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

Now That's How It's Done

Screen shot 2011-04-22 at 8.13.34 AM.png

Been a long time since a throwback game — on a weekday afternoon, no less — generated as much interest as yesterday’s Dodgers/Braves match-up. Right from the top of the 1st, readers were buzzing my in-box and peppering the comments section. Why? Let’s take a look:

• The Dodgers wore their 1944 “night satins” (which were not made of satin this time around), complete with Brooklyn cap. Interesting to see that they went with a gray undervisor — green would have been period-appropriate.

• The Dodgers also went the extra mile by using Brooklyn batting helmets and even got a Brooklyn catcher’s helmet for Rod Barajas and for the base coaches.

• As you may have noticed already in those other shots, the Dodgers chose to keep their Duke Snider memorial patch for the throwbacks. (In case you’re wondering: Snider never wore this uniform. His first year with the Dodgers was ’47, by which time the Dodgers had stopped wearing satins.)

• Most of the Dodgers went high-cuffed with stirrups (some high-cut and some low-cut, as you can see here), although Juan Uribe just wore blue socks and Clayton Kershaw had a rather unfortunate look.

• As for the Braves, they went with zipper-front Boston Braves jerseys and northwestern-striped stirrups.

• The Braves had throwback Boston caps but their regular road batting helmets (perfectly understandable that they wouldn’t pack an extra set of helmets for one game). The caps apparently had black underbrims. (As an aside, Phil notes how rare it is to see a game in which both teams are wearing caps representing cities other than the ones in which they play. I couldn’t think of another MLB instance of this, although I did come up with an NFL example: Titans [dressed as the Oilers] vs. Chiefs [dressed as the Texans] during the AFL throwback campaign.)

• My favorite detail of the game: Casey Blake wore his cap under his batting helmet. Was this an old-school gesture by him? Reader David Lassen, who’s a reporter for the Riverside Press-Enterprise, was covering the game, so I asked if he could check with Blake about this after the game. Here’s there exchange, as e-mailed to me by David last night:

Q: You went with a hat under your batting helmet today. Was that part of the throwback thing?

A: It ended up that way. My helmet — we wore different helmets, and my helmet was too big for me.

Q: Well, that was the other possibility.

A: It would have been way too easy to get another helmet.

Q: So you just went old school?

A: Yeah.

Q: Have you ever done that?

A: No.

Q: Since you hit a home run, are you going to continue doing it?

A: No, I will not. Every throwback game, probably.

• Notice anything missing from these uniforms? No Majestic logo creep! That’s because Majestic didn’t make either of these sets — Bob Halfacre’s company, Bobcat Athletic, did. He’ll also be making the uniforms for the Dodgers’ next throwback game (the Cubs are the opponent, and Bob tells me he’s hoping to have striped undersleeves for the Cubbies!), and I believe Majestic will take over for the Dodgers’ remaining four throwback games after that. I’ll have more info about this from Bob next week.

Pretty nice job all around, no? If you want to see more, here are some screen shots and wire photos, and there’s a bunch of cool pregame shots here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: You’re not supposed to hook your pant cuffs onto your spikes anymore, but Tim Collins of the Royals has been doing it anyway (good spot by Jonathon Binet). … A Bronx peanut operation that supplies the peanuts to Yankee Stadium is moving to Pennsylvania (thanks, Kirsten). … Who’s that in the Hopkins Grammar School uni? It’s the modernist composer Charles Ives, who, as it turns out was a big baseball fan (with thanks to Scott Kneeskern). … New yellow kit for RSL. “They wore it Wednesday night against Monterrey in the away leg of the CONCACAF Champions League Final,” says Austin Taylor. “I imagine they’ll stick with the red/navy at home next week.” … Ben Traxel sent along a sensational and sad gallery of abandoned theaters, and wouldn’t I love to poke around in each and every one of ’em. … Did you know that the guys who wrote “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” had never attended a game when they wrote the song? It’s true. … Here’s how this year’s MLB All-Star patch will look on the caps (with thanks to Matt Harris). … Didja ever think it’s a little weird that Majestic’s MLB logo creep is relegated to the left sleeve, while Swoosh Inc. gets to put its mark front and center on the undershirt collars? If so, you’re not the only one (big thanks to Sam Graves). … Logan Morrison of the Marlins had to get a cast on his foot, and he drew pinstripes on it! I like that. A lot. … A Syracuse-area supermarket has gotten an SU-style makeover (with thanks to Mark Kluczynski). … David Purcey of the A’s wears a size 17 shoe, so equipment manager Steve Vucinich had to dye a pair of cleats white for him (good work by Brandon Davis). … Oregon football is apparently planning camo uniforms for their spring game (with thanks to Jim Weber). … Also from Jim: Arizona State’s new logo is raising gang-related concerns. … Patrick Zach notes that the Twins are still using lineup cards with the team’s old logo. … The Wizards will unveil their new uniforms on May 10. … The Mets were apparently planning to wearing their BP jerseys for yesterday’s game but thankfully thought better of it. Still, they went with the road cap and black socks/sleeves — disappointing.

 

165 comments to Now That’s How It’s Done

  • Aaron | April 22, 2011 at 8:40 am |

    Paul, I know you love Milwaukee, but I’m pretty sure the B on the Braves’ hats yesterday was for Boston.

    • Black Coffee & Bourbon | April 22, 2011 at 8:54 am |

      You beat me to this. They were Boston Braves unis, not Milwaukee. Love the look of the throwbacks! The stirrups were $$$.

      • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 8:59 am |

        Duh. That’s what happens when you attend two beefsteaks in a 10-day span…. Will fix now.

        • walter | April 22, 2011 at 9:10 am |

          Is heartburn ever a problem?

        • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 9:27 am |

          Nope. Just that uncomfy food-hangover feeling that I refer to as The Bloat.

  • walter | April 22, 2011 at 8:41 am |

    I’ll go with the minority and cast my vote for black in the Mets’ uniforms. I’ve always liked a new twist on an old favorite, but it’s wrong to say it’s polemically better than the version without the black. I won’t insult the tastes of fans who would rather ditch the black.

    • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 8:54 am |

      I can deal with the black drop-shadow but the black caps, socks and undersleeves have to go. Black, blue and orange is just an ugly combination, and while they’ve worn it now for 14 years, it just doesn’t say “Mets” to me. Moreover, not only are the Mets the only team in MLB with separate home and road caps that ever wears, and has ever worn, the road cap at home, let alone does so with regularity, they also went ears wearing last night’s combo in practically every home game but still calling it an “alternate” in the MLB style guide. And, what with all this wearing of the road cap at home, they’ve worn the home cap on the road exactly once (at Yankee Stadium in 2008) since at least the beginning of 1998, if not the end of 1997.

