Gearing Up for the Fall Classic

Screen shot 2011-10-17 at 11.31.17 AM.png

That World Series thingie is scheduled to start tonight, so I thought we’d go over a few points regarding the two teams. To wit:

Feeling gravity’s pull: Has anyone else noticed that the Cardinals’ “chest” insignia has been sitting way too low in recent years? It’s like an old dude at the beach with droopy man-tits. I’m not sure when this started, but it’s been bugging me for a few years now. Not sure why I’ve never written about it — just one of those things that I had quietly internalized, but then a few days ago I got a note from reader Jeremy Boyer, who wrote:

I have two game authentic Cardinals jerseys — one from 1998, when McGwire was breaking the home run record, and the other from 2006, when the Cardinals won the World Series. Besides the fact that the Cardinals did not wear numbers on the front of the jersey in 1998, the two jerseys are relatively the same. The big difference is that the birds on the bat on the 2006 jersey are four to five inches lower than on the 1998 version. Instead of the logo being on the chest, it’s much lower.

Yes, exactly! What’s the deal with that? Maybe it has something to do with the shift to the Cool Base template, maybe it has to do with players wearing baggier jerseys these days (that’s what Bill Henderson thinks, although I haven’t noticed any other teams’ jersey logos sitting too low), maybe it has something to do with button placement. But whatever: Put the birds back on their properly lofty perch!

Stick with the damn program already: According to the MLB Style Guide (and common sense), the Rangers are only supposed to wear their red caps with their red jerseys. But the Rangers have always treated red and blue as interchangeable elements, and lately they’ve been going red-capped with their home white jerseys (and red-socked, too), which looks like total shite because all the numbering and lettering on their jerseys is blue. Yo, guys, you’re supposed to wear the blue cap with that jersey! But they’ve been winning with the red hats, so I assume they’ll stick with them. Of course, they could really honor their red/blue identity crisis by bringing this batting helmet design out of mothballs. C’mon, the big stage calls for big ideas — go for it!

And speaking of the red caps…: Reader Peter Ponce has crunched a few uni-related numbers regarding the Rangers:

The Rangers introduced the red jersey in 2010 and did very well in it (30-9), but they dropped all three postseason games in which they wore it. But they went 8-5 in blue hats in the postseason.

That was last year. In 2011, they weren’t quite as good in red jerseys during the regular season (25-13), but they did very well in red caps with white jerseys (8-1). They wore the red jersey to open the playoffs and got hammered by the Rays. I assumed a red-hat curse, given their 1-9 postseason record in red hats from the 1990s. An all-time 1-13 record while wearing red in the postseason supported that theory.

However, they’ve now worn red hats with white jerseys four times this postseason, winning all four games. Toss in the regular season and they’re now 12-1 overall this season in that look. The difference between now and the ’90s (outside of better pitching and a deeper lineup) is the shoes. During their 1990s postseason failures, the Rangers wore red shoes and belts (Dressed to the Nines is inaccurate on this; people around DFW often referred to the team as “red shoe Rangers”). They now wear black shoes and belts.

So apparently the baseball gods don’t care only for red jerseys or shoes/belts on the Rangers. Interesting that they will face a Cardinals team that wears red shoes/belts even with navy caps (a look I really despise, even though I love the Cardinals’ navy hats).

Make that call to the ’pen, Tony: Octavio Dotel has been going high-cuffed for his entire career. Now he’s finally on the right team. Here’s hoping he gets into every game of the Series. Hey, maybe a spot start? Hell, let him DH for the games in Arlington!

• Recycling program: Here’s a video clip showing World Series patches being sewn onto the Cardinals’ jerseys. Interestingly, they’re using the same jerseys that the team had already been wearing. I had assumed that they got new jerseys for the Series. Also: Albert Pujols prefers a straight hem on his jersey, instead of the usual rounded shirttail.

Ring-a-ding-ding: Remember my recent queries about athletes who wear their wedding bands on the field (or the ice, or the court, or whatever)? Reader Nolan Brett points out that Rangers pitcher Matt Harrison wears his ring on his Tooth Fairy necklace! Either that or he just started going steady with someone. I have never seen another ballplayer doing this. (I’ll have more info about Harrison’s ring/necklace combo, and about many other athletes who compete while wearing their wedding rings, in an upcoming ESPN column.)

