belt and it would look better.

  • Monty | May 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm |

    Regarding the Minnesota Wild’s 10th Season patch, I’m sure many of you are like me when it comes to teams’ anniversary patches versus “Xth Season” patches. I remain flabbergasted that multi-million dollar professional organizations, with professional PR and marketing people, make the mistake of thinking that the “10th Anniversary” is the same as the “10th season”. I’ve seen at least 5 pro teams (and dozens of local businesses — see http://bit.ly/bVIdtC )make this mistake over the past few years. For example, the Vikings’ 50th season is the 2010 season; their 50th anniversary season will be the 2011 season, yet they’re selling gear for the 50th anniversary in 2010.

    So I must say with great joy that the Minnesota Wild did not make that mistake when they created the 10th Season patch and also called it the 10th Anniversary season. Thanks to the 2004-2005 lockout, the Wild are indeed playing their 10th season in their 10th anniversary season!

  • Brent | May 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

    http://voices.washin...

    Redskins possibly bringing back gold pants next season.