      So it’s not only ugly, it’s dishonest and hypocritical, and dishonest and hypocritical in a completely unnecessary way. To use Paul’s uni-formulation, it’s just mind-numbingly, gob-smackingly STUPID. It’s just one example of the kind of thing that every other team gets right, but the Mets get wrong.

      With any luck, Alderson will come to his senses and bring back the 1995-97 uniform, home and away.

      • The Jeff | April 22, 2011 at 9:27 am |

        I think the obvious solution to your problem here is for the style guide to simply eliminate the distinction of “home” “away” and “alternate” uniforms and just show all of the uniforms that the team has available.

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 9:38 am |

          I have no problem with that.

          But here’s something I do have a problem with: Unless I’m mistaken, MLB gave the Mets a really hard time about wearing the blue (home) caps on the road that one time in 2008, which may explain (though not excuse) the fact that we’ve seen blue-over-gray, by far the Mets’ most attractive combination, exactly once since at least the early part of 1998 (still looking for evidence they wore blue caps with the grays in early ’98 before pairing the two-tone cap with the grays full-time).

          So if MLB is going to get its knickers in a bunch because the Mets wore their home cap on the road one time, why do they allow them to wear the road cap at home all the time?

    • walter | April 22, 2011 at 9:01 am |

      Well, ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I’ve never been one to embrace tradition just for tradition’s sake, anyway. No offense.

      • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 9:41 am |

        The team’s colors are blue and orange, the end. They took blue from the Dodgers and orange from the Giants, the end. The second verse of “Meet the Mets” specifically states “All the fans are true to the orange and blue,” the end.

        True Mets = Blue Mets. Ditch the black.

        • Geeman | April 22, 2011 at 11:24 am |

          Amen.

        • christian | April 22, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

          I agree. But do they have black because the giants had black or just for the freaking sake of black? I’ve heard some people saying that they took the black because of the Giants, but I keep saying that it’s just for the sake of black.

        • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

          They did NOT take black from the Giants. That was (and for some folks still is) a back-door rationalization. Just a coincidence. Total BFBS.

      • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 9:47 am |

        Regardless of whether the Mets should use black, there’s the question of whether the Mets do use black well. And here, ugly is very much not in the eye of the beholder. There exists a body of simple, well-established principles for design and color, dating back thousands of years. It is possible to make royal and black work well together. The Mets violate just about every rule for making these colors work together. Whether one thinks the Mets look pretty or not, their particular use of black is bad design.

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

      it’s wrong to say it’s polemically better than the version without the black.

      ~~~

      no it’s not

    • ClubMedSux | April 22, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the general anti-black-for-black’s-sake sentiment and how it relates to the general pro-powder-blue sentiment ’round these parts. Specifically: is BFBS our generation’s powder blue? I’m pretty sure every team that wore powder blues in the ’70s did not have powder blue as one of its colors. Do we accept it now because it’s aesthetically-pleasing or because it’s become part of tradition? Personally, I suspect it’s a little of both (I certainly think this looks better than this) but if you’re going to simply argue that black is bad because it’s not a team color than powder blues have to be ruled out as well, no?

      • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 11:07 am |

        having grown up with the powderblues, i don’t find them as off-putting as some — however, that doesn’t mean teams who wore them looked good in them…i personally don’t think powder works with any shade of red particularly well (see, cardinals, phillies, rangers) but it does work well with navy blue, royal or gold (see, brewers, braves, royals) — some clubs, like the expos, looked much better in their first generation — when they added the fat racing stripes that looked like shit

        you can’t really place an exact date on when the uni color explosion was in full, but i’d say 1979 was about the apex — and it wasn’t just powder blue, it was a whole rainbow of colors

        the uniforms were awful polyester and pullovers, but they were worn properly and with great strirrups (even if they were, for the most part, a tad too high) — and as many of our lifetime impressions are formed during our formative years, seeing color and powder doesn’t offend my senses as much as the softball top for softball top’s sake

        i would argue the mets (or A’s or royals or even the cincy reds during the Junior years) simply went with the bfbs to be trendy — had they completely remade their colors to include black (especially if it replaced, not supplemented, the blue), i might feel differently

        i rather liked the 1997 ice cream man where the snow whites were introduced — unfortunately, the fans and players weren’t so enamored.

        i believe this is the seminal moment in the BFBS, because they then decided to swap white for black on the cap and added a black dropshadow — after the ice cream man cap, the fans immediately embraced the bfbs replacement, which then led to their next brainstorm — if you can swap out white for black on the cap, why not do it on the jersey too?

        it’s NOT a NY color and it’s NOT a substitute for white — this of course necessitated the introduction of the ill-fated black road alternate, and the all black cap

        back to your point…

        was powder blue for powder blue’s sake our generation’s equivalent of this generation’s BFBS?

        it’s a fair point — there were, imho several teams who looked awful in PBFBPS, if you can call it that —

        in fact, ricko, mike engle and i took a look at those powder blues a couple years ago — and that was three generations looking back — some were good, some were bad, and some were awful

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 11:43 am |

          Just to clarify, Phil (far be it for me to dispute you)…

          The black two-tone cap (as you indicated, a substitution of black for white on the “ice cream cap”) and the black jersey appeared simultaneously in 1998 as a new “alternate” uniform. The black cap was only supposed to be worn with the black jersey. Unfortunately, the team decided to not only retain the now-unnecessary “snow whites” (thus having two “alternate” home uniforms), they added the black drop shadow to the script, numerals and NOB (which, mercifully, did not afflict the pinstripes until 1999) and, at some point during the 1998 season, decided to start wearing that two-tone black cap with all of their uniforms, not just the black jerseys, including the road grays which became an exclusive pairing but I’m not sure exactly when.

          The fact that the script on the black jerseys (blue with white outline, orange drop-shadow) didn’t match the logo on the two-tone cap (blue with orange outline) led to the adoption in 1999 of the all-black cap, with the logo colors matching the script on the black jerseys. The all-black cap was worn with the other home uniforms occasionally in 1999 and the early 2000’s but at some point they stopped doing that.

          I actually don’t mind the black jerseys nearly as much as I mind the wearing of the black or two-tone caps with any of the other uniforms.

        • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 11:55 am |

          thanks jay, for the clarification

          yeah…98 was bad for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they started getting good again, so there was, no doubt, an era of “good feeling” associated with the introduction of the black

          just like they wore the goddam black/blue caps last night, and won, i have a very bad feeling about all this

          as i said yesterday in the comments, i will accept this transgression as long as they wear the blue cap with the roads to break that losing streak

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

          As pathetic as they were on the road last year, you’d think someone would have thought of that. But noooooo….

        • walter | April 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

          For a couple of teams, blue road uniforms make sense (Blue Jays, Royals) but not many others.

      • The Jeff | April 22, 2011 at 11:13 am |

        Specifically: is BFBS our generation’s powder blue?

        Maybe. There is one major difference though: no one added powder blue trim. They simply swapped gray (which also wasn’t really a team color) for powder. Since no one was using it as a team color, it still sorta worked as being neutral. Black, on the other hand, is used a team color by quite a few teams.

      • walter | April 22, 2011 at 11:17 am |

        Yes, I’ll accept the Mets fell into using black because of a fad, but I’m happy with the result. For the most part, following fads is wrong-headed thinking.

    • M-DOGG | April 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

      I think the Mets look cool in black and I think orange and blue look good with black too. Note to haters: Mets have had black as one of their colors for a looong time now let’s stop whining. It looks good and helps distinguish them from the Yankees since they have a few different jerseys and hats while the yanks never switch it up. I just wish they still had the black road jersey with the New York script.

      • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

        That’s fine if you like it. Subjective taste is unaccountable. But there’s no need to be nasty.

        The fact that they’ve had it for 13 years (which I’m not sure is a “looong time”) doesn’t make it either attractive or sensible. Aesthetically, it doesn’t “distinguish them from the Yankees” any more or less than their original uniforms did, and many of us feel that the Yankees’ having one home uniform, one road uniform, one cap is a mark in the Yankees’ favor vis-à-vis the Mets.

        Disagreements over matters of personal taste are fine, and perfectly normal. Nastiness, on the other hand, can and should be controlled.

        Have a nice weekend.

        • walter | April 22, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

          Huh?

        • M-DOGG | April 22, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

          not sure why you thought my comments were nasty. i just don’t get what is so sacrilegious about the mets having black in their unis. the fact is lots of fans like it (and buy the hats and jerseys – if not we all know they woulda ditched it a long time ago). the constant complaining about it on this site is a little excessive. agree to disagree. but the mets black haters should admit not everyone shares their opinion.

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 5:37 pm |

          Referring to those who express an opinion that differs from your own as “haters” is nasty.

          Telling them to “stop whining” is nasty.

          The only people who “should admit not everyone shares their opinion” are those who would call others “haters” and demand that they “stop whining.”

          My comments are about the Mets’ black uniforms and the presence of black in their color scheme, not the people who like it. There is a difference between disparaging [X], and disparaging those who like [X].
          The fact that not everyone shares the same opinion, about any subject, is a given; it does not need to be acknowledged alongside every expression of opinion.

          I have never made a disparaging remark about, nor a condescending admonition to, people who like the black.

      • walter | April 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

        Kids! Kids! Be respectful.

        • M-DOGG | April 22, 2011 at 5:12 pm |

          btw no “nastiness” intended on my part!

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Still, they went with the road cap and black socks/sleeves — disappointing.

    Indeed.

    I had a bad feeling this would happen. So far they’d gone all blue at home for the first two homestands, a revelation in itself, but played like crap and lost relentlessly. I just knew somehow that they’d eventually go back to this hideous combination, win a game, and it’d be goodbye blue for another season.

    I’m starting to hate the Mets.

  • Matt | April 22, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Braves were wearing Boston throwbacks, not Milwaukee. Clear shot of the “B” on the hat, and they did switch to an “M” when they moved in 1953.

  • Paul | April 22, 2011 at 8:44 am |

    I’m pretty sure that the Braves were going all the way back to Boston. Hence, the “B” on their caps.

    • Bill Scheft | April 25, 2011 at 7:33 pm |

      And LOVING the striped pocket flaps on the pants, the one detail they left out when they went back to the classic Braves unis in Atlanta in the late 80s.

  • George | April 22, 2011 at 8:45 am |

    Photo gallery of theaters was something else. Reminded me of this one from near my hometown:

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

    • jdreyfuss | April 22, 2011 at 8:54 am |

      I used to pass that theater in Nacogdoches every time I drove between Cleveland and Houston. Between the harsh weather in East Texas and the economy, most of the area looks kind of run-down, so I never realized that theater was closed.

  • Bengals55 | April 22, 2011 at 8:49 am |

    Terry Collins never intended to use batting jerseys as the Mets never wore them in Spring Training. Terry meant the black/blue hat/helmet combo with the black accessories.

  • Terry Proctor | April 22, 2011 at 8:55 am |

    Paul, I’ve been to the Riviera Theater in Geneseo, NY many times. I remember that’s where we saw the 1968 version of “Romeo and Juliet.” The last I heard the balcony was deemed unsafe for use anymore.

    • Terry Proctor | April 22, 2011 at 9:07 am |

      BTW-The lettering on the top of the building isn’t for the month the building was built- it’s for the first owner’s last name “APRILE.” The Apriles still live in in Geneseo.

      • Broadway Connie | April 22, 2011 at 10:07 am |

        Family was named in honor of the first line of the Canterbury Tales.

    • Giancarlo | April 22, 2011 at 11:41 am |

      [i]The last I heard the balcony was deemed unsafe for use anymore.[/i]

      Hope someone told Juliet about this.

  • jdreyfuss | April 22, 2011 at 8:56 am |

    Interesting how the trend toward baggy pants, when the players all wear knickers, make the uniforms look an awful lot like the way they wore them back then.

  • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 8:59 am |

    That’s it. If Oregon is really wearing that jersey then something needs to be done. Those things have actual depictions of ribbons the military wears and that shit is not acceptable. It’s one thing to do all these BS tributes, but when you put real uniform pieces that we had to work, sweat, and bleed for then it crosses the line from stupid to offensive. I don’t care if it’s only a spring game either, it should never see the light of day.

    • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 9:19 am |

      Those things have actual depictions of ribbons the military wears and that shit is not acceptable.

