The Hy Peskin Archives, Vol. 3

Screen shot 2011-02-04 at 1.51.51 PM.png

Okay, one last batch of beautiful Hy Peskin pics. In previous entries we’ve covered baseball and basketball and football; this time around we’ll cover a range of other sports.

Without futher ado:

• Check out Arnie Palmer with the off-center belt buckle.

• Now that’s a lot of club head covers.

• One of the last sporting events Peskin covered was the first Ali/Liston bout in 1964. Due to technical problems with his camera, he got almost no photos of the fight. He did get a great post-fight shot, however.

• Totally digging this track uniform on Rafer Johnson. Now if we could just see that jacket he’s taking off — the striped sleeve cuffs look very promising.

• The saturated colors of the Peskin’s era really pop in photos of jockey silks.

• Don’t look at the caption — just check out this chick with the eye-black. Can you guess what sport she competes in? Answer: swimming. I don’t think I’ve ever seen swimmers wear war paint before, but there were several of them at that same meet. Then again, almost all the competitive swimming I’ve seen on TV probably took place indoors, while this meet looks like it was held outdoors, so maybe that explains it.

• No war paint, but I love swimsuits with crests.

• Oooh, that’s one swell-looking bobsled.

• Is that a helmet or a beekeeper’s hat? Either way, that’s one sweet-looking roadster. Look where the side-view mirror is mounted!

• Peskin must have gotten down on the ground to get this shot. Love the way all those shells are scattered on the ground, looking just so.

• Hmmm, who assigned Peskin to cover lady wrestling?

• Ever heard of sail-skiing? I never had, until I saw this.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: “The Tigers renovated one of their team pro shops inside Comerica Park this year, and renamed it the D Shop, after the team’s logo,” says Gordon Fall. “Inside the main entrance is this display of every D logo in Tigers history.” Damn — that’s a great resource right there, assuming it’s accurate. Unfortunately, Gordon says it isn’t being sold as a poster, at least not yet. … Meanwhile, Gordon provided a similar logo breakdown for the Red Wings, taken from one of the team’s programs. … The Red Sox unveiled a Fenway Park centennial logo yesterday. No word yet on whether it’ll be worn as a patch, but that seems likely (with thanks to Nate Morrow). … Some Canadian MMA fighter is being sponsored by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, complete with their logo on his gear (with thanks to William Leslie). … Twentieth-season logo for the Binghamton Mets. “They’re just using it on printed material and the video boards – not a patch on the uniforms or hats at this time,” says Eric Hawkins. … Jim Walaitis notes that the Safeco Field diamond has a line of lighter dirt at the outer edge of the infield. Anyone know what that’s about? … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Here’s a good slideshow of airline stewardess uniforms. … Dan Gustafson has created a web site for hockey infographics. He says his favorite so far is this one. … Here’s a good view of the face guard that Glenn Hubbard wore in 1988 (with thanks to Andy Chalifour). … Small item buried within this page indicates that Boise State and UGA will be going color-vs.-color for the Chicken Sandwich Kickoff Game at the Georgia Dome (good spot by Ben Braxton). … Yup. … Jeremy Scheuch has designed a series of zombie baseball cards. “I am currently organizing an art show for the end of summer to display them all as paintings,” he says. “Stickers and shirts to come soon as well.” … The Padres have added an 80-foot-tall golf club to their foul pole. Video clip here (thanks, Phil). … Here’s a story about the family that handles the Reds’ equipment (with thanks to Sean OMalley). … Latest color-coded disease: The Nashville Sounds will be wearing purple jerseys on April 30 to promote Alzheimer’s awareness (with thanks to Lee Wilds). … Colby Korsun notes that Kobe Bryant appeared to be wearing a much trimmer-cut jersey than usual last night. … Lots of past and current MLB uniforms on display in this new Pepsi commercial. They got a lot of things right — period appropriate underbrim colors, Mike Schmidt’s zip-up jersey, etc. — but take a look at this screen shot of Rickey, Rickey, and Rickey. Two problems there: The Russell Athletic logo never appeared on the Yankees’ jerseys (and even if it did, Russell didn’t manufacture the Yanks’ uniforms during Rickey’s tenure in the Bronx — Wilson did), and Rickey never wore a non-drop-shadowed Mets logo during his time with the Amazin’s (big thanks to Brian Erni). … Ryan Connelly has just finished his latest Invaders jerseys, and it’s his best DIY yet. “This time I wanted to go with a darker look and pull a little further away from the 8-bit video game imagery,” he says. “I tried to make the front logo simple enough that I could produce them on my own, but it would have been really tough, so I had the logos made at the same print shop that did my Invaders t-shirts and the Ryberto’s patches. Here you can see a few different methods of stitching and embroidery they used. I also made a three-tone number for the back and a comet-style shoulder patch. Very happy with the result, which fits in as a good alternate design in the Invaders jersey set. … Lots of interesting stuff in Jake Keys’s son’s bedroom. Further details in the photo captions. … Disturbing news from Travis Church, who writes: “I am a high school baseball umpire from Oregon. I was recently asked by the National Federation of State High School Associations, the people that make the rules and guidelines for high school sports, to fill out a ‘baseball rules questionnaire.’ The questionnaire asked opinions about the possibility of adding certain rules for next year, including this: ‘Allowing corporate logos, within a size restriction, on the back of the jersey, as well as the allowance for the spelled name of a commercial enterprise, to assist schools with the declining current economic condition.’ That shocked the hell out of me.” Just say no, Travis.

 

224 comments to The Hy Peskin Archives, Vol. 3

  • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 8:23 am |

    Holy crap!!! The Braves wore those friggin’ things again. You’ve got to be kidding me. For the love of…..Bob Horner, and all that is right with the Braves’ unis, quit with the navy already. Can someone please talk me off of the ledge. There is a Philly bandwagon driving by and I’m gonna have to jump if I have to keep looking at these navy “shirts”.

  • scott | April 21, 2011 at 8:29 am |

    If that’s the logo for the 100th anniversary of Fenway, I find it kinda boring. The 75th anniversary patch was much nicer.

  • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 8:34 am |

    i donno about “sail skiing” but what the hell is dracula doing out in the daylight?

    • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 8:47 am |

      I’d heard of it before, but I always imagined it was more like a snowboard with a mast, like a windsurfing board.

  • Geeman | April 21, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    http://www.sfgate.co...

    The A’s wore their gold jerseys yesterday. A beautiful thing to see. Hard to believe, but this is the first season in 25 years they’ve worn them (excluding throwback games).

    • Chris Holder | April 21, 2011 at 9:11 am |

      Yep, and bravo to the A’s. Unlike the Braves and their navy shirts (props to Seth F), that’s a softball top done right. Love it.

      • Jet | April 21, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        Sweet!

    • Geeman | April 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

      The Braves’ blue jerseys would look much better if they looked like the red ones. Right now they look like BP shirts.

  • Terry Proctor | April 21, 2011 at 8:43 am |

    That “jockey” wearing the silks in the photo is actually a harness racing driver. The race mentioned is the Hambletonian, the Super Bowl of the harness set.

  • Rob S | April 21, 2011 at 8:44 am |

    Interesting scene in Glendale last night, as there were a few Winnipeg Jets shirts in the crowd – a pretty bold move, considering “Winnipeg” is a dirty word in the desert right now.

