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

The Stars come out in daytime

Tigers vs. White Sox 7-16-11

By Phil Hecken

I love Negro League throwback games — not only because Majestic apparently doesn’t make the uniforms, thereby ensuring they will likely be done well — and not just because we’re getting a sorely-needed history lesson, but also because some of those uniforms are just so friggin’ awesome. Thus, when I learned the Detroit Tigers and Chicago White Sox would be playing just such a game, and knowing it would fall smack-dab in the middle of the “MLB Extra Innings free preview” week, I was ecstatic.

Unfortunately, the geniuses who determine scheduling decided this would make for a perfect “national” game to be played on FOX, and as such, would not fall beneath the purview of said free preview. And, of course, “national” doesn’t mean everyone gets to see the game, as would be the case with an ESPN Sunday Night game (or several games shown on the MLB TV channel), it simply means that Fox chooses to broadcast this game to a select viewing audience — usually reserved for those in the markets of the two teams involved. And, since I live in New York, this usually means I will either get the Yankees or Mets (or occasionally the Red Sox or Phillies, joy of joys), but almost never will I get a Chicago or Detroit market game. Thus, I was deprived of the pleasure of seeing this one live.

Fortunately, Tod Hess, Tiger fan and one of those in the viewing area, did get to watch the game, and I am pleased to bring you his review of this beautiful looking game that I didn’t get to see. Here’s my buddy, Tod:

Detroit Tigers 17th annual Negro League game
By Tod Hess

For the 17th year the Detroit Tigers hosted a Negro League throw back game on Saturday. The Detroit Tigers wore uniforms for the Detroit Stars. These are not the uniforms the Tigers usually wear during the Negro League games. They usually wear a striped Detroit Stars Uniform. I did some research and the only other time I can find that the Tigers wore that version was in 2003. I was informed by one of the writers covering the game that the uniforms were suppose to cover the period from 1919 until the early 1920’s. I have done numerous searches and can’t find any pictures to back up that claim. In fact almost every picture I find shows the striped jerseys. The Tigers wore high black socks with the uniforms. The Tigers also wore their Sparky Anderson Memorial patch on the uniforms.

Chicago wore the Chicago American Giants road jerseys from 1926. They wore these three years ago against the Tigers in a Negro League game that I attended. As you can see the White Sox had black and white socks. Although some of the players showed less white in their socks than others did. Here is a great shot of the caps worn by the White Sox today. As you can see, both the Tigers and the White Sox had No NOB for the game.

During the broadcast, Fox Sports Josh Lewin commented that the White Sox uniforms reminded him of the mid 70’s White Sox uniforms. After doing some research on it, I believe the American Giants uniforms look more like a cross between this and this. They also interviewed Justin Verlander during one inning. They asked him about the uniforms and he said he liked them. They were light and airy and kind of baggy. He said he might ask for a loose fitting normal uniform.

This game is just part of the festivities, as for the last nine years the Tigers have made the entire weekend a celebration of the Negro Leagues. On Friday, there was a pre-game ceremony honoring the past, present and future of African-American baseball in the city of Detroit. They also had a Detroit Stars Singing Competition Finals. On Saturday, the first 10,000 fans got a Detroit Stars flat bill cap. They also held a Negro League roundtable to discuss the importance and history of the Negro Leagues. Nine former Negro League players and Former Detroit Stars owner Minnie Forbes (on the right) were honored before the game and threw out the first pitch.

Overall, I thought the uniforms were great. Both teams wore their regular batting helmets but since they didn’t wear batting helmets back then, I give them a pass on that. I really loved seeing a Major League Baseball game with no pajama pants. I look forward to next year’s game.

~~~

Thanks, Tod. As many of you are aware, I still firmly believe that one or two teams in each league should employ a monochrome uniform on a few select occasions during the year. The American Giants would certainly be a team after which I would model such a uniform. And even though I’m not a fan of pinstripes on road unis, there’s just something so cool about this look. I also have to say I loved the Tigers playing as the Stars. That’s a great look as well. Of course, having lower leg stylings helps immensely.

What say you, readers? Was this a great looking game, or what?

~~~~~~~~~~

Josh WillinghamFor love of the sansabelt…and Hammer too

Unlike the Tigers/White Sox Stars/American Giants game, I was, though magic of the MLB Extra Innings free preview, able to watch yesterday’s Oakland Athletics versus Los Angeles Anaheim California Angels game, which was billed as an “80s throwback.” Since the A’s only wore yesterday’s throwbacks in 1985 & 1986, we’ve narrowed down the time-frame. Looks like the Angels got it right as well.

Depending upon your perspective, or perhaps whether your team got its ass whupped, opinions on the uniforms varied. The aforelinked article notes the Angels pants, “didn’t seem to look or feel right.” In fact, “some were too short, some were too baggy, some were too tight.” And some were too long. Sadly, the scribe who penned that observation didn’t quite pick up on the pajamas.

