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

Monochrome In Baseball, Part I

Monochrome Baseball Pt I - hed

By Phil Hecken

When we discuss baseball uniform history, occasionally the subject comes around to “monochrome” which, for lack of a better term, is a non-white or gray-based uniform, in which teams of the past have worn a matching top and bottom. There have been occasional calls for a team (or perhaps more) to return to this fashion statement over the past few years. Would this be something worth trying?

Monochrome in baseball is not as rare as you might think, being somewhat commonplace at the turn of the last century (and also somewhat common prior to 1900), lasting for a little over a decade, basically disappearing, save for a brief reemergence in the mid-1920s, only to ‘die off’ again until the mid 1960’s. There was a brief flirtation with satin uniforms in the 1940’s for nighttime use (baseball stadia first became lighted in the 1930’s and lights were nowhere near as strong as they are today — it was thought the satin might reflect the lights better under the lights). But for the most part, monochrome was limited to a few teams in the early part of the last century.

Charley Finley changed all that in 1963, introducing the now iconic kelly (now hunter) and gold to his Kansas City A’s. Slowly, a few teams would follow his lead, introducing “powder” blue road uniforms to replace the standard gray. But it wasn’t until polyester doubleknits began to take over baseball in the early 1970’s that bright colors were used for anything other than caps, piping and stirrups in a baseball uniform. The 1970’s saw the introduction of many different solid colors to the baseball uniform, some for the jersey (more of a pullover for most teams) but some went full-bore and created entire uniforms in bright (or at least, non-white and non-gray) colors. The phenomenon lasted for over a decade, with many teams introducing powder blue road uniforms in place of their standard gray, but others were bolder still.

Let’s take a look back now at monochrome in baseball since 1900. This chart represents most of the teams (although not all years) when a team wore at least one monochrome uniform. You can easily see that the chart is heavily weighted first towards the beginning of the 1900’s, then a couple teams in the 1940’s, the A’s in that seminal year of 1963, and then an explosion in the 1970’s.

~~~

As you can see by the chart, the Cincinnati (beginning 1901) and Baltimore teams (1901 only) wore dark road uniforms, joined shortly thereafter by the Chicago (American League) team and Cleveland team in 1902, who were led by Uni Watch’s patron saint, Nap Lajoie; by 1903, the New York “Highlanders” had joined them. Cincy wore their dark roadies through 1903, while Baltmore was a “one year wonder”. Chicago’s American League team, however, would “set the standard” for a dark road uniform, wearing it from 1902 through 1916 (seen here on opening day in Detroit, 1911). Cleveland would wear theirs for two years, while the New York (NL) squad wore dark in 1905 and 1906.

Detorit would wear a dark road uniform in 1905 and 1906, and the New York (AL) team would wear dark in 1904 and 1906. Washington would sport a dark away uni from 1906 through 1909, and in 1909 Cincinnati would return to a dark uniform (keeping it through 1911). In 1911 and 1912, the National League Chicago club would be dressed in dark, the National League New York team would wear black for one more season in 1911; Boston (National) would don themselves in a dark uniform with red pinstripes in 1913 and 1914, and for 1913, Chicago’s northsiders would sport a new dark roadie. But other than the White Sox (as they were known by this time), and who wore a deep navy blue (almost black) for 14 years, that was the extent of the monochrome darks.

~~~

The dark uniform would make a very brief comeback in 1925, when the White Sox sported a pinstriped dark uniform, and in 1926, when they returned to a solid dark, with white socks on their sleeve and a kind of “half” piping pattern.

~~~

Monochrome (other than white or gray, of course) would disappear from the majors for 15 years, when, in an extremely radical move at the time, the Chicago Cubs would introduce a powder blue vested uniform for the 1941 and 1942 seasons. (Their home uniform was also very unique.) While not the dark monochrome sported by the earlier clubs, the first “powder blue” salvo had been fired.

An even more radical experiment, brought upon by nighttime baseball, was tried by the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1944. According to Robert Edward Auctions, “This unique and very rare one-year style jersey, worn by the Dodgers only in 1944, utilizes a highly reflective satin fabric. It was designed and used strictly for night games. It was believed that the reflective properties of the fabric made the garments easier to see under the lights. Night baseball was in its infancy in the early 1940s and it is understandable that teams would try to make adjustments to take into account the new conditions presented by playing games at night. Apparently, the benefits were not great or the style was not popular with the players, as the satin uniforms were retired following the 1944 season, never to return.”

Brief mention must be made here of the 1936 Cincinnati Reds, who, while not sporting a monochrome uniform, did have an “alternate” pair of red pants. As with the Dodgers experiment, they proved none too popular with the players.

~~~

Following World War II and all through the 1950’s, baseball fashion remained fairly stoic from the uniform standpoint, with all teams featuring only a home white and gray road uniform. However, stirrups, caps and piping were all that was needed to distinguish the teams. It would not be until the early 1960’s, and the very early stages of color television, that baseball fashion would really change. In 1963, Kansas City A’s’ colorful owner Charley Finley would unleash upon the world the first yellow and kelly team, uniforms which they’d wear both at home and on the road. In 1964, the A’s would return to gray road uniforms, but keep the gold uniform for home. They’d also add gold sanitaries and white shoes to the mix by 1967. We’ll have more on the A’s after their move to Oakland.

Meanwhile, the team who wore a dark alternate for the longest time, the Chicago White Sox, decided in 1964 that gray was no longer de rigeur for a road uniform, and they began wearing powder blue. They’d keep the powder blue with a block “CHICAGO” for three seasons, switching to a script Chicago in 1967 and 1968.

Uniforms at this time were still wool flannel or cotton, and the powder blue was much “lighter” in appearance. In 1969, two new entries to the major leagues, the Seattle Pilots and the Montreal Expos would be “born” in powder blue. The “baby blue” craze had begun. We won’t look at the powder blue uniforms in this post, but if you’re interested, they were detailed extensively last April. Suffice it to say, the White Sox and the A’s had made it “OK” to wear something other than white or gray (although not all teams would do so). However, with the advent of polyester uniforms in the 1970s, baseball would really rediscover the dark (or colorful) tops, and occasionally, the full monochrome uniform.

~~~

While many teams would enter the polyester era (or even before) sporting powder blues (Milwaukee upon stealing receiving the Seattle team in 1970, the Royals, Twins and Phillies in 1973, the Rangers, Cubs and Cardinals in 1976, the expansion Mariners and Blue Jays in 1977, and the Braves in 1980), a few teams took their cues from the Oakland A’s as the 1970’s opened.

Surprisingly, it was the Baltimore Orioles who fired the first salvo in 1971. Wearing their all orange, Brooks Robinson-designed uniforms, the Orioles wore them a very limited number of times (some say as many as four times), they were quickly and quitely retired after everyone (probably including Brooks himself) thought them too garish.

With several teams in both leagues now sporting powder, and the A’s still in their gold, 1972 would see the Atlanta Braves introduce a dark road jersey, worn only with white pants. On the other side of the country the San Diego Padres would be the second team to introduce a solid yellow (although theirs was more mustard than the A’s gold). They would also only have one color uniform (including pants) for both home and away. They’d wear this uniform for 3 seasons. It would prove, if not popular, at least cultishly-popular, and the Pods would wear it for a throwback game in 2007 against the Cardinals.

Up Interstate 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore. So, in 1972, with his team now wearing polyester pullovers, he dropped the gold pants and added a green jersey. But they were no longer in monochrome. He must have sensed the “error” of his ways, because in 1973, he upped the ante again, returning not only the gold pants, but adding a set of green pants (for a monochrome kelly look) to go along with the all gold. I don’t believe the all-green was worn very often, but it was a very bold statement indeed.

~~~

With the floodgates on color now open, in 1974, the Cleveland Indians added a bright red top to their aresenal. But that was just the beginning. In 1975 (through 1977), they would make possibly the boldest ever statement in MLB by a blue top AND red pants to their repertoire. The “bloodclots,” as they became known, were worn occasionally throughout their three-year run. Even poor Boog Powell (who in theory wore the Orioles all-orange get-up), couldn’t escape the red menace. The Indians also mixed and matched their red pants, wearing both the white top, and in what may have been the worst uniform combo in history, at least once donned blue over red. Wow. Like the Padres, the bloodclots must have achieved some kind of cult-like status in Cleveland, as the Indians reprised them for a (sans sanis) for a 2004 throwback game.

Obviously not satisfied with their (by now powder and red) roadies, the Chicago White Sox, they with the longest history of having worn dark monochrome, turned the baseball fashion world upside down (again) in 1976, introducing an early century fauxback uniform featuring tab collars, no stirrups and a throwback font. They would actually have a season or two of mix-and-match tops and bottoms, and wore a different sock pattern in several of those years. Amazingly (or perhaps not), the Chisox would wear this uniform set from 1976 through 1981.

No longer unique, one might think the monochrome fad would be restricted to the previously aforementioned teams. But you’d be wrong. In 1977, in the ultimate color-me…um, something…move, the Pittsburgh Pirates introduced their “Bumblebee Set,” which featured both a black and a gold monochrome set, plus a thick pinstriped number. With seemingly little rhyme or reason, the Pirates would mix and match at will, featuring at least nine different combinations. Except while batting, the Bucs would always wear a constrasting color cap and stirrups with their monochromes. They would wear that uniform when the won the 1979 World Series, and keep on wearing it through 1984 (although they’d drop the pinstripes after 1979).

Meanwhile…the San Diego Padres, who so famously introduced the world to monochrome mustard from 1972-1974, thought one more mustard uni wouldn’t be overkill. So, in 1978, they reintroduced the world to monochrome yellow, and having already joined the hoardes of mix and match teams of the late 70’s, sometimes with intersting results.

Last, but certainly not least, is our “one-hit wonder,” the Philadelphia Phillies of 1979, who sported their “Saturday Night Special” all-dark red uniforms for their May 17, 1979 game, and never wore them again. I wonder why.

~~~

There you have it. A look back a monochrome worn in the past. What do you think of the phenomenon? Good, bad, awful?

But what about the “future” of monochrome in baseball. Is it now time, in the age of multiple alternates for a team (or teams) to reintroduce a monochrome uniform? If so, who? We’ve seen MLB monochrome throwbacks, and we’ve even seen teams wear Negro League monochrome throwbacks on occasion.

And what about the styles today? With players wearing their pants, for the most part, pajama style, would we even want to see a monochrome uniform? Sure, it’s fun to see a powder blue throwback…until you the ankle length pants and the baggy unis. Could such a style work with monochrome? Would we get something like this or this? Or would they break out the stirrups for a somewhat more complete look?

The floor is yours dear readers. Part II will take a stab at some future monochrome uniforms, but your suggestions as to which team or teams (if any) should give it a shot. Let’s hear what you got.

[Special thanks to Steve’s Baseball Pages for many of the monochrome uniform shots.]

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies HeaderIn the third installment of the first week of Benchies, the boys quickly turn their attention to the more important pasttimes. Here’s Rick:

So you’re telling yourself that all this new freedom is gonna be spectacular. That being being single again will have it benefits, Like a big ol’ honey bee you’ll just wander from flower to flower. And the first thing you’ll need is a friend to introduce you into that magical place where all those, um, blossoms are blooming. Right? Right.

Here’s your very special Thursday Benchies.

[Benchies appears every Saturday and Sunday on Uni Watch.]

~~~~~~~~~~

ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker: Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Is Steven Strasburg the next Honus Wagner? (thanks to Jim Vilk). … On Tuesday night, notes Jeff Simon, the US did not wear their world cup socks. They did, however, wear the jersey and shorts. … Third String Goalie‘s own Jeff Barak found a half hour film on the creation of the Quebec Nordiques leading up to their first ever game. Not only does it include footage of their original jerseys, but an interview with the designer who created the logo and the uniforms for the team at the 13 minute mark that lasts a minute and a half. Also briefly shown are the “Alberta” Oilers and their short-lived orange jerseys they wore for their first two seasons. … Soccer continues to make big news in the uni-world, with a Fury As Protea Left Off Bafana’s ‘Away’ Jersey (thanks to Alex Washburn). Says Alex, “My favorite part of this story might be ‘Adidas will be letting us down as a nation’.” … Wayne Edward Koehler notes “NBA logos in Weird Places.” He’s not sure when this was originally posted, but he found this on USA Today’s photo gallery. … Brewers fan Andrew Schroeder noticed this old SI cover and states, “I don’t think the Brewers hat in question ever existed and is simply an artists rendition replacing the S from the Pilots hat with an M, but the Brewers famously couldn’t get new uniforms in time for their inaugural season, so who knows.” Any Brewer historians (*coughchancemichaelscough*) know the full story? … Despite all the recent love for UA’s throwbackish treatment of some college unis with the introduction of “legend gray,” Darin Nelson has given us another reason to rethink their designs. Darin noticed these uniforms Tuesday night as Utah played in the Mountain West Conference Tournament. “They are made by Under Armour but the pants caught me off guard. Wierd vent or stripe above the knee.” … Blair Thompson sent in this pugilistic pose with the statement “The Bennett Sisters. Your guess is as good as mine.” Comes from this linky. Anyone know more? … Grant Goldman mentions if you go to this page and go to around the 1:18 mark, you will see a top prospect for the MLB draft wearing a Rawlings Coolflow Helmet with a large UnderArmour mark on the front. … UW graphics guru “Pretty Boy Paulie” Soto noticed some strange fan jersey occurrences a few weeks ago at Wrigley Field. “Sadly,” Paulie remarks, “it’s taken me this long to send them to you. First is a gentleman wearing a bizarre Cubs/Bears hybrid jersey. Second, I spotted a guy rocking a White Sox road jersey with a 2005 World Series patch, Kosuke Fukudome’s name and the number read “01”. WRONG on so many levels.” … Pacific Rim Correspondent Jeremy Brahm checks in with the NPB (Japanese) All-Star Practice uniforms. … What happens when the swooshectomy doesn’t take? Obviously the mark of the beast reappears (thanks to Brinkie Guthrie). … Even when he’s across the pond, Paul Lukas is in the news (gracias, Anthony Zogas, for the linkie). … Dan Byrne saw yesterday’s genius World Cup uniforms by Danny Finocchio, and loved it. However, “looking at the tweak for the England kit made me think about this story from a couple years ago which explains why England, or any other team, can never wear that jersey. This guy may have been a crank,” says Dan, “but I remember the story being at least a little real. Probably better to not bring up the Crusades these days. I enjoy the website more than you know.” … And finally, also from Brinke, the Giants will be retiring Monte Irvin’s Number 20.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Pirates of the late 70’s and early 80’s set the uniform standard for adult slow pitch softball leagues across the country. — Russ Clay (posted here)

 

186 comments to Monochrome In Baseball, Part I

  • Ryan B | May 27, 2010 at 7:08 am |

    “Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.

