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

Sweet 16

IMG_6094.JPG

Got a package in the mail yesterday from A’s equipment manager Steve Vucinich. Inside was the nameplate you see above, which clocks in at 16 letters — that’s two letters longer than Salty (and, as you can see, a few inches longer than Tucker).

The player in question was Eric Stuckenschneider, a Dodgers prospect who was later claimed by the A’s in the Rule 5 draft. That nameplate is from a jersey that Steve lettered up for him during spring training of 1999, but Stuckenschneider hurt his shoulder that spring, was later farmed out, and never made the bigs. So why did Steve hold onto the nameplate for over a decade? “Because it was so unusual and I thought it might have some historical value someday,” he says. Which of course is precisely why I’ll now be holding onto it.

This isn’t the first time Stucky and I have crossed paths. He’s mentioned in this 2006 ESPN column, and the Ticker of this 2007 blog entry featured a link to this photo, although I didn’t remember either of those instances and only stumbled across them when I googled Stuckenschneider’s name.

New ESPN column today — look here. As for me, I’m off to Shea to catch this afternoon’s Mets/Cards game. See you tomorrow. — Paul

moneyball.jpg

And they didn’t even hire me as a consultant: Did you know they’re shooting a movie of Moneyball? It’s true — with Brad Pitt as Billy Beane and Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. Major mis-casting there, since Howe obviously should’ve been played by Gavin McLeod, but whatever.

Anyway, a reader who prefers to remain anonymous (read: He signed a non-disclosure agreement) is working as an extra on the film and recently wrapped up an all-night shoot at the Oakland Coliseum. The scenes that were being filmed took place during the final game of the Athletics’ 20-game winning streak in 2002. Did the filmmakers get the uni details right? Here’s our anonymous reader’s report:

I watched every game I could during the 2002 season, and I have to say that the wardrobe and research departments for this film absolutely nailed it. Gray underbills on the caps, the logos on the bases, the ads on the outfield wall, Eric Byrnes’s yellow shoelaces and impossibly tight pants, the Royals’ sleeveless jerseys with sleeve patches, the backwards American flags on the warmup jackets — even the out-of-town scoreboards were updated for each shot.

The only real error I noticed was that the bullpen ballboy had a cap with a black underbill (as well as sneakers that weren’t released until 2006 or 2007). He wasn’t wearing a helmet, though, so points for that.

The actor playing Mark Ellis was wearing low pants cuffs, and I have a suspicion that Ellis switched from wearing high cuffs to low cuffs after the 2002 season, but I haven’t found any solid proof yet. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt, though, because every other player wore their uniforms exactly as I remember. [Some quick photo research indicates that Ellis began the 2002 season high-cuffed but switched to low-cuffery midway through the season. — PL]

Unfortunately, they didn’t film any A’s players at bat, so I didn’t get to see if they got my favorite detail: The A on their batting helmets is a unique variant of the logo, and replica helmet manufacturers consistently use the A that appears on their caps instead. [We’ve discussed this many times here on the site. Steve Vucinich has tried to make all the headwear logos consistent since the issue was brought to his attention. — PL]

Based on what I’ve seen, the people involved in the film have done their homework, so hopefully we’ll be able to enjoy a historical sports film without any glaring mistakes.

pesek.png

Membership Update: The latest batch of membership kits will mail out this morning (including Robbie Pesek’s Philly Eagles treatment, shown at right). As always, you can see all the designs we’ve created in the membership card gallery and get in on the membership scene yourself by signing up here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Here are more shots of the new Pac 10 logo patches, although that logo apparently won’t be used for long, because the conference will be changing its name next year. … Appalachian State has a Pro Combat altnernate that they’ll be wearing against North Carolina Central. … Andy Chalifour notes that switch-hitter Jed Lowrie has been going double-flapped since recently returning to the Bosox. “In the past, he was always a two-helmet guy,” says Andy. … Giants equipment czar Joe Skiba has hooked up Keith Bullock with a new custom facemask. … I spotted a guy walking around Brooklyn in this amusing T-shirt the other day. … Remember last year’s ESPN column about Bruce Richards, the LSU fan who tailors his tailgating menu to LSU’s opposition? He can’t wait for Maryland to show up on LSU’s schedule now that a friend sent him this turtle-ish tailgating concept. … We all know the Browns deviated from their usual uni design in 1984, when they worn this design. But what I didn’t know — or if I did know, I’d forgotten — was that they began the preseason wearing orange uni numbers outlined in white on the home jersey, instead of the other way around. That photo, turned up by Jerry Wolper, is from 8/5/84. “As I understand it, the Browns were going to wear that jersey for the whole 1984 season, but fans couldn’t make out the numbers from the upper deck, so they scurried to change them,” says Tim Brulia. … Photo gallery of new Bundesliga 10/11 kits at the bottom of this page (with thanks to Patrick Runge). … Cool DIY project by Michael Candelmo, who made this Bob Sheppard memorial tee for himself. … Gabe Greenbaum notes that Rick Ankiel has been wearing gray cleats, at least on the road. … Robert Marshall‘s latest ingenious project: this T-shirt, which I believe he will soon be making available for purchase on Zazzle once he’s satisfied with the design. We definitely need to send one to Bob Brenley, who coined the use of “squatchee” to begin with. … Brian Wilson was fined $1000 for wearing his orange all-star cleats the other night. … SI is running another slideshow of NFL photos from one specific season. This time it’s 1975. Among the highlights: Charlie Sanders wearing high-tops and Bud Grant in purple slacks with a white belt (oof). The full gallery is here. … Hey look, Nike is doing something that doesn’t suck. … Michael Korczynski was trying to tell me something about Boomer Esiason’s cleats in this photo, but I’m more interested in the little Bengals wordmark on his socks. … The UFL unveiled a bunch of new uniforms yesterday. Phil will have in-depth coverage of this next week. … Warning: If you start clicking through the spectacular gallery of Depression-era color photographs, your productive day will be over. But it’ll be worth it — jaw-droppingly good stuff (major, major thanks to Matt Dubroff). … Uni number news for Auburn football (with thanks to Jeff Hunter). … Latest NFL team to add an advertising patch to their practice jerseys: the Packers (as reported by Jeff Ash). … Chad Bengal had fun on Twitter yesterday, showing off his four helmets, three pairs of gloves, and three pairs of cleats. … Mets reliever Raul Valdes got a rare at-bat last night and apparently wore Mike Pelfrey’s batting gloves for the occasion (screen shot courtesy of Cory Lewis). … If you scroll down a little bit on this page, you’ll see a 1910 Popular Mechanics item about football shoulder pads (wonderful find by Larry Cauley). … A SABR member who simply goes by “K.B.” sent out the following post on the SABR listserv yesterday: “I’ve been researching Marlin ‘Mott’ Stuart, who played in the majors from 1949-1954. Something I found particularly interesting about him was that in the last game of his first season in the minors, he pitched barefoot for the Mayfield Browns of the Kitty League. It was the way he had pitched as a semi-pro, saying it felt ‘natural.'” Interesting. Would that even be legal if someone tried it today? And if Brian Wilson wanted to do it, would he spray-paint his feet orange? … I don’t watch Entourage, but apparently the storyline lately has involved trying to bring an NFL team to L.A., and they’ve been using the old NFL logo (screen shots courtesy of Brandon Schwartz). … Check this out: German soccer players, circa 1986, wearing red leggings! Bernd Wilms says the Germans often did this in cold weather back in the ’80s.