I rather enjoyed the looks, with the A’s sporting pullovers and sansabelts, with most of the participants opted for solid green hose instead of stirrups, although at least one player did opt for rups. Of course, what is even worse than no rups or solid socks? Yes, you guessed it — the dreaded 2-in-1s, no doubt stolen from Josh Outman’s reassigned locker.

While the A’s unis were pretty accurate, the Angels of that era were beltless and wore red shoes, but I won’t fault Majestic too heavily for another uni screwup, nor will I blame them for using current helmets. It was still a good looking game…well, except for Jerry Blevins.

And hey, it was MC Hammer bobblehead day. Or would that just be Hammerhead day? For those of us unaware of Stanley Kirk Burrell’s attachment to the A’s, it was longer than Hammer’s career. The always accurate Wikipedia sums it up thusly:

Stanley Burrell Jr. was born in Oakland, California, son of a nightclub manager and a police department assistant. He grew up poor with his mother, a secretary, and eight siblings in a small apartment in East Oakland. The future rapper recalled that six children were crammed into a three-bedroom housing project apartment. The young Burrell sold stray baseballs and danced with a beatbox at the Oakland Coliseum parking lot to earn money for games sometimes. Oakland A’s team owner Charles O. Finley saw the 11-year-old doing splits and hired him as a clubhouse assistant and batboy as a result of his energy and flair.

Burrell served as a “batboy” with the team from 1973 to 1980. In 2010, Hammer discussed his life-long involvement with sports athletes on ESPN’s First Take as well as explained that his brother Louis Burrell (who would later become Hammer’s business manager) was actually the batboy while his job was to take calls and do “play-by-plays” for the A’s absentee owner during every summer game. The colorful Finley, who lived in Chicago, used the child as his “eyes and ears.” Reggie Jackson, in describing Burrell’s role for Finley, took credit for his nickname:

“Hell, our chief executive, the guy that ran our team, uh, that communicated [with] Charlie Finley, the top man there, was a 13-year old kid. I nicknamed him ‘Hammer,’ because he looked like Hank Aaron.”

He acquired the nickname “M.C.” for being a “Master of Ceremonies” which he used when he began performing at various clubs while on the road with the A’s, and eventually in the military.

So there you have it. And perhaps, like me, you learned a little something about Mr. Burrell.

Reader Samuel Lam was at the game and he took a few shots. Check it out.

~~~~~~~~~~

m's throwback capL’il Help?

Reader John Freeman has a question for the Uni Watch readership:

“While looking at the review about the Padres uniforms you had a few days ago, I noticed something maybe someone can find out. The Mariners hats in the game against the Padres look different from whats available at New Era and the MLB shop. The ones pictured have the MLB logo in the team colors of blue/yellow on the back of the hat.

“On the website and what I have seen in some hat stores are solid blue on the back. Also on some sites it shows the New Era logo on the side used for some retro hats and the MLB logo on the back in team colors. I know it sounds confusing. Any help from you or the readers of uni-watch is appreciated. The last link only lists the hat with the yellow M and nothing else shows up on the New Era site.

“Note the full color MLB logo on the back which is different from the game hat shown during the game against the Padres.”

Readers? I’m not a cap guy so I’m clueless — any ideas folks?

~~~~~~~~~~

Benchies Beginning logoBenchies from the Beginning
By Rick Pearson

For nearly three years, “Benchies” has been appearing most weekends at Uni Watch. While Bench Coach Phil fills in for Paul Monday through Friday during August, we present a retrospective. New strips will continue to appear on weekends. For further background, here’s the “Benchies” backstory and bios on the regular Boys of “Benchies.” Enjoy.

7-18-11 d-helmet

And here is the full-size version.

~~~~~~~~~~

reminder.jpg

Friendly reminder:

Paul is on his summer break from the site from now until Aug. 8 (although he’ll still be doing ESPN work, which we’ll link to as it comes up). That means there are a few changes regarding where you should be sending e-mails:

• Phil is writing the lead entries while Paul’s away. You can contact him at his usual address.

• The Ticker is now being compiled by webmaster John Ekdahl. You can still send submissions to the uniwatching at gmail address, but they will go to John, not to Paul.

• If you absolutely need to contact Paul during his summer break, the best way is to send a note to his plukas64 at gmail address. But he may take a little while to get back to you, especially during the period from July 16-21.

• Finally, if you hear about any new college football uniforms during Paul’s break, please send that info to this address. Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~

ticker 2Uni Watch News Ticker: (mostly compiled by John Ekdahl) Brandan sends along these shots of Salem Red Sox tuxedo jerseys. … Here’s a picture of Uni Watch reader David Cummings following our strict by-laws (seen in the back). … The new Wilkes-Barre/Scranton lacrosse team will be called the Shamrocks. … Recently promoted Geoff Blum of the Arizona Diamondbacks had a noticeable patch on his right pant cheek (thanks to Matt Smith). … Check out this uniform number guide in the 1942 Colgate-Cornell Program (sent from Ryan Dowgin). … More on South Carolina’s new football unis – here are six different possible combinations (Thanks, Robbie Brinkley). … K-Rod is dropping number 75 (Thanks, Paul). … Pretty amazing (and cool) double-dip from Saturday’s Mets romp over the Phillies — Dan Cichalski snapped a photo of this dude. … Amazingly, and completely coincidentally, Terence Kearns was also at the Mets romp over Philly, and took this pic — what are the chances that there’d be two dudes dressed in the identical outfits at the game? Also from TK: check out these socks, seen on yet another fan at the Mets romp over Philly. … Mark Morabito found an article in his local paper, the Harrisburg Patriot-News that ran on July 17th, 2011. Says Mark, “It’s an article about a local baseball team that plays by original baseball rules. There are some interesting pictures of the uniforms they wear. … Brinke sends along this interesting pencil case, shaped like a Chuck.

