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

Auction Action

Screen shot 2011-05-24 at 10.23.14 AM.png

The increasingly indispensable Mike Hersh spotted quite a few items of interest in the latest Leland’s auction catalog. In the words of a Bud Light ad agency copywriter, here we go:

• Whoa, baseball scorecards used to look just a little bit different than they look today (here’s the full auction listing).

• Hmmm, which one of these things is not like the other? Seriously, did they put an eye patch on the Pirates bobble? Jeez (full listing).

• And if that isn’t in bad enough taste for you, try this Indians cookie jar (full listing).

• Here’s yet another one that’s in questionable taste, which is a shame, because it’s a really nice piece of art (full listing).

• Did you know Joe D. had his own private-labeled stock of wine? I didn’t, until now (full listing).

• Speaking of the intersection of baseball and booze, check out Orioles beer stein (full listing).

• Oooooh, I would love to score this 1890s baseball uniform catalog, complete with swatches (full listing).

• Dig this century-old Cubs logo patch, apparently taken from a team jacket — an early version of the wishbone C (full listing).

• We’ve talked a lot lately about the unsual uniform protocols at the Dodgers’ old spring training camps, but here’s something we have seen before: a spring training jacket (full listing).

• This is pretty great: blueprints for Fenway Park (full listing).

• In 2008, the Rays wore Jacksonville Red Caps throwback road grays for a Negro Leagues tribute game. Here’s the home version of that uniform (full listing).

• Finally, how cool would it be to have this coin-op game in your house? Answer: very (full listing).

+ + + + +

Baseball Rule Book Cover.jpg

Made to be broken: During the bottom of the 8th of last night’s Mets/Brewers broadcast, SNY play-by-play man Gary Cohen noted that the Brewers didn’t have anyone in the on-deck circle (the pitcher’s spot was due, and they apparently hadn’t decided yet whether they were going to pinch-hit, or else they hadn’t settled on who that pinch-hitter would be). “Technically, that’s not allowed,” noted Cohen, because the rulebook specifies that a team must always have someone on deck. “But of course it’s never enforced.”

That got me thinking. Which other rules are never enforced? The one about the base coaches staying in their coaching boxes comes to mind, and maybe the one about the catcher not leaving the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand during an intentional walk. Interestingly, those two, plus the on deck rule, all concern players being positioned in particular spots.

I’m sure there are plenty more, and lots of additional examples in other sports. Just to be clear here, I’m not talking about something like, say, the traveling rule in basketball, which has certainly been watered down but is still called now and then. I’m talking about rules that are never enforced, even though they’re routinely flouted. If you have some of those, send them here.

ESPN reminder: In case you missed it yesterday afternoon, my latest ESPN column, about a woman who provides closed captioning for hearing-impaired fans at several MLB ballparks (more interesting than it probably sounds like), can be found here.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Weird scene last night in Cleveland, as Francisco Lariano inexplicably wore red undersleeves. “Might be a first in Twins history,” says Ricko. … When Ryan Zimmerman was recently rehabbing with the Hagerstown Suns, his jersey didn’t have the American flag sleeve patch (as noted by William Yurasko). … Some changes afoot for the Jack Daniel’s label design. … “NPB just released the practice uniforms for the All-Star game,” writes Jeremy Brahm. “They are the same color for both the Central and Pacific Leagues, even the hats, so it’s a little weird, but it’s supposed to reflect how people are uniting as one under the ‘Gambaro Japan’ campaign that has swept the nation since the tsunami.” … Want your lawn to have a stripe pattern, like a big league outfield? Look here (thanks, Kirsten). … Michigan football’s Facebook page has been featuring lots of old Wolverines photos (with thanks to Gary Streeting). … Planning on altering your logo? Careful — people often don’t like that (with thanks to Christian Eidt). … This is pretty cool: Chad Todd sent along a chart of NBA championship rings broken down by team. I could be mistaken, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen any championship rings depicted in schematic form (as opposed to photographs) before. … Adrian Acosta spotted this Michael Jordan Space Jam cookie jar in an antique shop. … Want your team to perform more explosively? Maybe they should dress in red (with thanks to Tom Mulgrew). … Starting next year, the Tour de France’s yellow jersey will no longer be sponsored by Nike (with thanks to Steve King). … The New Yorker runs a “Come up with the caption for this cartoon” contest every week, and this week’s installment is right up Uni Watch’s alley. … Nate Kurant recently saw a high school baseball game where the visiting team brought white uniforms for some reason, creating a rare white-on-white match-up. … Brad Eckensberger spotted a Ravens bus parked in Manhattan on Sunday. … Dave Eskenazi’s latest article about Seattle-area sports history focuses on a basketball team that wore tartan shorts. Full details here. … Also from Dave: Check out the, uh, tasteful chest emblem worn by the Fort Smith (Arkansas) Twins. Yeesh. … New soccer kit for South Africa. … Colorado football supposedly has big changes in the works for 2012 (with thanks to Matthew Robins). … A member of the New Zealand Parliament was kicked out of the chamber the other day for wearing a rugby jersey. … Robert Marshall has just completed another batch of bobbleheads: Sparky (photos, video), Wiffle (photos, video), and BlueJax (photos, video). … Jerry Reuss has compiled a nice selection of scans from old Cardinals programs. … As messed up as the Mets’ mix-and-match uni program has been, at least they’ve never worn their blue cap with their black jersey — until now. Okay, so it was only at Terry Collins’s postgame presser a few nights ago, but still (ace screen shot by Terence Kearns). … If the sight of really plain jerseys oh-so-dramatically emerging from a cardboard box is the kind of thing that gives you a blood rush, then you’ll really love this video of the arrival of the new Penn State jerseys (with thanks to Chris Flinn). … I think we may have run this before, but just in case: The Canucks’ web site has a page devoted to how to spot a counterfeit jersey (with thanks to Daren Landers).

 

173 comments to Auction Action

  • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 7:48 am |

    clearly ryan zimmerman hates america

  • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 8:06 am |

    Interesting that the rulebook photo above is dated 1976, but it’s still using the pre-1968 MLB logo.

    Another unenforced rule in baseball. 8.04:

    When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

    • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 8:11 am |

      Please e-mail unenforced rules to me. If you want to post them here as well, that’s fine, but they won’t go into my hopper unless you e-mail them to me. Thanks.

      • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 8:17 am |

        the rule that either the red sox or yankees, or preferably both, being shown every sunday night on espn, seems to be routinely flouted

    • Chance Michaels | June 8, 2011 at 9:53 am |

      Interesting that the rulebook photo above is dated 1976, but it’s still using the pre-1968 MLB logo.