Vacation Reminder: Tomorrow will be my last day on the site until September 1st. For the month of August, you’ll be in Phil’s capable hands on the weekdays, and webmaster John Ekdahl will be handling the weekends. Ticker contributions will be forwarded to Phil, but I’ll still be on the lookout for new college football unveilings. If any of those hit your radar screen, you can alert me at this address. Thanks.

 

147 comments to Sweet 16

  • NickV | July 29, 2010 at 8:20 am |

    Kind of nonsensical that the LV Locos would wear a jersey template VERY similar in style and color to the UNLV unis.

    I would think that in a five team league they could find something a bit more unique to the City. Are they the UNLV “Old Boys” team?

    Not Bad, just not really good at all.

    • Frankie | July 29, 2010 at 1:33 pm |

      I’m assuming they chose red, silver, and black to tie in with the fact that they play at Sam Boyd Stadium (home of UNLV’s football team).

  • Jeremy | July 29, 2010 at 8:29 am |

    Check this out: German soccer players, circa 1986, wearing red leggings! Bernd Wilms says the Germans often did this in cold weather back in the ’80s.

    There was some more Bundesliga leggings controversey this past season when Arjen Robben’s gray long johns didn’t match Bayern’s red shorts and socks. http://soccernet.esp...

  • MattB | July 29, 2010 at 8:32 am |

    Bud Grant’s outfit looks like something you’d find Ian Poulter or Ricky Barnes wearing on the PGA Tour these days.

    • db | July 29, 2010 at 11:06 am |

      I am not a Vikes’ fan by any stretch–say what you want about ol’ Bud, but there is no mistaking him for a football coach. And in the 70s, he could probably wear the purple pants as well as anybody…not to mention the white belt.

  • JB Early | July 29, 2010 at 8:35 am |

    Gee, I’d be more concerned about them throwing like, well,”actors”in MONEYBALL, than the details of a ballboy’s clothes. Not to mention, making a good flick. No doubt, on field action will be kept to a minimum. I’d rather have a good story, well acted, than get the correct cap underbill color.

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2010 at 8:45 am |

      Right. And if this were a web site about movies, we’d offer a detailed analysis of the filmmaking. But this is a web site about uniforms, so we offered a detailed analysis of that. Is that so hard to fathom?

      • BurghFan | July 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm |

        I’m reminded of “Limited Perspective” in the early days of “Late Night with David Letterman”, where they’d have on someone like a dentist to discuss teeth in “Reds”, or a roofing contractor to review “The Verdict”.

    • Gusto44 | July 29, 2010 at 11:05 am |

      Just can’t see “Moneyball” becoming a success at the box office, even with a major star like Brad Pitt in the lead. At
      the end of the day, the underdog needs to at least reach the title game, or final objective like in “Rudy”. This would be like “Hoosiers” if the team lost in the playoffs, just not a compelling enough story for the masses. “Moneyball” would have been better as a made for TV movie.

      • Chance Michaels | July 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm |

        Can’t say as I agree with you. I haven’t read the script, but from the book I think we can safely presume that it’s not the story of one season, or even of a player, so the “big game in third act” trope doesn’t apply.

        Personally, I’m very interested to see what the narrative focus is. But I don’t think it’ll be a very traditional sports movie.

        • Christopher | July 29, 2010 at 4:41 pm |

          Well, he did say “success at the box office.” I, too, plan on seeing it. But I can see it being a flop of some sort. At least not all that compelling to the masses.

          In any sports movie, I think people expect a dramatic pinacle. Maybe losing the title in the bottom of the 9th at worse… but that one “moment”.

          What moments have the A’s had? First round and out. Crap the bed in the playoffs.

          I read Moneyball, and enjoyed most of it. But, sheesh, I never once thought “Wow, this would make a great movie.”

      • mike 2 | July 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm |

        What makes you think in the film version of Moneyball, the A’s won’t win the 2002 World Series?

        Hollywood isn’t afraid to impose a happy ending on reality.