~~~

“Watching Angels/A’s. Y’know, the sansabelt look isn’t all that bad.” — Ricko Pearson

 

94 comments to The Stars come out in daytime

  • teenchy | July 18, 2011 at 7:23 am |

    Railing against the wind but I miss the days when caps only bore the logo of the team that wore them.

    If a throwback cap is meant to throw back to a time when league and manufacturer logos didn’t appear on the cap, then the throwback shouldn’t have them either.

  • Bouj | July 18, 2011 at 8:33 am |

    The Turn Back The Clock Performance Hat is supposed to be what they wore on the field. It’s the COOLBASE hat. On-field hats won’t have the New Era logo on the side. The hats for sale with the NE logo on the side are strictly fashion hats that are a part of the Cooperstown Collection line.

    The reason for the different MLB logos on the back of the ones in the game photos and the retail photos is either an error in the photo (it was produced prior to the manufacturing production via Photoshop) or there were sets of hats made for the game and for retail with the different color logo.

  • Pierre | July 18, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    The caps worn by Negro League throwback caps worn by Detroit and Chicago appear to have soft fronts, lacking the stiff backing mesh usually found in New Era MLB caps. Anybody else notice that?

    Personally, I like to cut out the mesh in my MLB caps and remove the stiff filaments from inside the seams. Much softer feel, with a nice, natural fit…

    • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 9:00 am |

      Me too. First I pull all the stiff vertical filaments with a pair of tweezers – takes about 20 minutes – then the horizontal buckram threads come right out. Snip the satin ribbon at the top and bottom, and voila! – you’ve just turned a 5950 into the best ballcap in the world.

      • Pierre | July 18, 2011 at 9:22 am |

        And the low crown models are the best IMO…

      • Pierre | July 18, 2011 at 9:35 am |

        I’ve sometimes wondered why New Era doesn’t make an “unstrctured” soft front version of MLB caps. I’m sure there’s a market for them as I suspect you and I aren’t the only two people in America who cut the mesh out of their 5950 caps.

        • Ry Co 40 | July 18, 2011 at 9:53 am |

          i used to give all of my 5950s the soft front treatment… but as i get older, and want to keep my hairline fopr as long as possible, i just buy a really loose fitting hat and wear it low on my head a bit over my ears. looks real clean too (note: i don’t look clean, the hat does)

    • aflfan | July 18, 2011 at 9:03 am |

      No, I didn’t and I watched the whole game. Now that you mention it, they did show a shot of Leyland during the game and the hat did not have the stiff front.

      • Ben Fortney | July 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

        When the 5950s were wool, after taking out the backing I’d soak it in water then let it dry on my head. The wool would shrink down to a perfect fit on my big ol dome. Can’t do that with the poly blends… taking out the backing just makes them less structured, no shrinkage.

        Incidentally, most (all?) of the New Era fashion caps I’ve bought are still wool. It’s a zero-sum trade-off: you get the wool, but have to deal with the NE logo on the side.

        • Jeff P | July 18, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

          With time and some care, the NE logo can be removed. They stick it on minor league caps, so that had to be remedied.

  • Pierre | July 18, 2011 at 8:43 am |

    “The Negro League throwback caps worn by Detroit and Chicago appear to have soft fronts…”

    Sorry for the typo.

  • Ricko | July 18, 2011 at 8:50 am |

    Will be interesting to see if any Indians or Twins players make noticeable uni adjustments today. They have a split doubleheader at Target Field, with the first game at noon, and the heat index could hit 117.

    Was at Royals/Twins Saturday evening, and just sitting there (not even in the sun) by about the third inning I was feeling like a glazed doughnut.

    I noticed yesterday a couple more Twins players than usual(starter Brian Duensing included) went high cuffed. Not surprising. That is a little cooler than ankle lengh, which captures a certain amount of hot air between the pantleg and sock.

  • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 8:55 am |

    Hey, Team USA, how did that “black widow” thing work out for you? Thanks a lot, Nike.

    • The Jeff | July 18, 2011 at 9:46 am |

      Spiders are often smashed. This should have been expected.

    • Shane | July 18, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

      My friend put it best with the US uni designs:

      They look like they’re wearing a pair of earbuds.

      • Kevin Hastings | July 18, 2011 at 4:32 pm |

        Looked like they were wearing whistle lanyards to me.

    • pflava | July 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

      The white ones scream “Star Trek nurse” to me.