    A picture of two Winnipegers outside of Jobing.com Arena can be seen in the slideshow here, along with pics of prospective owner Matthew Hulsizer, who donned a $200 polyester shirt in the crowd last night.

  • mike k | April 21, 2011 at 8:49 am |

    “Latest color-coded disorder: The Nashville Sounds will be wearing purple jerseys on April 30 to promote autism awareness”

    It’s actually for Alzheimer’s Awareness. If it were for Autism they would be wearing blue uni’s

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 8:53 am |

      Oops. Will fix.

      • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 8:56 am |

        how could you forget that?

  • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 8:49 am |

    I like the zombie baseball cards. Hehe. Harold Braaaains…

    • Jet | April 21, 2011 at 10:21 am |

      Ugh, I hate ‘em!

      -Jet

  • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 8:53 am |

    I’m not seeing a drop shadow on Rickey’s Mets script in that screen cap.

    Anyway, found an interesting item: advertised as a Brewers curling sweater. The Brewers part is easy, what with the ball-in-glove knitted right into the thing, but is that really a curling sweater? If so, neat sports crossover.

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 8:55 am |

      I’m not seeing a drop shadow on Rickey’s Mets script in that screen cap.

      Exactly — that’s the point. To be Rickey-period-appropriate, it SHOULD have a drop shadow.

      As for the sweater, it’s curling-style. Pretty much any cardigan can claim to be a curling sweater, especially if it has a shawl collar (as this one does), and double-especially if it’s made with a cowichan-style stitch (which this one is).

      • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 9:11 am |

        Ah, right, I missed the double-negative there. Apparently, in heaven, the Mets never wear black. Just goes to show that BFBS is evil.

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 9:27 am |

          in heaven, the Mets never wear black

          ~~~

          obviously, flushing is a long way from heaven

        • Aaron | April 21, 2011 at 10:38 am |

          I wonder if it’s further away than Iowa.

        • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 10:56 am |

          As a native Iowan, I can assure you that Flushing is much further away from heaven than Iowa. But both are much closer to heaven than the Bronx.

    • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 11:02 am |

      A couple of minor cap problems. First, I don’t think Mike Schmidt is even wearing a 5950; the front profile and the brim are all wrong. But more to the point, it appears to have a modern-style, raised-embroidery logo. Cap embroidery was much flatter in the day. No foam-core until the mid 1990s. Same for Ozzie Smith’s cap, which also features an MLB logo on the back. While the MLB logo was there in the last few years of Ozzie’s career, the Cardinals never wore both MLB-logo caps (debuted in 1992) and pullover jerseys (ditched after 1991).

      • Rob S | April 21, 2011 at 11:24 am |

        Ehh, Bill Mumy screwed up the details when he wished them all into that cornfield.

  • SimulatedSteve | April 21, 2011 at 8:58 am |

    ASU Alum and Sgt in the CPD not a fan of new ASU logo

    http://www.azcentral...

    • DanKing9 | April 21, 2011 at 9:06 am |

      That article shows how out of touch the associate athletic director is. You’re going to go after a gang for copyright infringement? Really? That’s the best you can come up with?

  • Flip | April 21, 2011 at 9:02 am |

    I love that Peskin Ali photo. Simply beautiful.

    Yes, the Tigers need to make a poster of the D logos.

    Finally, I live in Iowa but haven’t seen that Pepsi commercial. (Don’t watch a lot of TV, though.) Pretty sweet.

  • Ry Co 40 | April 21, 2011 at 9:06 am |

    thanks paul!!!

    also, wanted to mention that i drew inspiration for the front logo from the the creatures on the side of the old video game machines:

    https://picasaweb.go...

    and the shoulder patch from one of my all time favotite logos/jerseys. the mcfarlane designed oilers 3rd:

    https://picasaweb.go...

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 9:10 am |

      nice job with those ry — was wondering where you got the “third” from…now i know; i grew up on ‘vaders in the early 80s but i don’t know if i ever saw the side of a machine — they were always stacked up side-by-side with other machines in the “game room” in the mall

    • Coleman | April 21, 2011 at 9:20 am |

      I absolutely love the number font on your new jersey! Well done all around.

      • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 9:54 am |

        Really amazing work on two levels. Well, three. First, the design itself is excellent. Crisp, clear, elegant. Second, aside from the quality of the design-as-design, the aesthetics of it are terrific. Color, line, that sort of thing. Good design is still good design even if it’s not pretty to look at, and plenty of beautiful art is bad design. This is well designed and aesthetically pleasing (in other words, fly). Third, the execution of the actual work – fabric, cutting, assembly – it just, wow. At least half the actual NHL doesn’t have jerseys with the level of all-around quality I’m seeing with this latest Invaders DIY.

    • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 11:37 am |

      Joining the chorus here… that jersey is a beaut.

      I don’t think I’d want to see an NHL team with the dark numbers against the dark jersey but it definitely works here.

    • Ry Co 40 | April 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

      wow, thanks guys!!! really appreciate it!

      couple more points real quick:

      i wanted the jersey to be as dark as possible without being TOO dark. that is why i have the dark-on-dark numbers. also the jersey is sans-stripes because of the whole “dark thing,” and also because i wanted to keep the overall cost of the jersey as low as possible without losing too much quality. so if the team decides they want these in a few seasons, which i’m planning on presenting the idea to them, it won’t break the bank. the front logo patch wasn’t the cheapest thing in the world… BUT… had to be done!

  • Rob | April 21, 2011 at 9:29 am |

    While my knee-jerk reaction to the idea of corporate logos on high school jerseys was the same as Paul’s, I now think it’s a pretty good idea. Funding for athletics at the high school level, especially at schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods, is low. And increased funding, from wherever the source, means some kid somewhere is just a bit more likely to receive a full or partial athletic scholarship…which means that kid has a better chance at a better life. I recently browsed donorschoose.org, and was surprised to see coaches petitioning for funding for…..baseballs. Because they can’t practice, and can’t play the game without ‘em. So if “Chico’s Bail Bonds” graces the back of my local high school team’s jersey, I won’t have a problem with it. Besides, it might not be too jarring of a change, as it might just be viewed as a continuation of the kind of baseball sponsorships that start in Little League. Vote yes, Travis.

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 9:50 am |

      Nope.

      Certain things should never be for sale, and our public schools (including their athletics programs) should be at the top of that list.

      Note that the questionnaire didn’t mention local sponsors like Chico’s Bail Bonds; it specifically referred to corporate advertising. “Economic hard times” is just a back-door way to let corporate influence into the schools. When the economy rebounds, do you think the uniform advertising will magically disappear?

      And the promise of athletic scholarships is a poor argument. For starters, as I’ve written here before, athletic scholarships probably shouldn’t exist in the first place, since they have nothing to do with a university’s mission. More importantly, though, what good does this promise do for the fat kid who isn’t on the high school baseball team, or the disabled kid who can’t play? So now you have corporate influence helping (maybe) a specific subset of students.

      School athletics are not an entitlement. If you can’t afford baseballs, do what other school districts have done: Have the players’ parents contribute money, or raise school taxes, or just scrap your team until the economy improves. Would the latter option be a shame? Sure. Would it be the end of the world? Nope. Would it be better than having kids running around wearing Pepsi logos? Yup.