    • Face in the Crowd | July 29, 2010 at 3:57 pm |

      The baseball action was fairly good; obviously not Major League stuff, but no one looked out of place on the diamond.

  • Rob Ullman | July 29, 2010 at 8:41 am |

    Chad Bengal. I love it.

  • The Jeff | July 29, 2010 at 9:11 am |

    I really wish the Browns would have kept that look with the orange numbers. I don’t know why but I really like non-white numbers on colored jerseys – the late 70’s Lions & Chargers, the 1993 Patriots, the Rams… I just think it looks so much cooler than white, even if it is slightly harder to read.

    • Ricko | July 29, 2010 at 9:36 am |

      Numbers on players exist to…
      identify one player from another,
      Hence, they should be…
      as easy to read as possible.
      In the case of football, that means for players, coaches, officials, announcers, spotters, statisicians, fans in the stands and those watching on TV.

      Any other consideration comes in a distant third.

      Just sayin’, when you design something, you have to be objective enough to consider first and foremost its purpose and the essential criteria involved, and then deliver on those counts. After that–and only after that–the subjective issues come into play.

      If you’re doing a good job of it, of course.

      —Ricko

      • scott | July 29, 2010 at 9:48 am |

        Agreed, Ricko. Nothing annoys me more than going to a ballgame and not being able to decipher a player’s number because it is written in blue on a black alt jersey, for instance.

        • timmy b | July 29, 2010 at 10:17 am |

          As much as I loved the Raiders black bordered silver numbers on their white jerseys from 1963 (only half of the season), 1964 and 1970, I know why they don’t/can’t wear them (2009 AFL Legacy notwithstanding). Even from the press box TV camera, you couldn’t tell what numbers they wore.

        • The Jeff | July 29, 2010 at 10:29 am |

          You could solve the Raiders readability problem by just making the numbers non-metallic. Flat gray instead of reflective silver. Then it wouldn’t be any lighter than the powder blue that everyone loves on the Chargers.

      • The Jeff | July 29, 2010 at 10:23 am |

        You know Ricko, teams have been breaking that rule since the game began. 1929 Packers, anyone? There’s no way in hell anyone could read those numbers from the stands.

        Besides that, I can’t see how the orange on brown with a bright white outline is any harder to read than what the Saints are currently wearing.

        • Gusto44 | July 29, 2010 at 10:59 am |

          The Saints did revert to gold numbers during the Mike Ditka era, but there were difficult to see, even on TV. I think a way around this problem is to have a stronger black border around the numbers, check the Raiders silver number throwbacks.

        • Ricko | July 29, 2010 at 3:51 pm |

          Oh, man, I didn’t say teams always do the best job of it.
          But just because they don’t, doesn’t make what I said any less viable.
          As far as older teams having small numbers, well, there’s a reason they didn’t STAY small (points one and two in my comment). Also, pretty sure TV wasn’t an issue in 1929. But if anyone’s fuzzy on that, we’ll wait while they go check for sure.

          Everybody back? Okay…

          Gray/Silver tracks lighter than virtually any shade of gold. Gold has red in it. Gray does not. It has a bit of blue, which is not as readily seen. For those who don’t know the optical differences between colors, maybe do some research. Just because you don’t see them, doesn’t mean there aren’t an actual measurable differences. Also there are factors such color value, contrast, density, reflectivity. monochromatic colors together, panchromatic colors together… And, in the eyes, the rods and cones and their separate functions.

          Pretty sure much of it came up in 8th Grade Science…for me, anyway. I guess in later years educators thought it was unimportant. And that probably explains why a lot of people need to SEE red numbers/letters on a royal blue jersey without any white to separate them before they understand how it just doesn’t work, how, the further you get away from them, the more the two colors almost seem to merge, “fighting with each other”, making legibility difficult.

          Same thing happens with orange and purple, navy and red…

          It’s a color value thing. You could look it up.*

          —Ricko

          * I trust you know that’s just something Casey Stengel always said, meaning it’s in the records or reference books somewhere…not literally telling anyone to go look up something.

        • BurghFan | July 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |

          Ricko is 100% right. If you don’t believe him, go sit in the upper bowl of an NBA arena outside Sacramento and try to figure out which King is which.

        • Tony | July 29, 2010 at 11:30 pm |

          Replying to Ricko at 3:51:

          I know it’s pretty late tonight, so no one might even read this, but here is a cool little color hue test you can take to check at least one way you see color:

          http://www.xritephot...

          The lower the score, the better. I scored an 11. I had a little problem with the orange & red spectrum, but I think I could have done a little better if I looked harder, or if my monitor was adjusted better.

          BTW, one of my favorite unis were the old late ’70s Lions uniforms with the silver numbers. I do agree that they were a bit hard to see at times from a distance.

      • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:25 pm |

        The Indians grey jerseys have red numbers with a white, then blue outline. Works OK for the number, but the NOB is sometimes tough to read even on TV.

    • Andy | July 29, 2010 at 11:03 am |

      I, too, love non-white numbers (though I don’t like those orange numbers because I hate double outlines in most cases). In my opinion, the only group of people who NEED to be able to read the numbers are the referees, and they should be able to do so within the normal range in which they are viewing the players. The fans, the TV viewers, etc. They don’t need to know the numbers. It’s simply not essential. The statisticians in the box have the luxury of looking at the tape after the play(s) to make sure. The announcers also have the benefit of television as well as people feeding them pertinent information.

      So I say, give me more non-white numbers! And quit with all the outlining! A solid colored number looks fine sometimes.

      • Jerry | July 29, 2010 at 11:30 am |

        I’ve done high school football games, where the visiting team will wear yellow numbers on a white uniform. The numbers would be outlined in purple, but it still made it tough to ready.

      • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:28 pm |

        “The fans, the TV viewers, etc. They don’t need to know the numbers. It’s simply not essential.”

        Wait… who is the audience for the game? The officials? The fan is always the most important viewer, IMHO.

        I agree with you on the solid color numbers. I hate the multi-outlines (see my comment above).

        • Andy | July 29, 2010 at 3:18 pm |

          What is the objective of the game? To score touchdowns, as a team. Who gives a hoot who scored the touchdown.

          As a fan, I can tell what is going on at a football game without seeing the numbers on the jerseys. The officials and coaches need to be able to identify the players, and that’s it.

        • Andy | July 29, 2010 at 3:20 pm |

          Furthermore, numbers were not created with the fan in mind, since they came into vogue long before the NFL had fans. Sure, the fans create the revenue, but the officials and the coaches (along with the players) control the game.

    • Bruce Richards | July 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm |

      Saints’ gold numbers on the black jerseys…..

  • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 9:26 am |

    I spotted a guy walking around Brooklyn in this amusing T-shirt the other day.

    i bet he doesn’t wear that in DC

  • Bernard | July 29, 2010 at 9:33 am |

    More shots of the App St. Pro Combat unis:

    http://www.goasu.com...

    I like the fact that Nike did the Pro Combat thing for a school like Appy State, but these are kinda weak.

    • Mark K | July 29, 2010 at 9:35 am |

      You can drive a truck between the 1 and the 7.

    • Aaron | July 29, 2010 at 9:46 am |

      And does Appy really need pro combat to play vs. NC Central? I guess that’s a historic rivalry about which I know nothing.

    • mmwatkin | July 29, 2010 at 11:58 am |

      What..uh…what is this dude holding up?

      http://www.goasu.com...

      • Dan King | July 29, 2010 at 12:13 pm |

        I’m pretty sure that he’s holding up a jersey, and that phrase is written on the inside of the collar, which is stupid imo.

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:30 pm |

      HATE those basketball nets on the shoulders of the yellow jersey.

  • Mark K | July 29, 2010 at 9:34 am |

    Largest BFBS nameplate ever?

  • Scott | July 29, 2010 at 9:44 am |

    Ankiel isn’t wearing “gray cleats”. He’s actually wearing New Balance 1225 running shoes, with cleats added. I think this is similar to what Thome, Eric Chavez, and Jermaine Dye were doing a few years back.

    http://www.sportsaut...

    • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 9:57 am |

      What am I missing here?

      The shoes are gray. The shoes have cleats on them. So how is it inaccurate to say he’s wearing gray cleats?

      • Scott | July 29, 2010 at 10:06 am |

        My point is that they’re just not true baseball cleats, designed specifically for baseball… they’re normal running shoes with cleats glued to the sole.

        • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 10:22 am |

          im with james here

          by that definition, no cleat is a “true cleat” since a baseball shoe is just a shoe with cleats added, right?

          it’s nice these guys all get to wear comfy specific shoes to them, in all kinds of colors of the rainbow, but they’re still just a shoe (sneaker, whatever) with cleats stuck to the bottom, no?

          so they’re cleats

          if you added metal spikes, they’d be spikes

          if you added golf spikes/soft spikes they’d be golf shoes

          at least that’s the way i see it, but then, im not a sneakerhead

        • Bernard | July 29, 2010 at 10:53 am |

          I’m with Scott. I think there’s a pretty clear difference between this:

          http://www.sportsaut...

          which was designed, manufactured and marketed as a running shoe and then had cleats added to them for Ankiel, and these:

          http://www.sportsaut...

          which were designed, manufactured and marketed as baseball cleats.

        • Scott | July 29, 2010 at 11:57 am |

          Phil… If you attached wings on your car, would you call your car an airplane?

          The difference is that most baseball cleats are manufactured from the ground up as baseball cleats. What Ankiel is wearing is literally a pair of running shoes, and somebody cut out a portion out of the rubber soles, ripped out the cleat plates from actual baseball shoes, and then glued the cleat plates on to the shoes.

          So, to answer your question, I call them running shoes with cleats glued on. It’s basically a DIY mash-up, much like the modified basketball shoes Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye, and Frank Thomas wore a couple years back.

        • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 12:26 pm |

          im not arguing with your premise

          im arguing with your “definition”

          if you want to tell me there is a difference between baseball-specific cleats and running-shoes with cleats added, i won’t argue

          but they’re still cleats

        • Scott | July 29, 2010 at 1:15 pm |

          Whatever. I wasn’t trying to start an argument about the definition of a cleat. That was not my point at all in my initial post.

          All I was pointing out is that the dude is wearing running shoes on the baseball field. Victor Martinez, Jim Thome, and a couple other guys are wearing cleated cross trainers right now, but Ankiel is the only MLB player I can recall wearing running shoes.

        • Inkracer | July 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm |

          “If you attached wings on your car, would you call your car an airplane?”

          Depends on the car..
          http://www.youtube.c...

        • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 6:27 pm |

          i would call this car an airplane

          but again, we’re arguing apples and oranges

          im not saying ankiel is wearing a “classic baseball cleat” but he is still wearing a “sneaker cleat”

          the difference being nomenclature…paul called them “gray cleats” and they are

          if you wanted to add that they are “gray sneaker cleats” you’d be correct…

          but they’re still cleated sneakers in the color gray

          hence gray cleats

        • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 10:08 pm |

          Seems to me the fact that Ankiel’s baggy pants obscures whatever shoes he wears is the larger problem. Only slightly behind that are the garishly designed shoes that scream LOOK AT ME. Gone are the days of the elegantly tailored slugger http://is.gd/dRUSa http://is.gd/dRV2s or dapper pitcher http://is.gd/dRVgO Now we have to have blaze orange, zebra-striped screaming footwear that pretty much demands a long pant to quiet them down.