  • Jet | May 27, 2010 at 7:29 am |

    Great UW today!!! That horrific Indians blue top/red pants combo certainly comes under the internet caveat of “pics or it didn’t happen”… but there it is. Some things you just can’t “un-see”….

    -Jet

  • Jonathan Sluss | May 27, 2010 at 7:37 am |

    You say Baltimore was a one hit wonder in 1902…not so, because they became the New York Highlanders in 1903, so they continued their monochrome ways once they moved north.

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 7:40 am |

    [quote comment=”391760″]”Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.[/quote]

    thanks…now fixed

  • Joe Barrie | May 27, 2010 at 7:49 am |

    The satin uniforms appeared after 1944. The cover of the 1948 World Series program shows Billy Southworth wearing one as the manager of the Boston Braves.

  • scott | May 27, 2010 at 7:58 am |

    I’d be much more comfortable with teams going full monochrome than I am with teams wearing softball tops with their white or grant pants. If you’ve got the courage to wear red tops, wear the red pants with them.

  • pru | May 27, 2010 at 7:59 am |

    I’m guessing this was a pullover since the buttons only make it mid-way down.

    http://farm4.static....

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 8:19 am |

    For the umpteenth time, the Padres’ athletic gold (in all their unis with it) was the same athletic gold as everyone else’s…the A’s, the bumblebee Pirates, the Steelers, the Lakers…all of ’em.

    Maybe it’s because it’s was paired with brown that everyone thinks mustard. Or it’s a visual quirk that the brown “tints” the gold when our rods and cones deal with it.

    Same for the gold in the Broncos gold & brown set.

    And the A’s did wear only athletic gold in ’63, but ’64 saw them add the grays (“seafom green”) AND the white (“wedding gown white”). As far as I know from watching on TV, going to the Met and photos in the dailies at the time, they alternated the unis, gold-white at home and gold-“gray” on the road. Did that pretty much through the run of the vested unis.

    Don’t think the whites became “Sunday only” until the sansabelt doubleknit set came along.

    —Ricko

  • JamesP. | May 27, 2010 at 8:24 am |

    Happy Stirrup Thursday! With a pending 4 day holliday weekend, today is a casual day in the office which gives me a chance to wear one of the lovelies that I received in the mail yesterday from Robert Marshall:

    http://i313.photobuc...

  • Bob | May 27, 2010 at 8:24 am |

    Great piece. Maybe it’s because I started watching baseball as a kid in the 1970s when powder blues were almost as commonplace as grays, but I don’t consider powder blues part of the “monochrome” movement. So I look at teams like the Pirates, A’s, and Indians as the teams that wore true monochrome, and I exclude the Phils, Cards, Royals, etc.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 8:58 am |

    We’ve discussed that ersatz Brewers hat on the SI 1970 Baseball Preview issue several times (see the Ticker).

    SI had to fake something, because even in spring training that year the Pilots weren’t sure where they’d be based in 1970.

    Virtually at the last minute was the move to Milwaukee solidified. So that hat on the cover is a best guess at press time.

    What the team actually did, of course, was go to royal blue hat with a generic full block “M” and re-letter the Pilots jerseys that already had been created for a season in Seattle that never happened.

    The joke at the time was that the equipment bus would head north from spring training and wait to be told whether to turn left or right. It really did almost go that far down to the wire.

    Hard for many today to understand how pro sports–especially MLB—could be that unstable from time to time, I know. But that’s the way it was.

    —Ricko

  • Mike D | May 27, 2010 at 9:10 am |

    Baseball uniforms from the mid-70’s are my absolute favorite. I especially like the A’s, Padres, Pirates, and my hometown Phillies, but I am pretty sure not a uni from that era exists that I don’t love! Great article!

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 9:12 am |

    [quote comment=”391769″]Great piece. Maybe it’s because I started watching baseball as a kid in the 1970s when powder blues were almost as commonplace as grays, but I don’t consider powder blues part of the “monochrome” movement. So I look at teams like the Pirates, A’s, and Indians as the teams that wore true monochrome, and I exclude the Phils, Cards, Royals, etc.[/quote]

    Agreed, outstanding article, I’m looking forward to Part 2. There is a misperception out there that the 70s spawned monochrome, and it’s great to see the real history told. It’s tradition, and perfect for occasional use. It definitely beats the overuse of teams using red, or black, when black wasn’t part of the color scheme. And yes, all light blues are very much part of the monochrome family.
    Personally, the yellow and orange monochromes should not return. Generally speaking, darker colors work better, the A’s should certainly bring back all green. I’m probably in the minority here, but I see no problem with wearing different colors-that Indians combo was pretty sharp, wish the 70s A’s had done that. The Pirates mixed and matched well(with the exception of pinstripes).
    History, tradition, hall of fame players and world championship baseball are all part of the monochrome story.

  • jim greenfield | May 27, 2010 at 9:13 am |

    The drawings show the increase in white shown beneath the stirrups from the 60s to the 70s. The 60s are right. The players began stretching the stirrups for comfort because the loop was too baggy. That could have been corrected by the manufacturer. Soon just a colored stripe down the side was visible. Then the stirrups were discarded if favor of side striped sanis. Then George Hendrix was born. It’s been downhill from there.

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 9:18 am |

    Enjoyable piece today.

    Why do green jerseys and gold pants (a la Oregon) work in football but most of us would be repulsed by it in baseball (say if the A’s had done it)? I guess it’s just what we’re used to.

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 9:22 am |

    [quote comment=”391774″]Enjoyable piece today.

    Why do green jerseys and gold pants (a la Oregon) work in football but most of us would be repulsed by it in baseball (say if the A’s had done it)? I guess it’s just what we’re used to.[/quote]

    You’re exactly right, sometimes what we are used to can be a little boring. It’s surprising to me Charlie Finley didn’t mix and match, since those A’s were years ahead of other teams in bringing back colorful uniforms.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:30 am |

    [quote comment=”391773″]The drawings show the increase in white shown beneath the stirrups from the 60s to the 70s. The 60s are right. The players began stretching the stirrups for comfort because the loop was too baggy. That could have been corrected by the manufacturer. Soon just a colored stripe down the side was visible. Then the stirrups were discarded if favor of side striped sanis. Then George Hendrix was born. It’s been downhill from there.[/quote]

    MLB has virtually never regulated the wearing of a uni from the knees down. Yes, individual teams have had standards (Big Red Machine, Will Clark era Giants to name two), but not MLB.

    They tried in the early ’70s, but the umpires didn’t see it as their responsibility to check stirrup or pant height…and the movement died. I guess MLB didn’t want to bother with Uniform Cops like the NFL.

    As I understand it, the only rule on the books these days is that the pantleg cannot extend under the heel. That would have to be considered tacit acceptance of long pants.

    So it becomes a bit like golf. Trousers are the norm, and occasionally someone goes old school with the baseball equivalent of Plus Fours (knickers). My guess it that had Payne Stewart not been killed, a lot more players (both touring pros and recreactional players) might be wearing knickers now, not to copycat Stewart but evoking the era of Hagen, Quimet, Sarazen, Jones and all, when just about everyone wore Plus Fours to play golf. But it never happened, because as it is now among the pros it might be taken as showing disrespect to Stewart’s memory.

    Plus, pajamas are easier. Don’t have to fart around with stirrup socks. For many of us, that was a cool part of having a baseball uni to wear. But it just isn’t that way anymore, plain and simple. Now it’s seen as being that, once you get to The Show, you finally have the option of not bothering with them.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:36 am |

    [quote comment=”391774″]Enjoyable piece today.

    Why do green jerseys and gold pants (a la Oregon) work in football but most of us would be repulsed by it in baseball (say if the A’s had done it)? I guess it’s just what we’re used to.[/quote]

    Why do silver batting helmets on the Ohio State softball team seem okay (odd, but okay), but would draw screams if worn by, say, the White Sox?

    Because, as we’ve discussed here, different sports have different uni (and style) paradigms.

    Look how well Cooperalls did, as far as catching on.

    —Ricko

  • jesse | May 27, 2010 at 9:40 am |

    Great piece, can’t wait for the follow up.

  • lose remerswaal | May 27, 2010 at 9:45 am |

    looks like the Strasburg card auction has been pulled from eBay

  • lose remerswaal | May 27, 2010 at 9:46 am |

    or more likely, the link in the article was wrong

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:47 am |

    Another spin on the ’70s unis.

    What teams like the Braves, Indians, Astros, A’s, Padres, Giants, etc. did was not only add color, but they also eliminated gray.

    They wore white (or other color) pants both home and road, scrambling the jerseys that went with them so they complied to the MLB rule for “white at home and a darker uni for the road” (paraphasing).

    Add them to teams in powder blue…and the few teams that clung to gray (Dodgers, Yankees, etc.)…and that’s why color seemed even MORE prevalent during that decade.

    —Ricko

  • Brad | May 27, 2010 at 9:50 am |

    Ricko said: “For the umpteenth time, the Padres’ athletic gold (in all their unis with it) was the same athletic gold as everyone else’s”

    This is certainly correct, always a myth about mustard which came about from the description that players wearing the jersey looked like “a jar of mustard.” I was a college intern with the ’78 Padres the season with those well-known, one year style uniforms with the first ASG patch, and one of the few to have the city name and nickname on the front of the jersey, and the color was gold, including the gold alternate jersey. As the season progressed the brown in the jerseys turned almost purple-like from repeated washings. Ironically, the ’78 home jersey will be worn today against the Cardinals in a 3:35 PT start. I was also at the Vet on May 17, 1979 for the one game with the all maroon jersey. I will always remember the buzz in the stands when the Phillies took the field to start the game, sitting lower level down the first base line.

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 9:58 am |

    [quote comment=”391781″]Another spin on the ’70s unis.

    What teams like the Braves, Indians, Astros, A’s, Padres, Giants, etc. did was not only add color, but they also eliminated gray.

    They wore white (or other color) pants both home and road, scrambling the jerseys that went with them so they complied to the MLB rule for “white at home and a darker uni for the road” (paraphasing).

    Add them to teams in powder blue…and the few teams that clung to gray (Dodgers, Yankees, etc.)…and that’s why color seemed even MORE prevalent during that decade.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In the 1980s, color remained as a road uniform but was paired with grey for the first time. See the Indians in 1983. Now it’s standard to have color jerseys with grey pants on the road, whereas previously it was okay to have white pants on the road as long as you had colored jersys. I guess that’s how you get by with two teams wearing colored jerseys in a game now — one team has white pants and the other grey.

    The only baseball team that I’ve seen that wears white pants home and away is LSU when it wears gold jerseys. Softball team does the same thing. I guess gold just looks better with white pants than with grey.

  • Ry Co 40 | May 27, 2010 at 10:01 am |

    [quote comment=”391763″][quote comment=”391760″]”Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.[/quote]

    thanks…now fixed[/quote]

    or “the 5” as the SoCal’s call it. lol. my cousin and i always got a kick out of that. here in pittsburgh, people just say the number “376” “79” “51” etc… but out there (san diego at least) it was “the 5” & “the 8″…

    in east pittsburgh and want to get dahn to canonsburg for some sarris candies n’at? take 376 to 79s… in PB and want to get out to qualcomm for a chargers game? take the 5 to the 8 and so on… hahaha. any other regions have or say anything like that?

    memories…

  • ScottyM | May 27, 2010 at 10:09 am |

    Frankly, the monochromes from back when … including the Indians’ all-reds, the White Sox all-blue vintages, the Padres, As, among many others are FAR AND AWAY more impactful (and attractive) than much of what’s on display in this era of pinstripe and ubiquity.

    Those 76 Sox duds are GREAT (okay, sans the shorts). They have way, way, way more character than any of the alternate color jerseys of today.

    Baseball is stuck in a design rut. We can all tell that they’re trying to work their way out of it (unending throwback nights, alt Sundays, the return of vests a 6-10 years ago, etc.).

    Unfortunately, no team has the ballsack to do it right and return creativity to major league baseball uniforms.

    Get rid of pinstripes for pinstripes’ sake (Astros, I’m talking to you). Get rid of black where it doesn’t belong (Mets and Blue Jays, listen up). Put COLOR back on the jersey (Padres, Orioles, among many others).

    And, for crying out loud, stop designing uniforms that all take their nod from the Yankees (pinstripe, blue, particularly).

    Long live the 70s, when teams had nutsacks!

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:15 am |

    Nice photos of the White Sox’ 1976 white hats, btw.

    As near as I can figure, those white hats didn’t last much past the first couple weeks of the season. Maybe only for the initial road trip. I saw the White Sox play on their first visit to the Met that year, and the white chapeaus were long gone already.

    I think part of the rationale behind the White Sox going to those vintage-styled unis was the Bicentennial, wasn’t it?

    —Ricko

  • Jet | May 27, 2010 at 10:22 am |

    [quote comment=”391785″]

    Unfortunately, no team has the ballsack to do it right and return creativity to major league baseball uniforms.

    Get rid of pinstripes for pinstripes’ sake (Astros, I’m talking to you). Get rid of black where it doesn’t belong (Mets and Blue Jays, listen up). Put COLOR back on the jersey (Padres, Orioles, among many others).

    And, for crying out loud, stop designing uniforms that all take their nod from the Yankees (pinstripe, blue, particularly).

    Long live the 70s, when teams had nutsacks![/quote]

    bravo!!

    -Jet

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:23 am |

    [quote comment=”391785″]Frankly, the monochromes from back when … including the Indians’ all-reds, the White Sox all-blue vintages, the Padres, As, among many others are FAR AND AWAY more impactful (and attractive) than much of what’s on display in this era of pinstripe and ubiquity.

    Those 76 Sox duds are GREAT (okay, sans the shorts). They have way, way, way more character than any of the alternate color jerseys of today.

    Baseball is stuck in a design rut. We can all tell that they’re trying to work their way out of it (unending throwback nights, alt Sundays, the return of vests a 6-10 years ago, etc.).

    Unfortunately, no team has the ballsack to do it right and return creativity to major league baseball uniforms.

    Get rid of pinstripes for pinstripes’ sake (Astros, I’m talking to you). Get rid of black where it doesn’t belong (Mets and Blue Jays, listen up). Put COLOR back on the jersey (Padres, Orioles, among many others).

    And, for crying out loud, stop designing uniforms that all take their nod from the Yankees (pinstripe, blue, particularly).

    Long live the 70s, when teams had nutsacks![/quote]

    Add the Pirates to the Pins For Pins’ Sake list.
    Also, let’s lose Vests for Vests’ Sake (although, thankfully, that seems to be a dying affectation).

    You’re right, and I’ve said this before. It isn’t that Alts are inherently bad, it’s that…
    a) Teams playing each other shouldn’t wear them in the same game, and…
    b) They’re boring as hell, largely because they don’t come off as part of a design theme…more as a throw-in.