      • Kevin Bresnahan | April 21, 2011 at 10:13 am |

        No baseball at all is better than baseball with a Pepsi logo? I disagree.

        Also, why not freely raise the money for the uniforms rather than coercively raise the money for the uniforms? I mean, if party A is willing to pay for the uniforms in their entirety, why refuse party A’s offer in favor of forcing parties A-Z to pay for them collectively?

        I don’t support logo creep. If I ran the team, I’d try to raise the money myself with car washes or bake sales or whatever, but if the choice is baseball with a Pepsi logo or no baseball at all, I’ll take baseball with a Pepsi logo.

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 10:16 am |

          if party A is willing to pay for the uniforms in their entirety, why refuse party A’s offer

          Because if Louis Farrakhan or David Duke showed up at your house and offered to build you a back-yard deck, you’d say no, because you don’t want their dirty money.

          Schools shouldn’t want corporate money either.

        • Kevin Bresnahan | April 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

          Corporate money isn’t inherently “dirty”. Pepsi isn’t Duke or Farrakhan. Do you consider it “cleaner” to take money from people without their consent rather than to take advertising dollars which are freely given?

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

          Corporate money isn’t inherently “dirty”.

          But it’s inappropriate. It doesn’t belong in schools. That’s why it’s akin to taking something from Duke or Farrakhan — because not every “Party A,” as you call it, is an appropriate party to be doing business with.

          Do you consider it “cleaner” to take money from people without their consent…

          Not sure what you’re referring to. If you mean taxes, taxes are enacted by duly elected representatives (I seem to recall that’s why we fought a revolution). If you don’t like the representatives, you vote them out — simple. And yes, I consider that a LOT cleaner than taking corporate money in a public school.

          If “without their consent” refers to something else, do tell.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

          I know that’s the popular buzzword, but can we please stop saying that taxes are taken from people “without their consent”?

          You have a say in how your tax monies are spent. You have representation. It’s not money stolen from you, it’s part of living in a community in the real world.

        • Kevin Bresnahan | April 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

          Who determines what is “appropriate”? You may believe that it’s inappropriate for a private organization to donate uniforms to a public institution in exchange for displaying a patch on a sleeve, Paul, but I respectfully disagree. It’s a legal way for two entities to get what they want – one gets a uniform and one gets advertising exposure. Your snarky and condescending response – “I seem to recall… – was not exactly polite.

          Chance, I’m not saying that all taxes are bad. Many individual taxes are necessary, but most tax dollars ARE taken from people without their consent. When I pull the lever for a candidate, I’m not authorizing him to take my wallet with him or her to the state capital or to Washington, D.C. If a public bill can be paid willingly by private enterprise, why burden the people with it?

          Not only that, but it serves to help the economy. Rather than handle an issue with tax dollars, which just creates a debit in the public ledger, it becomes a private investment. The guy who makes the uniform patches gets more business. They guy who sews the patches on the uniforms gets more business. The guy who transports the patches gets more business. Jobs are created, and those newly employed individuals in the patch industry, the tailoring industry, and the transportation industry all pay taxes, the companies that employ them pay more taxes, and together they lower the public financial burden of unemployment.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

          Kevin, we live in a representative democracy. That means we don’t all get to approve every single thing that the government does.

          We have all consented to having our tax dollars collected and spent. By living in the United States, we consent to live under the Constitution. Which allows for the collection of taxes. None of us get to approve individual expenditures, but that doesn’t mean the money is being stolen from you or is spent without your consent.

          I don’t think many of us would begrudge corporate expenditures on public goals, except that those monies come with strings attahced. If private entities were content to give money without expecing anything (such as advertising) in return, it would be a different story. But no company is willing to do that, which is good business in general.

          Some things, however, should not be run like a business. Schools are one of those things.

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

          Oh, please. The laws allowing for taxation were no more imposed “without your consent” (or mine, or anyone else’s) than the laws that criminalize murder and arson.

          You don’t like a law — relating to taxation, arson, or whatever — lobby to change it. If that doesn’t work, elect new representatives who’ll change it for you. Or run for office and change it yourself.

          Otherwise, you’re a citizen and you live under the duly enacted laws of our representative republic. Deal.

      • Rob | April 21, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        Then we’ll just have to respectfully agree to disagree.

        I maintain that some things are more important than uniform aesthetics. For example; the existence of baseball in high school, and the opportunities playing ball brings.

        So, I’m drinkin’ Pepsi and bailing myself outta jail with Chico and encouraging Travis to vote yes.

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 10:24 am |

          I maintain that some things are more important than uniform aesthetics.

          I’m not opposed to uniform advertising on aesthetic grounds; I’m opposed to it because I think it’s bad public policy, bad for kids, bad for schools.

        • The Jeff | April 21, 2011 at 10:32 am |

          How exactly is it bad for schools, assuming that the corporations only provide funding?

          I’ll agree that we probably don’t want the corporations *running* the schools (then again, they’d want to provide better education so they get better future workers), but what’s so horrible about them simply giving the schools money?

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 10:36 am |

          How exactly is it bad for schools, assuming that the corporations only provide funding?

          If they want to “only provide funding,” great — a silent grant, they can write it off as a charitable donation, a win-win.

          But no logos, no advertising, no naming the field after them.

          Think Pepsi would go for that deal?

          Right, me neither.

      • Graham Jaunts | April 21, 2011 at 10:36 am |

        While I don’t necessarily disagree with your argument, I’m 99% sure the only corporations that will be sponsoring high school athletic programs will be local incorporated businesses, or national corporations with a local presence – grocery stores, pharmacies, basically the same types of companies you see on Little League uniforms.

        If it necessary to pays the bill, I’ll take baseball with a CVS logo over no baseball at all. High school athletics do exist for many very good reasons, not just because sports are fun. It would be seriously detrimental to the school and the community as a whole if they went away for lack of funding.

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 10:42 am |

          High school athletics do exist for many very good reasons, not just because sports are fun.

          That’s a fair argument. And if the community agrees with it, the community can support the athletics program — thru bake sales, car washes, straight donations, higher school taxes, whatever.

          And if they don’t want to do those things, they can opt not to have an athletics program.

          But asking a corporate entity to underwrite you has a price. Kids are especially susceptible to advertising. Schools should be endeavoring to expose kids to LESS of it, not more.

      • Coleman | April 21, 2011 at 11:21 am |

        Just for some real life perspective here, my old high school had about 400 students. Our town had maybe 3000 people, MAYBE. When it came to sports, and baseball specifically since its todays discussion here, my high school did not have much money. To pay for uniforms we raised it by getting the local t-shirt company to make hoodies and t-shirts for parents and boosters to purchase. Most of the proceeds went directly to the team, and the company got an advertisement put on the fence in the outfield. They paid the team for that advertisement too. This is also how many other local businesses advertised. So our outfield fence was lined with local ads, but never once did our uniforms have the slightest logo creep. Not once.

        • Kevin Bresnahan | April 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

          Believe it or not, I came from an even smaller school, and six towns sent their kids to my high school. We did some of the same things. My teammates and I sold outfield wall ads too. Good times. :)

      • mmwatkin | April 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

        I love how someone without kids is on his high horse talking about what is right and wrong for the public school systems. Sit in on a budget meeting and you will see that MANY school systems are struggling to meet budget and are cutting programs at an alarming rate.