        • StLMarty | July 29, 2010 at 10:08 pm |

          Yes, but in the interest of obsessive uniform detail…

        • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 10:14 pm |

          exactly…this went to the point i made last evening — why all the players gots to be stylin’ with the kicks? can’t they just all wear a shoe (any make, model, size or type)…as long as it’s a solid color of the teams choosing

          is that REALLY that damn difficult?

        • traxel | July 29, 2010 at 11:57 pm |

          Do we have to turn everyone into a clone? Come on. I don’t like the look of PJ pants and stylin’ kicks but more rules bothers me oh so much more. I see you didn’t specifically say “make a rule”, but don’t tell me that’s not where you were headed…..

          Except on the basketball court. Shoes should match and it bothers me when they don’t. Yeah, hypocritical. I know. I’ve got my own Bootheel Rules.

  • Mark in Shiga | July 29, 2010 at 9:45 am |

    They didn’t do a very good job of making extra-thin letters for poor Mr. Stuckenschneider on that black jersey.

    The road jersey they made for him actually looks OK:

    http://farm2.static....

    It’s too bad so many teams put names on the back s of their jerseys. Players shouldn’t have to look like clowns just because they have long surnames.

  • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 10:06 am |

    White belt on Bud Grant notwithstanding, those Viking uniforms are the way God intended them. http://i.cdn.turner....

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:33 pm |

      Amen to that. Is Bud sporting a mesh trucker hat?

  • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 10:07 am |

    And a Bengals look that doesn’t suck http://farm5.static....

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm |

      Another amen. What’s that logo on Boomer’s sock?

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm |

      Oh yeah, and here’s a Bengals look that sucks even less!

  • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2010 at 10:11 am |

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

    They’ll be adding some inline photos to it later in the day, but the text is ready to go.

    Off to Shea,
    Paul

    • Gusto44 | July 29, 2010 at 10:55 am |

      Interesting piece, I’m also guessing redesigning the uniform for a new stadium was just taking hold. I believe the Phillies trotted out their new design for Veterans Stadium.

      While I’m glad Denis Johnson did not do the 1977 Pirates uniform revision, his idea of the sleeve logo should have been accepted. If you’re going to have multicolored uniforms you might as well go all the way. The concept of sleeve logos in baseball could be material for a future column.

      • scott | July 29, 2010 at 3:00 pm |

        Anyone know why the Red Sox debuted their new pullover jerseys and elastic pants at the 1972 All Star Game? They weren’t moving into a new stadium.

        • Joe Barrie | July 29, 2010 at 6:55 pm |

          I don’t know why the Red Sox changed their uniforms in mid-season, but recall that they changed caps, too. The new version had a blue visor on an otherwise red cap, with a blue-on-white “B”.

          They also experimented with single color red socks. I saw them play the Yankees in Shea Stadium, and only their batboy wore the then-traditional two-white-striped socks, with red below, and navy blue between and above the stripes.

          I prefer the look of the striped socks and navy undershirt sleeves, but clearly the current management disagrees with me.

    • traxel | July 29, 2010 at 11:19 am |

      Tremendous ESPN article. Lots of great stuff in there. Is there anything better than seeing actual real concept drawings? And those 70s fonts used? And the Steelers helmet concept? Great stuff. I don’t know why it’s taken this long but I’m finally ordering Henderson’s MLB Game Worn Double Knit database. He needs to check his ordering security on the site though. I got a warning so I’m going old school and mailing it in.

      • Gusto44 | July 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm |

        Old school is still best school, when it comes to large amounts of written words and illustrations. I would have been interested in Henderson’s work, but won’t be ordering because doesn’t offer a book option. I spend enough time on the computer as it is, there is something unique about turning the pages of a book.

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 3:05 pm |

      “…Shea.” LOL

  • timmy b | July 29, 2010 at 10:14 am |

    Regarding the Bundesliga kits, kindly take note of 1.FC Kaiserslautern. They are going from red to maroon and changed their logo/badge to align with their logo from the mid-50’s when Fritz Walter was the toast of West Germany when he captained the West Germans to their landmark upset of Hungary in the 1954 WC Final.

    Throwbacks are not unique to North America for sure.

  • Billy | July 29, 2010 at 10:28 am |

    Ravens Maryland National Guard sponsor patch:

    http://www.baltimore...

    And they continue to use the Purple Hammer Award Patches as well as a new “X/shield” patch on the right side of the jersey:

    http://www.baltimore...

    “The Ravens have a new patch on their practice jerseys that is an homage to the Biblical story of Nehemiah.

    Featuring the ubiquitous Ravens shield in the middle, a shovel and sword are crossed behind it in an “X” fashion.

    The shovel and sword call to mind the building of a foundation, a story Ravens head coach John Harbaugh told earlier this year.”

    It all seems a bit much to me.

    • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 10:51 am |

      What’s with the blank area at the base of the collar on the practice jerseys, anyway? Why no NFL Equipment shield?

      Hard to tell on the Bears pic I posted, but on those Ravens pics, it looks as though they’ve been removed.

      Is it something to do with the sponsor patches? Because the Bears had them before they added the advert patches last year.

      • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 10:55 am |

        Let’s try that third link again.

        • Frank from B-more | July 29, 2010 at 12:28 pm |

          I think the Ravens remove the NFL Shield to differentiate “practice” jerseys from on-field jerseys since the Ravens practice jersey and on-field jersey are the same, except for the Red non-contact QB jerseys.

        • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 12:58 pm |

          Maybe, but last year’s (sans-ad patch) jerseys had the shield.

          And that doesn’t explain why the Bears don’t have them now. Nobody (well, nobody here) is going to mistake one of their practice jerseys for a game jersey.