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 10:23 am |

    [quote comment=”391784″][quote comment=”391763″][quote comment=”391760″]”Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.[/quote]

    thanks…now fixed[/quote]

    or “the 5” as the SoCal’s call it. lol. my cousin and i always got a kick out of that. here in pittsburgh, people just say the number “376” “79” “51” etc… but out there (san diego at least) it was “the 5” & “the 8″…

    in east pittsburgh and want to get dahn to canonsburg for some sarris candies n’at? take 376 to 79s… in PB and want to get out to qualcomm for a chargers game? take the 5 to the 8 and so on… hahaha. any other regions have or say anything like that?

    memories…[/quote]

    Mmmm…Sarris candies…

    And you speak Yinzer quite well.

    In Cleveland, apparently the city folk don’t use state route numbers. I worked with a guy from the east side, and used to drive him home sometimes. The first time we’re getting close to his place, but there was a big intersection. I asked, “So should I turn on 87 or stay on 175?” He asked what I was talking about so I pointed to the signs and he said, “You mean Shaker or Richmond – we don’t use numbers. In fact, I don’t even think I’ve noticed those until now.”

    They do use interstate numbers, though.

  • mike | May 27, 2010 at 10:31 am |

    Very Awesome Reading today. Loved the article. Good job Phil

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 10:35 am |

    [quote comment=”391788″][quote comment=”391785″]Frankly, the monochromes from back when … including the Indians’ all-reds, the White Sox all-blue vintages, the Padres, As, among many others are FAR AND AWAY more impactful (and attractive) than much of what’s on display in this era of pinstripe and ubiquity.

    Those 76 Sox duds are GREAT (okay, sans the shorts). They have way, way, way more character than any of the alternate color jerseys of today.

    Baseball is stuck in a design rut. We can all tell that they’re trying to work their way out of it (unending throwback nights, alt Sundays, the return of vests a 6-10 years ago, etc.).

    Unfortunately, no team has the ballsack to do it right and return creativity to major league baseball uniforms.

    Get rid of pinstripes for pinstripes’ sake (Astros, I’m talking to you). Get rid of black where it doesn’t belong (Mets and Blue Jays, listen up). Put COLOR back on the jersey (Padres, Orioles, among many others).

    And, for crying out loud, stop designing uniforms that all take their nod from the Yankees (pinstripe, blue, particularly).

    Long live the 70s, when teams had nutsacks![/quote]

    Add the Pirates to the Pins For Pins’ Sake list.
    Also, let’s lose Vests for Vests’ Sake (although, thankfully, that seems to be a dying affectation).

    You’re right, and I’ve said this before. It isn’t that Alts are inherently bad, it’s that…
    a) Teams playing each other shouldn’t wear them in the same game, and…
    b) They’re boring as hell, largely because they don’t come off as part of a design theme…more as a throw-in.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Pretty much agree with Ricko. However, pinstripes are hard to beat. I don’t mind teams with colored jerseys playing each other as long as the color is distinctive. (All you color-on-color football people, stop complaining about it in baseball.) For color/alternates, it’s hard to beat the Orioles and A’s of the mid-1970s.

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 10:37 am |

    Do you figure that the world would end if the Yankees ever walked on the field in the Bronx wearing a reverse monochrome uniform ( white pinstripes on blue ) white cap and blue logo!!

    The 70’s White Sox, Astros, Padres and Satuday Night Special Phillies would also come to mind in the worse baseball uniform topic….but I now have a new contender for that title…The Cleveland Indians in those Blue over Reds WTF were they thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • M.Princip | May 27, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    Fantastic writeup today Phil.

  • jc | May 27, 2010 at 10:39 am |

    a couple of thoughts…been watching the sec tourney, and it seems that most if not all the teams are wearing matte finish helmets, is this just an sec thing, or is there some new rule, or what? because it looks nice.
    2nd, the under armor knee mesh is an older style from them…i’ve seen it in past seasons, most notably on south florida.

  • scott | May 27, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    [quote comment=”391774″]Enjoyable piece today.

    Why do green jerseys and gold pants (a la Oregon) work in football but most of us would be repulsed by it in baseball (say if the A’s had done it)? I guess it’s just what we’re used to.[/quote]

    Same goes with basketball, where everyone laughs when the shorts and jersey colors don’t match. Yet in baseball it’s apparently acceptable to a number of fans.

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment=”391792″]Do you figure that the world would end if the Yankees ever walked on the field in the Bronx wearing a reverse monochrome uniform ( white pinstripes on blue ) white cap and blue logo!![/quote]

    you mean something like this? (sorry, no white cap)

    did that over a year ago (as a goof) just to see how it might look…all i can say is stay tuned for part II…

  • M.Princip | May 27, 2010 at 10:45 am |

    I guess most of the Hockey readers here were privy to this Quebec Nordiques video, hence, no comments? However, I have never seen it before and must say I enjoyed it immensely.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:46 am |

    My point was either you’re a pinstripes team or you’re not.

    Not a “rule” or anything, just the way baseball seems to have traditionally approached it (give the Bumblebee Pirates a pass because their pins were in their uni rotation as part of a grand scheme…and because they weren’t typical pins, but actually tri-color stripes USED as pins).

    And, yeah, I don’t mind one team in royal and the other in red once in awhile, for example. It’s the navy vs. black or royal vs. black matchups (and such) that are pretty lame.

    —Ricko

  • Aaron T. | May 27, 2010 at 10:47 am |

    [quote comment=”391784″][quote comment=”391763″][quote comment=”391760″]”Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.[/quote]

    thanks…now fixed[/quote]

    or “the 5” as the SoCal’s call it. lol. my cousin and i always got a kick out of that. here in pittsburgh, people just say the number “376” “79” “51” etc… but out there (san diego at least) it was “the 5” & “the 8″…

    in east pittsburgh and want to get dahn to canonsburg for some sarris candies n’at? take 376 to 79s… in PB and want to get out to qualcomm for a chargers game? take the 5 to the 8 and so on… hahaha. any other regions have or say anything like that?

    memories…[/quote]

    Some Chicagoans use the name given to the interstate instead of the number. So, since I live in the west suburbs, if I’m going to a Cubs game I will probably take the Eisenhower (290) to the Tri-State (294) to the Kennedy (90).

    Speaking of the Cubs, I really loved the powder blue road uniforms…probably the only team I think looks good in powder blue. (Of course, I’m biased.) I wish they would bring it back, though the current road greys aren’t bad.

  • Tom Farley | May 27, 2010 at 10:48 am |

    (Milwaukee upon stealing receiving the Seattle team in 1970,

    Hey, hey, hey! ;-) A judge in Seattle awarded the team to Selig’s group. No Irsay-style Mayflower moving vans involved. ;-)

    The joke at the time was that the equipment bus would head north from spring training and wait to be told whether to turn left or right. It really did almost go that far down to the wire. Hard for many today to understand how pro sports–especially MLB—could be that unstable from time to time, I know. But that’s the way it was.

    Ricko knows. (Of course.) Selig’s group was awarded the Pilots on the evening of March 31, 1970; the Brewers opened the season on April 7. It is pretty astounding to ponder: An MLB team relocating one week before the start of the season.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 10:57 am |

    [quote comment=”391774″]Enjoyable piece today.

    Why do green jerseys and gold pants (a la Oregon) work in football but most of us would be repulsed by it in baseball (say if the A’s had done it)? I guess it’s just what we’re used to.[/quote]

    Personally, I like the contrasting look. Then again I grew up in the 70s and my favorite team is the Pirates, so I’m used to it. I even like that Indians blue-on-red combo.

    What I don’t like is when there’s not enough contrast. To go back to the Pirates, http://farm3.static.... the yellow-on-pins and the pins-on-yellow looks were my least favorites.

    Oh, and how did I not know about those ’36 Redlegs before today?
    http://exhibits.base...
    Very nice.

  • Schmeltzer | May 27, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    I’m just going to throw my two cents in to say that I think the monochrome could still work today if a team had the balls to tell everyone that they had to wear high socks (if not stirrups) and the socks contrasted the pants and jersey. I think those mock-ups at the end of the article look great.

    Nice job, Phil.

  • ren | May 27, 2010 at 11:04 am |

    a rlly long time ago there was a link to funny mlb player pictures and i cant find it anymore. help?

  • Jet | May 27, 2010 at 11:06 am |

    [quote comment=”391797″]I guess most of the Hockey readers here were privy to this Quebec Nordiques video, hence, no comments? However, I have never seen it before and must say I enjoyed it immensely.[/quote]
    Someone posted it before, I thought on here but maybe it was the Hockey History section of Hfboards.com. The jersey of the featured player in the video, Jacques Blain, was just in an auction on classicauctions.net! Those first year Nordiques jerseys were sweet. I’m currently replaying that first WHA season in a hockey board game called Inside the Crease.

    -Jet

  • Tom Farley | May 27, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    Apologies. The guy who awarded the Pilots to Selig’s group, Sidney Volinn, was a federal bankruptcy referee. Check out all the maneuvering in the 1969-70 offseason:

    http://en.wikipedia....

  • Jet | May 27, 2010 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”391801″][quote comment=”391774″]

    Oh, and how did I not know about those ’36 Redlegs before today?
    http://exhibits.base...
    Very nice.[/quote]

    Me neither! Interesting that they also had three different stirrup designs that year too!!

    -Jet

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 11:08 am |

    [quote comment=”391770″]We’ve discussed that ersatz Brewers hat on the SI 1970 Baseball Preview issue several times (see the Ticker).

    SI had to fake something, because even in spring training that year the Pilots weren’t sure where they’d be based in 1970.

    Virtually at the last minute was the move to Milwaukee solidified. So that hat on the cover is a best guess at press time.

    What the team actually did, of course, was go to royal blue hat with a generic full block “M” and re-letter the Pilots jerseys that already had been created for a season in Seattle that never happened.

    The joke at the time was that the equipment bus would head north from spring training and wait to be told whether to turn left or right. It really did almost go that far down to the wire.

    Hard for many today to understand how pro sports–especially MLB—could be that unstable from time to time, I know. But that’s the way it was.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Somebody call me? ;)

    Ricko’s right – it was SI’s last-minute interpretation of the Pilots’ scrambled-eggs cap redone for Milwaukee.

    The “generic” style was chosen no doubt because it was the old Milwaukee Braves cap redone in the new Brewers colors.

    I have heard from people in authority, but have not been able to confirm with Bud himself, that if he had more than a few days to re-design the club’s uniforms he would have incorporated the history and aesthetics of the old minor league Milwaukee Brewers.

    But I have no idea why the Brewers didn’t go with their original uniform plans. Hard to believe that vertical arch letters were easier to do than radial arch, but must have been.

    Although such a last-minute move is incredibly rare – Milwaukee has actually seen it twice. The Braves moved to Milwaukee during Spring Training in 1953.

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 11:13 am |

    [quote comment=”391796″][quote comment=”391792″]Do you figure that the world would end if the Yankees ever walked on the field in the Bronx wearing a reverse monochrome uniform ( white pinstripes on blue ) white cap and blue logo!![/quote]

    you mean something like this? (sorry, no white cap)

    did that over a year ago (as a goof) just to see how it might look…all i can say is stay tuned for part II…[/quote]
    That was almost their road uniform in 1975. Then-General Manager Gabe Paul had prototypes made up and was ready to make the switch, but was persuaded by Marty Appel, the team’s PR head, to scrap them.

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 11:17 am |

    Quick comment about local highways. Growing up in NY/NJ I never knew that The Crossbronx, Major Deegan, Long Island Expressway, BQE, Van Wyck or Jersey Turnpike actually had Interstate Numbers! To us the only roads with numbers were 80,17 and 1-9 in Jersey!!!

    In basketball..you really should ONLY WEAR MONOCHROME!!

  • M.Princip | May 27, 2010 at 11:18 am |

    [quote comment=”391804″][quote comment=”391797″]I guess most of the Hockey readers here were privy to this Quebec Nordiques video, hence, no comments? However, I have never seen it before and must say I enjoyed it immensely.[/quote]

    Those first year Nordiques jerseys were sweet.

    -Jet[/quote]

    I absolutely agree.

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 11:22 am |

    “That was almost their road uniform in 1975. Then-General Manager Gabe Paul had prototypes made up and was ready to make the switch, but was persuaded by Marty Appel, the team’s PR head, to scrap them.”

    Are you serious! As “fashion-sense-challenged” as the 70s were, I still find that hard to believe. Can you picture Lou, Reggie, Bucky and Billy wearing that during those legendary games up in Fenway!!

  • Bernard | May 27, 2010 at 11:24 am |

    I like the idea of powder- pretty much anything. Blue, green, red, black (standard gray). Basically, take the color of the cap and tone it down. I think this would work as a road uni for pretty much everybody. The full-color, vibrant monochromes on the other hand… yech. Reminds me of early-90s Starter gear, for all the wrong reasons:

    http://cgi.ebay.com/...

    Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 11:27 am |

    [quote comment=”391811″]”That was almost their road uniform in 1975. Then-General Manager Gabe Paul had prototypes made up and was ready to make the switch, but was persuaded by Marty Appel, the team’s PR head, to scrap them.”

    Are you serious! As “fashion-sense-challenged” as the 70s were, I still find that hard to believe. Can you picture Lou, Reggie, Bucky and Billy wearing that during those legendary games up in Fenway!![/quote]

    Deadly serious. Thank Appel for understanding that the road uniform is as central to the team’s identity as the home pinstripes.

    Apparently, he did a mock-faint in Paul’s office when Paul showed him the new road uniform prototypes. Just to show him what a terrible idea they were.

  • Tom Farley | May 27, 2010 at 11:30 am |

    http://farm5.static....

    Holy cow, Chance! A color photo of the minor-league Brewers? That must be at Borchert Field. What a find!

  • J | May 27, 2010 at 11:34 am |

    i was disappointed when i saw that ESPN’s uni slip in the middle of last night’s Game 5 was not in the Ticker. when previewing the date and time of Game 6, they showed Dwight Howard in his 04=08 away jersey. this was apparent by the star on the collar. can i get a little help on this?

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 11:36 am |

    Long pants really torpedo the dark mono look.

    This is pretty much what the guys at Valvoline Oil Change wear, isn’t it?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 11:38 am |

    [quote comment=”391816″]Long pants really torpedo the dark mono look.

    This is pretty much what the guys at Valvoline Oil Change wear, isn’t it?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Pretty sure I don’t have to remind anyone what mono orange would look like.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 11:39 am |

    [quote comment=”391811″]”That was almost their road uniform in 1975. Then-General Manager Gabe Paul had prototypes made up and was ready to make the switch, but was persuaded by Marty Appel, the team’s PR head, to scrap them.”