      Baseball actually used that logo well into the 1970s (if not the 1980s).

      I believe that logo was only used by the Commissioner’s Office, as opposed to the Jerry Dior leagues-wide logo, but can’t support that.

      • timmy b | June 8, 2011 at 10:21 am |

        Did MLB even have an official logo before the 100th Anniversary logo evolved into the offical MLB logo (Dior)?

        • Bruce Menard | June 8, 2011 at 10:47 am |

          The individual leagues did (AL/NL), but I don’t recall seeing a MLB logo prior to the 100th Anniversary one.

    • MPowers1634 | June 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

      NFHS, which governs HS baseball alots 20 seconds instead of 12!

  • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 8:06 am |

    Have to say, I’d rather see the Mets wear a black jersey with the blue cap than wear a black cap with any jersey. I find that I mind jersey shenanigans a lot less than I mind messing with caps, at least for teams with such iconic caps as da Mets. Perhaps there’s such a tradition of treating jersey color as a canvass unrelated to team colors that I can see my way past non-team-color jersey. If gray, why not black, you know. But there’s no such tradition for caps.

  • Tim E. O'B | June 8, 2011 at 8:26 am |

    Since when do Authentic jerseys come with fight straps? It’s not like they’re game worn, they’re souvenirs.

    Fuckin’ Canada.

    • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 8:32 am |

      Better question: Since when do fans wear jerseys? It’s not like they’re athletes — they’re fans.

      • SimulatedSteve | June 8, 2011 at 8:58 am |

        Better Answer: Paul, Let it go.

        I understand your angst of any male over 25 who does not have a team contract donning a jersey. Maybe teams should post dress codes and all males should wear suits and fedoras to games like in the 50’s?

        But to me there has always been a certain charm to when team tradition extends beyond the playing surface an into the stands and that includes fan attire.

        I recall being at a Nebraska Cornhusker football game and could scan the entire stadium and count the select few fans not wearing a white or red shirt.

        Something about attending a St. Louis Cardinal game and being cloaked by the fans draped in red.

        Yes, there is a difference between wearing your teams colors and wearing a jersey. But for as long as I remember there has always been a certain type of protocol in NHL rinks of fans sporting the sweater. To me, this just works in the NHL.

        How cool was it to see the “C” of Red in Calgary? I swear you couldn’t get in to that building without wearing the home sweater.

        Sure, every idiot with a ticket can wave a towel or jump up a scream in the $3 Haines Beefy-T given at the turnstile or sing Go Cubs Go when prompted by the jumbo tron.

        But when fandom takes it upon their own to bring an atmosphere to the game, I just embrace it. From octopus on the ice in Detroit, Saluting the Anthem in Chicago and wearing jerseys/sweaters in the stands.

        • Aaron | June 8, 2011 at 9:40 am |

          Am I the only male 25 or under that would totally jump on the suit & hat dress code at stadiums? Maybe not necessarily a jacket, but at least a button down shirt with a tie strongly encouraged.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 10:05 am |

          Yes Aaron, yes you are. (or at least you’re in a pretty small minority)

          Isn’t a suit & tie considered serious clothing? Don’t we go to sporting events to have fun? Seems like a conflict to me. Besides that… you really want to accidentally dip your tie in your nachos?

        • timmy b | June 8, 2011 at 10:25 am |

          This is certainly not just a North American phenomenon. Check out any Premier League match on TV and there are LOADS of English supporters at the grounds 50+ years old wearing their team’s shirts.

        • Aaron | June 8, 2011 at 11:10 am |

          I can say I’ve been to a baseball in a shirt and tie. It was after an interview, to be fair, but I really enjoyed. And even managed to keep everything clean, though I’m a notoriously messy eater.

        • Shane | June 8, 2011 at 11:19 am |

          Probably Aaron. As cool as it is to rock a suit, wearing team colors has become the norm, now. Which is a bit of a double standard, I suppose. You’re not supposed to wear a band’s t-shirt to their show, but you can wear a team’s shirt/jersey/hat to their game at their stadium.

          That said, my favorite sporting attendance attire is still polo shirt, jeans, flat cap, Doc Martens and team scarf.

        • Shane | June 8, 2011 at 11:21 am |

          Side note: I do not encourage soccer hooliganism, I just like the SHARP/Oi fashion.

        • Phil W | June 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

          I’m under 25 as well Aaron and I’d be all for bringing back the jacket and tie or dress shirt and tie look for baseball games. If the Bucos ever make it back to the postseason in my life time, I plan on wearing my dad’s Beat ’em Bucs tie from the 1960 World Series to show my support, especially if I go to any other their games.

        • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:58 am |

          For one of the few times I’m in absolute complete agreement with The Jeff.

          You really want to ruin a good suit (or in my case, would I want to ruin the one cheapo pseudo-suit I have) by wearing it to a hot, sweaty ballpark? If that ever became the standard dress code, then count me out. I’m not wearing my good shoes to a sticky-floored ballpark, either.

          Not only is going to a game supposed to be fun, but then there’s this: what looks goofier when you’re taking a glove to the game to catch a homerun or foul ball – wearing a jersey or a suit?

          Yes, society could dress better, but let’s not get all reactionary here.

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

          i am not so sure paul was saying you should wear a suit to the game, i think he was saying he doesn’t get the jersey thing, which is vastly different. i personally don’t wear jerseys, but i have no problem with people that do, unless they have on face paint. that being said, if i go to a “business man’s special”, i always wear a light shirt and tie, it’s fun. doesn’t mean i have to wear $500 shoes, or pressed pants and a jacket. and while i am at it, since when were adults such sloppy eaters that we needed bibs? seriously? tie in the nachos? ruining our sunday’s best? maybe we shouldn’t go out in public. do we have a bunch of people here who also pull their pants down to their ankles to use a urinal? i would find a grown man with nacho cheese all over his face and shirt equally as disturbing as walking into the john and seeing “that guy” with his pants at his ankles. again, i don’t think paul said wear a tie, but i’m saying to counter an argument for a tie at a ballgame, we might want to go with “it is too hot for that”, or “nobody wears ties anymore”, or something like that rather then i don’t know how to eat my food like a big boy as a counter.

      • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 10:22 am |

        Sure, every idiot with a ticket can wave a towel or jump up a scream in the $3 Haines Beefy-T given at the turnstile or sing Go Cubs Go when prompted by the jumbo tron.”

        Ummm… Jumbotron?