        Corporate presence in schools is already there. Soda companies have contracts to put machines in the hallways, advertisements on football fields have already happened and you can’t see a homecoming parade without every car with a sponsor. You issue is more with uniforms than sponsorships.

        I would MUCH rather have sponsors on uniforms than to ditch the athletic programs.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

          Okay, then. I’m a parent of three. May I have an opinion on advertising in my kids’ local public school?

          For the record: Ah’m agin’ it.

      • Simply Moono | April 21, 2011 at 7:41 pm |

        My high school’s Varsity baseball team brought six-year-old (at least) pinstripe uniforms out of retirement for this season because they need to save money for new BBCOR bats next season. The TRUE definition of a throwback. Give me a few moments to send you the pictures, Paul…

      • Kevin Bresnahan | April 22, 2011 at 10:49 am |

        Chance, this is not a democracy. Paul is right. It’s a representative republic. There is a big difference.

        Paul, I don’t disagree with your take on how to change our nation’s laws, although I would say that taxes are slightly different from murder and arson. My point is: why should someone who doesn’t want to pay for something be forced to pay for it when there is someone who is perfectly willing to pay for it begging for the opportunity? Because you don’t want a patch on a baseball uniform? It’s not your uniform. The folks who run the team can make their own decisions.

    • A.J. | April 21, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      There are plenty of other ways to get companies involved without having to wear their logos on the field. Would signage on the outfield walls be a problem (or as much of a problem)? Sell Pepsi given to the team at cost by the company at the games and have a big Pepsi cooler to sell it out of. There are plenty of other ways to get companies involved without having to force 15 year olds to be moving billboards.

      And like Paul said before, this may not be the mom and pop hardware store sponsoring your team like the do in Little League, this can turn into something much bigger, and much worse.

      • Aaron | April 21, 2011 at 10:51 am |

        I’m more in line here. There are a lot of opportunities to advertise that aren’t the jerseys. Signs on the scoreboard, signs on the outfield walls, announcements during the game, etc. And I guess I don’t know about Oregon, but I know my high school team typically breaks even just on ticket sales and programs (where there are more advertisements). It doesn’t make any money like football and basketball, but it at least pays for itself.

      • DanKing9 | April 21, 2011 at 11:17 am |

        Pepsi and Coke usually already have a deal with the school districts for concessions and things like that. I don’t have a problem with a board on the outfield wall or something like that. I DO have a problem with naming the field after a company. Right now my high school’s football team plays at Kalahari Field at Huron Memorial Stadium. The corporation would pay for a new turf field as long as it was named after them and they have it painted on the field. Pisses me off every time I hear it mentioned.

        http://www.google.co...

    • Chris Holder | April 21, 2011 at 11:52 am |

      This is a tough one, morally. I’m a pretty conservative guy, and I don’t usually have a problem with seeing people make money, but I do have a problem with greedy corporations (is that redundant?). I think Paul makes a good argument that those guys wouldn’t be in it to be a silent partner and for the “good of the school” or what have you. And I don’t guess there’s anything wrong with them wanting to benefit from it as well, by putting their name somewhere. But when you start allowing a corporate sponsor to run your athletic program, how far will that go? Will the name spread to other parts of the school? The Pepsi Bandroom? Heck, Pepsi High School? Opening that Pandora’s box for what seems to be a harmless act, at first, can certainly lead to other consequences down the road.

      While it may seem contradictory to what I just said, if you have a corporate sponsor helping to fund athletic programs, you almost have to require them donate to all extra-curricular activities, including *gasp* academics. Sports, as much as I love them, are already too important to Americans as it is. Letting a few kids benefit from Pepsi’s money to go to college on an athletics scholarship, while the B-student who isn’t an athlete is forced to pay his own way or not get to go to college at all, is just not right and never will be.

      • Chris Holder | April 21, 2011 at 11:59 am |

        I guess I somehow forgot to include my conclusion. Basically, I don’t want corporate sponsorships anywhere near a public high school. But, if they are allowed in, they better be giving to everybody (and keeping their logos/name presence to a minimum). Good luck trying to strike a good balance with that, though.

      • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

        I really like what Chris has to say here. The most interesting thing for me about most “political” discussions that happen here is that Paul consistently argues from a deeply small-c conservative philosophy rooted in an understanding of cultural standards and social values that’s right in line with the conservative intellectual tradition straight back to Burke. The Nike apologists and anything’s-okay-for-prifit’s-sake critics who tend to jump all over Paul for introducing “politics” into his blog usually strike this reader as people who are likely to self-identify as political conservatives (at least to the extent that some throw labels like “lefty” or “hippie” or whatnot at Paul). Yet their worldview is based in a philosophy that Burke or even Buckley would have identified as radically liberal, in the classical sense of the term.

        The traditional conservative insight is that liberty depends upon order for its preservation, and order depends ultimately not on the police power of the state but on the existence of widely shared standards and norms. Manners make the commonwealth, basically. Paul and Chris (and I, in this instance) are seeing this question as fundamentally a matter of whether to retain and uphold longstanding social standards and cultural values about the proper roles of commerce, public institutions, and sportsmanship. That’s the small-c conservative way to view the question.

        The counterarguments tend to take a more anything-goes approach and see it either as a question of doing whatever’s necessary to preserve struggling programs (a very sympathetic argument to me, actually) or a question of permitting people and institutions to do whatever they darn well want with no reference to external standards of conduct beyond what it pleases consenting parties to do. Both of these ways of viewing the question are radically un-conservative. (Which is not to deny the merits or legitimacy of either worldview; they may be perfectly valid, or even correct in this instance or generally. They’re simply just about the opposite of anything that can be called “conservative.”)

        • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

          Even when I was a kid, I was struck by the irony that cultural/political liberals tended to have extremely conservative notions about baseball (they prefer natural grass over artificial turf, dislike the DH, etc.), while business-friendly conservatives (including but not limited to the team owners) tend to take a much more “anything goes” approach toward baseball.

          There are exceptions in both camps, of course. But it’s an interesting trope.

  • Michael Emody | April 21, 2011 at 9:39 am |

    I wonder if any Dodgers fans, unaware this afternoons game is a throwback, but hearing all about the teams economic news, will see “Brooklyn” on the jerseys and think, “It’s worse than I thought!”

  • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 9:45 am |

    Speaking of Mark Hominick and his Tiger-Cats sponsorship. Logo creep might be worse in MMA than in any other sport we’ve discussed. Most all big time fighters will have at least 5-10 logos of sponsors displayed on their shorts during a fight. The ratio of logos:uniform space would be much greater than any other sport……except Nascar, but I did say any other sport, so nevermind.

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 9:52 am |

      Yeah, but MMA is an individual sport, not a team sport. Different standards.

  • SimulatedSteve | April 21, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    Concurring with Rob.

    I serve on a number of boards for youth athletic organizations and sponsorship is absolutely essential to provide these programs.

    It keeps the family costs sustainable and allows for a greater enrollment of participants. Without it, many rec leagues wouldn’t survive.

    I cringe at the idea of high schools – but why? College is engulfed in corporate advertising..and since these large corporations don’t pay taxes anyway let them use that excess cash to provide for safer equipment to our youth.

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 10:34 am |

      I cringe at the idea of high schools – but why? College is engulfed in corporate advertising..

      Which is a massive problem.