    Are you serious! As “fashion-sense-challenged” as the 70s were, I still find that hard to believe. Can you picture Lou, Reggie, Bucky and Billy wearing that during those legendary games up in Fenway!![/quote]

    Those http://farm4.static.... would have been cool, especially when the Sox wore these:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Speaking of Fenway…
    From last night:
    http://www.uniwatchb...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 11:45 am |

    Well, here’s Dent in mono navy (sans pins, of course)…
    http://www.beckett.c...

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 11:46 am |

    [quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.

  • ren | May 27, 2010 at 11:47 am |

    http://farm4.static.... guess the game from the scoreboard

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 11:48 am |

    The fact that Yankees actually considered that uniform, threw my morning off. But I did find the quote:

    Although the Yankees have worn the same road uniform since 1918 (with the exception of 1927 to 1930, when the arched “NEW YORK” was replaced by the word “YANKEES”), a radical change was proposed in 1974. Marty Appel, in his book Now Pitching for the Yankees, describes the proposed uniforms:[5]
    “ In 1974 I walked into (then-General Manager) Gabe Paul’s office to find samples of new Yankee road uniforms draped across his sofa. They were the opposite of the home pinstripes — they were navy blue with white pinstripes. The NY logo was in white. Gabe liked them. I nearly fainted. Although the drab gray road uniforms were not exciting, with the plain NEW YORK across the chest, they were just as much the Yankees’ look as were the home uniforms. I think my dramatic disdain helped saved (sic) the day and saved the Yankees from wearing those awful pajamas on the field.

  • GoTerriers | May 27, 2010 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”391819″]Well, here’s Dent in mono navy (sans pins, of course)…
    http://www.beckett.c...

    —Ricko[/quote]
    And the pic was taken at Yankee Stadium too (A function of Topps being located in NY, so they took the pics when the teams came through town to save on travel – as has been discussed here previously) Can’t get much closer than that. Now, can someone find a Rich Gossage card from that same set of HIM in all navy?

  • Chip Garrison | May 27, 2010 at 11:52 am |

    We see “Retro” Jersey days all of the time. Has anyone ever done a “Future” Jersey day? I think it would be great to have one game per year where teams project what they think their teams uniform would look like in say 50 years from now. How about the A’s in Neon Green, or the Red Sox with video screen numbers on their backs in stead of sewed-on letters. I think if done right, people might actually try to buy the relatively tasteful ones. I mean, look how many Yankees and Mets and Phillies caps in various colors have sold. The Red Sox and Phillies have created a whole cottage industry of selling kelly green Irish-themed uniforms.

  • GoTerriers | May 27, 2010 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”391824″]We see “Retro” Jersey days all of the time. Has anyone ever done a “Future” Jersey day? I think it would be great to have one game per year where teams project what they think their teams uniform would look like in say 50 years from now. How about the A’s in Neon Green, or the Red Sox with video screen numbers on their backs in stead of sewed-on letters. I think if done right, people might actually try to buy the relatively tasteful ones. I mean, look how many Yankees and Mets and Phillies caps in various colors have sold. The Red Sox and Phillies have created a whole cottage industry of selling kelly green Irish-themed uniforms.[/quote]

    And while we’re discussing this, can someone PLEASE tell me what the green dot on the back of an NFL Quarterback’s helmet is for?

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 11:55 am |

    The value of that Strasburg card may go up even more:
    http://sports.espn.g...

    Hmm, first start against the Pirates, then the next series is against the Indians. Good time to slide in the rookie, I’d say…

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 11:56 am |

    They tried the future theme already, with horrible results! Gladly the Yankees and few others took no part..

  • JamesP. | May 27, 2010 at 11:58 am |

    [quote comment=”391816″]Long pants really torpedo the dark mono look.

    This is pretty much what the guys at Valvoline Oil Change wear, isn’t it?
    http://farm4.static....

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I agree. One of the biggest issues I have with throwbacks being worn is when the guys wear the pants long. Those unis were not designed to go all the way to the cleats, and not having the socks/stirrups to break up the solid color on teh legs does make them look like a service station attendant.

  • JamesP. | May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”391824″]We see “Retro” Jersey days all of the time. Has anyone ever done a “Future” Jersey day? I think it would be great to have one game per year where teams project what they think their teams uniform would look like in say 50 years from now. How about the A’s in Neon Green, or the Red Sox with video screen numbers on their backs in stead of sewed-on letters. I think if done right, people might actually try to buy the relatively tasteful ones. I mean, look how many Yankees and Mets and Phillies caps in various colors have sold. The Red Sox and Phillies have created a whole cottage industry of selling kelly green Irish-themed uniforms.[/quote]

    You mean like the turn ahead the clock unis? http://www.angelfire...

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 11:59 am |

    [quote comment=”391824″]We see “Retro” Jersey days all of the time. Has anyone ever done a “Future” Jersey day? [/quote]

    um…yes

  • frankenslade | May 27, 2010 at 12:00 pm |

    Tremendous piece today! That Boston Braves uni with red pinstripes on a dark jersey was surprisingly cool. Count me in on the love of the colorful ’70s unis of the A’s, Padres, and Pirates, but thank god the Saturday Night Special uniforms my Phillies wore that one night were put out of their misery. Imagine today’s players, in pajama pants, wearing those unis or the Indians’ bloodcots? “Can’t we stay up a little longer, Dad?”

    As noted, pajama pants make the wearing of colorful monochrome uniforms pointless. If you could legislate the wearing of contrasting stirrups the Braves’ dark jerseys might look cool with matching pants.

    http://www.zimbio.co...

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm |

    By the way, great article, Phil!

    Bill Veeck, ever the innovator, introduced a navy-blue monochrome road uniform for his minor league Milwaukee Brewers in 1942, but I’m having a hard time confirming that they actually wore them on the field. More details (and a picture) to come, hopefully next week.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”391827″]They tried the future theme already, with horrible results! Gladly the Yankees and few others took no part..[/quote]

    The Yankees took part. They said they were wearing the unis that they’d still be wearing a hundred years from now, or words to that effect.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”391823″][quote comment=”391819″]Well, here’s Dent in mono navy (sans pins, of course)…
    http://www.beckett.c...

    —Ricko[/quote]
    And the pic was taken at Yankee Stadium too (A function of Topps being located in NY, so they took the pics when the teams came through town to save on travel – as has been discussed here previously) Can’t get much closer than that. Now, can someone find a Rich Gossage card from that same set of HIM in all navy?[/quote]

    Think it had to do with who they contracted to take the photos. The vast majority of the 1959 National League Topps cards were shot in ’58 at Seals Stadium in San Francisco, so it seems a good bet the photographer Topps typically hired went west with the Giants.

    For ’59 they must have contracted with someone in Chicago (a team in each league an advantage, to be sure). Many, many of the 1960 cards were shot at Wrigley and Comiskey. Lotta Cub and White Sox home unis in that set.

    —Ricko

  • Flip | May 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm |

    The Braves’ “feather” tops were among my favorites. I love seeing replays of Hank Aaron’s historic home run in that blue top. The feather on the sleeves was an inspired design that, while distinctive, was not overdone.

    That said, nothing can match the Braves current set, unless the NW-striped stirrups make a comeback. (I care not a lick for the navy alt. Why mess around with the basic white and gray?) While I’m no fan of alts in general, the red Sunday set doesn’t offend me as much as the comments on this site. Perhaps it’s because the general piping is preserved.

    Baseball is so popular because it’s a traditional game. Fans love to compare players of different generations — and can, because the game is so numbers-dependent. Because of that, I understand why teams wish to preserve a traditional look. I don’t consider that “to be in a rut.”

    Some teams, though, can get away with breaking the mold. While I loved the original Astros’ shooting star design, the tequilla sunrise jersey and its subsequent redesign to the shoulder stripes was a pleasant diversion. Houston’s designs since then have been uninspired.

    The Pirates’ bumble bee era was a fun diversion, and they absolutely reflected Willie Stargell’s personality, but I’m glad the Buccos returned to their traditional look. (I’d have a hard time wrapping my head around the image of Roberto Clemente in those Stargell sets.)

    Bill Veeck’s clam digger pants looked like they should have been comfortable, and they screamed individual team sock patterns. I don’t understand why they didn’t catch on — perhaps it was because of the leisure suit-style collars on the tops. Maybe it was the shorts. Don’t know.

    Charlie O’s KC Athletics were my favorite team growing up, partially due to proximity, but I loved the kelly gold and white shoes. Given that he gave KC the shaft as he left just as the team was starting to blossom, I never forgave him. When the Royals came on the scene, I was glad they had a traditional look. When they adopted the vests, I gasped. Partly because they gave up a good look, but also because the vests were such a part of the A’s.

    In short, I prefer the traditional look, but when some team tries something different, I applaud the effort … unless it fails!

  • frankenslade | May 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”391825″]And while we’re discussing this, can someone PLEASE tell me what the green dot on the back of an NFL Quarterback’s helmet is for?[/quote]
    Isn’t that to indicate that it’s the QB’s helmet, the one helmet on offense that’s allowed to have a headset for receiving signals called in from the sidelines?

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 12:07 pm |

    I say, even if players wear the pajama pants, go with the monochrome look anyway. People talk about how bad the players look in white or gray pajama pants – you’d just be substituting one complainable thing for another.

    I mean, is this http://farm4.static.... or this http://farm5.static.... really that much worse than this? http://blogs.suntime...

  • Giancarlo | May 27, 2010 at 12:09 pm |

    I’m finding it hard to believe that the Padres of ’72-’73 (’74 also?) sported the same yellow as their contemporaries in Oakland, despite the expert testimony on this board. Could someone put up a side-by-side comparison? If true, that really is a good optical illusion.

    First pack of baseball cards I ever had featured the Padres in the all-yellow uni but with the team identified as “Washington Nat’l Lea.” because the team was supposed to relocate there, I guess, for 1974. I remember wondering how to pronounce Nat’l Lea. Although “Natalies” is actually a pretty good nickname, it now occurs to me.

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 12:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”391798″]My point was either you’re a pinstripes team or you’re not.

    Not a “rule” or anything, just the way baseball seems to have traditionally approached it (give the Bumblebee Pirates a pass because their pins were in their uni rotation as part of a grand scheme…and because they weren’t typical pins, but actually tri-color stripes USED as pins).

    And, yeah, I don’t mind one team in royal and the other in red once in awhile, for example. It’s the navy vs. black or royal vs. black matchups (and such) that are pretty lame.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Tell that to the Mets. ;) The Mets’ home whites and home pinstripes are both good uniforms, but they should choose one and stick with it (I prefer the pins for tradition’s sake, though the whites are more complementary to the road unis).

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 12:17 pm |

    [quote comment=”391814″]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4644458307_e73191aa83_o.jpg

    Holy cow, Chance! A color photo of the minor-league Brewers? That must be at Borchert Field. What a find![/quote]

    Sure is – that comes courtesy of one of my contributors, Paul Tenpenny. He has a collection which The picture shows righty Ernie Johnson throwing off the mound at Borchert Field.

    I have a couple other color photos on my blog – this 1936 team photo, and a couple beauties from Spring Training in 1931. But color shots are extremely rare for a minor league club of the period.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 12:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”391835″]The Braves’ “feather” tops were among my favorites. I love seeing replays of Hank Aaron’s historic home run in that blue top. The feather on the sleeves was an inspired design that, while distinctive, was not overdone.

    That said, nothing can match the Braves current set, unless the NW-striped stirrups make a comeback. (I care not a lick for the navy alt. Why mess around with the basic white and gray?) While I’m no fan of alts in general, the red Sunday set doesn’t offend me as much as the comments on this site. Perhaps it’s because the general piping is preserved.

    Baseball is so popular because it’s a traditional game. Fans love to compare players of different generations — and can, because the game is so numbers-dependent. Because of that, I understand why teams wish to preserve a traditional look. I don’t consider that “to be in a rut.”

    Some teams, though, can get away with breaking the mold. While I loved the original Astros’ shooting star design, the tequilla sunrise jersey and its subsequent redesign to the shoulder stripes was a pleasant diversion. Houston’s designs since then have been uninspired.

    The Pirates’ bumble bee era was a fun diversion, and they absolutely reflected Willie Stargell’s personality, but I’m glad the Buccos returned to their traditional look. (I’d have a hard time wrapping my head around the image of Roberto Clemente in those Stargell sets.)

    Bill Veeck’s clam digger pants looked like they should have been comfortable, and they screamed individual team sock patterns. I don’t understand why they didn’t catch on — perhaps it was because of the leisure suit-style collars on the tops. Maybe it was the shorts. Don’t know.

    Charlie O’s KC Athletics were my favorite team growing up, partially due to proximity, but I loved the kelly gold and white shoes. Given that he gave KC the shaft as he left just as the team was starting to blossom, I never forgave him. When the Royals came on the scene, I was glad they had a traditional look. When they adopted the vests, I gasped. Partly because they gave up a good look, but also because the vests were such a part of the A’s.

    In short, I prefer the traditional look, but when some team tries something different, I applaud the effort … unless it fails![/quote]

    Great last line. There’s room for traditional and new. Keep what works, try some new stuff and keep the best of it as well.

    Loved the Aaron-era Braves jerseys and the orange Astros as well.

    You’re very right about the Pirates. I was at their game on Sunday, and seeing this http://www.stadiumst... in the souvenir stands just seemed weird.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”391838″]I’m finding it hard to believe that the Padres of ’72-’73 (’74 also?) sported the same yellow as their contemporaries in Oakland, despite the expert testimony on this board. Could someone put up a side-by-side comparison? If true, that really is a good optical illusion.

    First pack of baseball cards I ever had featured the Padres in the all-yellow uni but with the team identified as “Washington Nat’l Lea.” because the team was supposed to relocate there, I guess, for 1974. I remember wondering how to pronounce Nat’l Lea. Although “Natalies” is actually a pretty good nickname, it now occurs to me.[/quote]

    Things haven’t always been as they are today. Computers weren’t custom-dying fabric to PMS specs back then.

    It was off-the-rack athletic gold for all of them. It’s the accompanying colors that guide the eye in other directions. For example, on the Packers, in person, it looked quite clearly yellow because it was paired with forest green. Yet if you got close enough, you could easily see it was the same color gold the Vikings were wearing as their trim (that’s a sideline observation, btw).

    How many people have we all known who will go to the floor telling us the Yankees hats are black?

    “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.”
    —Ben Kenobi

    —Ricko

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 12:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”391841″][quote comment=”391835″]The Braves’ “feather” tops were among my favorites. I love seeing replays of Hank Aaron’s historic home run in that blue top. The feather on the sleeves was an inspired design that, while distinctive, was not overdone.

    That said, nothing can match the Braves current set, unless the NW-striped stirrups make a comeback. (I care not a lick for the navy alt. Why mess around with the basic white and gray?) While I’m no fan of alts in general, the red Sunday set doesn’t offend me as much as the comments on this site. Perhaps it’s because the general piping is preserved.