        • SimulatedSteve | June 8, 2011 at 10:41 am |

          yes, it was easier to say jumbotron than say that out of place blimp looking 6’x 100′ message board hanging under the classic manual scoreboard. ;)

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 10:56 am |

          tuh-mey-toh, tuh-mah-toh…

          Anyway, there really is no scoreboard prompt to sing “Go, Cubs, Go.” They play the song over the PA and people sing along.

          You can justifiably slam the Cubs and their fans for a lot of things, so why do you need to conjure up a new reason?

          Now if you want to rip on the Cubs for playing a song that repeats the line “The Cubs are gonna win today” AFTER the team has already won, then be my guest.

        • SimulatedSteve | June 8, 2011 at 11:10 am |

          JTH – just trying to draw a distinction between a team inspired fan participation vs. one instituted by the fans. Not intended to blast the cubs just using a local example.

          In contract, when the cub fans started throwing the visiting home run ball back. Classic.

      • Tim E. O'B @ work | June 8, 2011 at 10:38 am |

        You wore a backwards jersey to the steM game.

        But let me clarify; I’m not saying I’m not say the jerseys don’t NEED it I’m saying I’ve never seen that on an authentic jersey in my life. Since when is having that there a thing?

        And I hate wearing bball baseball and football unis to games. But hockey sweaters just feel right (maybe because the rink makes the stadium cooler).

        Also. I would wear a suit and bowler/fedora if I knew others were going to. Totally. I’m in love with the iconography of the 30s and 50s-early60s.

        • A.J. | June 8, 2011 at 11:34 am |

          It’s authentic- meaning that it’s the same exact thing that the teams wear. They could essentially grab one of them, stitch a name and number on it, and wear it on the ice. Replica=replica, authentic=authentic.

          What I don’t get is how people are ok with guys showing up in full head to toe uniform at a game (you get praise for that here) or wearing stirrups to work, but not ok with a guy wearing a hockey jersey at a game.

        • Big Al | June 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

          “Not only is going to a game supposed to be fun, but then there’s this: what looks goofier when you’re taking a glove to the game to catch a homerun or foul ball – wearing a jersey or a suit?”

          I’d argue that nothing looks goofier than an adult toting his glove to a game he’s not playing in.

          My son wants to bring his glove to a game, that’s cute. If my brother-in-law wanted to, he’d be preparing for a kick between the back pockets.

        • StLMarty | June 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

          I know it can suck to have shitty neighbors, but I really like Canada.

        • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

          Sorry, Big Al, but if I’m going to a game where there’s a possibility of a hard-hit ball coming at me, I’m taking a glove. If it’s headed towards you, you’re playing, whether or not it counts in the stats. Plus, what’s wrong with wanting to feel like a little kid again for a couple of (or in the case of Boston vs. New York, four) hours?

        • Tim E. O'B @ work | June 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

          StLMarty. I openly question your patriotism. Canada is America’s hat. How dare you say anything nice about that “country” (it’s not even a country). Damn all Canadians and their headflapping ways.

          We’re at war. Pick a side.

        • StLMarty | June 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

          “We’re at war. Pick a side.”

          I choose… Canada.

        • -DW | June 8, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

          Big Al sez:
          “I’d argue that nothing looks goofier than an adult toting his glove to a game he’s not playing in.”

          I take my Rawlings glove with me very game I go to at The Trop.

          But, I also sit in the front row, on the aisle, in right field, between the 370 feet and the foul pole.

          Since 2003, I have caught several baseballs hit there in both BP and games.

          The look on the faces of the kids that I give the baseballs to is worth looking goofy carrying a golve to a game.

        • Jim Vilk | June 9, 2011 at 11:43 am |

          You’re a good man, DW.
          I’m sure Big Al is, too…we just don’t agree with him.

          Personally, I love to see adults bringing their mitts to the game, especially if they sit along the baselines. That shows (at least it strongly implies) that they’re paying attention. You have to in those seats, if you value your well-being.

      • Keith S | June 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

        ABSOLUTELY!

      • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

        I have never said — and I do not think — that people should wear suits/ties to the ballpark (although I think it’s fine if they want to, and it certainly looks better on days when festive bunting is hanging all around the stadium, like on Opening Day or during the World Series).

        I have nothing against fans wearing jerseys to the ballpark per se, although I tend not to do it myself.

        All I meant — and I’m sort of amused that it turned into a bit of a tempest — is that complaining about a fan’s jersey having a fight strap (which is how this thread started) sort of misses the larger point of how counterintuitive it is for fans to wear jerseys in the first place. But hey, if a fan’s gonna wear a jersey, why SHOULDN’T it include a fight strap? The latter is no sillier than the former.

        That’s all.

      • Dante | June 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm |

        But what is to be said of people who wear jerseys of teams they have never seen play, be they “vintage” or not? As some sort of fashion?

        • Paul Lukas | June 9, 2011 at 12:33 am |

          Vintage clothing — like all old items — is a piece of history. I enjoy beautiful old things because they help me understand and appreciate the past. Sometimes those old things are things that I can wear. Some of those old things that I wear happen to be jerseys. The question of whether I’ve actually seen the team play doesn’t strike me as particularly relevant (although if it’s relevant to YOU, and if that question would keep YOU from wearing a vintage jersey of a team you’d never seen play, that’s fine — whatever works for you [or for me]).

    • Teebz | June 8, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

      You can get game-worn jerseys, Tim. I have one.

      As for those bought in stores, they’re far better balanced when you wear them if you don’t have a name and number because the fight strap balances out the weight of the logo on the front.

  • pushbutton | June 8, 2011 at 8:35 am |

    Working on the New Yorker caption contest….

    “Since when does Barry Bonds bat right-handed?”

    “Now batting, Eddie Joust”

    Ehh….I’ll go away now….

  • Terry Proctor | June 8, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    Did anyone pick up on the fact that the NBA Championship rings were in the same style up until the early 1980s? Did the league provide them in those days?

    • Bruce Menard | June 8, 2011 at 10:34 am |

      Did you see Paul’s EPSN article (that I helped with) from last month about Championship Bling? Skip down to the “Honorable Mentions” section.

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

      “Little-known fact: From the 1970s through the early ’80s, all the NBA championship rings were the same design every year. “From what I’ve heard, the league office was put in charge of it and they got really lazy — and kinda cheap,” Menard says.”

    • Bruce Menard | June 8, 2011 at 10:36 am |

      That would be, “Did you see Paul’s ESPN article…”
      Arghhh typos!!

      • Rob S | June 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm |

        Epsn… wasn’t he one of the Sweathogs?

        (sorry, couldn’t resist…)

  • Nick | June 8, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    So sad that Penn State fixed the trim, but overlooked the giant mark of the beast on the chest.