And hey, as long as we’re talking about the Series, today’s New York Times has a great article + slideshow on World Series programs. Just the thing to usher in the final chapter of the 2011 baseball season.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Terrible job by me for failing to mention on Monday that the Ravens have added a memorial decal for Art Modell’s wife (big thanks to Mako Mameli for setting me straight). … Some additional NBA alternate designs have video-leaked, plus there are new views of the ones we saw last week. Full details in this thread. … Don’t think I’ve mentioned until now that the Canucks are wearing a “37” memorial decal for Rick Rypien. … A Cleveland writer is blaming the Browns’ woes on the Al Lerner sleeve memorial (thanks, Vince). … The A’s are having a contest to let kids design their holiday card (from Jason Hillyer). … Holy moly, look at this amazing auto racing program cover. … And hey, who knew the FBI had a baseball team? … Buncha good eBay finds by Mike Hersh, including a Quebec Nordiques logo style sheet, an NFL helmet placemat, an IHOP NFL mug placemat, an NFL book cover, an AFL book cover, and an “Evolution of the Football Uniform” poster. … Adidas reportedly wanted to try all sorts of alternate jerseys and helmets for Nebraska this season, but Nebraska said no (from Nate Dougherty). … Nice stirrups being worn by Southeastern University from Lakeland, Florida (from Marcial Santos). … Too much information from a reader who prefers to be anonymous, who writes: “Hockey goalies wear a double cup to protect the twig and berries, but the jock doesn’t always ‘ride’ properly with a taut piece of spandex between it and your body, so a lot of goalies will wear something like this and remove the inner cup from their goal jock.” Thanks for, uh, sharing. … Mississippi State will wear a “rivalry uniform” this weekend (from C.J. Adams). … Hey check this out: a dress with a striped-socks theme! … Oh, this is too good: a book called Freddy and the Baseball Team from Mars. … The embarrassment of riches continues: Look at this amazing hockey jacket patch! … Utah is apparently going BFBS for the game against Oregon State on Oct. 29 (from Trent Knaphus). … I have no idea what the TV show Tosh.0 is, but I do know that about six people e-mailed me last night to say that Daniel Tosh was dressed like Jim Tressel. … What’s the point of the NHL having a color-at-home rule if a team decides to wear white for its home opener? That’s what the Kings did last night. Of course, many fans — myself included — would rather see the league go back to wearing white at home on a full-time basis anyway (from Chris Mayberry).

 

225 comments to Gearing Up for the Fall Classic

  • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 7:19 am |

    Umm… Go back at that Cardinals WS patch vid and look at this screengrab: Is that a Michigan State camo jersey for the Men’s basketball team?

    • DZ | October 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

      Possible aircraft carrier uniform?

      • MPowers1634 | October 19, 2011 at 3:45 pm |

        Nice Catch!

  • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 7:31 am |

    A Cleveland writer is blaming the Browns’ woes on the Al Lerner sleeve memorial

    That’s cute, but it’s wrong. The Browns troubles are actually linked to the infamous CB logo from 1965. They cursed themselves by ripping the logos off their helmets, and as long as they stay blank they will continue to never win another championship. As superstitious as sports fans are, I can’t believe no one’s realized that. They won the NFL Championship in 1964. The NFL then tells them to use a logo, they refused, essentially giving the finger to the league. The Football Gods have been punishing them ever since. Note of course that the original Browns finally added helmet logos when they became the Ravens – and won a Superbowl just a few years later.

    The AL on the sleeves is stupid (as is the GSH on the Bears), but the Browns curse is their blank helmet.

    • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 9:22 am |

      The first sentence of your comment made me think of this guy

      Don’t know about that CB logo being the source of the curse… really, though, ALL of Cleveland sports has been cursed since 1965…

      * The Cavaliers, who weren’t even in existence in 1964, have only been to the NBA Finals once, losing, and then there was that whole Decision thing last year…
      * The Indians, falling short against Atlanta in 1995 and Florida in 1997; a horrible team in the years before the 1994 strike, and struggling to maintain relevance in the AL Central following their streak of 5 division titles.
      * Red Right 88. The Drive. The Fumble. Art Modell and Al Lerner. Need I say more?
      * The last hockey title came with the AHL’s Barons in 1964. They moved out of town during the 1972-73 season and folded after a full year in Jacksonville; their successors in the market have failed miserably, with the IHL Lumberjacks coming the closest to a championship round to date (1997, losing to Detroit in the semis).