  • =bg= | July 29, 2010 at 10:35 am |

    yup i remember that small ‘bengals’ on the sock. never thought anything about it. and those first-gen reebok pumps (i had a free pair of the basketball version) were HEAVY.

    • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 10:42 am |

      only if you pumped them up

  • Anthony | July 29, 2010 at 10:52 am |

    Another roundup of Bundesliga kits: http://maofootball.w...
    (this one’s in English!)
    He’s worked with Paul for ESPN before, and he’s got a great site for soccer uni fans like myself. The Premier League kits are all on there too.

    • Doug in GA | July 29, 2010 at 11:30 am |

      Paul will LOVE the Schalke socks…

  • Frank Mercogliano | July 29, 2010 at 10:58 am |

    Good story about Stuckenschneider…when he was with the Savannah Sand Gnats, I was the scorer for the Augusta GreenJackets (Sally League). Our P.A. announcer Torye Hurst goes “Leading off for Savannah, #26, Eric Stuckenschneider”. Well all of a sudden the G.M. comes racing up the steps and is fuming, saying you can’t say that over the P.A. … we were all baffled and Toyre syays “I can’t say the name Eric Stuckenschneider?”, and the G.M.’s face dropped and he goes “OOOHHH…I thought you said Eric Stick Inside her…OK, no problem”, and he walked out of the press box. Highlight of the year for us that season.

    Frank

    • Tony | July 29, 2010 at 11:39 pm |

      At first glance at the picture, I thought it said “Stuckinsider”, until I actually used my reading skills.

      That story reminds me of a time long ago when an old friend of mine panicked when the Brian Adams song “Cuts Like A Knife” came on the radio while riding with his pretty conservative dad. He, for some reason, thought the song was called “C***sucker Night”.

  • Rob | July 29, 2010 at 10:59 am |

    Paul – spot on with your prediction – my production at work has been severely hindered while looking through those color photographs…

    Picture #17 – I have found so many interesting minutia on it

    1) The little boy has pushed his string beans to the side
    2) The mom and daughter both with fingernail polish
    3) The dad – (check out the bandage job on his left thumb) looking like he just got home from a hard day at whatever job he punched the clock at
    4) The daughter only with rice to eat?
    5) The jars of most likely pickled veggies
    6) Those delicious looking biscuits
    7) Looks like there could be two additional place settings next to the mom (is one for the photographer)

    That’s just one picture – I am sure I could do this for all 70 pictures!

  • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 11:00 am |

    Great Pirates ESPN entry. I remember when they were introduced and it was every bit as exciting as described. It was interesting how the three-stripe belt and sleeve stripe was duplicated throughout baseball: One color/white/secondary color or first color duplicated. The A’s, of course, were the wild cards. Their pants were kelly/gold/kelly. And I don’t recall another team duplicating the NW-style sleeve stipes.

    It was interesting how the 20-year run lasted. Much like fashion elsewhere, by the late ’80s and ’90s, people were asking “what were we thinking!” and fashion, hairstyles, everything became more muted and conservative.

    • mike 2 | July 29, 2010 at 12:35 pm |

      And multipurpose concrete bowls with astroturf.

  • Giancarlo | July 29, 2010 at 11:31 am |

    One thing I’ve always noticed about the mustard-era Pirates in those early knits is that their crotch to waistband measurements – almost across the board – appear unusually vast. Check it out:

    http://www.theolebal...

    http://chroniclesofd...

    We think of the double-knits or cotton-nylon knits as introducing the skin tight look in baseball, but at least for the Pirates, they look baggier than the woven unis that preceded them.

  • Jeff S. | July 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm |

    Interesting note about Brian Wilson’s orange shoes. Not only did he color in portions of the shoes with a black Sharpie so that they could be 50% black, but the soles of the shoes also have orange lights in them, so that when he throws, they sparkle. Kinda like these L.A. Gear shoes from the 1990s.

    No photographic proof–but I sat about 50 feet behind the bullpen mound at AT&T Park yesterday, and it was the topic of discussion.

  • interlockingtc | July 29, 2010 at 12:06 pm |

    Loved the espn article. That Pirate uniform still looks looks so good, particularly when worn by Mr. Clemente. Also, I was impressed by Denis Johnson’s abstract-like mural and tapestry and surprised they were proudly (and justly) displayed in conservative NFL corporate offices.

    Also…

    The SI collection of 1975 NFL photos are wonderful. Terrific images. It’s not just nostalgia talking when I say that uniforms looked so much better then—EXCEPT for the New York Giants, what a grand mistake that was. Geesh.

    Oh, and unless a coach is wearing a suit (ala Landry and Nolan) they will never look presentable on the sideline, regardless of the era. Yeah, Bud Grant looks…um…like most casually dressed middle-aged men at the time: not good.

    Now…off to delve into the Depression era photos…

    • Jim Vilk | July 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm |

      I still miss that Pirates uni. Danny Murtaugh wasn’t alone – it didn’t flatter Bill Mazeroski, either. I have an old program or yearbook showing Maz, and he had a bit of a paunchy belly (is that like a paczki belly?) by then.

      Wasn’t as impressed with that mural of the football play, that was a little too 70s for me.

      You’re right about the ’75 unis. Although, I liked that Giants uni. No, it’s not as good as the ny helmet unis, but it’s better than what a lot of other teams had/have.

      The Bud Grant look? I’d wear that. Not in public, though, unless it’s Halloween.

  • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm |

    @Scott and Jason:

    cleat (klēt)
    n.