  • Dave | June 8, 2011 at 9:04 am |

    “…more interesting than it SOUNDS like”?

    The article is about the hearing impaired! I kid I kid.

  • JamesP. | June 8, 2011 at 9:14 am |

    First thing that came to mind for that New Yorket cartoon:

    “Hey, Harper! You’ll know when you’re about to be hit becausr the pitcher will blow you a kiss first.”

    And

    “Damn, rook, looks like you signed an endorsment deal with the wrong guys!”

    • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 9:23 am |

      One of the standard jokes about New Yorker cartoons is that they’re funnier if you replace the speaker’s line with “Fuck you.”

      I’d say that works here.

      • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 9:29 am |

        That or, “Jesus Christ, what an asshole!”

        Which also works here.

  • Mike V. | June 8, 2011 at 9:22 am |

    “…the intersection of baseball and booze…”

    One of my favorite intersections!

    • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 10:24 am |

      Clark & Addison?

      • MarkW | June 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

        South Capitol and Half Street, SE

  • signifyin' monkey | June 8, 2011 at 9:24 am |

    The Willie Mays bobblehead looks much closer to the Giants’ ’80s font than their ’60s font.

  • Connie | June 8, 2011 at 9:26 am |

    “…Maybe teams should post dress codes and all males should wear suits and fedoras to games like in the 50′s?…”

    Now there’s a good idea.

    I’m tired of praising Mike Hersh, but maybe just once again. Damn, that auction stuff is great. And Paul, that baseball coin-op game you crave….

    Big thanks to Jerry Reuss:his collection of Cardinals’ program covers is wonderful. That’s one franchise with a distinguished design pedigree.

    • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 9:42 am |

      Your definition of “good” is obviously is bit different from mine.

      Dress codes for the fans in the seats? Fuck that. Seriously. Fuck that.

      • Terry Proctor | June 8, 2011 at 10:11 am |

        When Major Conn Smythe opened Maple Leaf Gardens in 1931 he let the “subscribers” (season-ticket holders) know in no uncertain terms that he expected them to dress like “proper ladies and gentlemen.” That meant shirts, ties and suits for the men, dresses, gowns, hats, furs and jewels for the ladies. He felt going to a Leaf game at his palatial Gardens should rank up there with attending the theater or the opera.

        Failure to dress in an appropriate manner would prompt a letter from the Major threatening revocation of your season seats if such behavior persisted. You can look at photos of the crowd at any Leaf game from the old days and see what I mean. This practice continued until the 1970s. I for one miss those days. I never attended a game at Maple Leaf Gardens without wearing a coat and tie. I had that much respect for the place.

        • timmy b | June 8, 2011 at 10:27 am |

          Terry, ya just beat to that story! In my three visits to MLG though, I just wore normal clothing and sneakers. Nobody looked at me funny, either.

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 10:34 am |

          Does the names Gordon Stuckless and Martin Kruze mean anything to you?

          Perhaps Smythe’s self-veneration was a contributing factor to the events of that shameful era.

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          *Do* the names…
          ~~~~~~~~~~~~
          crap

        • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 10:36 am |

          don’t forget george hannah

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          Yes. Thanks, Phil.

          Leaving him out of the discussion is kinda like referencing Dahmer without also mentioning Gein.

        • Terry Proctor | June 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

          JTH-As terrible as the actions of those people were I don’t feel that Conn Smythe should be tarred with their brush. The Major was put out to pasture in 1961 after his thankless son C. Stafford “Staff” Smythe and Harold “Pal Hal” Ballard led a palace coup that wrested control of MLG from him. The incidents you speak of didn’t occur until the latter part of the decade, long after the elder Smythe was out of power.

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

          Terry,

          I wasn’t implying that anything of the sort went on during his tenure.

      • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 10:32 am |

        someone who got up on the wrong side of bed last night seems to have had a bad evening

      • Connie | June 8, 2011 at 10:45 am |

        The Jeff, my man, please. My saying that a ballpark dress-code is a “good idea,” is a silly little tidbit of an attempt to be amusing. Would I ever advocate a dress code for any public event? No. You can come naked if you like. Do I savor the erstwhile social requirement that one should dress up for many more occasions than than one must dress up for in these times? Yes. Elderly gentlemen like me tend to wear T-shirts and jeans these days, and would never consider going to a ballpark in a suit and tie. But most of us do look better in the suit.

        • pushbutton | June 8, 2011 at 11:42 am |

          There’s something about seeing an elderly gentleman in a suit & hat, especially as an everyday going-out-in-public custom. A kind of dignified respect for others.

    • Walter | June 8, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      If it keeps fans from beating each other up in the parking lot, I’m willing to give it a try.

  • C. Thiele | June 8, 2011 at 9:28 am |

    Paul, here’s an interesting post from AdAge on one of your favorite subjects… “Lifestyle” Branding

    http://adage.com/art...

  • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 9:47 am |

    Planning on altering your logo? Careful — people often don’t like that
    _____

    Yeah, no kidding. Of course the same thing could be said for changing anything, graphic design or otherwise. People, in general, don’t like change. You do have to wonder why so many companies insist on changing logos & packaging though. It doesn’t make a lot of sense sometimes. You sell catfood in orange labelled cans… then change them to blue and wonder why sales dip. Like, really?

    • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 9:49 am |

      People, in general, don’t like change.

      You seem to. Or at least you often advocate for it.

      • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 9:51 am |

        Yes I do, at times. Notice the “in general”, allowing for exceptions to the rule.

        • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 9:54 am |

          In other words, you view yourself as exceptional (at least in the most literal sense of that term). Unsurprising!

          Just poke-poke-poking you, no offense intended….

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 11:07 am |

          There’s a reason he calls himself The.

          “I’m not a big, fat panda Jeff. I’m THE big, fat panda Jeff.”

    • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      Two iron rules of publication redesign, as experienced by everyone who has ever worked at a newspaper or magazine:

      1. Any of your readers who notice the change, will hate it. Passionately.

      2. For about a week, and then they’ll not only forget that they hate it, the next time you make a change, they’ll hate that and plead for you to bring back the design they hated when it was new.

      In my experience, this applies as well to corporate and sports redesign as well. The quality of the design has little to no bearing on the degree to which those who notice will hate it, briefly, and then come to regard the new design as sacred.

      • Connie | June 8, 2011 at 10:49 am |

        Usually so.

      • Shane | June 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

        This man speaks absolute truth. I can’t remember how many Facebook redesigns that my friends and I complained about, then complained how the “new” one isn’t anything compared to the “old one”

      • Rob S | June 8, 2011 at 6:33 pm |

        Unless it’s the New York Islanders c.1995.