      Acceptable or not, that shit is illegal. Except in Colorado and the Ninth Judicial Circuit, which includes Oregon, where 2010 court decisions have overturned the 2005 law. So technically, the federal law that makes it a crime to claim false credit for military honors won’t be in force against Nike or the Ducks. But anyone who wears that uniform elsewhere in the country will be committing a federal crime.

      Where’s the NCAA in this? A school is advertising its intentions to require its student-athletes to violate the criminal law of the land. Does this not concern the NCAA?

      It’s kind of outrageous to me that Nike can make this “performance” clothing for grown men playing a child’s game in soldier costumes, but it’s not making this performance clothing for the American soldiers and marines on the front lines.

      • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 9:24 am |

        I completely forgot about the legality of it! Now that I take a very close look at them I’m not sure those ribbons are true depictions of actual ribbons/medals, but I will look into it more closely and get back to you.

        Either way, it’s still pissing me off.

        • Dave | April 22, 2011 at 9:40 am |

          Werd.

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 9:42 am |

          Well, it does look like most of them are random, but the one top left under the flag (itself a violation of the U.S. Flag Code!) looks a lot like the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

        • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 10:05 am |

          If I could see them straight on it would be so much easier, but to me that top left one looks more like the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award http://en.wikipedia.... (I cant do that fancy embedding)

          The ribbon in the second row, center, looks a whole lot like a Navy Battle E ribbon, http://www.soldierci...

          Not to mention, like you said, the flag placement, and the fact that ribbons stack evenly from bottom to top, with the top row holding the fewest ribbons if it’s not full.

          Also, that swoosh should never be anywhere near those ribbons, real or not.

          And The Jeff, regarding your comment below, I understand that they are not claiming to have been awarded these ribbons/medals, but it’s still not acceptable in my book. I may be the minority, but I’m just stating my personal beliefs on the matter. Glad to see you agree on your last statement though.

      • The Jeff | April 22, 2011 at 9:43 am |

        I don’t think publicly stating that you’re wearing patches as a tribute is the same thing as claiming to have been awarded anything. So they aren’t against the spirit of that law, anyway. Not to mention that it seems to have been ruled unconstitutional multiple times. Good luck getting a charge to stick on a sports team when they can’t even succeed on an individual.

        All of these sports military tributes need to end, regardless.

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 10:00 am |

          First off, no it’s not different. Second, it’s been ruled unconstitutional twice, and only once at the circuit level, and there only in the Ninth Circuit, which is the circuit most often overruled by the Supreme Court. There are all kinds of laws against lying, and very few have ever been overturned on First Amendment grounds. And even if the 2005 Stolen Valor Act is eventually overturned in whole by the Supreme Court, which is unlikely, but even if it is, there are prior underlying federal laws that make the unearned display of military ribbons a crime, and those aspects of federal law have withstood repeated challenges over many decades and will remain on the books even of the Stolen Valor Act is overturned.

          But turning from law to ethics, there is no conceivable philosophical stance that would permit one to maintain, simultaneously, that military decorations are badges of honor and that it is permissible for one who has not earned that honor to wear a it for any reason. If it’s OK to wear a military ribbon one has not earned as a “tribute” to those who have earned it, then the ribbon has no distinctive value as an honor. One’s intentions in wearing a medal one has not earned are immaterial; the act of wearing the unearned honor negates the concept of medal-as-honor and thereby diminishes the honor.

        • The Jeff | April 22, 2011 at 10:49 am |

          So, where do you stand on a 12yr old dressing as a soldier for halloween and wearing copies of his dad/uncle/grandpa’s medals?

          Is honor being diminished there?

          I can see how honor would be diminished if the requirements for the medal are lessened and thus more people receive the award, but I fail too see how a fake or a false claim makes any difference. That guy (in the fake) may be a jackass, but I doubt any soldiers are suddenly feeling that what they did means nothing.

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 11:36 am |

          a 12yr old dressing as a soldier … honor being diminished there?

          To an extent, yes, but there’s an important flaw in your analogy: Children ≠ Adults. We don’t hold children to the same standards of propriety in conduct as adults, and afford them a wider range of permitted playing of make-believe, precisely because they are children and not adults. When a child flashes a toy badge and pretends to be a cop, she’s playing dress-up. When an adult does it, she’s committing the crime of impersonating a peace officer. When that child’s playmate puts on a bandana and brandishes a toy gun and says, “stick ’em up!” he’s playing cops-and-robbers. When an adult does it, he’s committing about half a dozen serious felonies.

          Look, ultimately, it boils down to this: If a physically fit man aged 18-22 who’s smart enough to get into college wants to demonstrate his patriotism by dressing up in soldier’s clothes, if he wants to wear his country’s flag on his sleeve, and if he wants to pin impressive satin ribbons to his chest, these folks will be happy to help him.

      • Jason Shane | April 22, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

        The Stolen Valor Act cannot be read without an element of intent to deceive. Not only has “the most-overturned circuit” held this, but so have some of the most conservative federal courts in the country (e.g., the USDC for the Western District of Virginia in the 2011 case U.S. v. Robbins).

        So, your claim that Oregon’s football uniforms are illegal in every state except Colorado and those encompassed within the Ninth Circuit is, well, wrong. To say that the Oregon football team intends for the world to believe they are the recipients of these medals and awards is a stretch. Even absent the Ninth Circuit holding in U.S. v. Alvarez, I can’t imagine any criminal charges against Oregon, its staff, or its players would survive a dispositive motion by the defense.

        • Jason Shane | April 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

          This being said, I can’t stand camo uniforms. But that Dodgers-Braves game yesterday was B-E-A-UTIFUL.

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

          Good catch about U.S. v. Robbins, and I see that I might have missed other district court rulings. Still, there are elements of the federal code that predate the Stolen Valor Act that specifically address the issue of merit and valor citations. The problem with Stolen Valor, from a potential First Amendment stance, is that it deals more broadly with false representation and claims generally. Even where Stolen Valor is not in force due to judicial action, narrower prior federal laws (Title XVIII §704, which I believe has been on the books in only slightly amended form since 1940) against trading in and wearing unearned decorations remain in force.

    • JohnnySeoul | April 22, 2011 at 9:53 am |

      Woah….chill out. All of these uniforms are given away to the troops after the game anyways. I’ve shown these pics all around my base up here and 9/10 love them. But I’m done trying to defend the military tributes on here. Always ends up being an “agree to disagree” convo. Kudos to the Ducks for these perfect uni’s!!

      • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 10:11 am |

        So you’re OK with civilians claiming to have earned whatever awards for merit and valor you’ve been awarded? That’s cool; I respect your open-mindedness.

        And dude, life is an agree to disagree affair. That’s what makes conversation interesting!

        • JohnnySeoul | April 22, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          A supposed medal/ribbon made out of jersey material versus the real deal that I’ve earned are not even close to comparison. I’ve seen Halloween military costumes with ribbons and medals too, that shouldn’t offend anyone either.

      • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 10:12 am |

        Johnny, I think you and I have discussed this type of thing on here before and you’re right that it’s something none of us will probably ever totally agree on. I’m fine with that. I’m not trying to cause big arguments, I just had a pretty fired up reaction when I saw the image and wanted to share my opinion. No worries!

      • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 10:16 am |

        Kudos to the Ducks for these perfect uni’s!!

        ~~~

        now there’s a phrase you don’t hear…ever

        especially when it refers to camo unis

      • Eric | April 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

        I don’t see how people are getting their panties all bunched up. They aren’t trying to claim that the players earned all these awards. It looks as if they put ribbons that represent all the branches of the military instead of just honoring one service branch per jersey. The whole spring game day is about honoring the military since Chip Kelly is really interested in it after visiting the troops last year and seeing their commitment to a tough job. They are also selling T-shirts online that will have a portion of the proceeds going to support families of troops deployed overseas.

        http://www.shopgoduc...

        • jdreyfuss | April 22, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

          The ‘portion of the proceeds’ thing always bothers me. Why don’t they just specify what portion is going to the troops? When I’m giving my money to charity, I always want to know exactly how much of it is going where I intend.

        • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

          It upsets me because it is totally unnecessary. You can do a million other things to “honor the military”, or support the troops, whatever they want to call their advertising angle. It’s all just another attempt to get people to buy their stuff. To use the angle that so many schools/companies use to tug at civilians’ heartstrings is just low to me. I totally understand other peoples opinions on the matter, I really do. I just feel very strongly that it does the opposite of what they claim they’re trying to accomplish. I’d rather observe a moment of silence before a game than see the most realistic and “respectful” representation of a military uniform on a jersey. People look at these uniforms and think “look at those cool jerseys!” when the point is supposedly to get people to think “I’m proud of our men and women in uniform”. I just don’t get it, guess I never will.

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

          Hey, Chip Kelly, if you’re concerned about the “tough job” our men and women in uniform are doing, and if you happen to know any physically fit, mentally tough young Americans, you could encourage them to visit this link.

          I mean, just on the off chance Chip Kelly ever encounters any strong, intelligent young adults of good character in the course of his job.

        • Eric | April 22, 2011 at 6:09 pm |

          RS Rogers, sounds like you have some sort of problem with Chip and the way he’s having the Oregon football program honor the military. There is no ulterior motive for them doing this as Chip is very genuine in supporting the military and their families. He arranged for his players do pen pal letters with different military members this past years and the players really took it to heart what people their own age sacrifice while they enjoy the comfort of school and football. Plus, Chip keeps a weather app on his phone set to Iraq and Afghanistan to show that he, his staff, and team have nothing to complain about when it comes to weather during practice and games.

  • DJ | April 22, 2011 at 9:04 am |

    The yellow kit for RSL is not new — they introduced it a year ago, IIRC, for their first appearance in the CONCACAF Champions League.

    • TSP Calvin | April 22, 2011 at 10:33 am |

      Yep, it’s got their Victory Gold set. The hilarious thing about them is that every game played in them thus far, including the one in Mexico, have been draws. Draw Gold is more like it.

      • Lee | April 22, 2011 at 11:13 am |

        Calvin, the draw in Mexico on Wednesday was indeed a victory.

        Lee

        • The Red Dog | April 22, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

          Especially with the road goals.

          They look great in yellow btw.

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 9:05 am |

    I think that first abandoned theatre, labeled “Hudson Valley, New York,” is the auditorium at Bennett College, a former junior college for women in Millbrook, NY that closed around 1978. I grew up in Millbrook and rode/drove past Bennett College and its massive, magnificent main building, Halcyon Hall, practically every day from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, as the abandoned structure slowly deteriorated. I never, however, managed to get inside or see it up close.

    The website linked above contains these photos taken inside Halcyon Hall in 2004.

    • Broadway Connie | April 22, 2011 at 9:43 am |

      So, Zep, how long ago since you grew up in Millbrook? Are you Timothy Leary era or Liam Neeson era? Who are the celeb markers in between? Still a nice town, with the Millbrook Diner honoring history with traditional American roadside bland under-seasoned grub…

      Just want to say that the whole abandoned-theatres feature is really cool and yep, sad too. Thanks, Traxel. Sad monuments to the de-pedestrianization of US life.

      And thanks, Paul, for the answer to a most excellent barstool quz question: “…Small item on ESPN New York notes that Jesse Orosco’s career win-loss record was 47-47 — which matches the uni number he wore for almost his entire career…”

      • Graf Zeppelin | April 22, 2011 at 9:57 am |

        I lived there from about 1975 until about 1992. Not sure what era that is. Mary Tyler Moore and her husband, a cardiologist named Robert Levine, moved in down the road from us circa 1986. I once saw David Strathairn in the Corner News Store. My father sold our house in 1997 to another celebrity couple, but I won’t say which one. :)

      • traxel | April 22, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

        I’ve been a part of our local 1949 Art Moderne theater being restored down here in Poplar Bluff, MO. It is a great old building. When a friend forwarded me that link it made me thankful that ours had not fallen into the disrepare of some of those. Though our Rodgers Theatre certainly still needs a lot of work it has been wonderful to see it transformed from a closed down movie house to a live performance venue with about 30 concerts a year, all within the last 5 years. Been a big part of our downtown revitalization as well. If anyone has the opportunity, please don’t hesitate to get involved with your community on something like this. It can be quite rewarding and educational.

  • JB | April 22, 2011 at 9:07 am |

    Jack Norworth, who wrote “Take Me Out to The Ballgame,” and yet never attended a game, also wrote “Shine On Harvest Moon.” Ah, the things you learn watching The West Wing. And yes, I checked it out to confirm.

    • Broadway Connie | April 22, 2011 at 9:45 am |

      Nor had he ever been within twenty miles of a harvest.

  • Rob S | April 22, 2011 at 9:22 am |
  • Giulio | April 22, 2011 at 9:23 am |

    The caps were manufactured by New Era, right? The crown — particularly on the Boston Braves caps — looks soft, like there’s little or no structure under the front two panels of the cap. Is it just me?

    • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 9:36 am |

      I’m assuming they were made by New Era, but I don’t know that for a fact.

      NE does offer a low-crown version. Maybe that’s what was used here.

    • Ry Co 40 | April 22, 2011 at 10:28 am |

      yeah, they offer a low-pro version. or you could take about a half hour and cut off/out the plastic white part from inside the front 2 panels. i’ve done it to a few hats. works great!

  • Rob S | April 22, 2011 at 9:43 am |

    I’ve never heard of someone getting a “case” on their leg… looks like a cast to me.

    #morningcoffee

  • Ricko | April 22, 2011 at 9:57 am |

    This….
    http://cache.daylife...
    reminded me of this (sorta)…
    http://www.sportsvid...

  • Ry Co 40 | April 22, 2011 at 10:10 am |

    friday night lights auction (i don’t watch the show)

    http://nbcuauctions....

    • JTH | April 22, 2011 at 10:56 am |

      You should.

  • Chris Holder | April 22, 2011 at 10:15 am |

    I’m a Braves fan. You don’t know how much I wish the Braves would make those uniforms their permanent road set (with I guess making the cap have an “A”, and a RED BILL). Who cares that it doesn’t say “Atlanta”, people know where the teams are from. That jersey, with the black tomahawk, is awesome. And those socks? They are damn near uni-perfection, in my eyes. Just a fabulous set which makes me cringe to think of the pajama pants and navy blue road jerseys/all-blue hat which will probably be showing up today in San Francisco. Sigh.

    • pflava | April 22, 2011 at 11:15 am |

      Braves fan here, too, and I agree 100%. Those uniforms are freaking phenomenal!

    • Seth F | April 22, 2011 at 11:40 am |

      That makes three of us. And to add insult to ugliness, don’t the Giants wear their Halloween shirts for Friday home games? The Braves could go from the best looking game of the year straight into the worst looking game of the year.

      • Simply Moono | April 22, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

        Make it four. #TomahawkChop B)

    • M.Princip | April 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

      Oh man, I never really cared(had a thing) for baseball stirrups, however, that all changed yesterday after seeing the Braves sweet uniform ensemble. Very very cool!
      I get the same feeling looking at those stirrups as I do looking at that sick throwback Falcons lid.

      • Jet | April 22, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

        Indeed, that Braves uni is quite a righteous look. And those ‘rrups… hose me down!

        -Jet

        • David Murphy | April 22, 2011 at 10:25 pm |

          Add me to the list…uni perfection. They even got the trim on the pants pocket flap right. In 62 the M braves wore that same uni with large red NOBs.

  • ClubMedSux | April 22, 2011 at 10:27 am |

    . . . Clayton Kershaw had a rather unfortunate look.

    Now where have I seen that look before?

    Oh, right!

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 10:32 am |

      actually, it was more like this

  • markw | April 22, 2011 at 10:36 am |

    Wouldn’t LoMo’s cast look better if he painted a stirrup pattern on it?

  • JimWa | April 22, 2011 at 10:37 am |

    Sorry I’m not commenting yet … still searching for my Paradise Theatre album … uncontrollable urge … must … play … album …

  • Geeman | April 22, 2011 at 11:30 am |

    Good God almighty. Oregon is definitely going too far. You can be court-martialed in the military for wearing a ribbon you are not authorized to wear. DON’T WEAR THEM IF YOU HAVEN’T EARNED THEM! PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

    If you want to be a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman, join up!

    • Coleman | April 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

      Agreed. We are discussing it in detail up above in the comments. Just look for the comment with about 1000 replies ;)

  • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 11:42 am |

    Any chance that, if they’re popular enough with fans, the ersatins will become the basis for a full-time Dodgers alt uniform in future? The Dodgers have tried to go down the solid-color alt road before, with terrible results, but aside from the delightful throwbackiness of it, this just a terrific uniform. Distinctive, and also bright enough to work as home unis without completely destroying baseball’s whole home-team-lighter, visiting-team-darker, aesthetic. Change the script to Dodgers, put the regular cap on it, and voila! One of the best, indeed one of the only actually good, alternate unis in MLB.

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 11:46 am |

      no way scotty

      as clayton kershaw and davey lopes reminded us, those puppies need to be tailored perfectly for them to work — and there’s no way the players will do that for the sake of authenticity — they’ll wear them in today’s tailoring and that will, quite frankly, look AWFUL

      now, if you want to start a petition to get the braves to return to yesterday’s uni for their homes, i’ll be the first signer (maybe they could lose the “brave” patch, however)

      but the ersatins are best left as a six-time only “funzie” — i still wish the fans would have chosen the 1911 (i think, doing that from memory) vertical placket “BROOKLYN” for their modern interpretation

      perhaps that’s what they can do next year

      • Geeman | April 22, 2011 at 11:58 am |

        The Dodgers have one of the best home uniforms in baseball, as do the Braves. Why would you want to change either one?

        • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

          black tomahawk & striped rups > red tomahawk and solid rups (if they even show them) — i think they look like this

        • pflava | April 22, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

          I don’t think anyone was advocating a full time change for the Dodgers. Scott was just wondering about the possibility of the throwbacks becoming a regular alternate.

          As for the Braves – yes, they have great home uniforms. But you make the tomahawk dark and…man, even better!

        • Broadway Connie | April 22, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

          Absolutely, Felipe. That black tomahawk w striped rups is a Top-Ten All-Time.

      • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

        I hear you, Phil. If ever there was a team that doesn’t need an alt uni, ever, it’s the Dodgers. (Also the Braves, but the Braves have so hugely invested in the alt business, jersey and caps, that their unis are no longer worth defending. They’re just another Toronto- or Mets-level bad-uni team now.) But since alts are becoming so much the norm, I almost see the ersatins as an opportunity for the Dodgers to inoculate themselves against worse alts. Wearing ersatin-inspired alts once a week at home would be infinitely better than any potential alternative, right?

        • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

          If ever there was a team that doesn’t need an alt uni, ever, it’s the Dodgers MLB

          ~~~
          (fixed)

        • ClubMedSux | April 22, 2011 at 5:30 pm |

          Took me a while to figure out if you were suggesting that nobody should have alts, or if you were riffing on MLB’s takeover of the Dodgers. Pretty sure you meant the former, but the double-entendre is pretty funny.

  • pflava | April 22, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

    http://becksbrands.f...