      As bad as both sets are (the black ones are by far the worst thing they’ve ever worn), will anyone be surprised to see them trot out something even worse in London?

    • Simply Moono | July 18, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

      Poor analogy, IMO. They weren’t even wearing the Black Widows in Yesterday’s game against Japan.

  • aflfan | July 18, 2011 at 9:09 am |

    My brother once played in a pre-1900 game as an exhibition at the park he worked at. He played with a team out of Rochester, MI. http://www.rochester...

    • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 9:56 am |

      The Grangers are well known in the vintage base ball world. And speaking of, the 150th anniversary of the First Battle of Manassas is coming up this weekend, and a vintage base ball tourney is one of the major events on the schedule. Pretty much anyone who wants to play can join in.

      • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 10:27 am |

        I think I need to investigate this vintage base ball thing and find out if there are any openings on a Chicago-area team.

        Although, I have to say that I find the idea of wearing trousers on the field a little unsettling.

        • Jim Vilk | July 18, 2011 at 11:38 am |

          You should look into it. I went to a vintage tournament yesterday – three games simultaneously, and a total of 12 games total. By the end of the day I wanted to play.

          There were young and old guys out there (I talked to one guy who was 55, and he played just as hard as the others). They wore trousers (some of them wore Dockers), other teams wore jeans and some wore actual vintage uniforms with baggy pants.

          I’ve played and worked in 90-degree weather wearing Dockers, and I never had a problem. I could wear most of those vintage “unis” as well.

      • Ben Fortney | July 18, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

        R.S., I’ll be out with the Chesapeake & Potomac club this weekend in Manassas – thanks again for the connect.

        I recognized one of the guys in that Mechanicsburg article, the guy who founded the team was with our “sister” team when I played in Connecticut. Also played against another newby who showed up with C&P last month. Who knew “competitive reenactment” could be so incestuous.

        • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

          Ben – looking forward to meeting you. I’ll be there my own self; helping to establish and recruit for the C&P’s new Old Dominion nine.

  • Erik Morris | July 18, 2011 at 9:45 am |

    That South Carolina picture didn’t show all the possibilities they could wear. If they really wanted to be Oregon-esque they could go Red over Black, Black over Red, and Black over White, which makes 9 different possible uni combos in all.

    • Nick | July 18, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

      I think the school doesn’t want to go those directions, but only keep it to those 6, hence making it their 6 combinations. I’m with you, though, I think they should utilize all options.

  • DJ | July 18, 2011 at 9:52 am |

    They wore the same uniform (the wretched black one) a week earlier when they won over Brazil. It had nothing to do with yesterday’s choke.

    • Pat | July 18, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

      I know this is a sight about sports uniform aesthetics and not necessarily one for commentary about the actual sport played on the field, but calling the women’s team performance yesterday a choke is nonsense. Soccer is a game of nuance and to be completely honest in many aspects luck. The US team went up in the game twice. Japan managed to put goals in twice to tie it up. By the way both of the US goals were much better finishes then Japan’s. Japan’s first was the benefit of their player luckily being in the right place at the right time and sticking her leg out in reaction. The second was a near post corner kick where the great Japanese player Sawa managed to make the right run and get a deflection on the ball. When a game goes to pk’s as a player you can only realistically ask your keeper to stop one of the 5 shots. Solo did that. She also got her hand on another but the ball had been hit with too much pace to stop it. Japan’s keeper stopped two. One being complete luck that her foot was in the right place. The other being a nice stop. As to the player who missed the shot high, Carli Lloyd. It’s pretty easy to do that. I mean she had played 2 hours of soccer just prior to that. Also all it takes for the ball to sail high like that is for you to lean back while kicking a fraction of an inch too far. If youg golf, how many times on 18 holes do you lean back just a bit too much and then the ball shanks right or left. Pros do it for goodness sake. During the course of the game we had hit the woodwork on three seperate occasions. The game could have easily finished 4-1 in regular time if all of those would have moved a fraction of an inch. We dominated possession and frankly outplayed Japan most of the game, but it’s sports and sometimes in sports the team that played the best doesn’t always win. To say that we choked is a response of frustration because “dang it we’re America and we should win everything.” Japan was resilient and lucky. Two things that the nation of Japan can use right now along with the hope that their victory can provide. We didn’t choke. We simply lost the game of nuance and luck.

      • Craig D. | July 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

        I don’t follow soccer unless its a national game like the World Cup and the US is in it. So the nuance is lost on me (I’m soccer retarded). But I still found the game to be highly entertaining and kept me on the edge for all of the second half and extra time. What kills me is how quickly some people assign blame or choke labels when a team loses in a Championship game. Japan was there for a reason! They are good! Sure the US probably has better talent and played better. But that game is precisely why we watch sports. To see who wins! It isn’t always the best team. And that is good for any sport. The US Women should be proud of their accomplishments. They have no shame in losing the finals.