  • knucka11 | June 8, 2011 at 9:58 am |

    I believe Morneau used to wear red sleeves, but it’s been a couple years since I’ve seen anyone sport them. I don’t have the time to find the photo evidence though!

  • Dirty Davey | June 8, 2011 at 10:04 am |

    re: the bobbleheads… that set of six bobbles appears to come from three different sets… the Clemente/Pirates and Mays/Giants bobbles are (obviously) intended to represent particular players, while the other four are generic.

    Looking at the bases, the Braves and Dodgers seem to match each other, as do the Yankees and Phillies. It is entirely possible that other bobbles in the same set as the Braves one had similar styling to match the mascot, but there’s no way to know with only the Dodgers for comparison.

    • signifyin' monkey | June 8, 2011 at 10:37 am |

      I seem to remember a Tigers bobblehead from the same era with a tiger head. (I wonder if you could get a Senators bobble that looked like Everett Dirksen) Also curious that the Phillies, who ran Richie Allen out of town, and who Curt Flood chose to enter a four year legal battle, and ultimately end his career rather than play for, had a na African-American bobble. Bet those sold well.

      • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 11:10 am |

        (I wonder if you could get a Senators bobble that looked like Everett Dirksen)

        Want.

        I’m not finding a Senators mascot bobble in any quick searches, but it seems that the Tigers and Reds equivalents are available at the moment.

        As for the Braves one featured today, it could have been worse. Other examples include the Colts, Cubbies, and, yes, eye-patched Pirates. The Bucs link also shows an eastern goldfinch dressed in an O’s uni.

      • Tom | June 8, 2011 at 5:59 pm |

        Richie Allen got “run out of town” for being an arrogant jerk at the time. The Phillies bobblehead could easily be Tony Taylor who was revered by Phillies fans or Ruben Amaro, yes, father of that Ruben Amaro, who was very popular as well. Less likely, but possible: Tony Gonzalez, Johnny Briggs, or Wes Covington – all very popular African-Americans playing for the Phillies in the ’60s.

  • mao | June 8, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    I saw that exact same Michael Jordan/Space Jam figurine at Malibu Kitchen on Sunday afternoon. Wish I’d taken a photo.

  • Michael Worley | June 8, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Another baseball rule that is never enforced is the rule that states that the runner ALWAYS has the right of way on the basepaths. This means that technically the catcher can’t straddle the third base line and do everything in his power to get in the runner’s way. If this rule was enforced the refent drama about protecting catchers wouldn’t be a big deal because they wouldn’t be in harm’s way to begin with.

    • Connie | June 8, 2011 at 10:51 am |

      Excellent point.

    • Ricko | June 8, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      To the basepaths, yes. But not to the base/plate itself.

      I think that’s in reference to “you gotta get the hell out of the way unless you’re playing the ball or making a play on that runner.”

      If that weren’t the case, a runner could bowl over a shortstop playing a ground ball in the baseline, and say, “Hey, I ALWAYS have the right to the baseline”.

      And we know that’s not so.

      Also, a baseman or catcher sure as heck can block the bag (or the plate) with his leg before he attempts to applies the tag…if he has the ball in his possession at the time, of course.

      • NE | June 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

        wouldn’t baseball be so much more interesting if everyone got a bat?

      • Michael Worley | June 9, 2011 at 10:38 am |

        Yes, you are correct, if the catcher is trying to field a ball or has the ball, he can block the base path, otherwise he cannot. However, I don’t know exactly how one would define “obstruction of a runner” and “obstruction of a fielder”so I don’t know how the play with the shortstop would be ruled, but I think it would go in the shortstop’s favor. The official rule is rule 7.06 and rule 2.00 applies to the fielding situation.
        http://mlb.mlb.com/m...

  • Wade Harder | June 8, 2011 at 11:08 am |

    Glad to see that false population was eliminated from the Jack Daniel’s label. Although, it did decrease by one when I moved away.

    • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 11:19 am |

      JD used to claim that they were unable to trademark their name, so instead they trademarked the entire label, which is why nothing on the label (long dead proprietor’s name, out of date population, etc.) could ever be changed. Reference to that story seems rather suddenly to have disappeared from JD’s marketing materials.

      Whisky bloggers seem universally to hate the new label (see rule #1 above). Personally, I find the new bottle to be a much bigger deal. The sharper edges and flatter facets make it look like JD is trying to raise its status (and, presumably eventually price) as a lifestyle brand.

      • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 11:28 am |

        Hmmm… trying to make it look less like a Jim Beam bottle, maybe?

        Anyway, I actually like the new label. The bottle shape? Not so much.

        • StLMarty | June 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

          I drink what Grant drank.

        • BurghFan | June 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

          Did Abe set you up?

      • NE | June 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

        remember when they switched from 86 proof to 80 proof a number of years back? Some people almost lost their minds.

        • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

          Yeah, but it took ’em about one drink longer to lose their minds after the switch.

          Fortunately, George Dickel is still sold at 90 proof.

        • Rob S | June 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm |

          I wouldn’t mind one of those “powder-horn” Dickel bottles from the 60s… a.k.a. the “Saurian brandy” bottle from the original Star Trek. ‘Cause I’m a dork like that.

          On the plus side, I’ve never paid $200 (or any price, for that matter) for a replica uniform from a TV show or movie series.

  • SimulatedSteve | June 8, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    How about the rule about actually touching second base to complete the force out on a double-play?

  • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:15 am |

    “Whoa, baseball scorecards used to look just a little bit different than they look today”

    Yikes. That almost looks like the 1960s met the 1880s. And I’m not saying that as if it’s a good thing.

  • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:17 am |

    I am going to have nightmares of that Indians cookie jar now.

    • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:19 am |

      But you redeemed yourself, Paul, by sharing that pic of the Orioles beer stein. I’d drink outta that!

  • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:23 am |

    “Weird scene last night in Cleveland, as Francisco Lariano inexplicably wore red undersleeves. “Might be a first in Twins history,” says Ricko.”

    Hope it’s not the last.

    • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      There are already too many navy cap/red sleeve teams. We don’t need another.

      • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:35 am |

        True. All the more reason for the Twins to bring back the red-brimmed blue-billed hat!

        • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:35 am |

          red-crowned, that is…

        • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 11:49 am |

          Don’t start that shit again.

          Actually, if the Red Sox would reinstate the navy sleeves and the Cardinals would switch back to red hats on the road (or if they insist on keeping the navy caps, switch to matching sleeves) I’d be OK with this look for the Twins on the road.

        • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

          I’m all for the Cards ditching the blue hats.