    Baseball is so popular because it’s a traditional game. Fans love to compare players of different generations — and can, because the game is so numbers-dependent. Because of that, I understand why teams wish to preserve a traditional look. I don’t consider that “to be in a rut.”

    Some teams, though, can get away with breaking the mold. While I loved the original Astros’ shooting star design, the tequilla sunrise jersey and its subsequent redesign to the shoulder stripes was a pleasant diversion. Houston’s designs since then have been uninspired.

    The Pirates’ bumble bee era was a fun diversion, and they absolutely reflected Willie Stargell’s personality, but I’m glad the Buccos returned to their traditional look. (I’d have a hard time wrapping my head around the image of Roberto Clemente in those Stargell sets.)

    Bill Veeck’s clam digger pants looked like they should have been comfortable, and they screamed individual team sock patterns. I don’t understand why they didn’t catch on — perhaps it was because of the leisure suit-style collars on the tops. Maybe it was the shorts. Don’t know.

    Charlie O’s KC Athletics were my favorite team growing up, partially due to proximity, but I loved the kelly gold and white shoes. Given that he gave KC the shaft as he left just as the team was starting to blossom, I never forgave him. When the Royals came on the scene, I was glad they had a traditional look. When they adopted the vests, I gasped. Partly because they gave up a good look, but also because the vests were such a part of the A’s.

    In short, I prefer the traditional look, but when some team tries something different, I applaud the effort … unless it fails![/quote]

    Great last line. There’s room for traditional and new. Keep what works, try some new stuff and keep the best of it as well.

    Loved the Aaron-era Braves jerseys and the orange Astros as well.

    You’re very right about the Pirates. I was at their game on Sunday, and seeing this http://www.stadiumst... in the souvenir stands just seemed weird.[/quote]

    I would agree with you if we were discussing some of the other Pirates greats, like Kiner, Waner, Traynor, etc. But Clemente died in ’73, and those uniforms debuted in ’77, so it’s not a big deal. Had he lived, Clemente would have certainly been retired as a player by 1977, but chances are, his association with the club would have remained strong. Not as a coach or manager, but possibly involved in the front office. We also have to remember the other stars of that 1971 world title team like Stargell, Sanguillen, and Oliver wore the multi colored uniforms as well.

  • stannate | May 27, 2010 at 12:46 pm |

    [quote comment=”391835″]The Braves’ “feather” tops were among my favorites. I love seeing replays of Hank Aaron’s historic home run in that blue top. The feather on the sleeves was an inspired design that, while distinctive, was not overdone.

    That said, nothing can match the Braves current set, unless the NW-striped stirrups make a comeback. (I care not a lick for the navy alt. Why mess around with the basic white and gray?) While I’m no fan of alts in general, the red Sunday set doesn’t offend me as much as the comments on this site. Perhaps it’s because the general piping is preserved.

    Baseball is so popular because it’s a traditional game. Fans love to compare players of different generations — and can, because the game is so numbers-dependent. Because of that, I understand why teams wish to preserve a traditional look. I don’t consider that “to be in a rut.”

    Some teams, though, can get away with breaking the mold. While I loved the original Astros’ shooting star design, the tequilla sunrise jersey and its subsequent redesign to the shoulder stripes was a pleasant diversion. Houston’s designs since then have been uninspired.

    The Pirates’ bumble bee era was a fun diversion, and they absolutely reflected Willie Stargell’s personality, but I’m glad the Buccos returned to their traditional look. (I’d have a hard time wrapping my head around the image of Roberto Clemente in those Stargell sets.)

    Bill Veeck’s clam digger pants looked like they should have been comfortable, and they screamed individual team sock patterns. I don’t understand why they didn’t catch on — perhaps it was because of the leisure suit-style collars on the tops. Maybe it was the shorts. Don’t know.

    Charlie O’s KC Athletics were my favorite team growing up, partially due to proximity, but I loved the kelly gold and white shoes. Given that he gave KC the shaft as he left just as the team was starting to blossom, I never forgave him. When the Royals came on the scene, I was glad they had a traditional look. When they adopted the vests, I gasped. Partly because they gave up a good look, but also because the vests were such a part of the A’s.

    In short, I prefer the traditional look, but when some team tries something different, I applaud the effort … unless it fails![/quote]

    The next chance for a baseball team to reinvent itself will be when the Miami Marlins come into existence in 2012. I hope that the Marlins will do more than swap out their F for M.

  • LarryB | May 27, 2010 at 12:50 pm |

    great column today. I love the old baseball pictures and uniforms. Even if the very old ones were monochromatic.

  • The Ol Goaler | May 27, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote]Sure, it’s fun to see a powder blue throwback…until you (see) the ankle length pants and the baggy unis.[/quote]
    “Baggy” unis were the norm, until Willie Mays started having his pants tailored… Polyester pullovers were even tighter

    Today’s MLB players must simply (for the most part) not want anything “binding” their legs to show stirrups/socks. (Sigh…)

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 1:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”391844″]
    The next chance for a baseball team to reinvent itself will be when the Miami Marlins come into existence in 2012. I hope that the Marlins will do more than swap out their F for M.[/quote]
    Originally, they were talking about emphasizing the black and silver, because it sells, and there was also somw talk about black and orange.

    Personally, I’d rather they bring back the teal, which has all but disappeared from the current scheme, and make that the focus.

    We’ll see.

  • Nick | May 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”391783″][quote comment=”391781″]Another spin on the ’70s unis.

    What teams like the Braves, Indians, Astros, A’s, Padres, Giants, etc. did was not only add color, but they also eliminated gray.

    They wore white (or other color) pants both home and road, scrambling the jerseys that went with them so they complied to the MLB rule for “white at home and a darker uni for the road” (paraphasing).

    Add them to teams in powder blue…and the few teams that clung to gray (Dodgers, Yankees, etc.)…and that’s why color seemed even MORE prevalent during that decade.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In the 1980s, color remained as a road uniform but was paired with grey for the first time. See the Indians in 1983. Now it’s standard to have color jerseys with grey pants on the road, whereas previously it was okay to have white pants on the road as long as you had colored jersys. I guess that’s how you get by with two teams wearing colored jerseys in a game now — one team has white pants and the other grey.

    The only baseball team that I’ve seen that wears white pants home and away is LSU when it wears gold jerseys. Softball team does the same thing. I guess gold just looks better with white pants than with grey.[/quote]

    IMO, about 95% of the time when baseball teams wear dark jerseys with gray pants, it looks dingy, messy, and simply looks like crap. Look at it and tell me that it isn’t true. There is no reason that road teams can not wear white pants with dark tops. None. Gray pants go well with Gray jerseys, period.

    While I personally dislike the entire dark jersey look, fully placing it into a Beer League/Fan Jersey category, if you are going to have it, at least look sharp doing it. White pants are a much sharper look.

    And NEVER have two teams both wear dark jerseys. That makes it look 10X worse! Let’s save color vs. color for USC vs. UCLE football, where it both looks good and truly belongs!

  • ken | May 27, 2010 at 1:04 pm |

    I guess I’m in the minority. I liked the Indians blue over red combo. I’m not sure why.

  • Ry Co 40 | May 27, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”391820″][quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.[/quote]

    hmmm… that’s actually pretty interesting… i think yellow hats with the black alts is a jackpot! would be pretty cool to see

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”391798″]My point was either you’re a pinstripes team or you’re not.

    Not a “rule” or anything, just the way baseball seems to have traditionally approached it (give the Bumblebee Pirates a pass because their pins were in their uni rotation as part of a grand scheme…and because they weren’t typical pins, but actually tri-color stripes USED as pins).

    And, yeah, I don’t mind one team in royal and the other in red once in awhile, for example. It’s the navy vs. black or royal vs. black matchups (and such) that are pretty lame.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    True about the Pirates yellow pinstripes, they were so original from a design standpoint. The club did not wear the solid pinstripe look very often during those years, so it’s not surprising that the initial reaction from people tends to be negative, especially if they didn’t see those uniforms live.

  • Nick | May 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”391819″]Well, here’s Dent in mono navy (sans pins, of course)…
    http://www.beckett.c...

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I get WGN Chicago in New Orleans – pretty much have since the early 1980s. About the time that the White Sox adopted their current Black/White look, WGN ran a TV commercial with Lou Holtz pushing/promoting watching the White Sox on WGN. He at some point mentions the new unis, and then jokingly comments to the effect of “where are the Black Pants to go with the Black tops”, or something to that effect. He seemed to be teasing that the White Sox would go monochrome, or suggesting something to that effect.

    I only saw that commercial once or twice – does anyone else remember that commercial, or whether or not the White Sox seriously considered going monochrome with their most recent uni update?

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm |

    I know baseball is probably the most “traditional” of all of our major sports. But in the end, it is still a business and $ dictates a lot. Including uniforms. Look at this example:

    Not sure how familiar most of us are with the Dominican Winter League. The Aguilas Cibaenas have been in around since the 1930s. For about 70 years their team colors were Black and Gold ( yellow ). They wore white at home, grey on the road, no name on back. A few years ago they added a yellow alternate and naturally a night game black alternate. Apparel sales went through the roof.Yellow was so prominent that their unofficial nickname was Los Amarillos ( the yellows ).

    Then telecom giant ORANGE TELECOM became a sponsor. Orange Telecom’s corporate color is ofcourse orange.

    The first change was corporate name on back.

    Then came on orange alternate which looked horrible.

    Then they did away with yellow altogether. The Aguilas new uniforms now mirror the SF Giants and to some extent the Baltimore Orioles.

    I know this is not exactly unprecedented in Socccer, Japan League or the minor leagues. But the Dominican League is not exactly AA ball. It is incredible that a team KNOWN BY THEIR COLORS FOR 70 YEARS! would change because of a sponsor.

    Imagine Sprint sponsoring the Dodgers and changing team colors to black and yellow!

    I guess my point is that even in a sport as traditioanl as baseball, the almighty dollar is still king. So we shouldnt be shocked to see major changes dictated by money in todays economy.

  • scott | May 27, 2010 at 1:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”391823″]Now, can someone find a Rich Gossage card from that same set of HIM in all navy?[/quote]

    Or better yet, a still from the ’77 All Star Game at Yankee Stadium, where Gossage was wearing the monochrome black while pitching the ninth inning for the NL.

  • Brendan | May 27, 2010 at 1:36 pm |

    Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but has anyone seen the University of Cincinnati’s jerseys? They appear to have collars and are reminiscent of the 70s White Sox jerseys. I heard someone call them “tuxedo jerseys.”

    There’s video here:

    http://www.bigeast.o...

  • Jeff S. | May 27, 2010 at 1:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”391763″][quote comment=”391760″]”Up US 5 in Oakland, Charley Finley must have been curious about his little unique flirtation with color being not-so-unique anymore.”

    Should be Interstate 5. US 5 runs from New Haven, CT to the Canadian border.[/quote]

    thanks…now fixed[/quote]

    Not to be Mr. Technical, but I-5 can’t really get you to Oakland. There are a few more freeways involved. I’d be hard pressed to find anybody in Northern California who would ever say that anywhere in Sourthern California was “down I-5.” Yes, that’s the most efficient way to drive south, but we just don’t talk like that. Maybe in Los Angeles, its commonplace to say, “down the 110,” or something, but not up North.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 1:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”391846″][quote]Sure, it’s fun to see a powder blue throwback…until you (see) the ankle length pants and the baggy unis.[/quote]
    “Baggy” unis were the norm, until Willie Mays started having his pants tailored… Polyester pullovers were even tighter

    Today’s MLB players must simply (for the most part) not want anything “binding” their legs to show stirrups/socks. (Sigh…)[/quote]

    ‘Tis true about Willie and the tapered pants. He did start it.

    And, let me say this about the Orioles’ mono orange…looking through the viewfinder OF THAT TIME when just about everyone had his pants tailored, it didn’t help that the Orioles apparently rushed those onto the field. No one’s pants had been tailored and they looked like, for the time, a baggy pants-ed American Legion team wearing straight-from-the-sporting-goods-store unis.
    http://farm4.static....

    Asked about being fussy over his uni in about 1970, Hawk Harrelson said, “I may not be hitting, but I don’t ever want anyone asking, ‘Who’s the guy in the baggy pants striking out all the time?'”

    Plus, double knit doesn’t drape or blouse well, which flannel and even cotton do. Double knit “bunches”. And if any striping down the pant legs is relatively wide, it’s even worse. Then it almost puckers. Check out the pants in the bottom photo here…
    http://farm3.static....

    That’s one of the main reasons you see players today going with the “football” blouse, right below the knees. Unless pants are really baggy, if you attempt to blouse them much lower it yields a “They’ve been in a ball in my suitcase for 24 hours” look. That or they’re too tight and you look like you’re wearing your sister’s pants. Either way, pretty crappy. Certainly compared to the classic “bloomers” of yesterday.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 1:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”391854″][quote comment=”391823″]Now, can someone find a Rich Gossage card from that same set of HIM in all navy?[/quote]

    Or better yet, a still from the ’77 All Star Game at Yankee Stadium, where Gossage was wearing the monochrome black while pitching the ninth inning for the NL.[/quote]

    Or it could have been navy.

  • Ben Fortney | May 27, 2010 at 1:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”391847″]
    Personally, I’d rather they bring back the teal, which has all but disappeared from the current scheme, and make that the focus.
    [/quote]

    Agreed. They went from a unique, “Miami” look to a very generic “could be from anywhere” look.

  • Ben Fortney | May 27, 2010 at 1:53 pm |

    Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”391860″]Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.[/quote]

    thanks…one of ’em is actually not mine…you’ll meet the gentleman in part 2

    btw…shoot me a email if you’re interested in doing some part 2 mocks

  • Kevin | May 27, 2010 at 1:58 pm |

    Great article. I’m in full favor of teams going back to monochrome uniforms – many NFL teams have started doing it recently. The white/grey for all teams is simply boring – they all look the same. Let’s add some color out there and spice things up a bit!

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”391850″][quote comment=”391820″][quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.[/quote]

    hmmm… that’s actually pretty interesting… i think yellow hats with the black alts is a jackpot! would be pretty cool to see[/quote]

    And no pillbox hats, either. I’d like to see them in a hat just like the old helmets:
    http://s2.hubimg.com...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 2:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”391859″][quote comment=”391847″]
    Personally, I’d rather they bring back the teal, which has all but disappeared from the current scheme, and make that the focus.
    [/quote]

    Agreed. They went from a unique, “Miami” look to a very generic “could be from anywhere” look.[/quote]

    Another “agreed”. Always admired the Marlins for going from being truly unique to being unique like everybody else.

    Huh?

    Well, they DID.