    If that were an every day reality, I think it pushes the Tigers home aside as mlb’s best set.

  • JTH | April 22, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

    As an aside, Phil notes how rare it is to see a game in which both teams are wearing caps representing cities other than the ones in which they play. I couldn’t think of another MLB instance of this
    Also interesting: both caps had the letter B on them.

    • JTH | April 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

      When the Braves & Brewers did that “Braves vs. Braves” throwback game in Milwaukee, the Brewers wore Milwaukee Braves unis, but did the Braves wear Boston throwbacks?

      That’s not quite what we’re looking for but that would have been same city/different franchise vs. different city/same franchise.

      Or did Atlanta just wear their regular uniforms for that game? I really can’t remember.

      • Dave Mac | April 22, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

        No. The Braves wore their standard Atlanta road jerseys. The concept was more like: “The current Braves franchise against the old Milwaukee Braves team that used to play in this city.” And being at one of those games, I can say it was pretty awesome. Even the scoreboard and announcers called the Brewers “your Milwaukee Braves” and acted as if you were watching the old Milwaukee franchise.

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

      spanks — i actually gave that as an example to paul — and im 99.99% sure the braves did wear boston t-backs — lemme check henderson

      • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

        dammit — game photo is inconclusive, but henderson didn’t note any special uni for the “atlanta” team, and looking through the braves section of his guide, they don’t show a special uni for the boston braves for 2004

        now i am left thinking only milwaukee threw back and the braves wore their normal unis (which wouldn’t surprise me that much, now that i think about it)

  • Nathan | April 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

    The Braves actually wore the Northwestern striped socks as a regular part of their uniform in 2001, but very few players showed the stripes, and they were gone after one season…

    http://biy.ly/fz2J0a

    • Nathan | April 22, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

      Well, that link didn’t exactly work…

      Let’s try this one:
      http://shop.sportswo...

      • M.Princip | April 22, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

        Damn! Where can I get those? They need to bring these back, pronto!

  • interlockingtc | April 22, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

    What I love about that Dodgers throwback is how the white sits so quietly upon the light blue, but you absolutely see it. No trim. Just white on light blue. Like the old KC Royals polyesters. Man that looks good.

    Trim kills.

    • JTH | April 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

      Trim kills.

      You should get that tattooed somewhere.

    • pflava | April 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

      http://lesterslegend...

      Reminds me of these as well. That was a sweet uni.

    • Geeman | April 22, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

      Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Dodger throwbacks are an eyesore to me, and I can’t stand any of the powder blue road uniforms from the 1970s and ’80s even though those were my formative baseball years. Light blue is a great color (see UNC)), but not here. Sorry. Just one man’s opinion.

      • Geeman | April 22, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

        Let me modify what I said above. George Brett makes any uniform look great. What a great ball player he was in the clutch too.

  • Joe | April 22, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

    I wish I could buy one of those Dodgers and Braves throwback jerseys. Do you know whether MLB will offer replica versions for sale?

    • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

      Just a guess, but I’d bet it’ll be offered for sale to fans only when Majestic takes over manufacturing them for the team later this year.

  • LarryB | April 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

    My goodness the Braves looked sharp.

  • Tape | April 22, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

    It should be noted that Jesse Orosco’s career W-L record WITH THE METS is 47-47. His overall career W-L is 87-80.

    • Paul Lukas | April 22, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

      Ah, thanks for that correction.

  • Original Jim | April 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

    ESPNU is showing college baseball with Bethune-Cookman against Coppin State. Coppin wears powder blue. B-C is wearing a pink gradient alternate in honor of Good Friday/Easter weekend. They’re also wearing pink sanitaries under maroon stirrups. Also have pink belts and wrist bands.

    I thought it was a breast cancer thing, but they showed a display of the pink-trimmed cap surrounded by a bunny and marshmallow Peeps.

    • Original Jim | April 22, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

      The commentators are now saying it is in honor of breast cancer awareness. The opening graphic was misleading.

      Players also have pink shoelaces.

  • EMAW | April 22, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

    K-State will have a new field design next year:

    http://grfx.cstv.com...

    http://www.kstatespo...

  • Spalding | April 22, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

    Thank you SO MUCH for the Charles Ives stuff! I love him, and I love baseball, and I can’t believe I did not know about this book! HOT! … and if you passed on the above Ives links, consider having a look. He was a pioneer, a truly GREAT American composer. Also, those Braves uniforms were scorching! Handsome game!

  • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

    Twins will be wearing green caps with an all-white TC logo tonight for Earth Day.

    Demonstrates two things to me: One, the Twins really should have switched to either blue and green or green and red when they moved outdoors; and Two, the TC logo looks so much better when you can see both letters, instead of making the T light and the C dark on a dark cap.

    • interlockingtc | April 22, 2011 at 5:10 pm |

      Sorry, RS, wrong on both counts.

      No way do the Twins change colors. The Twins are blue, red and white. Period.

      Personally, I like how the red C bleeds into the navy cap. It’s such a curious, interesting, endearing logo and that distinction contributes to it’s intrigue.

      • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 6:00 pm |

        i’ll agree with scotty on one point, jim — i’d like to see the tc one color — but that color should be red — the only white on that uni should be the white (or cream) homes

        and i’ll agree with you on one point jim — twins are red, white (but the white should come from the uni, not from piping/striping) and blue…they don’t need any outlines on their logos or wordmarks — the red on blue (or plain ole blue on red, as opposed to adding a white outline) is best

        i also prefer the twins with a red crown/blue bill instead of the reverse

        • RS Rogers | April 22, 2011 at 6:12 pm |

          You know, I’ve completely come around on the red cap with the blue bill. I used to just absolutely hate it back when that was the Twins actual cap. (Maybe I was blaming the cap for the overall ugliness of their pre-1987 unis.) But just in the last couple of years, after the Twins brought it back briefly as an alt, it’s really grown on me. I think the navy C on red is much clearer and more visible than the red C on navy, for one thing. For another, it’s a distinctive cap combo that would be unique in baseball. Someone ought to wear a red cap with a blue brim; if not the Twins, then the Indians, and if not the Indians, then the Nats.

        • Jim Vilk | April 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm |

          Always loved the red cap with blue bill.

  • christian | April 22, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

    two things:
    1. Kershaw looked really stupid with those pants.
    2. Why are players not allowed to hook their cuffs to their spikes on their cleats?