      Agreed that the permanent sleeve memorial is stupid, particularly in Lerner’s case.

    • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 9:35 am |

      So the Browns are cursed because they decided not to give in to the NFL’s big marketing plan to make itself as much money as possible during the football boom of the 1960s? Thanks, Captain Capitalism. You’re an idiot.

    • Kyle Allebach @ School | October 19, 2011 at 9:51 am |

      Wouldn’t by that logic, the Steelers would be half-cursed? And wouldn’t that mean they wouldn’t have six Super Bowl trophies?

      Anyway, the AL makes sense; he helped move the Browns to Baltimore, and since then they have been doing badly. Personally, I’m not superstitous, however, if they do remove the AL logo, they’ll probably actually preform well, everyone will attribute it to the curse. Same thing if they actually put a helmet logo on, or conversly, if they put a logo on and they do badly, Cleveland will curse the helmet logo.

      • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am |

        No, it’s all about the reason the helmet is blank. The Steelers simply added a logo to one side and decided it was good enough. The NFL was apparently ok with that. Cleveland actually ripped the logos off their helmets in blatant defiance of the NFL. (at least that’s how one version of the story goes) That’s why it’s cursed.

        /note to Andy: sports curses are not real. They’re nothing but silly, made up stories. Breaking a mirror doesn’t cause bad luck and black cats are not any more evil than any other color cats. My first post was not meant to be taken seriously, idiot.

        • Rick | October 19, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

          Hey, andy, get back to the Occupy park, you moron.

    • Jim Vilk | October 19, 2011 at 10:30 am |

      really, though, ALL of Cleveland sports has been cursed since 1965…

      Wrong.
      And they won two more after that.

      • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:36 am |

        He said SPORTS, Jim. Not hobbies.

        • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

          I suppose “all” sports is arguably too broad a stroke…

          Though, has indoor soccer even had a league that survived long enough to celebrate a 20-year anniversary? Or any teams that stayed in place for at least 10?

        • Jim Vilk | October 19, 2011 at 9:58 pm |

          The Milwaukee Wave and the Baltimore Blast are veritable classics of the indoor game.
          http://en.wikipedia....
          http://en.wikipedia....

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:34 am |

      George Halas is the most pivotal figure in Bears, Packers and NFL history. Without Halas, there is no original NFL, there are no small market teams and the NFL does not look the same as it does today.

      Naming one measly non-Super Bowl Championship trophy after that man is not enough, the ever-present GSH is the least the Bears could do to honor the most important man in the history of the most popular sports league in the world.

      • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:35 am |

        Yeah. I went there.

      • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 10:41 am |

        Or they could just play in George Halas Stadium and erect a statue. Then you’d have an actual reminder of and memorial to him.

        3 letters on a jersey sleeve doesn’t really serve that purpose.

        • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:47 am |

          Soldier Field
          Dedicated to the men and women of the armed services

          Nah, fuck that. Let’s name it after a guy who founded a pro sports league because some guy doesn’t like initials on the sleeves of the team that plays here.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:50 am |

          Soldier Field honors people more important than any athlete, I think you know that.

          That’s why it’s name hasn’t changed, that’s why the statues around the stadium are in memorial of troops and not Bears icons (I’m almost certain there are no Bears statues outside SF, but I could be wrong) and that’s another reason to honor the man on the jersey.

          But in all seriousness, outside Soldier Field is like walking through a military memorial park.

        • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 10:52 am |

          …and football has what exactly to do with the military again?

          Aren’t there enough other places that honor the military?

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 11:01 am |

          It was Soldier Field for 40 years before the Bears moved in.

          And in the city of Chicago, it’s one of the best places for military tribute. It just is, there’s no ‘Mall’ in Chicago.