        • Shane | June 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

          JTH, there is no bigger fan of the Sox with navy sleeves than me.

          Though, if they HAVE to wear the red alt jersey on Fridays, do it with red sleeves and the red ’70s hat instead of that stupid 2 Sox atrocity. On the plus side, the last time they wore red (last week?), they wore the normal B hat.

    • Ricko | June 8, 2011 at 11:50 am |

      Nah. Looked WAYYYY too much like the Nationals.

      Turned on the game and did a double-take. Thought was getting the Nationals feed by mistake.

      Made no sense, really. Kinda like Zambrano deciding to wear red sleeves for the Cubs. It is just isn’t the uniform.

      I think it was Orlando Hudson who wore a red shooting sleeve on occasion with the Twins. That was odd enough, thank you.

      • Ricko | June 8, 2011 at 11:55 am |

        “I know, let’s wear red sleeves on the road!”

        Oh, please, no; would be late ’70s thinking all over again.

      • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

        Aren’t the Twins supposed to look like the Nats? ;)

        You’re right about how you shouldn’t have to do a double-take, though. Of course, if the Twins still wore those awesome road pins that wouldn’t be a problem.

        • R.S. Rogers | June 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

          Yeah, if the Twins looked anything like the Twins on the road, problem solved. (It’s a simple formula, really: Solid navy cap, pinstripes, red jersey script = Twins.) Or if the Nats looked anything like the Nats on the road, problem solved. (Again, simple formula: solid red cap, doublwide blue/red headspoon piping, football uni numbers = Nats.)

          Or if both teams wore road unis that looked anything like their superior and distinctive home unis, problem double-solved.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

          Yeah, if the Twins looked anything like the Twins on the road, problem solved. (It’s a simple formula, really: Solid navy cap, pinstripes, red jersey script = Twins.)

          Yeah, really… even I managed to follow those rules with my MLB concepts, and we know how twisted and horrible I am. Silly Twins…

  • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

    “Want your team to perform more explosively? Maybe they should dress in red”

    So why do we have so many blue and BFBS teams?

  • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 11:42 am |

    A different shot of LeBron’s shoes in action:
    http://cache.daylife...
    He got the assist on that play, and the product placement.

    Oh, and while I’m talking hoops, someone should tell the folks at Goodyear their little cartoon they show during the finals promotes offensive goaltending (maybe that’s why the Heat have gotten away with a few of those…). When the announcer says the overhead shots of the city and the arena are brought to you by Goodyear, they show a cartoon blimp dribbling, shooting, then rebounding the ball for a put-back shot…but the ball is still above the rim when the blimp touches it.

  • moose | June 8, 2011 at 11:53 am |

    this whole thing about dressing in red:
    if seeing red does in fact work that way, and i have no doubt that it does, and you are wearing red, wouldn’t it actually benefit the other team more? i mean they are the ones looking at, and concentrating on red after all, while your red team would be looking at whatever colour you are playing. so by wearing red you in fact benefit the other team not your own.

    • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

      …and if the other team is being all intimidating in their black alternates… my god man…

    • Jim Vilk | June 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

      That’s my only guess for why so few teams wear it.

      But then will we see teams wearing not only pink, but coral and violet in an effort to soothe the other team?

    • moose | June 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

      good call jeff, a perfect storm of subconscious colour domination. i suppose we could check this by looking at the chiefs/raiders match-ups through out the years and comparing them statistically to how they do against other teams, etc. but this sounds like a project better suited for someone that isn’t me.

      • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

        I think that comparison would show the whole thing to be bogus actually. The Chiefs lead the series with a 54-47-2 record, but the Raiders have more wins overall – 418 to 395. On the other hand, you could look at the 49ers vs Saints, and the red team is rather blatantly dominant with the 49ers having a 45-23-2 record there.

        Whatever psychological effect colors have is probably pretty minor. I’d think the adrenaline rush and the pressure of being watched by thousands/millions of people probably makes it moot.

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

          you wouldn’t just look at records and say their is no correlation, you ignore talent if you do that. you would have to then compare their head to head wins and loses to their overall record, home and road, how those teams faired against other colours(taking into account their records too, and a bunch of other stuff to actually draw statistical correlation. it would be a research project that would require more then just looking up a couple records, and would be more then i would have the capacity for. or doing competitive experiments with controlled colour. there is no doubt that colour plays with our mind, no doubt, you can not dismiss that as untrue. the question is to what extent does it effects the outcome of performance or a game. you can look at raider penalty yards over the years as an indication that colour at the very least effects perception. i understand your point about being watched by millions and all that, what is colour going to do? i dig what you are layin down, but if you read the article it also talks about it being a “short burst”, which is that 1/4 step in coming off the line at the end of a long game when ou are exhausted, and you are not even thinking about people in the stands, the only thing you are thinking about is that SOB in front of you who you have been fighting with all day ,and you are exhausted and digging deep. do i think it has a major impact, no, but don’t cast it off so matter-of-factaly.

        • Gusto44 | June 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

          Someday, I’d like to see the Chiefs in solid red play the Raiders in solid silver.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

          Well that would be far more in depth than any sane person is going to be willing to go.

          You mention the Raiders and penalty yards… but if it’s a color perception thing, why don’t the Steelers or Bengals have the same problem?

          There’s far too many variables involved to ever reach a reliable answer. Even that article mentions a double edged sword aspect… red makes us more aggressive, but also makes us worried and distracted. Sounds like offsetting penalties and a replay of the down to me.

          I know win/loss records aren’t everything… but if the effect was really noticeable, you’d think the red teams would be more successful overall. But that really doesn’t seem to be the case. There’s a few successful red teams, and a few unsuccessful ones. The 49ers have the 6th highest winning percentage of active NFL teams… and the Cardinals are 30th.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

          Me too, Gusto, me too. The Raiders ought to wear solid silver for all of their road games. Mandatory white jersey rules be damned.

          /at least you can play it that way in Madden

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

          fair enough jeff, but i don’t have the stats on pitt or bungle penalties over history, so for all i know they could be on the top half too. and i think you know i was just pulling out a top of the head example of a way perhaps the silver and black are marked. i was by no means saying it WAS a direct result, merely saying it was worth a thought.

          and it isn’t “further then any sane person is willing to go”, hence the article today. people do in fact study those things, it is just beyond out interest to delve to deeply maybe, which is why i said it is ‘for someone other then me”. the point is you can’t pull out a couple of numbers and say “see, i rest my case.” as for successful and un successful teams, i believe i said you can not take away talent, obviously colour alone does not count for the outcome of a game, that would be preposterous. the question is weather in some instance does seeing a colour effect your performance? and since colour does effect people i think it is reasonable to say yes. does it have a huuuuuuge effect on the outcome of every game? probably not. no, definitely not, but it can and does have an effect. once again you dismiss so freely, and show that your opinions are no different then any “traditionalist”, as you like to call them, here, you are just as closed minded and unbending.