    1. A strip of wood or iron used to strengthen or support the surface to which it is attached.
    2. a. A projecting piece of metal or hard rubber attached to the underside of a shoe to provide traction.
    *************************
    b. cleats A pair of shoes with such projections on the soles.
    *************************
    3. A piece of metal or wood having projecting arms or ends on which a rope can be wound or secured.
    4. A wedge-shaped piece of material, such as wood, that is fastened onto something, such as a spar, to act as a support or prevent slippage.
    5. A spurlike device used in gripping a tree or pole in climbing.

    source

    /just sayin’

    • Bernard | July 29, 2010 at 12:34 pm |

      Oh, now I see. Thanks James. So then, if I wore this

      http://www.hockeydog...

      to play football in, it would be a football helmet. Since, after all…

      http://www.thefreedi...

      • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 1:28 pm |

        No, but that’s a bad analogy. The ticker says “gray cleats” not “gray baseball cleats”.

        Scott said Ankiel isn’t wearing gray cleats. That’s like saying in the movie Easy Rider Jack Nicholson doesn’t wear a helmet.

        • Bernard | July 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm |

          Um… alright.

          I think Scott makes his point and explains his/our position very well in his last reply to Phil up in comment number… uh… number… oh, I don’t know, somewhere up there.

          /new comment format still sucks

        • StLMarty | July 29, 2010 at 10:13 pm |

          You two can agree on that.

  • Samuel Lam | July 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm |

    I’ll be at the Moneyball filming tonight. Hopefully then I can get to see more. I really want to get my hands on the Royals caps from that era since they don’t wear it anymore. I wonder if I can sweet talk someone into helping me get that.

    • Face in the Crowd | July 29, 2010 at 4:19 pm |

      I doubt they’ll give anything like that out. The props and wardrobe people seemed wary of us extras (and I can’t blame them).

      Dress very warm, bring a book to read, and bring some snacks.

  • frankenslade | July 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm |

    Minor bummer: Phillies’ long-awaited phenom Domonic Brown made his major league debut last night and, beside an ambitious miscue in the field, was flawless except for the fact that he wore baggy pyjamas rather than the well-tailored, high socks (and sometimes even stirrups) that he wore in the minors. Damn peer pressure! :)

  • PJ | July 29, 2010 at 1:07 pm |

    Daric Barton was missing the dot over the ‘i’ in ‘Athletics’ last night in Arlington. Majestic strike again!

  • Jim Vilk | July 29, 2010 at 1:08 pm |

    Now THIS is football:
    http://i.cdn.turner....
    I used to have that photo, but Ricko has it now.

    And what’s with the Steelers coaching staff, wearing shirts with the helmet logo on the wrong side?
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    Love all the double-bar facemasks in that gallery, as well as Willie Lanier’s big head:
    http://i.cdn.turner....

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:47 pm |

      That’s what Minnesota football is supposed to look like. Great pic.

      I KNEW there was something wrong with that Steeler shirt but couldn’t put my finger on it!

      The facemasks are great (love Biletnikoff’s). Lanier’s KC decal is torn, too.

      • Jim Vilk | July 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

        Actually, I think that’s in Buffalo. There’s turf on the field. But you’re right, I’ve never seen the Vikings in the same light since they moved to the Metrodome.

        And man, do I miss TV numbers on the sleeves.
        http://i.cdn.turner....
        Sleeves…you remember those, right?

        • Mark K | July 29, 2010 at 3:25 pm |

          Oh geez- I was just gonna say it looks like Buffalo- you can tell by the seatbacks. And the snow.

        • Mark K | July 29, 2010 at 3:27 pm |

          Google tells me Minnesota played in Buffalo on December 20, 1975.

    • Mark K | July 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm |

      Are they on the road in that snow photo?

    • M.Princip | July 29, 2010 at 3:26 pm |

      Love this Ken Anderson pic.
      http://i.cdn.turner....

      • M.Princip | July 29, 2010 at 3:29 pm |

        Stache free Ken ta boot.

    • StLMarty | July 29, 2010 at 10:14 pm |

      Is it still a Steeler helmet?
      Or is it a Steeler helmet with the logo on the wrong side?

  • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 1:21 pm |

    Terrific slideshow. http://is.gd/dR8dG

    The NFL may have T.O. and Ocho Cinco now, but they pale in comparison to the colorful figures playing then. Slide after slide of real characters — and terrific athletes.

    You’re right about the unis that year. Most are great, ‘cept the Giants.

    • Gusto44 | July 29, 2010 at 1:56 pm |

      Actually, I kind of liked the road Giants uniform of ’75, with the blue pants, wide red stripe and white jersey. Best aspect of the white jersey were the striping pattern on the sleeves, which mirrored the St. Louis Cards at the time.

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm |

      So is T.O. to Cinci the NFL equivalent of LeBron and Bosh to Miami?

      • Aaron | July 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm |

        Maybe if this were 2006.

  • JimWa | July 29, 2010 at 2:06 pm |

    LOVE this picture of what can best be described as Foxnews.com circa 1940.

    http://tinyurl.com/2...

    Note that along with war news, earthquake reports, and political updates, you’ll learn that Santa’s sleigh was flyng behind schedule that year.

    • JamesP. | July 29, 2010 at 2:38 pm |

      And that’s the old W.B.Mason on the 2nd floor…

      • James Craven | July 29, 2010 at 8:39 pm |

        Who But W.B. Mason?

    • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm |

      Foxnews.com? I’m not seeing it.

      Maybe if one of the placards had the 1940s version of Glenn Beck calling the 1940s version of Brian Urlacher a Nazi…

  • Dave Mac | July 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm |

    I’m only 26, but I remember 2002 like it was yesterday. It’s funny to think of it as a “historic” period, but it certainly is by now.

    • Giancarlo | July 29, 2010 at 3:34 pm |

      Welcome to the rest of your life.

  • Dwayne | July 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm |

    Phil:

    Isn’t the deadline for the MLB uniform design contest quickly approaching?