    • jdreyfuss | April 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm |

      MLB said it was illegal after Barry Bonds started the trend. I don’t remember why, probably something to do with destroying the uniform or something.

  • Dave | April 22, 2011 at 5:52 pm |

    I was reading Brian Cronin’s “Baseball Legends Revealed” (http://legendsreveal...)today, and came across this: http://legendsreveal...

    The oddness of the non-matching knees aside, I don’t think I’ve ever seen padded pants like that before. Are they supposed to take the place of sliding pads?

  • jdreyfuss | April 22, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

    Who is the NBA playoffs lead in singer for ESPN and why is she desecrating one of Led Zeppelin’s best songs?

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm |

      GAH….they just did it at halftime too

    • Jim Vilk | April 22, 2011 at 11:03 pm |

      Who is Led Zeppelin and why is one of their songs desecrating the NBA playoffs on ESPN?

      /fixed

  • Jack | April 22, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

    Yes. The Mets wear the snow whites with black brims AND THEY win! Keep the cream soda uniforms in the closet. They wear them and loose. AND BLACK IS BACK TONIGHT! I LOVE IT! BLACK IS NOT DEAD!

    • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 7:42 pm |

      must be cold

      have you seen the forecast?

      • Simply Moono | April 22, 2011 at 8:25 pm |

        Right on, Phil B)

    • Jack | April 22, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

      WOW 2 in a ROW! It’s Miller time.

  • Marc from Brooklyn | April 22, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

    They said during last night’s game that the Mets wore the snow whites with black undershirts and socks because they were successful in them during spring training. The Mets usually wear their cool base snow whites in spring training rather than the BP “t-shirt” crap. I cannot imagine they would wear cool base in last night’s cold and wind. Willie Harris donned an Elmer Fudd cap when he replaced Angel Pagan in center.

    • Jack | April 22, 2011 at 10:17 pm |

      Mets are wearing all cool base now. Even tonight.

    • Jack | April 22, 2011 at 10:20 pm |

      By the way there is still nothing cool about cool base. I still sweat the same amount on a hot day wearing cool base as I do wearing a double knit when I go to a game. The only benefit is it is not as itchy or rough.

  • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 10:02 pm |

    hey MARTY HICK (and anyone in St. Looie)

    hope all is well with y’all

    • traxel | April 22, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

      Just reemerged from the basement, sounds like the airport area in St. Louis took a hit. One just went about a mile north of us. All okay here.

      Hey Phil, whatcha think of that 3R stirrup????

      • LI Phil | April 22, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

        meh

        not a fan of wordmarks/logos on rups — that includes the new ones that dj carrasco has been wearing for various teams as well as the old liberty bells (jamie moyer for one) — even the astros rup with the star (see jerry reuss’ stuff for that) — just is too small unless close up to read, and usually detracts from the overall appearance

        one exception: i love this

        • traxel | April 23, 2011 at 12:37 am |

          Well, at least they are wearing striped stirrups. I figured RyCo and the others in Pittsburgh might like ’em.

          That White Sox one, don’t get me wrong – I like it a lot, but it makes the least sense of any of them. Come on, a picture of a sock on a sock? That’s just dumb. Cool dumb, but dumb none the less.

        • BurghFan | April 23, 2011 at 5:53 am |

          I think Bill Veeck called it “decadent”.

  • CWac19 | April 22, 2011 at 10:14 pm |

    Can we pinpoint exactly when the -OUT became officially “played out”? I’m not sure if the Hornets’ “yellow-OUT” or the Thunder’s “shade-of-blue-that-doesn’t-match-our-uniforms-OUT” is worse…

  • Johnny O | April 22, 2011 at 11:02 pm |

    That is one of the greatest lead photos I have ever seen. So classic. As good as the Dodger uniforms were, those Braves uniforms are borderline perfection.

  • Chris from Carver | April 22, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

    Watching the Red Sox-Angels game tonight is a study of opposites. On one hand, you have the Angels in their throwbacks, which look dynamite with the navy undershirts. On the other hand, you have the Red Sox wearing the softball tops and horrendous “hanging sox” hat. Manager says, “Everytime they wear the “hanging sox” hat, Bud Selig tries to add another playoff team.”

  • =bg= | April 22, 2011 at 11:18 pm |

    watching the Giants hosting the Braves now. I must say, I truly like the Giants orange tops. Now, why won’t they wear the cap with the orange brim (the Sun only one) with them?

    Oh, yeah, we’re losing 4-0.

    • traxel | April 23, 2011 at 12:42 am |

      Count me in for the orange top as well. And the orange bill – yes, why aren’t they wearing it?

      And another YES for the braves throwbacks. Those are my favorite stirrups.

      Question: How much of the uniform opinion is made simply by the way it’s worn? Case in point, I can’t bring myself to like those Dodger blues. But if they were worn tailored correctly I would probably change my mind. Too much pajama blue as is.

  • Pat | April 22, 2011 at 11:26 pm |

    New England Revolution now have a sponsor on the front of their uni. They’ll be debuting it tomorrow. It’s a health care company.

    http://revolutionsoc...

  • JTH | April 23, 2011 at 1:25 am |

    Holy shit. If you happen to be fortunate enough to live in/near one of the 6 or 7 American cities the Arcade Fire deems worthy of playing in, by all means, do it.

    Wait. Was that off-topic?

    Ummm….

    I wore my Canadiens barber pole jersey to the show tonight.

    • traxel | April 23, 2011 at 1:32 am |

      Uh huh. We know you were really at the Rick Astley show.

  • JTH | April 23, 2011 at 1:51 am |

    Shit. That was tonight? I guess I’ll just have to aduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssssssstttttttttt

    • JTH | April 23, 2011 at 1:52 am |

      A) that should have been a reply to Ben Traxel.
      B) I missed a J. adJuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssssssssssssssstttttttttt
      *much better*

  • bbliksteen | April 23, 2011 at 3:00 am |

    –how rare it is to see a game in which both teams are wearing caps representing cities other than the ones in which they play.–

    I seem to remember a few years back (8 or 9?) the giants playing the A’s in throwbacks to the NY/Philadelphia days. I’m sure this has happened a few more times among various teams. worth looking further into i say.

    Lets just hope we see more of these throwback on throwback games with the Dodgers this year. We might get another former cities matchup again (LA-SF?)

  • Dave | April 23, 2011 at 3:22 am |

    The Dodgers’ remaining throwback games are against the Cubs, Reds, Tigers, Phillies, and Padres, so no chance of former cities.