        Now about those kits…

        • Pat | July 18, 2011 at 6:01 pm |

          The kits weren’t great. The reality is I prefer Nike’s kit design over Adidas any day but the black kit should have been navy. Unlike club soccer where anything goes when it comes to change and third kits, national teams almost always have a set color that they have as their change kit which usually has something to do with their national identity. Also worth noting that several national teams don’t use colors from their flag as their primary or change kits. However, in most of those cases there is a traditional reason.

          Germany: Primary kit is always white shirt, black shorts, white socks with red and either yellow or gold trim. white isn’t a flag color but at least they trim the unis with flag colors. White and black are traditional colors for Prussia. Their change kit while in recent years has been flag colors, traditionally is green and white. They are going back to this. From what I gather it’s supposed to match the color of the pitch was the reasoning.

          Japan: Blue is used as the primary color for Japan’s kits. They have done this for awhile and I’ve heard everything from it is to represent the samurai, to the ocean and sky surround Japan, to they were lucky when they wore it and continued.

          Netherlands: Orange is for the house of Orange and is a national color even though it’s not on the falg.

          Italy: Blue was the color of the royal family at the time the team was founded.

          Australia: Green and yellow are the traditional colors of their sports teams. That comes from their national flower and I blieve it’s a part of their national crest.

          United States: black=Nike branding and the BFBS phenomena.

      • pflava | July 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

        To be fair, I think the term “choke” here is not referring to the loss itself, but to the fact that the US blew two leads.

        • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

          Yeah, but that’s still not a choke. The US was so dominant for at least 105 of 120 minutes played that I think it must have been apparent to even a casual non-fan how dominant they were. Being absolutely dominant and then getting snakebit by fluky bad luck at the end isn’t what “choke” means. The 1986 Sawx, for example, didn’t dominate the World Series for all but one unlucky inning. They were just barely the better team for five and two-thirds games, and then they played like incompetent losers for the remaining game-and-a-third. That’s what it means to choke. Not just blowing a lead, but turning the switch from winning to sucking. The USWNT never flipped that switch from dominate to suck, or at any rate they didn’t do so until the PK shootout, where it doesn’t matter because a PK shootout is all about blind chance and luck anyway.

          The USWNT has done more than its fair share of choking in the last decade, but they didn’t choke on Sunday. It was bad luck. Which is why I blame the black uniforms: An irrational outcome calls for an irrational explanation.

        • pflava | July 18, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

          Yeah, I don’t think they choked at all. Just theorizing what the original poster might have meant by using the term.

          I agree wholeheartedly that fluky plays and bad luck were the downfall of the USWNT. Especially Japan’s first goal. The Americans dominated the first half so thoroughly that it probably should have been 3-0 after 45.

        • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm |

          Yep. If the gods of soccer were only against the US 90 percent of the time, instead of 100 percent, it would have been 3-0 after 45, 4-1 after 90, and we’d all be like, “Mia who?” today. And what, we then ask, could so offend the gods of soccer that they rewarded the best all-around performance by any team in a Women’s World Cup final, ever, with 100 percent bad luck and a dispiriting defeat? A blue/white/red team adopting black unis, when black is the sporting color of said blue/white/red team’s archnemesis, that’s what. So I say again, thanks a lot, Nike.

    • Simply Moono | July 18, 2011 at 6:32 pm |

      At least someone’s being rational and civil about this.

  • DStern | July 18, 2011 at 9:53 am |

    MLB nailed the Negro League unis for the White Sox and Tigers. Perfect in every detail.

    • Mark in Shiga | July 18, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

      The 1926 Chicago American Giants road uniform is perhaps my favorite baseball uniform in existence.

      I wish my Cubs would use it some time, or at least go back to the all-dark-blue road uniform that they wore several varieties of in the early decades of the century. It looks so great. If it were used as the basis for a future fauxback, I’d like to see another color in the socks or in the trim somewhere; red would look good with either the Sox or the Cubs.

      I notice that the insides of the sleeves seem to be white: does this mean that the jerseys aren’t made of a solid-color fabric, but rather have the dark blue printed onto the outside? Lots of soccer jerseys are like that, but all the solid-color baseball jerseys I’ve ever seen are made out of solid-color fabric.

      I of course have one quibble with the Sox’ version: as with many, many uniforms these days, the number is too far down the back. This will never stop being a pet peeve of mine. It looks so hideous and particularly discriminates against players who aren’t very tall. I shudder to imagine 5’3″ Craig Grebeck wearing one of today’s jerseys, with the number halfway into his pants!

  • Craig D. | July 18, 2011 at 10:04 am |

    As a Reds fan I always enjoyed the bit of irony in the Nasty Boys using MC Hammer’s “U Can’t Touch This” as their theme song as they beat his A’s in 1990. Thanks Hammer!

    • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

      Also, given what we now know about how those A’s were the Ground Zero of the steroids epidemic, there’s a certain poignancy to the lyric, “A super dope homeboy from the Oak town / And I’m known as such.”

      You said it, Hammer!

  • Craig D. | July 18, 2011 at 10:08 am |

    Those A’s unis looked sharp. Very nicely tailored for the most part. When throwing back to the pullovers/sansabelt look, a lot of teams go way too baggy. Matsui looked nearly perfect for the era, with the socks being the one exception.

  • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Speaking of hammers, I hope your arm is nice and loose, Phil.

    With those unis the A’s wore yesterday, the 2-in-1 is a MUCH better look than the solid green.

    • The Jeff | July 18, 2011 at 10:32 am |

      I don’t know what Phil’s issue with 2-in-1’s is. It’s the look of stirrups without the discomfort. What’s the problem?

      • Matt Beahan | July 18, 2011 at 10:35 am |

        Whilst I can’t speak for Phil, I hate the 2-in-1 look because the “stirrup” strap often ends up looking truncated. In my opinion, it looks lazy and sloppy, like the player just couldn’t be bothered to go the extra mile…

        • Ricko | July 18, 2011 at 10:43 am |

          Yeah, that was a problem with the 2-in-1’s. The stripe stopped where the two separate pieces of the sock (anklet and tube) were joined. It left an unnatural and odd-looking gap above the shoe top.

          Made sense from a manufacturing standpoint, though, not having to have the knit-in stripes in two pieces line up…and being able to have the anklet portion be universal, to be used no matter the color of the top stripe.

        • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 11:05 am |

          The 2-in-1 itself does have some major problems, of that there is no doubt.

          I’m just saying that a lot of gold with a little bit of green was the right look for those throwbacks. And really, if you’re just wearing a 1-piece sock instead of stirrups over gold sannies anyway, why not wear the 2-in-1s for this one day?

    • Ricko | July 18, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      ‘Tis true, tis true. Although those pants are wayyyyyy too short for era. Still, though, a better feel for the era than the solid dark.

      And I say again, the sansabelt look isn’t all bad. On a team or two. Or a few. Problem was it became, “Ooo, that’s the hot new thing, let’s all do it.”

      For example, I thought the Orioles and/or the Pirates in their recent throwback game looked great. Y’know, in context. The Pirates especially, and especially on the guys who went long-panted. Absent stirrups and stripes down the pant legs, the additional color at the waist on those updated Clemente-esque unis looked really good.

      • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 10:56 am |

        Maybe it was the colors, but I agree. The green & gold sansabelts looked pretty sharp yesterday.

        Would have been interesting to see how the Angels looked if they had gone for more accuracy, because I don’t think the navy and red waistband was a particularly good look.

        • Gusto44 | July 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

          I thought the Angels looked vastly superior in those throwbacks as compared to their modern unis, but the A’s looked kind of bland with that Billy Martin era uniform.

          Having the city name on the home white jersey is odd, and something better suited to the early 1900s. The next time Oakland goes retro, I’d like to see the 1971 vests, or take a page out of the Philadelphia A’s from 1909-14, and go with striped pillbox hats.

  • MIchael M | July 18, 2011 at 10:53 am |

    Samuel Lam’s second picture in the Facebook album has the following caption:

    “Trevor Cahill’s girlfriend and Mrs. Sizemore pose for a picture with the players’ balls.”

    That’s just too funny to leave alone.

    • Samuel | July 18, 2011 at 11:25 am |

      I left that in there knowing that someone would get a laugh. Glad you did.

      But it was a good cause. Each baseball, signed by a player on the team, was individually wrapped. And for $30, you can buy one. Proceeds goes towards the ALS foundation.

      • MIchael M | July 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

        Great cause! And a great caption.

        Did they sell out?

        • Samuel | July 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

          All the balls were sold that day. From the three booths that I saw, I think a total of about 100 balls were up for sale.

  • Matthew Robins | July 18, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    John –

    Here is a link to the Seattle cap without any New Era of MLB logos: http://www.mickeyspl...

    • M-N | July 18, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      I can vouch for that. None of Mickeys hats have the New Era logo, or the MLB logo on the back for the Cooperstown Classics.

  • Jim Vilk | July 18, 2011 at 11:20 am |

    And, since I live in New York Ohio, this usually means I will either get the Yankees or Mets (or occasionally the Red Sox or Phillies, joy of joys), but almost never will the rest of the time I get a Chicago or Detroit market game.

    The game was scheduled in my area, but I didn’t know they were throwing back, so I mowed the lawn instead. Was surprised to see the pics later that evening, and I’m glad to see Tod’s writeup today. Thanks, Tod – don’t be a stranger ’round here!

    • aflfan | July 18, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

      Thanks Vilk,

      I have had a lot going on around here and am just getting back in the swing of reading UniWatch everyday.

  • Matt B | July 18, 2011 at 11:31 am |

    Man, since I wear the throwback uni, I need to meet up with that Phillies uniform guy, and then find another to wear the Road unis, so we can have a nice trifecta going on.

    Though I can’t tell if his pants are stripped like they are supposed to be.

  • wollen1 | July 18, 2011 at 11:32 am |

    I couldn’t agree more with your frustration, Phil. I remember going through the same thing when I was trying to watch the Cubs-Red Sox throwback game earlier this year. It was literally impossible unless I wanted to drive to Illinois. I am aghast. Is MLB’s intent to keep customers from viewing its product? How could this ever be justified.