      Also: Many of those colleges are private; most of the high schools we’re talking about here are public. Big difference.

    • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 10:44 am |

      I serve on a number of boards for youth athletic organizations and sponsorship is absolutely essential to provide these programs.

      But these are private civic organizations to begin with, no? Public schools, on the other hand, are public institutions. If Halliburton or the AFL-CIO or, say, China’s Lenovo were to offer to pay the salary of every member of Congress, would we say, “That will reduce the amount we have to tax ourselves to pay for that, so go right ahead,” or would we perhaps give some thought to the difference between the private and public spheres?

      • SimulatedSteve | April 21, 2011 at 11:11 am |

        If you are taking the position that it is easy to draw the line and connect the dots between the Nazi’s and Pepsi sure .

        However, this “can” be done right . I would have a serious problem with District 15 changing its sport name to Pepsi Max .

        OTOH, you can plaster Schutt decals all over the stadium if they want to supply the entire football organization with their concussion prevention helmets. That is my point.

        • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 11:18 am |

          Stadium ads and jersey ads are two very different things.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

          Besides, there’s no such thing as a “concussion prevention helmet”.

    • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 11:17 am |

      I serve on a number of boards for youth athletic organizations and sponsorship is absolutely essential to provide these programs.

      There’s a difference between a sponsor getting a PSA during an event and the same sponsor getting advertising space on a jersey. In ad psychology, a jersey sponsorship is an endorsement of the sponsor by the players, not merely a sponsorship of the team by an outsider.

      In professional sports and even in college, athletes can choose where they go, so a jersey sponsor would be acceptable there, assuming it’s acceptable to you at all. Even public universities are somewhat autonomous.

      The ratio of public to private schools is much more skewed at the high school level and no matter how much mobility a district or state allows, the students are limited by territoriality. Forcing a student to endorse a product or company without his consent in order to play sports is wrong on its face, no matter whether he would be willing to endorse the sponsor or not.

      • Craig D | April 21, 2011 at 11:54 am |

        This was the point I made in the comments yesterday. That a logo of any kind on a team issued piece of uniform implies endorsement by that player. Even though the player has no say in a jersey or pants/shorts or, in most cases, socks. That just isn’t right or fair. They DO have a choice of shoe or glove or goalie padding. Those items are an endorsement by the player, sometimes a paid endorsement.

        We all know LeBron is a Nike guy. But if Team USA wears addidas or Under Armor unis, he has to wear the logo of a competitor. That could directly or indirectly cost him money. That is bad business for LeBron, but he has no choice.

        Leave all logos, other than the team’s, off actual team issued uniform items. That includes manufacturers’ logos.

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

          Leave all logos, other than the team’s, off actual team issued uniform items. That includes manufacturers’ logos.

          ~~~~

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          thanks, i needed that laugh

        • Craig D | April 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

          I’ll be here all week. Try the veal. (And yes I know you can’t get toothpaste back in the tube. No way will we ever see logo-less unis ever again. Dare to dream.)

  • =bg= | April 21, 2011 at 10:28 am |

    New ‘rivalry’ T’s from majestic…like this BEAT LA shirt.

    Their ad copy says “Wear it proudly around McCovey Cove or in Chavez Ravine.”

    http://www.majestica...

    Doubt the fellow who is in a coma would agree.

  • StLMarty | April 21, 2011 at 10:30 am |

    Was I the only one hoping to see Andy Kaufman in that ladies wrestling pic?

  • allthewayray | April 21, 2011 at 11:31 am |

    I’ll take 100 Nike Swooshes rather than 1 giant golf club at a baseball game.

  • jim greenfield | April 21, 2011 at 11:32 am |

    Safeco Field stripe-infield fly rule?

    • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 11:46 am |

      Nope, the different color dirt on the back of the infield is being being marketed as advertising space. You can pay to have your company’s logo etched into the infield dirt of an actual major league infield. At only $50,000 per 3″x3″ square, who wouldn’t jump on that opportunity? Shoot, that’s only $5M and Nike can get 100 swooshes right in there.

      • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 11:52 am |

        Seriously?

      • Coleman | April 21, 2011 at 11:58 am |

        You’re joking right? Please tell me you’re making that up.

      • JimWa | April 21, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

        Not funny, Seth. I think you’re responsible for the ER co-pays that result from a) not using a sarcasm tag, and b) suggesting something so heinous yet believable. OK, maybe its a little funny, but only if it isn’t true.

      • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

        Sorry about that guys. The sarcasm tag was there, but I could only afford like one tenth of the 3″x3″ square so you probably just missed it. My bad.

  • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 11:47 am |

    Stat of the day (gleaned from the excellent Mets Police blog): The Mets have the fourth-most wins at Shea this year.

    • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 11:50 am |

      Link?

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

      but…none of them in black

      /hey, gotta find some positive in this throwaway season, right?

  • Andrew G | April 21, 2011 at 11:55 am |

    The hockey infographic site seemed pretty cool, then I looked at one of the first ones on the site that has to do with President’s Trophy winners. Without looking into any other mistakes there may be, I immediately saw that they list the ’09 Sharks and ’10 Capitals as having lost in the second round… http://bit.ly/grpoQ3

    • Teebz | April 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

      That site’s entirely correct, though.

      The 2008-09 San Jose Sharks won the Presidents’ Trophy before bowing out in 2009 NHL Playoffs to the Anaheim Ducks in the second round (NHL Quarter-Finals). The Washington Capitals won the Presidents’ Trophy in 2009-10, and then lost to Montreal last season in the 2010 Stanley Cup Quarter-Finals.

      No mistakes. Maybe some confusion, but no mistakes.

      • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

        I think you’re the one who’s confused, sir.

        ’09 Sharks and ’10 Caps both lost in the conference quarterfinals, AKA the first round of the playoffs.

        Anyway, I get the feeling that Mr. Gustafson is a Red Wings fan and he’s just trying to portray the Blackhawks as negatively as possible on that site, so he lists them as the only President’s Trophy winners/first round playoff losers.

        Also note: the way the O6 teams are listed here.

        Of course, a real Wings fan would know that they started life in the NHL as the Cougars in 1926. But, then again, he could just be cherry-picking that date to say that they’ve won almost three times as many Stanley Cups in 6 fewer years…

        …or these could just be honest mistakes and that truly could just be a random order, not a deliberate choice.

        • Teebz | April 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm |

          You’re right – I am. I’ve twice made mistakes with numbers today, this being the second.

          All this studying and compiling of points in HBIC Playoff Pool has my brain swimming in digits that don’t need to be there.

          Oh well… back to the books. I just hope this doesn’t affect me while writing exams next week!

    • Patrick_in_MI | April 21, 2011 at 6:43 pm |

      He also forgot the Seattle Metropolitans who won the Cup in 1917.

    • dan g | April 22, 2011 at 9:30 pm |

      I know this is a day late, but thanks for checking out the site. And for alerting me to the errors. I fixed both this one http://tinyurl.com/3... and added a note about the Detroit Cougars to this one: http://tinyurl.com/3.... I’m just an old North Stars fan and I was secretly hoping that 1991 Hawks upset could be their one shining moment and no one would catch on. @Patrick_in_MI, that graphic only dates to 1918 (Sorry Seattle). Everything else, was just honest(bad) mistakes as I’m figuring it out the site.

      Thanks again!