    Besides, who thinks of gorgeous blue water in brilliant sunshine when they think of Miami, anyway.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 2:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”391863″][quote comment=”391850″][quote comment=”391820″][quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.[/quote]

    hmmm… that’s actually pretty interesting… i think yellow hats with the black alts is a jackpot! would be pretty cool to see[/quote]

    And no pillbox hats, either. I’d like to see them in a hat just like the old helmets:
    http://s2.hubimg.com...

    I have a Pirates hat like that. Athletic gold, no pillbox.
    Good looking hat.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”391865″][quote comment=”391863″][quote comment=”391850″][quote comment=”391820″][quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.[/quote]

    hmmm… that’s actually pretty interesting… i think yellow hats with the black alts is a jackpot! would be pretty cool to see[/quote]

    And no pillbox hats, either. I’d like to see them in a hat just like the old helmets:
    http://s2.hubimg.com...

    I have a Pirates hat like that. Athletic gold, no pillbox.
    Good looking hat.[/quote]

    I agree.
    http://sphotos.ak.fb...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 2:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”391866″][quote comment=”391865″][quote comment=”391863″][quote comment=”391850″][quote comment=”391820″][quote comment=”391812″]Thinking about MLB caps, I am disappointed (but not surprised) that there are no teams with orange, yellow (gold) or purple lids in normal use. We have black, blue, red and green. The Buccos should, without question, bring back the gold/black lids for some home games.[/quote]

    YES.

    Even though I’d like them paired with the softball tops or monochromes, if teams brought back a more colorful variety of hats I could live without the alts.[/quote]

    hmmm… that’s actually pretty interesting… i think yellow hats with the black alts is a jackpot! would be pretty cool to see[/quote]

    And no pillbox hats, either. I’d like to see them in a hat just like the old helmets:
    http://s2.hubimg.com...

    I have a Pirates hat like that. Athletic gold, no pillbox.
    Good looking hat.[/quote]

    I agree.
    http://sphotos.ak.fb...

    Can sure tell when someone hires a professional model, huh.

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”391796″][quote comment=”391792″]Do you figure that the world would end if the Yankees ever walked on the field in the Bronx wearing a reverse monochrome uniform ( white pinstripes on blue ) white cap and blue logo!![/quote]

    you mean something like this? (sorry, no white cap)

    did that over a year ago (as a goof) just to see how it might look…all i can say is stay tuned for part II…[/quote]

    That Yankees monochrome does look good, no doubt the franchise would benefit from a sharp alternate uniform. Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. No fan at Yankee Stadium will get up and boo and then leave their seats in protest. No rioting in the streets or boycotts, either. It’s just not going to happen, people. There would certainly be some older people slow to accept change, but the Yanks will continue to win, and in time, those fans would come around.

  • JamesP. | May 27, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”391860″]Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.[/quote]

    Astros in brick red bottoms would not be a good idea. Love the Padres mocks though.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 2:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”391867″][quote comment=”391866″][quote comment=”391865″]I have a Pirates hat like that. Athletic gold, no pillbox.
    Good looking hat.[/quote]

    I agree.
    http://sphotos.ak.fb...

    Can sure tell when someone hires a professional model, huh.[/quote]

    Well, the pierogis were the stars of that particular photo shoot…

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”391870″][quote comment=”391867″][quote comment=”391866″][quote comment=”391865″]I have a Pirates hat like that. Athletic gold, no pillbox.
    Good looking hat.[/quote]

    I agree.
    http://sphotos.ak.fb...

    Can sure tell when someone hires a professional model, huh.[/quote]

    Well, the pierogis were the stars of that particular photo shoot…[/quote]

    That’s what I meant.

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 2:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”391869″][quote comment=”391860″]Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.[/quote]

    Astros in brick red bottoms would not be a good idea. Love the Padres mocks though.[/quote]

    Agree with you there, I prefer the orange hats myself, too much red in the current Stros uniforms.

  • LetsGoPens | May 27, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

    Is he wearing someone else’s gitch?
    Sick shirt.
    http://www.art.com/a...

  • JamesP. | May 27, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”391872″][quote comment=”391869″][quote comment=”391860″]Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.[/quote]

    Astros in brick red bottoms would not be a good idea. Love the Padres mocks though.[/quote]

    Agree with you there, I prefer the orange hats myself, too much red in the current Stros uniforms.[/quote]

    I never liked the change from the Orange and Blue to the Navy and Gold and would welcome a change back, but it probably won’t happen. Though an alt uni of Navy and Orange w/ red, black, and yellow/gold highlights could work…if it was in the style of the Shooting Star unis. :)

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

    [quote comment=”391861″][quote comment=”391860″]Great photoshopping on the modern monochromes Phil.[/quote]

    thanks…one of ’em is actually not mine…you’ll meet the gentleman in part 2

    btw…shoot me a email if you’re interested in doing some part 2 mocks[/quote]

    Will those that include stirrups be noted with a “Tell Me, Cliff, What Color is the Sky in Your World?” asterisk?

    (Ricko and his frickin’ “practical reality” again)

    ;)

    —Ricko

  • concealed78 | May 27, 2010 at 2:34 pm |

    Down with monochrome looks. I’m slightly surprised there never was a solid royal version. But I’m sure it would had been as hideous as the rest of them, as the nixed charcoal monochrome roads the Blue Jays almost wore in 2004. And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.

  • flip | May 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”391868″][quote comment=”391796″][quote comment=”391792″]Do you figure that the world would end if the Yankees ever walked on the field in the Bronx wearing a reverse monochrome uniform ( white pinstripes on blue ) white cap and blue logo!![/quote]

    you mean something like this? (sorry, no white cap)

    did that over a year ago (as a goof) just to see how it might look…all i can say is stay tuned for part II…[/quote]

    That Yankees monochrome does look good, no doubt the franchise would benefit from a sharp alternate uniform. Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. No fan at Yankee Stadium will get up and boo and then leave their seats in protest. No rioting in the streets or boycotts, either. It’s just not going to happen, people. There would certainly be some older people slow to accept change, but the Yanks will continue to win, and in time, those fans would come around.[/quote]

    Forgot to mention that I appreciate today’s post. I’m not a monochrome guy, but Phil’s thoughts were presented well.

    Regarding the Yankees and whether they should adopt an alt. One word: No.

    While no Yankee fan, I appreciated The Boss’ comment when a handful of clubs did the Turn Ahead the Clock promotion: “We are wearing TATC uniforms!” or something along that line.

    Only the Yankees can get away with that kind of arrogance. And should.

    I agree that the Marlins ought to do a wholesale redesign when they move into their new stadium, and they ought to ditch the black. Miami screams colors other than black.

    Yes, the Rockies ought to adopt more purple (mountains, majesty). Their unis are uniformly awful and uninspired. (And those vests are an outright travesty, particularly when they have a gem like Ubaldo Jimenez who has to trot out every five days in one of those.)

    When it comes to color and baseball, you can’t get much more colorful than the World Baseball Classic. Two weeks of outfits that wild is about all I care to take.

  • muddlehead | May 27, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

    interesting all green uni as worn by ken holtzman in lead photo. beautiful. didn’t recall the a’s ever wearing it, however. weird no one in stands. first went to retrosheet.org to see game was june 9, 1973 at oakland day game attendance 18,779 (holtzman won to improve w/l to 11-3). went to my collections – i have all topps a’s from 1967 and all yearbooks from early 60’s – looked specifically at 1974 topps and 1974 yearbook, and couldn’t find a solid green uni pic.any a’s fans out there recall this sweet looking uni?

  • flip | May 27, 2010 at 3:01 pm |

    BTW, http://thatsmyboy03.... is an incredible time-waster. I’ve got to get back to work. Tonight, I’m diving back in.

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm |

    Memory may be faulty, but I seem to recall a Topps card from the mid-1970s with either all-green or all-gold uniform (probably all-green, as it would have been less jarring to the eye).

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”391876″] And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.[/quote]

    dammit…thanks…i KNOW it’s 81…must have missed it in the proofing…

    fixed now…thanks for catching that

  • Ebessan | May 27, 2010 at 3:26 pm |

    Not to bring up a dead horse, but on the “Turn Ahead the Clock” uniforms… how would a post-modern “redefine by defining” uniform with elements from several different historical uniforms go over here? My idea is somewhat like the “Cavfanatic” Cavaliers uniforms.

    Like, if the Phillies used a powder-blue uniform and integrated in the WWII-era Blue Jays logo, would this make sense?

  • scott | May 27, 2010 at 3:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.

  • StLMarty | May 27, 2010 at 3:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”391797″]I guess most of the Hockey readers here were privy to this Quebec Nordiques video, hence, no comments? However, I have never seen it before and must say I enjoyed it immensely.[/quote]
    Excellent video. A few things…
    I can’t believe the opening song. Hilarious.
    I want one of those coaching jackets.
    I think that there was too much red on the original uni’s.
    All of the players (and Coach Reeeshard) look really scared.
    The Oilers should wear orange jerseys.

  • concealed78 | May 27, 2010 at 3:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”391786″]Nice photos of the White Sox’ 1976 white hats, btw.

    As near as I can figure, those white hats didn’t last much past the first couple weeks of the season. Maybe only for the initial road trip. I saw the White Sox play on their first visit to the Met that year, and the white chapeaus were long gone already.

    I think part of the rationale behind the White Sox going to those vintage-styled unis was the Bicentennial, wasn’t it?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I thought it was just Bill Veeck putting his stamp on the team & throwing back. I’ve never been able to find much reasoning behind those Sox uni’s or who designed the stencil batter logo. Whether or not it was intentional, the diagonal bars on the X do not align in a straight line (but they do on the Cooperstown Collection resulting in thicker girth).

  • JTH | May 27, 2010 at 3:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”391881″][quote comment=”391876″] And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.[/quote]

    dammit…thanks…i KNOW it’s 81…must have missed it in the proofing…

    fixed now…thanks for catching that[/quote]
    Hey, while you’re at it, did you mean that those unis had butterfly collars?

    Or maybe they weren’t actually butterfly collars, strictly speaking, but I’m pretty sure those jerseys did not feature tab collars.

  • concealed78 | May 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”391886″][quote comment=”391881″][quote comment=”391876″] And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.[/quote]

    dammit…thanks…i KNOW it’s 81…must have missed it in the proofing…

    fixed now…thanks for catching that[/quote]
    Hey, while you’re at it, did you mean that those unis had butterfly collars?

    Or maybe they weren’t actually butterfly collars, strictly speaking, but I’m pretty sure those jerseys did not feature tab collars.[/quote]

    I always called them “floppy collars”, tho truncated collars would be more accurate. Still one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on a modern baseball uniform.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”391883″][quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.[/quote]

    Nothing wrong with holding onto the equity in your branding and expressing the belief that you intend to keep holding onto it.

    I imagine if we asked Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz or BMW what their logo would look like in 50 years they would say, “The same as it does today.”

    Yeah, we could call it arrogance. Or we could say they understand brand reputation and recognition.

    I’m no Yankees apologist…I just get what they’re saying and the position they take.

    Wouldn’t surprise me or offend me if, say, the Colts or the Lakers or the Canadiens had exactly the same attitude. They probably do, in fact.

    —Ricko

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 3:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”391883″][quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.[/quote]

    Sox fan here. Not so sure I agree with that. But it is true that the Sox are less traditional than the Yankees. After all, they went with red caps and different uniforms from 1975-78. They are also on their third version of a gray road uniform since 1979. They switched to red sleeves in 2003. And there was that business with the red caps (with the white “B” instead of blue) and white caps in the 1990s.

    I like the alternate jerseys, but they only need one and I prefer the blue one.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”391887″][quote comment=”391886″][quote comment=”391881″][quote comment=”391876″] And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.[/quote]

    dammit…thanks…i KNOW it’s 81…must have missed it in the proofing…

    fixed now…thanks for catching that[/quote]
    Hey, while you’re at it, did you mean that those unis had butterfly collars?

    Or maybe they weren’t actually butterfly collars, strictly speaking, but I’m pretty sure those jerseys did not feature tab collars.[/quote]

    I always called them “floppy collars”, tho truncated collars would be more accurate. Still one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on a modern baseball uniform.[/quote]

    Kinda thought of them as “Beagle Ear Collars”.
    As in how they’d fly in the wind if you hung out the car window wearing one of those jerseys.

    —Ricko

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 4:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”391888″][quote comment=”391883″][quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.[/quote]

    Nothing wrong with holding onto the equity in your branding and expressing the belief that you intend to keep holding onto it.

    I imagine if we asked Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz or BMW what their logo would look like in 50 years they would say, “The same as it does today.”

    Yeah, we could call it arrogance. Or we could say they understand brand reputation and recognition.

    I’m no Yankees apologist…I just get what they’re saying and the position they take.

    Wouldn’t surprise me or offend me if, say, the Colts or the Lakers or the Canadiens had exactly the same attitude. They probably do, in fact.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Understand where you’re coming from, but the Lakers, Canadians, and Celtics have released alternates in recent years too. I’m not suggesting any reworking of the original uniform, or logo and that’s the difference. A tastefully executed alternate only adds to the tradition, IMO. The Mets example is a poor one, because they went out and introduced black into the uniforms for no clear reason. I don’t understand how developing a sharp alternate uniform equates to lowering standards.

  • Bernard | May 27, 2010 at 4:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”391887″][quote comment=”391886″][quote comment=”391881″][quote comment=”391876″] And it’s 1976-81 ChiSox, Phil.[/quote]

    dammit…thanks…i KNOW it’s 81…must have missed it in the proofing…

    fixed now…thanks for catching that[/quote]
    Hey, while you’re at it, did you mean that those unis had butterfly collars?

    Or maybe they weren’t actually butterfly collars, strictly speaking, but I’m pretty sure those jerseys did not feature tab collars.[/quote]

    I always called them “floppy collars”, tho truncated collars would be more accurate. Still one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen on a modern baseball uniform.[/quote]

    Agreed – whatever you call them, they were positively absurd.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 4:31 pm |

    [quote comment=”391891″][quote comment=”391888″][quote comment=”391883″][quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.[/quote]

    Nothing wrong with holding onto the equity in your branding and expressing the belief that you intend to keep holding onto it.

    I imagine if we asked Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz or BMW what their logo would look like in 50 years they would say, “The same as it does today.”

    Yeah, we could call it arrogance. Or we could say they understand brand reputation and recognition.

    I’m no Yankees apologist…I just get what they’re saying and the position they take.

    Wouldn’t surprise me or offend me if, say, the Colts or the Lakers or the Canadiens had exactly the same attitude. They probably do, in fact.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Understand where you’re coming from, but the Lakers, Canadians, and Celtics have released alternates in recent years too. I’m not suggesting any reworking of the original uniform, or logo and that’s the difference. A tastefully executed alternate only adds to the tradition, IMO. The Mets example is a poor one, because they went out and introduced black into the uniforms for no clear reason. I don’t understand how developing a sharp alternate uniform equates to lowering standards.[/quote]

    I knew that. Ain’t blind. And wasn’t intending to be specific. Just saying that some organizations vary very little, or not at all.