  • umplou | June 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

    That New Yorker cartoon shows something that cartoonists (and TV)ALWAYS get wrong – shwing an umpire with the big outside protector – when the last MLB ump to wear one retired 30 years ago!

    • MarkW | June 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

      If I ever get a p/t job as an ump, I’m getting and wearing a balloon protector.

  • Sam D. | June 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

    The Mets have, in fact, worn blue hats with black jerseys before. The only time they ever did it was during the second game of a doubleheader in 1998. I can’t find any evidence right now, but I clearly remember seeing a picture of John Franco high-fiving teammates, wearing that uni combination, on the front page of the New York Times’ Sports section.

    • Rob H. | June 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

      Maybe someone can track that pic down, the Mets played only so many DHs in 1998:

      May 14 at San Diego
      May 19 vs Cincinnati
      July 22 at Milwaukee
      July 24 at Chicago
      August 18 vs Colorado
      August 20 vs St. Louis
      August 21 vs St. Louis
      September 15 at Houston

      (that’s according to baseball-reference.com — that seems like they played a lot of games from July 22-24 & August 18-21 – must have been a lot of rain that summer)

      • Eric | June 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

        I think it was the 2nd game of the Aug 18 1998 DH. I vaguely remember Bobby J Jones starting the game with blue cap/black jersey…

        • Sam D. | June 9, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

          YES! It must have been that game! I’m CERTAIN that it was in August. Could someone track it down please???

    • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

      are you sure they were solid blue caps? because i’ve seen (but can’t track down) a pic of leiter wearing the black jersey with the hybrid cap…and

      i just tracked this down now…black jersey with hybrid cap

      • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 11:54 pm |

        here’s jeff tam (could be same game) … but definitely black jersey w/hybrid cap

      • LI Phil | June 9, 2011 at 12:10 am |

        yeah…definitely (well, im pretty damn certain) they didn’t wear blue caps that day — that image is dated august 18, 1998

        • Eric | June 9, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

          Link isn’t working for me. The blue hat game in question was the 2nd of a DH. I can’t see your pic, but it may be from the opener??

          Still just working off memory. There’s a decent chance I’m wrong. It was 13 years ago.

      • LI Phil | June 9, 2011 at 12:24 am |

        hmmmm…closer

        on may 17 the mets wore the hybrid caps but with blue sleeves … that’s an um…interesting look

        not sure how i feel about that look

        • Eric | June 9, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

          Mets didn’t debut the Solid-black cap until 1999. So ANY time they wore the black jerseys in 1998 they had to either wear the hybrid or blue cap.

          They also didn’t have the black sky logo til 99 either.

  • LarryB | June 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

    Oh my the exciting new Penn State jerseys. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • moose | June 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

      because you don’t care about uniforms? or is this a knock on the PSU jersey? if it is the former, you are in the wrong place. if it is the later, not only do they look great and are a huge improvement, may i suggest until someone can’t insert joke here about Tosu we keep out big mouths shut for a change and comment about different subjects. shoot, at least penn state wasn’t stupid to bend over for nike, and wear clown suits the last couple years against their biggest rival like we did. and even though penn state is no cleaner then any other school, somehow they have avoided what just happened to our school. so save your zzzzz for ohio state football when we are under heavy ncaaa sanctions and have to live the 6-5 life of a michigan state and purdue for five years. takes a lot of nerve for a buckeye to hammer anyone right now larry, we lost our protective cup, and the rest of the country is wearing steel toe shoes.

  • David M | June 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

    http://mit.zenfs.com...

    Those jerseys look very diy…I guess we know where the jersey money really went.

    • Simply Moono | June 9, 2011 at 1:02 am |

      Screenprint is the devil.

  • odessasteps | June 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    “The Darktown Brotherhood” is a great name for a rotisserie team (or an old school Marvel Comics super villain team).

  • Bando | June 8, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

    Michigan appears to have leaked the throwback jersey design for the Notre Dame game via its official retailer, the MDen.

    http://www.mden.com/...
    http://oi56.tinypic....

    And it’s hideous.

    • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

      The sleeves are tolerable… but, yeah the symmetrically shattered M looks stupid as hell. I dunno how accurate it is as a throwback, but it’s definitely ugly.

      • moose | June 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

        it isn’t accurate but a composite look from when different positions wore different looks. much like those stupid buckeye “throwbacks” were not really throwbacks, but a take, this is meant to be a take on a 100 year old jersey. i hate it because it is stupid, especially for a rivalry game, but it actually might look pretty cool on the field if i can remove myself from how silly the whole thing is.

        but jeff, why does it matter that everything isn’t symmetrical? how does that have any bearing on weather it is a good look? what you mean to say is it rankles your ocd because something feels out of place to you, you have to have perfect order, symmetry, matching stripes, etc, or the sky falls on you, just say that. you just like symmetry for symmetry’s sake, you are sooooo closed minded. since there are no more sleeves in football it puts some stripes where you can see them. and it doesn’t have tv numbers which i love. but you do need some sort of number on the front for the ref to identify players, and it has the pre numbered uni block M. i think potentially it could look mighty sweet on the field, or it could look like total crap, but i think it is too easy to bag this before it sees the light of day. but it is of no matter how it looks, it’s a stupid idea to get all funky for no good reason other then to sell people jerseys, it’s michigan-notre dame, you don’t need anything to make that more special. but symmetry is nowhere near the problem here.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

          I just called it “symmetrically shattered” because I thought that sounded cooler than “patchwork” or “triangulated” or whatever.

          I think the M looks stupid with a bunch of lines all over it, symmetrical or otherwise. Make the damn thing solid like the M logo we all know, and it’s fine.

        • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

          “it rankles your ocd because something feels out of place to you, you have to have perfect order, symmetry, matching stripes”

          ~~~

          point?

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

          my point is that it does not make the design bad if it bothers your ocd, it means it bothers your ocd. they are two different things which sometimes match up, and sometimes don’t.

          jeff~
          as far as the symmetry goes, had you said you don’t like the stitching, i would have agreed, but that has nothing to do with the symmetry either. not my fault you didn’t use your words. you said symmetry, which implied the numbers, which i still don’t know if you like. at least “looking patchwork”, or “the stitching is pointless and therefore stupid” is a crit, unlike “symmetrically shattered M looks stupid as hell”, that implies your crit is your ocd, which is on you, not the design. you threw your opinion out there jeff, i didn’t make you do it, so i am not the bad guy for calling you on it. lord knows i step in it on my own often enough, this isn’t on me.

        • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 4:24 pm |

          “it does not make the design bad if it bothers your ocd”

          ~~~

          that’s better

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 5:10 pm |

          it makes it better to you, it does NOT make the design better as a universal. i’ll stand by that.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

          You’re reading way too much into that word. The M with the lines on it looks kinda like shattered glass, and it’s symmetrical. Thus, it’s a “symmetrically shattered M”. It isn’t an OCD thing.

    • Ricko | June 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

      “Obviously they just ripped off the Minnesota Swarm,” he said knowingly. then, sniffling, he grabbed his Ho-Ho’s and Mountain Dew and went back down to the basement before his video game slipped off “Pause.”
      http://apps.startrib...

      (Not aimed at you, The Jeff, just at the wizards who think something like striped shoulders yokes has never, in the entire history of uniforms, been seen until recently).

    • Mike | June 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

      I think the sleeves would be better if they limited it to the shoulder area. 3 maize stripes – then left the sleeves navy. Like this

      http://4.bp.blogspot...

      • Ricko | June 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm |

        Adidas would never stand for that.

        • moose | June 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm |

          i like that swarm jersey.

          ha ha, good one rick. but i have to admit, this does look like a good idea in the age of shooting shirt football jerseys. again, would need to see it executed on the field a couple times, but my instinct is to say it may work.

        • The Jeff | June 8, 2011 at 9:21 pm |

          Why wouldn’t adidas stand for that? They’re the ones that supply Michigan’s jerseys right now. It’s just a football equivalent of what they already do on soccer uniforms.

  • Original Jim | June 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

    Great scans by Jerry Reuss. I remember the scorecard section of the Red Sox programs looking just like the one from the 1969 Cardinals version, including all A.L. umpires and pitching rosters for the other teams in the league.

    Did anyone else notice how every team had numerous pitchers wearing single digit numbers? At first I thought it was just a numbered list form 1 to 15, but upon further inspection those are uniform numbers.

    • Matthew Radican | June 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

      I don’t think those are uniform #s. If you look at the Met’s section. They have Seaver listed as 17 and Nolan Ryan was listed as 16. I am not sure about Ryan ever wearing 16 but I am pretty sure Seaver was always #41.

      If those aren’t uniform #s I wonder what they are.

      • BurghFan | June 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm |

        Arbitrary numbers that match what they put on the scoreboard. If it’s a hand-operated board, they only need to keep numbers from 1 to 20 on hand. And if people who know Seaver as #41 feel the need to buy a scorecard to know that he’s #17, I’m sure the club considers that a plus.

        One other note about Cardinal scorecards – when I was at Busch in 1983, I noticed that the averages listed were up to date for the day, which had to mean that they were printing them a day at a time. I’m sure the standings, averages, and rosters on the 1969 card are similarly up-to-date.

  • Keith S | June 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

    Paul,
    Got my membership card today. You didn’t include the line of credit numbers, so I am assuming I can charge any amount on it? It also works as a discount gas card, correct?

    Looks great BTW!

  • Tyler | June 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

    I went to the University of Houston and one of our incoming recruits played for the Grandview Zebras in Texas. Not sure the best way to send in pictures, but the Zebras have Black and White Bengals helmets that are awesome and a modified Broncos logo that is pretty sweet too.

  • Simply Moono | June 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

    This (http://img2-lelands....) is gonna give me nightmares.

    And Lockwood Smith wins my ‘Enforcer Of The Year’ award.

  • Tim H | June 8, 2011 at 5:19 pm |

    Not sure if this has been brought up before but, Old time Base Ball to be played in Loudoun County VA this weekend. Pretty good write up here:
    http://www.virginial...

    The team photo itself is worth the look.

    And here’s the website for the Mid Atlantic Vintage Baseball League itself, if interested:

    http://mavbbl.com/

  • M.S. Warner | June 8, 2011 at 5:30 pm |

    Paul: I greatly enjoy Uni Watch, but FYI, “hearing impaired” is an outdated term…

    http://www.nad.org/i...

    Educate yourself, please.

    • Paul Lukas | June 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

      I “educated myself” by spending several days with a captioning professional — and she routinely used the term “hearing-impaired” during our time together.

      Since the article was posted yesterday, I’ve received about a dozen notes from people in the captioning industry and from deaf people. Not one has quibbled with the term “hearing-impaired.”

  • Tom | June 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm |

    Just a note – most high schools can’t/don’t spring for home and away uniforms. They pick one uniform and wear it wherever they play. As a high school baseball coach for many years, I can tell you most of our games were white on white – more accurately, slightly soiled white on slightly soiled white. Or maybe that’s just a South Jersey thing where the money goes to books and classrooms.

    • JTH | June 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

      Maybe it’s time for a bake sale.

      • LI Phil | June 8, 2011 at 10:31 pm |

        Or time to have Nike sponsor your unis

  • Bob A | June 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

    Nice timing by Shorpy re: today’s touchy subject.. a 1942 crowd shot taken at Briggs Stadium. No jerseys there!

    But we do see suspenders.

  • Dan Szpek | June 8, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

    Interesting note from the Brewer-Met game. In the top of the third NY Met Justin Turner(whom Brian Anderson referred to as Ike Turner) was at bat. Turner rests his bat on his shoulder(close to his neck) and the spot where it was resting left a sizeable stain from the pine tar on his bat. No screencap, however.

  • Douglas | June 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm |

    When did the Braves go to the 6s and 9s that they use now (the ones with the slanted serifs).

    here’s and example of how they look: (Brian McCann)

    http://www.gamedayex...

    Here’s an example of a normal 6 (Nick Collins – Packers)

    http://assets.espn.g...

    I only started noticing this last seaso, and its only on the 6s and 9s, which is weird because the Pittsburgh Penguins have a similar slanted serif on their 2s, 3s, 5s, 6s, 7s, and 9s (all of the numbers that can possibly have the serif). I first started noticing it on Brian McCann’s jersey and figured it was to distinguish the 9s from the 6s, but soon found that it’s on the 9s as well.

    • Simply Moono | June 8, 2011 at 9:49 pm |

      The Detroit Tigers use this font as well.
      (http://sportslogos.n...)

    • Chris from Carver | June 8, 2011 at 9:57 pm |

      Yankees too. They all use the Wilson variant of varsity.

  • Tim E. O'B | June 9, 2011 at 1:08 am |

    total ‘fuck you’ to the Mets – http://img.photobuck...