  • Joe | April 21, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

    FYI – the crest on that swimmer’s outfit is from the Los Angeles Athletic Club.

  • Ben Fortney | April 21, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

    Re Pepsi Ad: Is that Shaq playing the organ at the end?

  • Christian | April 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    Jim Walaitis notes that the Safeco Field diamond has a line of lighter dirt at the outer edge of the infield. Anyone know what that’s about?

    I’m thinking this may be due to the fact that the clay used in most infields can be damaging to the grass. In high school and college, We’d have to rake the edge of the infield and outfield after practices and games. Once clay is stomped into the grass, however, it’s pretty tough to get out. It looks like that liner around the infield might be a different type of dirt to prevent any damage to the grass.

    • jdreyfuss | April 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

      I hadn’t thought of that. I was thinking the ground crew simply wasn’t watering the dirt at the edges of the infield so the soil the grass was growing in wouldn’t get waterlogged. You’re probably right though; the line is way too uniform to be something like my idea.

    • JimWa | April 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

      That sounds reasonable, but if that was the case, wouldn’t that look be more common?

    • Ry Co 40 | April 21, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

      infield warning track?

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

      Might it then be some sort of sealant that keeps the clay from drying or crubmling or something?

      Honestly, just asking, seeing as we don’t see much honest-got-lime/chalk on outfield foul lines anymore. Seriously, when was the last time we saw “chalk fly” on a ball ripped past third? At least like it used to.

      • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

        Conversely, something that retards the spread of grass into the clay?

      • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

        The reference to foul lines was only in that sense that “applications” are now common on playing surfaces, often as a replacement for a way things were done in the past.

  • JD | April 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

    Dodgers’ pregame show just said the throwbacks they’re wearing today are from 1890.

  • JD | April 21, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

    The Braves are wearing zipper front throwbacks.

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

      Meaning jerseys, right?

      • JD | April 21, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

        Right.

        • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

          Good. :)

  • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    From Braves’ AJC beatwriter, Dave O’Brien on Twitter:

    #Braves’ throwback uniforms today are strong. Got the chief on the left sleeve, the tomahawk is mostly black, and they have navy caps with red bills and a “B” on front. Wearing the pant legs up, of course, with striped stirrups.

    http://www.tweetdeck...

    ….I think what he meant to say was “the tomahawk is mostly navy”

    • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

      …Chip Caray said they were wearing uniforms from the 1944 Boston Beaneaters (although while he was talking, they clearly showed the players wearing throwback “Braves” jerseys… go Chip!)

      • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

        Kershaw is wearing his pj’s style… dummy

    • TSP Calvin | April 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

      Just saw the ‘rups, good lord, that set is perfect. They look somehow better than the Dodgers’ unis.

      • JD | April 21, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

        I agree, sadly, the Braves are looking sharp today. I wish the fans had voted for a different throwback set.

        • Chuck | April 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

          I love that Indian patch on the sleeves, I wish the Cleveland Indians would replace WaHoo with one like this!

      • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

        agreed! (even with the Braves’ 2011-edition batting helmets… )

        • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

          The Dodgers were kind enough to swap the “LA” decal with the correct “B” decal on the helmets.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

          Just a quick note – not the correct B. It isn’t the “Bakersfield Dodgers” B that New Era slaps on their caps, but neither is it the correct Brooklyn B.

    • Kyle F | April 21, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

      any pics online yet?

    • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

      ….I think what he meant to say was “the tomahawk is mostly navy”

      I haven’t seen what they have on today, but I believe the tomahawks on those jerseys really were black, not navy.

      • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

        well… i’ll be damned… you’re right!

        http://www.sportslog...

        Never realized it wasn’t navy… Mr. Dave O’Brien, my sincere apologies. :)

      • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

        you’re right!

        http://www.sportslog...

        Mr. Dave O’Brien… my apologies.

      • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

        Beat me to it, Jimbo.
        That’s one of the really overlooked “little things” about unis of that era, that the Braves’ tomahawk was, indeed, black.

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

          buncha racists

        • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

          Obviously the inspiration for Tommy Hawk

  • John English | April 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

    Question for everyone…

    Anyone know of a place that’ll make a custom hockey jersey – really custom, like take an old photo and reproduce – without a minimum order and at a reasonable price?

    Trying to get a replica made of an old local team and noone seems to be able/willing to do it.

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

      did you try classic old school yet?

      alain does great work and he’s a sponsor … double bonus

    • Bwana Bob | April 22, 2011 at 12:15 am |

      I might be able to help you. What does the jersey look like?

  • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

    Braves vs Dodgers……

    We need pictures. Somebody is having to work all evening and forgot to set the DVR. What a dummy. Can somebody help with some images?

  • random reader | April 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

    Only picture I’ve seen of the Dodger throwbacks in action, which is just a picture of the TV broadcast:

    http://yfrog.com/h01...

  • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Notes on Dodgers/Braves:

    – Both teams NNOB.

    – All the Braves appear to be high-cuffed with striped stirrups.

    – Most of the Dodgers are high-cuffed. They appear to be wearing 7″ stirrups, which are not period-appropriate (but look great anyway).

    – Dodgers still wearing Duke Snider memorial patch.

    – Braves wearing zipper-front jerseys.

    – No Majestic logo creep, because Majestic didn’t make these uniforms. I’ll have more to say about this later on.

    – Dodgers using “B” batting helmets; Braves wearing their regular road helmets (both of which make sense).

    Screen shots:
    http://www.flickr.co...

    I’m listening to Vin Scully working this game, which is just about Perfect.

    • Defo Maitalnd | April 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

      Good call on Scully working this game as he says he remembers the originals. Mentioned that the blue was darker back in the day (which may have been a by-product of the fact they were made of satin).

      • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

        And were only worn at night.

        • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

          Right. Scully even used the awesome word “shimmer” to describe the look. It may have even been “positively shimmered.”

    • random reader | April 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

      Thanks for the screencaps!

    • Defo Maitalnd | April 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

      Scully also mentioned the Dodgers wore a white satin uniform set at the time and that the whites were in circulation for many years afterwards because they were worn by coaches during spring training at Vero Beach.

      • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

        That’s a good nugget, and he just repeated it in the bottom of the 4th.

        Said the Dodgers had 27 farm clubs at the time, resulting in hundreds of “free agents” descending on Vero Beach for tryouts every spring. They all had to get Dodger uniforms, but you could tell the coaches because they were wearing the white satins.

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

      Pitcher opting for the, I guess, Satchel Paige look.
      http://www.flickr.co...
      There are pajamas.
      And there are harem pants.
      Or parachute pants (cue M.C. Hammer).

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

      Who gets custody of the Dodger throwbacks when they’re done wearing them?

    • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

      Seriously, if you can dial up the Dodgers broadcast, do it. Scully doing his usual wonderful job, including questioning his own memory about exactly when the satin uniforms would have been worn — “If I tell you something, you better look it up,” he said self-deprecatingly at one point.

      Mentions he wouldn’t have placed the satins in 1944 (he would have guessed 1946) because he remembers them as a night uniform and he didn’t think they played night games that year because of war restrictions on lights.

      • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

        Scully lauds the Braves for not only wearing throwbacks, but for wearing them in the classic manner, including “those attractive ringed stockings.” Agreed, sir.