    If such a mindset is the Yankees’ rationale for saying, “Thanks, but no thanks” to Alts or TATC promotions, it kinda ends the discussion. Because it’s their call and, given the circumstances, it isn’t wrong.

    —Ricko

  • BurghFan | May 27, 2010 at 4:35 pm |

    in east pittsburgh and want to get dahn to canonsburg for some sarris candies n’at? take 376 to 79s.

    Nah. It’d be “Take the Parkway to 79.” And, of course, there are the classic Pittsburgh directions: “Go to where the Isaly’s used to be and turn right.”

  • Ben Fortney | May 27, 2010 at 4:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”391864″][quote comment=”391859″][quote comment=”391847″]
    Personally, I’d rather they bring back the teal, which has all but disappeared from the current scheme, and make that the focus.
    [/quote]

    Agreed. They went from a unique, “Miami” look to a very generic “could be from anywhere” look.[/quote]

    Another “agreed”. Always admired the Marlins for going from being truly unique to being unique like everybody else.

    Huh?

    Well, they DID.

    Besides, who thinks of gorgeous blue water in brilliant sunshine when they think of Miami, anyway.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Although at the time, outside of baseball, aqua/teal was definitely a trendy color.

  • jesse | May 27, 2010 at 4:38 pm |

    Re: the comments about the BoSox alts, they need to lose the red/blue jerseys. However, I like the alt cap.

  • Ben Fortney | May 27, 2010 at 4:39 pm |

    Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…

  • BurghFan | May 27, 2010 at 4:43 pm |

    A tastefully executed alternate only adds to the tradition, IMO.

    I disagree. Strongly.

    If you tune into (or attend) a Yankee game, they look like they’ve looked for many decades. Despite a few tweaks, there’s no question about what team you’re seeing. Put an alt on them, however tasteful it may be, and that brand identification is gone. (I feel the same way about the Lakers in white or the unreadable Celtics alts.)

  • Geeman | May 27, 2010 at 4:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”391896″]Re: the comments about the BoSox alts, they need to lose the red/blue jerseys. However, I like the alt cap.[/quote]

    And I like the jerseys (prefer blue), but not the cap. ;)

    Would hate to see the Yanks in anything at home except pins. They could wear a plain blue road jersey and it wouldn’t bother me.

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 5:01 pm |

    Byron collars?

  • A bertucci | May 27, 2010 at 5:07 pm |

    I cant believe that someone is going to accuse Inter of trying to offend muslims.
    They were just wearing a jersey with Milan’s flag on it

  • Brendan | May 27, 2010 at 5:09 pm |

    [quote comment=\”391894\”]in east pittsburgh and want to get dahn to canonsburg for some sarris candies n’at? take 376 to 79s.

    Nah. It\’d be \”Take the Parkway to 79.\” And, of course, there are the classic Pittsburgh directions: \”Go to where the Isaly\’s used to be and turn right.\”[/quote]

    It would also be \”get dahn canonsburg\” not \”get dahn to canonsburg\” \”To\” is unnecessary in Pittsburghese.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 5:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”391882″]Not to bring up a dead horse, but on the “Turn Ahead the Clock” uniforms… how would a post-modern “redefine by defining” uniform with elements from several different historical uniforms go over here? My idea is somewhat like the “Cavfanatic” Cavaliers uniforms.

    Like, if the Phillies used a powder-blue uniform and integrated in the WWII-era Blue Jays logo, would this make sense?[/quote]

    Does to me.

    I like the way they did that Cavs uni: http://www.cavshisto...

    Even this one: http://www.jerseyclu...

    I also love Daniel Chanelli’s Pirates tweaks, where he mixes old and new together: http://farm5.static....

    I’m not saying every team should do something like this, but a lot of them would look pretty good if they take the best of their different eras and put them into one uni.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”391897″]Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…[/quote]

    If the franchise started in pinstripes and never ever wore anything else, then I’d agree with you. But they didn’t, so I don’t.

    But I will say if they ever do wear anything else, it ought to be very, very sparingly.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 5:32 pm |

    It’s official, LeBron is leaving NE Ohio and headed to…Melbourne, Fla.?
    http://www.newsnet5....

  • Chance Michaels | May 27, 2010 at 5:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”391905″][quote comment=”391897″]Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…[/quote]

    If the franchise started in pinstripes and never ever wore anything else, then I’d agree with you. But they didn’t, so I don’t.

    But I will say if they ever do wear anything else, it ought to be very, very sparingly.[/quote]
    They might as well have started in pinstripes. Pinstripes have been the Yankees’ iconic look since 1915.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 6:09 pm |

    [quote comment=”391907″][quote comment=”391905″][quote comment=”391897″]Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…[/quote]

    If the franchise started in pinstripes and never ever wore anything else, then I’d agree with you. But they didn’t, so I don’t.

    But I will say if they ever do wear anything else, it ought to be very, very sparingly.[/quote]
    They might as well have started in pinstripes. Pinstripes have been the Yankees’ iconic look since 1915.[/quote]

    Said this many times. If a team wore something a long time ago, dropped it and never returned to it…it’s in their history, but they don’t have a tradition of it.

    New York Giants once wore lavender or purple or whatever we chose to call it. Historical, yes. Traditional, no.

    Yankees have worn pinstripes since 1915.
    So 1915 was historical as the starting point, and the pins are now traditional.

    Know what I mean?

    —Ricko

  • Flip | May 27, 2010 at 6:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”391888″][quote comment=”391883″][quote comment=”391868″]Honestly, I have to laugh whenever anyone suggests the Yankees would somehow be damaged by adopting a sharp alternate uniform. The Yankees uniform has not, and will never be confused with a national monument, classic piece of art, or the holy bible. Prior to 1936, there were multiple uniform changes for this franchise. The Yankees tradition will not be harmed by the occasional alternate uni, and they won’t be degrading themselves. [/quote]

    Well, as far as I’m concerned, the Boston Red Sox have repeatedly been damaging their tradition – and, yes, degrading themselves – by going out and playing in red and navy jerseys. Traditional teams should stick to classic white and gray uniforms, and leave the nonsense to expansion ballclubs. I think Yankee fans actually pride themselves on the fact that they haven’t stooped to the levels the Mets have in wearing several different uniform combinations. So if they were to wear an alt jersey, I’m not sure fans would be nearly as accepting as you think.[/quote]

    Nothing wrong with holding onto the equity in your branding and expressing the belief that you intend to keep holding onto it.

    I imagine if we asked Volkswagen or Mercedes Benz or BMW what their logo would look like in 50 years they would say, “The same as it does today.”

    Yeah, we could call it arrogance. Or we could say they understand brand reputation and recognition.

    I’m no Yankees apologist…I just get what they’re saying and the position they take.

    Wouldn’t surprise me or offend me if, say, the Colts or the Lakers or the Canadiens had exactly the same attitude. They probably do, in fact.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The Lakers are a good example of a team that took an iconic lookhttp://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b22/yourlosangeleslakers/CopyofElginBaylor2.jpg and updated it http://nbcsportsmedi... I like both versions.

  • Flip | May 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm |

    Let’s try that again. Elg needs all the love he can get. (Too many people remember him at the podium in NBA draft after NBA draft.)

    The Lakers are a good example of a team that took an iconic look http://i16.photobuck... and updated it http://nbcsportsmedi… I like both versions.

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 6:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”391908″][quote comment=”391907″][quote comment=”391905″][quote comment=”391897″]Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…[/quote]

    If the franchise started in pinstripes and never ever wore anything else, then I’d agree with you. But they didn’t, so I don’t.

    But I will say if they ever do wear anything else, it ought to be very, very sparingly.[/quote]
    They might as well have started in pinstripes. Pinstripes have been the Yankees’ iconic look since 1915.[/quote]

    Said this many times. If a team wore something a long time ago, dropped it and never returned to it…it’s in their history, but they don’t have a tradition of it.

    New York Giants once wore lavender or purple or whatever we chose to call it. Historical, yes. Traditional, no.

    Yankees have worn pinstripes since 1915.
    So 1915 was historical as the starting point, and the pins are now traditional.

    Know what I mean?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I would say 1936 would be the starting point, although, that’s obviously a minor point. For whatever reason, the interlocking NY was dropped after 1916, and did not return until 1936. From 1917-1935 it seems the Yanks home unis were just pinstripes, that was a popular style for the era. The Giants wore pinstripes, too, with their version of the interlocking NY on a sleeve. I think it’s interesting those old clips of the Babe don’t show him wearing what we assume to be the current style.

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

    Everyone has a valid point regarding respecting tradition or moving forward.

    But I really think the Yankee uniform situation is a little different in that, not only has the uniform become iconic, but the fact that they refuse to change is iconic in itself.

    That is why it would be such a big deal if they ever took the field wearing anything else. Not just the home jersey. Believe it or not the boring, bland and grey Yankee road jersey actually outsells the home pinstripes almost 3-1.

    You will probably not see a change in our lifetimes. I recognize all the valid points for a tasteful alternate, but that would kind of negate what makes the traditional uniforms special.

    In case anyone is interested the blue Yankee tshirt with white name and numbers on the back, outsells jerseys 20-1. Those are theh official numbers, not counting all the bootlegs for sale on River Avenue!!!

    As much as I hate the team and am annoyed by their fans, I really like the Red Sox home whites. I wish they would have remained traditional and not had THREE alternates. The blue one is well done, I kind of understand that horrible green one……but they have no business wearing that garish red one. It looks so bad that they might as well wear read pants with them!!

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 27, 2010 at 6:58 pm |

    SPELL CHECK:

    wear RED pants with them.

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 7:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”391912″]Everyone has a valid point regarding respecting tradition or moving forward.

    But I really think the Yankee uniform situation is a little different in that, not only has the uniform become iconic, but the fact that they refuse to change is iconic in itself.

    That is why it would be such a big deal if they ever took the field wearing anything else. Not just the home jersey. Believe it or not the boring, bland and grey Yankee road jersey actually outsells the home pinstripes almost 3-1.

    You will probably not see a change in our lifetimes. I recognize all the valid points for a tasteful alternate, but that would kind of negate what makes the traditional uniforms special.

    In case anyone is interested the blue Yankee tshirt with white name and numbers on the back, outsells jerseys 20-1. Those are theh official numbers, not counting all the bootlegs for sale on River Avenue!!!

    As much as I hate the team and am annoyed by their fans, I really like the Red Sox home whites. I wish they would have remained traditional and not had THREE alternates. The blue one is well done, I kind of understand that horrible green one……but they have no business wearing that garish red one. It looks so bad that they might as well wear read pants with them!![/quote]

    Yes, I don’t care for the red jersey myself. Is it true the Bosox wore a white hat briefly about a decade ago?

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 7:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”391908″][quote comment=”391907″][quote comment=”391905″][quote comment=”391897″]Also, Yankees in anything other than pinstripes in the Bronx would be egregious…[/quote]

    If the franchise started in pinstripes and never ever wore anything else, then I’d agree with you. But they didn’t, so I don’t.

    But I will say if they ever do wear anything else, it ought to be very, very sparingly.[/quote]
    They might as well have started in pinstripes. Pinstripes have been the Yankees’ iconic look since 1915.[/quote]

    Said this many times. If a team wore something a long time ago, dropped it and never returned to it…it’s in their history, but they don’t have a tradition of it.

    New York Giants once wore lavender or purple or whatever we chose to call it. Historical, yes. Traditional, no.

    Yankees have worn pinstripes since 1915.
    So 1915 was historical as the starting point, and the pins are now traditional.

    Know what I mean?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I know.

    That’s why I said very, very sparingly. I think NY fans should see the team wear what it wore back at the beginning of the franchise…but only as a TBTC game. Not as an alt jersey. I respect the pinstripe tradition as much as anyone else. Not saying they should ditch it.

  • jesse | May 27, 2010 at 7:44 pm |

    [quote comment=”391914″][quote comment=”391912″]Everyone has a valid point regarding respecting tradition or moving forward.

    But I really think the Yankee uniform situation is a little different in that, not only has the uniform become iconic, but the fact that they refuse to change is iconic in itself.

    That is why it would be such a big deal if they ever took the field wearing anything else. Not just the home jersey. Believe it or not the boring, bland and grey Yankee road jersey actually outsells the home pinstripes almost 3-1.

    You will probably not see a change in our lifetimes. I recognize all the valid points for a tasteful alternate, but that would kind of negate what makes the traditional uniforms special.

    In case anyone is interested the blue Yankee tshirt with white name and numbers on the back, outsells jerseys 20-1. Those are theh official numbers, not counting all the bootlegs for sale on River Avenue!!!

    As much as I hate the team and am annoyed by their fans, I really like the Red Sox home whites. I wish they would have remained traditional and not had THREE alternates. The blue one is well done, I kind of understand that horrible green one……but they have no business wearing that garish red one. It looks so bad that they might as well wear read pants with them!![/quote]

    Yes, I don’t care for the red jersey myself. Is it true the Bosox wore a white hat briefly about a decade ago?[/quote]
    1999 they wore the white cap. Very briefly.

  • dannyfinocchio | May 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm |

    really great article today Phil.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:09 pm |

    Seeing as Plus Fours (knickers) have been mentioned…
    And seeing as Paul is in Scotland…
    http://www.golfknick...

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:10 pm |

    Available in 20 colors, yet…
    http://www.golfknick...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:13 pm |

    Holy Magozzi!!!!
    http://www.golfknick...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 9:16 pm |

    Perhaps a sweater vest?
    http://www.golfknick...

  • Oakville Endive | May 27, 2010 at 9:33 pm |

    Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold? Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?

  • interlockingtc | May 27, 2010 at 9:34 pm |

    Great read today, Phil.

    I think it’s time to re-introduce monochrome. For a year or two. See what happens. Why not.

    Those turn-of-the-century monos look pretty damn good. Duplicate those designs.

  • Ben Fortney | May 27, 2010 at 10:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Better question: How many lakes are in LA?

  • JTH | May 27, 2010 at 10:02 pm |

    [quote comment=”391915″]I think NY fans should see the team wear what it wore back at the beginning of the franchise…but only as a TBTC game.[/quote]
    Do you mean that you want them to wear this?

    Since we’re already talking about something that stands pretty much zero chance of ever happening, how great would it be to see them wear that against the Orioles wearing this?

  • Gusto44 | May 27, 2010 at 10:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Not sure about this, but when the Lakers were in Minnesota, their colors might have been dark and light blue. During the Elgin Baylor era, they wore a uniform with that color scheme, with Los Angeles in script on the jersey. The original Suns uniform is still my favorite, it seems too many NBA teams are switching uniforms and colors when compared with other sports.