    I’m starting to see a lot of complaints about the MLB ‘Saturday National Game’ policy. Maybe they’ll wise up and rework the contract with FOX, but based upon history, I don’t think baseball is smart enough to consider fan reaction.

    • scott | July 18, 2011 at 11:53 am |

      I’m sure MLB is far more worried about the millions of dollars Fox is paying than that a few disgruntled fans may not get to see a particular out-of-market game. If anything, it seems more likely that in the future Fox will go to a strict regional telecast on Saturdays and EVERY game except for one will be blacked out.

      • wollen1 | July 18, 2011 at 7:36 pm |

        I don’t undertand how that would benefit either MLB or Fox. I’m no expert on sports broadcasting, but I’m imagining that the advertizing is much the same for all of these Fox Saturday games 9i.e. no local advertizing being disrupted), and it’s not as if there would be a great ratings drop for a local affiliate on a Saturday afternoon if a trickle of people aren’t watching the featured game and are instead watching another Fox broadcast through MLB.com or the MLB package.

        I don’t consider myslef a disgruntled fan (at least not an unreasonable one) because I question why the MLB is consciously hiding its product from its fans. I also think that it’s borderline consumer fraud to deny subscribers to the above-named programs the games they pay to see one out of every seven days.

  • Charles N. | July 18, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

    Wait – Am I the only one seeing that the two snapshots of the Phillies superfan in full uniform is the same guy in both photos? I mean, look at the sneakers and the hair!

    • LI Phil | July 18, 2011 at 12:42 pm |

      dammit…did i forget the sarcasm tags again?

  • Ronnie Poore | July 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

    you describe the Detroit socks as “black” and the Chicago ones as “black and white”. the “black” looks dark blue to my eyes.

    • aflfan | July 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

      Could be. Looked black to me watching the game.

      • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

        It’s blue.

        • Ricko | July 18, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

          I’d say so, yes.

          Let’s see, Stars wore navy and red.
          Hmmm…would the Tigers have any navy high socks around, I wonder?

          Yes, but they sent someone out to buy black socks so they wouldn’t match the Stars colors.

          Seriously? Come on, people. They’re navy.

          Yankees hats looks black on TV sometimes, too.

        • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

          “Yes, but they sent someone out to buy black socks so they wouldn’t match the Stars colors.”

          Nah, they just raided the visitors’ clubhouse.

        • traxel | July 18, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

          As a kid I ALWAYS drew the Yankees and Bears logos and uniforms with black. I remember losing the black/blue argument with my brother and being disappointed when I finally realized they were blue. Thought it was a cop out. If you go that dark, why not just go all the way, I thought. Back then.

    • Kevin Hastings | July 18, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

      Reminds me of this…

      Father Ted: That’s right, Dougal. You see, ordinary shops sell what look like black socks, but if you look closely, you’ll see that they’re very, very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.

      Father Dougal: That’s true. I thought my Uncle Tommy was wearing black socks, but when I looked at them closely, they were just very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very dark blue.

      Father Ted: Never buy black socks from a normal shop. They shaft you every time!

  • Shane | July 18, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

    I have the opposite problem, Phil. I’m in the extreme northwestern corner of Massachusetts, and as such get FOX out of Albany. Come Saturday games, I’m always stuck with Mets/Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

    This was something Time Warner was aware of and fixed last season (patching in a Boston feed), but this year, SOL. Which means I missed the Cubs/Sox throwback game, aside from on the radio.

  • Say Hey Kid | July 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

    Indians/Twins are wearing green caps for the first game of the doubleheader because the game was originally scheduled to be played on Earth Day. If this isnt a sign of the apocalypse I dont know what is.

    • aflfan | July 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

      Hey it is only three months late. Never let a crappy promotion go to waste.

  • MC | July 18, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

    I’ve been trying to figure something out, and for the love of me, I can’t find an answer. Maybe you all can help. Its a red cap, blue bill, blue P and a big star on each side of the logo, all three outlined in white. Anyone know where that cap came from? I thought I remembered it being worn sometime in the 90s, but I can’t find any record of that anywhere.

    • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

      Phillies

      • MC | July 18, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

        Well yes, I know that… But did they ever wear it as part of the official uniform (or BP) or is it pretty much just a fashion cap? I thought it was official, but can’t find it anywhere.

        • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

          I think it was official for about two years.

        • JTH | July 18, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

          As far as game caps go, they had the special ones for interleague games that are similar to what you’re describing.

          And I do seem to recall BP caps with stars on either side of the P, but I don’t remember the specific coloring.

    • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

      I still think it was an official game cap with stars on each side of the P. Maybe an alt uni. They seemed to be worn with the cream unis. Were they alts?

      • scott | July 18, 2011 at 4:54 pm |

        It was a spring training/ BP cap from a few years ago.

    • Mike 2 | July 18, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

      http://stores.ebay.c...