          Listen, I’m not a conservative, I believe all people should be *forced* to gay marry. I just think people who have bigger balls than me, who fight and die at the whim of our country should be honored as much as possible for their service, and doing so at an ultimately trivial event like a football game, helps put things in perspective.

          But don’t ever dress my team in flag crap or fatigue shit.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 11:04 am |

          Also, how is naming a stadium any more of an honor than three letters on a jersey? I don’t follow that logic, I think its tomato, tomato (wow, that phrase really doesn’t work in print, and I wonder why journalism is dying…).

        • concealed78 | October 19, 2011 at 11:26 am |

          Sigh. The Bears play in a stadium owned by the Park District by the City of Chicago & originally was a memorial and a multi-sport venue. The Bears haven’t “owned” their own stadium basically ever; and you might have to go back to Decatur, IL in 1920; if that.

          The Browns being cursed? That’s just bullshit. I think Jeff is trying to be an agitator again. Ignorant.

        • concealed78 | October 19, 2011 at 11:30 am |

          “Listen, I’m not a conservative, I believe all people should be *forced* to gay marry.”

          What the hell kind of statement is that? Is that more ironic Liberal tolerance that’s actually a form of their own intolerance?

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 11:35 am |

          *concealed78

          What it is is a joke, from the Spanish, “jocca” meaning, “How the hell didn’t you get that, it was pretty obvious.”

          It truly is a romance language.

        • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 11:43 am |

          The Browns being cursed? That’s just bullshit. I think Jeff is trying to be an agitator again. Ignorant.

          I responded to a story about a Browns curse by making up a different Browns curse. How is that ignorant or make me an idiot? God damn you people are dense today. I shouldn’t need a TPFIC tag when it’s obvious.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 11:51 am |

          THE,

          Don’t get too upset over concealed78, he’s seems to be the densest person on here today, in fact, he’s being quite an agitator.

        • -DW | October 19, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

          “Or they could just play in George Halas Stadium and erect a statue.”

          Nope, wouldn’t work for some of the crowd here either.

          Somebody would come up with one of those inane “I’m Still Calling It ………………” shirts.

        • Bernard | October 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

          THE,

          Don’t get too upset over concealed78, he’s seems to be the densest person on here today, in fact, he’s being quite an agitator.

          Don’t get it twisted, TimmE. Jeff was, is, and always will be an agitator. And he agitates simply for the sake of agitation. Some people enjoy it, because they claim it adds perspective to discussion. Others think he’s simply an overfed troll.

    • =bg= | October 19, 2011 at 10:42 am |

      you can bet the AL shield will remain on the back of the Rayduhz helmets, FWIW.

      • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 10:48 am |

        For the rest of this season, yeah. I really don’t think it’ll be permanent. They lit that eternal flame for Al, they don’t need an eternal helmet sticker too. We are talking about the one team that doesn’t retire player numbers, after all.

        /at least I hope not, there’s too many extra stickers on today’s helmets as it is

    • a starlit carillon | October 19, 2011 at 11:14 am |

      Browns are an expansion team. Never had a logo. No logo removal, no curse.

      • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

        The Ravens were an expansion team. The Browns suspended operations from 1996-1998. Officially, this is fact, and can not be disputed.

        • scott | October 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm |

          No, the Ravens are the continuation of the old Browns, no matter what the NFL tries to brainwash people into thinking.

  • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 7:37 am |

    Actually, I think Matt Harrison is just carrying the One Ring to Mount Doom. (Bonus implication: Mount Doom is in or near St. Louis.) Maybe it’s just the odd visual scale of the tooth fairy necklace, but that ring looks huuuuuge.

    • Paul Lukas | October 19, 2011 at 7:42 am |

      It’s definitely his wedding ring. Further details in an upcoming ESPN column.

      • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 8:17 am |

        same thing

  • corndog | October 19, 2011 at 7:39 am |

    Tosh has been doing sort of a college theme on his show ever since he did the show at Arizona State. I just saw an episode a week or two ago with him wearing a BYU shirt.

    • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 7:46 am |

      In the BYU episode, my friend Ashley was on there, but beside the point. Not only was the sweater vest complete with Nike logo and American flag pin, but at the end of the episode, he was wearing the full ensemble (khaki slacks, black dress shoes). Wonder what he’ll do next week. Maybe he’ll dress up as Derek Dooley?