  • JTH | May 27, 2010 at 10:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”391924″][quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Better question: How many lakes are in LA?[/quote]
    Uh… one?

  • TD | May 27, 2010 at 10:28 pm |

    I skimmed the comments to see if this had been posted yet and didn’t see it, but someone found home video of the 1976 White Sox in the shorts..

  • traxel | May 27, 2010 at 10:39 pm |

    [quote comment=”391918″]Seeing as Plus Fours (knickers) have been mentioned…
    And seeing as Paul is in Scotland…
    http://www.golfknick...

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I need to get some of those and wear my assortment of 20 plus stirrups with them. My once a week golf game won’t know what to do.

    Great article Phil! Comment: I too see powder blue as simply an alternative to road grays so not necessarily a “monochrome” uni. Never really thought the 76-82 White Sox stood out for being monochrome either – but they sure are pretty. Can’t say enough how those things rock. Padres uni’s tonight are things of beauty too. In Dressed to the Nines I see 1978 as the only year they actually wore these though. http://exhibits.base...

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:41 pm |

    [quote comment=”391926″][quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Not sure about this, but when the Lakers were in Minnesota, their colors might have been dark and light blue. During the Elgin Baylor era, they wore a uniform with that color scheme, with Los Angeles in script on the jersey. The original Suns uniform is still my favorite, it seems too many NBA teams are switching uniforms and colors when compared with other sports.[/quote]

    Final Minneapolis Lakers wore royal and white. First Los Angeles Lakers added powder trim to that combination. Original Minneapolis Lakers (Mikan era) had worn powder and yellow-gold, then changed to primarily powder and white with a bit of dark blue trim, followed by the royal and white.

    Those who don’t understand how much the name “Lakers” means to NBA history, and how much equity there was in it at the time of the move, need to do a little homework. Then they’ll understand why Jack Kent Cooke kept “Lakers” even though it admittedly was out of place in L.A.

    As to colors, they aren’t always about the nickname. Sometimes they’re about the locale. Purple and gold aren’t bad for the City of Angels.

    Now, I can’t say the same thing about keeping “Jazz” when that franchise moved to Utah. That one didn’t make (and still doesn’t make) any sense at all.

    —Ricko

  • traxel | May 27, 2010 at 10:46 pm |

    In 1979 did the Padres wear home grays and road whites (yeah, pants only) like this suggests? http://exhibits.base... Anyone else ever wear a road white and home color? I guess I’ll have to stay tuned to Phil to find out.

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:46 pm |

    I need to check, but too tired right now. Final Mpls. Lakers may have had a bit of powder blue, too.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | May 27, 2010 at 10:48 pm |

    [quote comment=”391931″]In 1979 did the Padres wear home grays and road whites (yeah, pants only) like this suggests? http://exhibits.base... Anyone else ever wear a road white and home color? I guess I’ll have to stay tuned to Phil to find out.[/quote]

    Nope.
    No gray on that uni at all.
    (Just odd scans at DTTN’s)

    —Ricko

  • Oakville Endive | May 27, 2010 at 10:57 pm |

    [quote comment=”391930″][quote comment=”391926″][quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Not sure about this, but when the Lakers were in Minnesota, their colors might have been dark and light blue. During the Elgin Baylor era, they wore a uniform with that color scheme, with Los Angeles in script on the jersey. The original Suns uniform is still my favorite, it seems too many NBA teams are switching uniforms and colors when compared with other sports.[/quote]

    Final Minneapolis Lakers wore royal and white. First Los Angeles Lakers added powder trim to that combination. Original Minneapolis Lakers (Mikan era) had worn powder and yellow-gold, then changed to primarily powder and white with a bit of dark blue trim, followed by the royal and white.

    Those who don’t understand how much the name “Lakers” means to NBA history, and how much equity there was in it at the time of the move, need to do a little homework. Then they’ll understand why Jack Kent Cooke kept “Lakers” even though it admittedly was out of place in L.A.

    As to colors, they aren’t always about the nickname. Sometimes they’re about the locale. Purple and gold aren’t bad for the City of Angels.

    Now, I can’t say the same thing about keeping “Jazz” when that franchise moved to Utah. That one didn’t make (and still doesn’t make) any sense at all.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In terms of the Lakers keeping their name upon transfer because of the equity built up, while I recognize this represents conventional thinking, as the majority of teams that move , keep their names – I actually think teams in many cases , would be better off adopting an entirely new identity when they move cities. i.e. I think the Baltimore Ravens are better off now, than if they were called the Baltimore Browns – I think Washington Nationals – are smart not to be the Washington Expos. Teams like St Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals would have been better off to have made the switch – maybe not in the immediate short term – but in the long term. When you keep the original nickname – it becomes a constant reminder to all fans – it’s a nomadic franchise – thus forming an attachment -can be dangerous.

  • JimV19 | May 27, 2010 at 10:59 pm |

    [quote comment=”391925″][quote comment=”391915″]I think NY fans should see the team wear what it wore back at the beginning of the franchise…but only as a TBTC game.[/quote]
    Do you mean that you want them to wear this?

    Since we’re already talking about something that stands pretty much zero chance of ever happening, how great would it be to see them wear that against the Orioles wearing this?[/quote]

    [quote comment=”391925″][quote comment=”391915″]I think NY fans should see the team wear what it wore back at the beginning of the franchise…but only as a TBTC game.[/quote]
    Do you mean that you want them to wear this?

    Since we’re already talking about something that stands pretty much zero chance of ever happening, how great would it be to see them wear that against the Orioles wearing this?[/quote]

    Let’s try the first year in New York.
    http://exhibits.base...

    And since I haven’t made myself clear to anyone today, let me keep this simple (in my best Joe Piscopo):

    The big story?
    Yankees…pinstripes…great! Change? No! Reason? Tradition!
    Maybe a throwback? Sure! Reason? History!
    Use as an alt? No! Reason? Tradition!

  • LI Phil | May 27, 2010 at 11:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”391931″]In 1979 did the Padres wear home grays and road whites (yeah, pants only) like this suggests? http://exhibits.base... Anyone else ever wear a road white and home color? I guess I’ll have to stay tuned to Phil to find out.[/quote]

    ricko already confirmed it, but no…the didn’t have a “gray home” uni…unfortunately, i believe a lot of the okkonen scans suffer from poor quality…man, what i’d give for an edition of that book

    as an example, ben…go to DTTN and plug in a certain city (for example cleveland — look at the home uniform for 74 and 75 — it’s the same uni, but in 75 it “looks” gray…wasn’t)

    okkonen did a great job, but i think the scans don’t necessarily accurately convey that

  • traxel | May 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”391936″][quote comment=”391931″]In 1979 did the Padres wear home grays and road whites (yeah, pants only) like this suggests? http://exhibits.base... Anyone else ever wear a road white and home color? I guess I’ll have to stay tuned to Phil to find out.[/quote]

    ricko already confirmed it, but no…the didn’t have a “gray home” uni…unfortunately, i believe a lot of the okkonen scans suffer from poor quality…man, what i’d give for an edition of that book

    as an example, ben…go to DTTN and plug in a certain city (for example cleveland — look at the home uniform for 74 and 75 — it’s the same uni, but in 75 it “looks” gray…wasn’t)

    okkonen did a great job, but i think the scans don’t necessarily accurately convey that[/quote]
    Someday I’ll draw each one correctly (not possible). Someday. Good song by Steve Earle. http://www.youtube.c...

  • Andrew | May 27, 2010 at 11:58 pm |

    Interesting baseball thing I’ve never nticed before:

    The Mets, having just emasculated the Phils all week, are on their way for a road trip. On their way off the field, SNY aired a shot of the team coming out of the dugout through the hallway into the clubhouse. They were all handing their hats, one by one, to an equipment manager, who was stacking them in a hat case for the trip.

    Guess they have to get there somehow, but I never noticed that before.

  • Mike Engle | May 28, 2010 at 12:13 am |

    [quote comment=”391938″]Interesting baseball thing I’ve never nticed before:

    The Mets, having just emasculated the Phils all week, are on their way for a road trip. On their way off the field, SNY aired a shot of the team coming out of the dugout through the hallway into the clubhouse. They were all handing their hats, one by one, to an equipment manager, who was stacking them in a hat case for the trip.

    Guess they have to get there somehow, but I never noticed that before.[/quote]
    Of course, if they didn’t use their road caps at home, they could have been all packed and ready to go beforehand. ;-)

  • flip | May 28, 2010 at 12:21 am |

    [quote comment=”391934″][quote comment=”391930″][quote comment=”391926″][quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Not sure about this, but when the Lakers were in Minnesota, their colors might have been dark and light blue. During the Elgin Baylor era, they wore a uniform with that color scheme, with Los Angeles in script on the jersey. The original Suns uniform is still my favorite, it seems too many NBA teams are switching uniforms and colors when compared with other sports.[/quote]

    Final Minneapolis Lakers wore royal and white. First Los Angeles Lakers added powder trim to that combination. Original Minneapolis Lakers (Mikan era) had worn powder and yellow-gold, then changed to primarily powder and white with a bit of dark blue trim, followed by the royal and white.

    Those who don’t understand how much the name “Lakers” means to NBA history, and how much equity there was in it at the time of the move, need to do a little homework. Then they’ll understand why Jack Kent Cooke kept “Lakers” even though it admittedly was out of place in L.A.

    As to colors, they aren’t always about the nickname. Sometimes they’re about the locale. Purple and gold aren’t bad for the City of Angels.

    Now, I can’t say the same thing about keeping “Jazz” when that franchise moved to Utah. That one didn’t make (and still doesn’t make) any sense at all.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In terms of the Lakers keeping their name upon transfer because of the equity built up, while I recognize this represents conventional thinking, as the majority of teams that move , keep their names – I actually think teams in many cases , would be better off adopting an entirely new identity when they move cities. i.e. I think the Baltimore Ravens are better off now, than if they were called the Baltimore Browns – I think Washington Nationals – are smart not to be the Washington Expos.

    Teams like St Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals would have been better off to have made the switch – maybe not in the immediate short term – but in the long term. When you keep the original nickname – it becomes a constant reminder to all fans – it’s a nomadic franchise – thus forming an attachment -can be dangerous.[/quote]

    Kinda feel the same way. Wonder what the Jersey Jets and Giants should have tried?

  • LI Phil | May 28, 2010 at 12:25 am |

    [quote comment=”391939″][quote comment=”391938″]Interesting baseball thing I’ve never nticed before:

    The Mets, having just emasculated the Phils all week, are on their way for a road trip. On their way off the field, SNY aired a shot of the team coming out of the dugout through the hallway into the clubhouse. They were all handing their hats, one by one, to an equipment manager, who was stacking them in a hat case for the trip.

    Guess they have to get there somehow, but I never noticed that before.[/quote]
    Of course, if they didn’t use their road caps at home, they could have been all packed and ready to go beforehand. ;-)[/quote]

    saw that too…and never saw it before

    monsieur engle is entirely correct, tho…blue caps would have stayed in their lockers, not gone into the travel case

  • Gusto44 | May 28, 2010 at 12:34 am |

    [quote comment=”391934″][quote comment=”391930″][quote comment=”391926″][quote comment=”391922″]Watching the Phoenix Suns, who are wearing their purple (dark) and grey (cloudy) and the Lakers – also in appropriate colours for their nick name – purple and gold – hmmm how many lakes are purple and gold?

    Can two teams be in more inapproriate colours based on their names ?[/quote]

    Not sure about this, but when the Lakers were in Minnesota, their colors might have been dark and light blue. During the Elgin Baylor era, they wore a uniform with that color scheme, with Los Angeles in script on the jersey. The original Suns uniform is still my favorite, it seems too many NBA teams are switching uniforms and colors when compared with other sports.[/quote]

    Final Minneapolis Lakers wore royal and white. First Los Angeles Lakers added powder trim to that combination. Original Minneapolis Lakers (Mikan era) had worn powder and yellow-gold, then changed to primarily powder and white with a bit of dark blue trim, followed by the royal and white.

    Those who don’t understand how much the name “Lakers” means to NBA history, and how much equity there was in it at the time of the move, need to do a little homework. Then they’ll understand why Jack Kent Cooke kept “Lakers” even though it admittedly was out of place in L.A.

    As to colors, they aren’t always about the nickname. Sometimes they’re about the locale. Purple and gold aren’t bad for the City of Angels.

    Now, I can’t say the same thing about keeping “Jazz” when that franchise moved to Utah. That one didn’t make (and still doesn’t make) any sense at all.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    In terms of the Lakers keeping their name upon transfer because of the equity built up, while I recognize this represents conventional thinking, as the majority of teams that move , keep their names – I actually think teams in many cases , would be better off adopting an entirely new identity when they move cities. i.e. I think the Baltimore Ravens are better off now, than if they were called the Baltimore Browns – I think Washington Nationals – are smart not to be the Washington Expos.

    Teams like St Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals would have been better off to have made the switch – maybe not in the immediate short term – but in the long term. When you keep the original nickname – it becomes a constant reminder to all fans – it’s a nomadic franchise – thus forming an attachment -can be dangerous.[/quote]

    How about the St. Louis Archers and the Arizona Scorpions?

  • Guy Hankel | May 28, 2010 at 11:23 am |

    Just wanted to make one more comment regarding some of the Pilots/Brewers discussion above. The famous assertion that the Brewers hastily re-lettered Pilots jerseys in order to have something ready for the regular season is untrue. The Brewers had ordered and used new uniforms prior to opening day. Looking at some all-original 1970 Brewers jerseys in conjuction with roster acquisition dates has confirmed this. A few years ago I wrote an article for Sports Collectors Digest that went into some detail concerning this: “Technicolor Gingerbread and Scrambled Eggs: Collecting the Uniforms of the 1969 Seattle Pilots”. I’d be happy to email a copy to anyone interested in this. Just drop me a line at gwh11@yahoo.com.

  • Kub | May 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm |

    why didnt the Padre’ current away’s come up when talking about monochrome unis?

    oh and fore the record, other than powder blue, all other monochrome needs to stay far away from baseball

  • Kirk | May 28, 2010 at 7:01 pm |

    Don’t know if anyone is watching the ACC baseball tournament, but Clemson and Virginia Tech are putting on a gorgeous game right now.

    The Hokies are wearing their “tequila sunrise” inspired alternate uniforms… their closer is also donning the best pair of striped stirrups I’ve seen in a long while.

    Clemson has their traditional white shoes and pants.

    I am so content as a Uniwatcher right now.

  • Kirk | May 28, 2010 at 7:04 pm |

    Here are the unis described:

    Virginia Tech
    http://4.bp.blogspot...

    Clemson
    http://media.indepen...