        • Chuck | April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

          Too bad the Dodgers Kershaw is “too good” for throwback day and wears the pj look. What a stick in the mud!

    • Coleman | April 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

      Those stirrups are just beautiful. Thanks for the images!

      • interlockingtc | April 21, 2011 at 10:20 pm |

        My god what a good looking baseball game.

  • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Joe Simpson on SportSouth was just critical of the sleeve length on the Braves and Dodgers throwbacks. Said that Jair Jurrjens “isn’t used to pitching with sleeves down below his elbows”… and that they should tailor them the way that the players wear them today.

    • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

      He’s an idiot.

  • Defo Maitalnd | April 21, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    Casey Blake rocking the retro (including Brooklyn B batting helmets)

    http://img5.imagesha...

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

      And he has his cap under his helmet!

      I already have someone trying to find out if he’s doing this as a throwback gesture or if it’s because none of the new “B” helmets fit him.

      • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

        did the 44 dodgers have batting helmets?

        • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

          Shh! We’re pretending about that part being period-authentic. Although it’s worth noting that Dodgers guru Branch Rickey was the guy who made his team wear helmets way back when, even in the field.

        • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

          Indeed. The Pirates, the flock-headed Buccos of the early ’50s.

      • Simply Moono | April 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm |

        During the Atlanta — *ahem* BOSTON Braves at-bat, the FSN PT broadcaster called the Braves’ stirrups “attractive ring stockings”. OOOOOOOOOOOO… K. o_O

        • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

          Give him a chance. After working on his craft for a few more years, that FSN PT broadcaster may become a legendary Hall of Famer someday.

        • Simply Moono | April 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm |

          Oh, alright. ;)

    • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

      I seem to recall Rickey instituted his helmet policy with the Pirates in spring training in Cuba, but did they ever see the light of the regular season?

      • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm |

        Pirates were pretty much “helmets only” for a few seasons.
        If I had to guess, I’d say ’52 or ’53 to ’56, maybe?
        Not really sure. In that era, anyway.

        I know by the time they went to vests in ’57 a number of players had gone back to softcaps in the field.

        • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

          Thanks, Ricko. For some reason I was under the impression the helmets worn in the field was a very brief flirtation.

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

      That “B” no doubt stood for “Bums,” right?

      • BurghFan | April 21, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

        Brilliance.

    • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

      Still the wrong fu@#ing “B”, though.

      • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

        Sorry if this in a well-established UW knowledge, but how do you mean?

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

          It’s my own personal bugaboo.

          The classic Dodgers’ “B” had two complete circles and an embellished line up the left, creating a “notch” to the left of where the circles join. We see this “B” from the early days of the 1900s through the classic era to almost the end of their time in Brooklyn. Especially the 1940s, which this uniform is supposed to reference.

          For a couple years in the 1950s, the Dodgers switched to McAuliffe caps. McAuliffe substituted their own “B” logo, nearly the same as their hometown Red Sox. No notch.

          When MLB put its official “Cooperstown Collection” files together in the 1990s, they started with the McAuliffe “B.” But they superimposed a notch over it, resulting in the Frankenstein’s Monster of a logo on those throwback batting helmets. Which they never wore.

          Now, the caps on display today are another story. That’s New Era’s version of the Brooklyn Dodgers logo, which as far as I can figure were created for the Bakersfield Dodgers, LA’s farm team.

          So there’s a huge mess. Lots of Dodger caps available out there, but nobody’s currently making an authentic blue one. Haven’t since Mitchell & Ness got out of the authentics game a decade ago.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

          I should also mention that the Brooklyn Cyclones get the basic “B” shape more or less right, certainly much closer to the Dodgers’ than New Era, American Needle, Twins ’47 or any of the other current manufacturers.

          Whew. End of rant.

        • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

          Thanks for the info. Seems like an easy enough issue to rectify if someone took the trouble to dig into the past. Too bad they haven’t bothered.

  • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

    Here’s a Jair Jurrjens screen grab giving a decent look at the Braves’ zip-up jerseys. Is it the zipper creating an illusion or does that jersey material look heavier and stiffer?

    http://img17.imagesh...

  • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

    Gee Whiz!!!! The Boston Braves look amazing. And just think, they CHOOSE to wear the navy shirts more and more often. I wanna cry…..

    PS. I’ve got to have me some of them ‘rups. Can I get them from rpm?

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

      I’ve got to have me some of them ‘rups. Can I get them from rpm?

      ~~~

      they’re on “reorder”

      • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

        Ok then, who’s got an extra pair they’d be willing to part with? Patience never was a strong characteristic of mine.

        • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

          I can’t remember if I have a pair of those or not. If so, I don’t think I’ve worn them yet. What’s your offer, Mr. Impatient?

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

          was actually going thru my rups last e’en…reorg of sorts…and i believe i have like 41 of the 50 … but i’m pretty sure the bravos isn’t one of them

          shame…you could have gotten me and jimbo in a bidding war

        • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

          …and I’m almost positive I do have a pair.

        • Chance Michaels | April 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |

          I have an extra pair that I haven’t opened.

          $100 for you, Mr. Impatient. :P

        • Seth F | April 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

          Dang man, $100? And I thought you guys were trying to encourage the stirrup revolution. I know, gotta pay the bills, or momma needs a new pair of sannies or something. Guess I’ll have to just wait on the Comrade.

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

          i believe the new price point on those braves rups will be $100…specially after today

          /shoulda got em when they was $15…

          ;)

        • moose | April 22, 2011 at 3:22 am |

          they have been in for a month, i just don’t care for profit, so i have not changed the image. so sorry.

  • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

    Dracula (sail-skiing) and Dodgers’ “satin”.
    Two things typically seen only at night.

    Wow. And on the same day at UW, too.

  • Christopher | April 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

    Braves rocking zippers on the front of their jerseys, and some sweet striped hosery!

    No screen cap yet…

    • Christopher | April 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm |

      Oops… sorry I didn’t see Paul’s post above.

  • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

    It would be nice if the Braves re-visited the black tomahawk or introduced a navy tomahawk in their current home white and away gray uni sets. I really like that contrasting look against the red Braves chest logo.

    • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

      Sorry for the double-post above… i didn’t see the first one when I refreshed the screen so I just re-did it. Oops!

    • RS Rogers | April 21, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

      Since the Braves have already ruined what was one of the best uniform sets in baseball history with road cap and blue-on-blue alt jersey shenanigans, I kinda wish the Braves would switch to red-and-black and go with the black tomahawk. Baseball needs less red-white-and-blue, and between the Braves history and Atlanta’s other teams, the Braves would be the perfect team to swap blue for black and make it look good.

  • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm |

    These Braves unis remind me of the night Atlanta wore throwbacks for a game in Milwaukee a few years ago. Braves starter Dennis Martinez did an awesome old-fashioned double-pump windup on his first pitch of the night.

  • Aaron | April 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

    Is there any reason the MLB couldn’t go back to zippers full time? I can really explain why, but it’s a look that’s really grown on me. Maybe because the Braves look so damn sharp today it hurts.

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

      One problem with zippered jerseys: Since the two sides of the shirt don’t overlap, you end up with two flared-out shirttails at the base of the jersey. Doesn’t matter if you’re tucking it in (although Mike Schmidt liked to have a little button at the bottom of his zip-fronts to keep the shirttails tethered together) but looks crap if it’s untucked, which is how fans would be wearing them. Kinda looks like a skirt.