    Where do we send our designs?

    • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

      deadline is august first

      send your submission directly to me

      it’s all explained here

      • Dwayne | July 29, 2010 at 8:21 pm |

        Thanks Phil. You da man!

  • Tom | July 29, 2010 at 2:27 pm |

    There is a photo of Shoeless Joe on SI.com which displays a cap I’ve never seen before.

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    From the looks of it, the “S” is a different color than and the “O” and “X”. I’ve seen a navy cap like that but that was from the 30s. I’ve never seen this before and its not on “Dressed to the Nines” for the years Jackson was with the Sox.

    • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 2:29 pm |

      that looks like its from 1917

    • marc | July 29, 2010 at 3:03 pm |

      Wow… that cap is a looker. Man, Joe at 30 has the wrinkles of a guy almost twice that age.

    • RS Rogers | July 29, 2010 at 3:14 pm |

      Always tough to tell from B&W, but superficially it sure looks like a blue S with red OX and a blue bill. The red letters, if they’re red, would be the find here, since the Sox are commonly understood to have worn that cap logo only in all blue. Is the conventional wisdom wrong, or is the red-OX version a variant, a prototype, or simply an early (or later) version of the blue-OX version?

      But man, what a great photo. Reminds me in its way of this:

      http://awesometalks....

      • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 3:41 pm |

        im guessing it’s the paul bunyon version

  • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm |

    i know the picture on the right is from 1917 — tough to make out a cap logo, but im pretty sure it’s the same as in the SI photo

  • Brendan | July 29, 2010 at 2:59 pm |

    CNNSI screwed up. That standalone Staubach pic is from 1973, not 1975.

  • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 3:09 pm |

    apparently…it good to be the king

  • marc | July 29, 2010 at 4:01 pm |

    Well, at least the UFL is seemingly trying to avoid using BFBS seeing as 4 of the 5 teams have black as a color… unless Hartford decides they need an alternate.

  • TD | July 29, 2010 at 6:47 pm |

    the right field ballgirl at Petco has PERFECT stirrups and mustard sanis for this throwback game..

  • christopher h | July 29, 2010 at 6:51 pm |

    wait, did the UFL get a ticker mention without a snide comment attached?

    • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 7:17 pm |

      looks that way…

      just wait till monday…im sure there’ll be plenty of snide comments then

  • Geeman | July 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm |

    Nice column today, Paul.

  • Kyle | July 29, 2010 at 7:24 pm |

    As a UW Huskies fan, I’m disappointed in the first photo in the News Ticker today. It looks like the stupid piping from the road jerseys (between the neckline and the arm holes) is being added to the home jerseys as well. Result: Stupid.

  • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 8:05 pm |

    So, to circle back to today’s main entry, that nameplate dates back to 1999? The A’s had a black alt in 1999?

    • Paul Lukas | July 29, 2010 at 9:19 pm |

      Hmmm, good point. The A’s didn’t introduce the black alt until 2000. Maybe Steve just got mixed up regarding the years…

  • ab | July 29, 2010 at 8:24 pm |

    Maybe the nameplate shown is a template of some sort? I don’t know how these things are made, but that’s my guess.

  • JTH | July 29, 2010 at 8:25 pm |

    Man, I love some of the random stuff you can stumble across in Getty Images while looking for something else.

    This was pretty good for a BP/spring training cap. So was this.

    This one? Not so much (but that Gene Autry tribute patch was great).

  • ART | July 29, 2010 at 9:08 pm |

    Phillies wasted a golden opportunity by NOT wearing their retro 80’s uniforms for 80’s night tonite at Citizens Bank Park vs. Arizona.

    • Jim Vilk | July 29, 2010 at 10:25 pm |

      Since the D-Backs weren’t around then, they could have worn the Tucson Toros unis:
      http://phoenix.fanst...

  • Kyle | July 29, 2010 at 9:15 pm |

    Perfect animal for Paul: a Zebra/Donkey mix. Awesome striped legs.

    http://planetsave.co...

  • ChrisN | July 29, 2010 at 9:38 pm |

    Interesting blog post today by the Atlanta paper’s Georgia Bulldog blogger: the Bulldogs’ iconic red helmets could have been white instead.

    http://blogs.ajc.com...

  • Flip | July 29, 2010 at 10:13 pm |

    My kingdom for a nice, simple black football cleat with white shoe laces. http://bit.ly/c5yQQA Too bad the Big Red didn’t win something in that look cuz it’s classy.

    • LI Phil | July 29, 2010 at 10:15 pm |

      +1

    • Jim Vilk | July 29, 2010 at 10:28 pm |

      Jim Vilk likes this

      Oh wait, this isn’t facebook…

      I do most wholeheartedly concur, though, Flip.

  • Kevin Z. | July 29, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

    How did this photo of OJ not get highlighted in the SI photo post? Gotta love the blue pants!

    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • Kevin Z. | July 29, 2010 at 10:43 pm |

    And the Giants in blue pants!

    http://i.cdn.turner....

  • Jim BC | July 29, 2010 at 11:44 pm |

    Apparently this dude survived… but just barely:

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

  • dwerl | July 30, 2010 at 2:20 am |

    Lots of UGA uniform info here…especially about their helmets. Interesting to not the red helmet was almost white…would be interesting to see.

    http://blogs.ajc.com...

  • dwerl | July 30, 2010 at 2:24 am |

    Went to the Rome Braves, low A affiliate for the Braves, game this past Sunday. Tried to get a pic of an amazing NOB. But couldn’t…needless to say I hope he keeps moving up…would be a record breaker…look at #43 of the infielders…the moment I saw it I went nuts…my wife thought I was crazy.

    http://web.minorleag...