      This is the hat, not that the listing is very helpful

  • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

    IMO your obsession with stirrups is becoming a detriment to the chances of ever abandoning the PJs forever. In the A’s Angles throwback article you equate socks (with high cuffs) to PJs. The visual difference between socks and stirrups is negligible. In fact stirrups allow each player the ability to alter the amount of sanis showing, therefore socks create a more uniform team appearance. I was all for the stirrup champaign but the players that do go high cuffed wear socks. Because socks have a greater chance of acceptance by the players I believe it’s time to abandon the ‘rups only policy of Uni Watch and promote high cuffed socks. Then a campaign to add stripes to most all team’s socks would bring us a totally ‘real baseball’ look once again. Isn’t that the real goal?

    • traxel | July 18, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

      Well……I’m kinda with you. You are right in the socks/stirrups negligibility difference they way most are worn and I think most should be worn (high cuffed). I’m not a fan of the lengthy stirrups with a bunch of sani showing. That was trendy for a while but not much sense in it other than fashion. But then again, since the masses stopped dieing due to sock color dye poisoning stirrups have been just fashion. On the practical side, there really isn’t much since in high cuffs either though. So, throw all that out the window. My visual choice is high cuffs and socks – but only socks with stripes (except Yankees) just as you say. For tradition sake, stirrups are good too, short ones only. But the stripes are much more important. Back to the point of being a detriment, no, we only wish Uni Watch had that much influence. One day.

    • LI Phil | July 18, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

      “In the A’s Angles throwback article you equate socks (with high cuffs) to PJs.”

      huh?

      look, paul may be more willing to accept simply socks, but we would both, without question, support socks (showing) than pants down to the shoes

      no where did i say socks with high cuffs are “pajamas” — i don’t even consider ALL long pants to be pajamas — derek jeter, for example, wears his pants down to his hi-tops, but i wouldn’t consider what he wears to be pajamas — pajamas are when guys wear billowy pants all the way down to their ankles like this freak

      i’d prefer a more form fitting cut with stirrups/socks to jeter’s look, but at least he looks good in a uniform…unlike this look

      • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

        I apologize. I knew that was the wrong way to put it. I was referring to the line- “What is wore than no ‘rups or solid socks?-2 in 1s” To me the “no ‘rups” reference indicates at least George Hendrix style. (I agree the Jetter’s ‘to the shoe’ pants are better than PJs but neither is acceptable. There must be color below the pants to ballance the caps and undersleeves. Sorry for the overstatement.

        • LI Phil | July 18, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

          shit…no, i guess i worded that poorly, so mea culpa

          about the only time i would argue against wearing lower leg stylings (rups, socks or even 2-in-1s) is when something like this happens

          however, of all the lower leg styling possibilities, 2-in-1’s are the worst of the three

        • R.S. Rogers | July 18, 2011 at 4:26 pm |

          however, of all the lower leg styling possibilities, 2-in-1′s are the worst of the three

          Agreed, and personally, I’d rather see even the pajamiest of pajama pants than two-in-ones. The whole thing with sanitaries showing through stirrups is a bug, not a feature. It’s an acceptable bug, since it has so much tradition behind it, but the fact remains that it’s an example of a stirrup failing to achieve its fundamental purpose. Anyway, the point is that it’s one thing to have a stirrup with sannies showing through; failure though that is, it’s at least an authentic instance of a real phenomenon. Stitching a stirrup-like pattern into a white sock is an inauthentic facsimile of something that is, in and of itself, not even a good thing.

          You know those half-assed partial stripes on the shoulders of football jerseys, that are meant to sort of remind us of the sleeve stripes football jerseys used to have, back when football jerseys used to have sleeves? And how pretty much everyone hates those half-assed partial stripes and everything they stand for? 2-in-1s are the exact baseball equivalent of that.

        • Jeff P | July 19, 2011 at 12:40 am |

          I prefer fake stripes to football jerseys without extra color at all, and I prefer fake stirrups to pajama pants.

          YMMV.

    • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 4:34 pm |

      2 in 1s, PJs (which at their worst are bell bottoms) Hendrix/Jetter are all affronts to taste, decency and geometry.

      • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

        The above was a joke only understood by those who have read “A Conferacy Of Dunces”. I shouldn’t have used it. But in reality I do feel that way.

  • Noelski y que! | July 18, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    I just saw this picture of Heathcliff Slocumb going all nipslip pitching as a member of the Red Sox. Maybe Nike should have stepped in here…..

    http://briansredsoxa...

    • jim greenfield | July 18, 2011 at 9:43 pm |

      A friend who played AA pointed out how Reggie Jackson unbottoned the top two buttons and could only do so because of who he was. Slocumb is nobody and half dressed.

  • John Saiz | July 18, 2011 at 10:24 pm |

    The Dodgers and Giants are wearing red ribbons on their jerseys tonight (real ribbons, it looks like). Anyone know why?

    • Mike 2 | July 18, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

      “Until There’s a Cure” – AIDS awareness / fundraiser

      http://untiltheresac...

  • John Saiz | July 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm |

    Cool, thanks Mike. The Giants pitcher isn’t wearing a ribbon, though, at least in the bottom of the 3rd. Maybe it fell off?