      In other words: Would be bad for merchandising.

      • Chuck | April 21, 2011 at 11:01 pm |

        I would bet they retain more heat making them very uncomfortable in the summertime!

  • Barron | April 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm |

    Based on the tweet here http://twitter.com/A... , it seems like the Mets are gonna wear their spring training unis to try “to recapture that success”.

  • random reader | April 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

    Dodgers in their Brooklyn throwbacks during the National Anthem today:
    http://plixi.com/pho...

    • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

      Interesting cuff job by Davey Lopes. And howcum he’s the only guy on the dugout steps?

  • Barron | April 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

    The Braves announcers keep giving Clayton Kershaw so much crap because of his pants. They say it looks like he’s wearing pants a clown would wear at a rodeo. And a bunch of other stuff too lol.

  • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

    Joe Simpson commented on the Braves telecast that Clayton Kershaw’s uniform tailoring is akin to Clarabell the Clown.

    http://heydeadguy.ty...

  • IanB78 | April 21, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

    One other interesting UNI note from the PepsiMAX commercial… Randy Johnson is shown wearing a Diamondbacks jersey with the 2002 All-Star Game patch. Image here –> http://farm6.static....

  • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    New website for the Western Hockey League team that will bring junior hockey back to Victoria, B.C., next season features a poll for the team name (the old Victoria team kept the “Cougars” nickname when they moved to Prince George. Fairly underwhelming choices, especially the three unpluralizable options.

    http://www.vicwhl.co...

    Victoria Capitals
    Victoria Dragons
    Victoria Force
    Victoria Royals
    Victoria Tide
    Victoria Thunder

    This means the end of the ECHL Victoria Salmon Kings, by the way.

    • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

      Interesting also that the promo video they have on that site uses generic WHL highlights from multiple teams rather than concentrating on the Chilliwack Bruins players who will be calling Victoria home next season.

      http://www.youtube.c...

  • pflava | April 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

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

    Good God, the Braves just look amazing, don’t they? The striped stirrups and dark tomahawk absolutely would be a welcome full-time upgrade!

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

      dodgers are really packin’ them in today too

      good thing mlb owns the team now

      • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

        “If people want to stay away, there’s nothing you can do to stop them.”

        —Yogi Berra

      • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 5:05 pm |

        Probably didn’t help that MLB recycled the “Under new ownership/Nouveaux propriétaires” signs they used in Montreal at the Dodger Stadium entrance agte and ticket windows.

    • TSP Calvin | April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

      This is probably one of the best throwback games I’ve ever seen, both teams are looking pretty slick today.

      • Gusto44 | April 21, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

        Both teams look good, but wish Atlanta had also tried something unique. I remember the Dennis Martinez game years ago when the Braves had the similar throwback uniform. The old Boston Braves had a very interesting uniform history, and Atlanta could have gone with the 1929 version.

        That uniform was red and yellow, with a huge braves logo on the back of the jersey. This may have been inspired by the 1928 Tigers jersey, with had a big tigers head on the back of that jersey.

        • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

          a huge braves logo on the back of the jersey

          ~~~

          yes, that probably would have gone over very well

          not to mention, they need a #OB

  • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    Hey, look!
    The Corporate Giant doesn’t always win these sort of things…
    http://money.msn.com...

  • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

    hard to nick pits with this, but the 7″ rups and the modern cleats really do ruin an otherwise splendid recreation

    but why are they wearing the solid blue lid? it’s not like they don’t have a two-tone

    or do those never make road trips now…

    • pflava | April 21, 2011 at 5:10 pm |

      I don’t care for the 7″ rups in general, but they do look especially out of place in this instance.

    • Defo Maitland | April 21, 2011 at 5:12 pm |

      There are a few instances where the attempt to recreate history collides with modern reality (e.g. not wanting to pack the home batting helmets for a road trip). For another example, a purist might argue against the inclusion of the Duke Snider memorial patch on the Dodgers uniforms.

    • Ricko | April 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |

      Pants way too short, too.
      That ain’t really anything even CLOSE to blousing.
      Unless we’re to believe players after WWII wore their unis like Shoeless Joe Jackson.
      http://www.gazette.u...

    • Silver Creek Doug | April 21, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

      They do not. Two tone batting lids only in the ATL; solid blue lids away from home.

  • Mike N. | April 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

    Has any information leaked about what the Braves and Phillies will be wearing on May 15th for the Civil Rights Game?

    • Paul Lukas | April 21, 2011 at 6:14 pm |

      They’re wearing Negro Leagues throwbacks, but I haven’t seen visuals yet.

  • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm |

    Chance, Phil you greedy bastards…

    Seth, I’ll sell you mine for $99 and I’ll throw in free overnight shipping!

    • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 11:29 pm |

      AaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaNnnnnnnnnDdddddd… if you act now, as an added bonus, I’ll include a bonus pair of game-worn* royal blue stirrups just like the ones the Dodgers had on so you can re-live the magic of today’s game.

      * by me

      • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 11:40 pm |

        and….he won’t even wash them, so it’s an extra special deal

        • JTH | April 21, 2011 at 11:42 pm |

          That’s why I had to use the word “bonus” twice in that post.

  • =bg= | April 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm |

    One of the most iconic symbols in the game is the Yankees logo. The “N” crossed with the “Y” can be recognized by virtually every person in America.

    The logo was from a design by Louis B. Tiffany. This is evidence that can’t be disputed by anybody.

    But the primary team logo is a red and white striped hat with blue band and stars, on top of a baseball bat.

    Tanit Buday claims her uncle, Kenneth Timur, was hired by MLB to draw-up a team logo in 1936 and was never paid for his work upon completion. Buday is seeking undisclosed damages in the lawsuit.

    Yankees spokesman Alice McGillion had this sarcastic response for CNN on the pending lawsuit according to the Christian Monitor :

    This is a wonderful country where anybody can sue for anything, even when the allegations are over 70 years old.

  • Patrick_in_MI | April 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm |

    Is anyone doing uni-tracking this season?

    • DenverGregg | April 21, 2011 at 7:19 pm |

      Yep. Tracking the Rockies much as I did last year, but with a few different bells and whistles.

    • LI Phil | April 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

      i hadn’t put out any calls this year, but i know gregg did approach me prior to the season starting — one other person did as well, i forget whom

      ~~~

      sadly, im still tracking the mets; i understand tonight they broke their string of wearing the home cap at home, and in so doing, broke the losing streak; this does not bode well

      if they choose to wear the home cap on the road, i may forgive this transgression

  • christian | April 21, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

    what was the one blog when you guys changed the Giants road text from their road jerseys they have now to the text that they have on their dugout jacket?

    • Chris from Carver | April 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm |

      Here was one of the tweaks from the Design-a-Jersey contest. http://farm5.static....

  • Bwana Bob | April 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm |

    “Anyone know of a place that’ll make a custom hockey jersey – really custom, like take an old photo and reproduce – without a minimum order and at a reasonable price?”

    I may be able to help you. What does the jersey look like?

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 21, 2011 at 10:19 pm |

    G-d, please don’t let this be the excuse the Mets need to go back to the road-cap-at-home look.

  • Chuck | April 21, 2011 at 11:53 pm |

    LA Kings getting blasted again, it is time to ditch the black!