      • Joey Guns | October 19, 2011 at 8:19 am |

        Tosh also did the “U” and some random small college in Florida. Next week should be interesting!

      • Chris Holder | October 19, 2011 at 8:45 am |

        Put me down as hoping this Tosh guy DOESN’T subject his viewers to the horrifying spectacle that is Dooley’s pants, for the good of humanity. And personally, I’m hoping an epic beatdown this weekend will maybe convince Dooley to burn them to change the Vols’ luck. /rolltide

        • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 9:37 am |

          Those pants are the best thing in college football, just as Bruce Pearl’s blazer was the best thing in college basketball once upon a time.

        • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          If he does do it, I hope he at least has the sense not to wear brown shoes with a black belt.

      • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:06 am |

        Was Ashley the girl behind the counter at that pizza joint (or whatever it was) that he was talking to?

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:36 am |

          It is.

        • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 6:27 pm |

          Yep. It was at Rebel BBQ, which is coincidentally right next to a Pizza Hut (well, in between Pizza Hut and McDonald’s). Given how small the town is, I almost fell out of my seat when I heard him mention Blythe. Good to know that my hometown got on national TV for something other than being on “Speeders”.

        • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 8:05 pm |

          I have no idea what the TV show Speeders is, but if you’re from Blythe, I guess it’s safe for us to assume that

          A) you don’t drive a Cadillac
          B) you’re not a midget

        • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 9:16 pm |

          LOL, right-o. I drive a Charger, and I’m 6’2.

      • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am |

        That’s really funny that you know her.

  • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 7:42 am |

    Odd detail on that FBI jersey: periods after each letter to show that it’s an abbreviation. (And not just the common English word “Fbi”, natch.) First, the periods badly throw off the left/right balance of the thing. But more to the point, I can’t think of ever seeing, say, a USA jersey with periods after each initial. Just kind of odd.

    • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      My first baseball team’s jerseys (OK, t-shirts) simply said C.I.A. on the back.

      Nobody had any clue if the sponsor was actually the Central Intelligence Agency or what the deal was.

      We didn’t find out until well after the season ended (when we got our souvenir yearbook with all the team photos and whatnot) that it stood for “Credit Industries Associates” or some such.

      • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 11:13 am |

        Sounds like a front, like Flowers By Irene.

        • Tom V. | October 19, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

          Actually I was skeptical at first, theres a business here in Florida called Florida Business Interiors. It was my first thought that it could be an old company or something, looked up the FBI, they’ve been around since 1903 or something so you could take the sellers word for it.

        • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

          The FBI only became the Federal Bureau of Investigations in 1935. Prior to that, from 1908, it was alternately the Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Investigation, and the Division of Investigation.

  • Dave from VA | October 19, 2011 at 7:56 am |

    Count me as another who wishes the NHL went back to white-at-home.

    • walter | October 19, 2011 at 8:50 am |

      Seconded. And at first I was happy to switch to color at home, out of the belief that color contrasts with ice better than white. But it doesn’t seem to be borne out in practice.

      • Hank-SJ | October 19, 2011 at 9:02 am |

        Motion carries. What say you NHL?

        • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 9:37 am |

          I’m biased toward white at home too, although maybe because I just happen to prefer the Red Wings’ red-sleeved white jerseys over their red ones.

        • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          Red Wings’ whites are definitely in my personal top 5 of NHL jerseys.

    • Tom V. | October 19, 2011 at 9:28 am |

      But wait, won’t jersey sales go down then?!?!

      At least go back to what the old IHL did, dark at home for fisrt half of season, white at home for second half of season. Wouldn’t that sell the most jerseys?

      • timmy b | October 19, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

        This.

        As I do remind from time to time, the NHL DID do just this in 1991-92 (75th anniversary season), switching from white at home to dark at home after the All-Star Break.

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:14 am |

      COLOR AT HOME!

      You wanna see all the other teams jerseys, buy the NHL TV package.

    • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      I’m a hockey fan without a huge opinion on the color-at-home thing, but I wonder what the rules are for breaking that protocol. It seems to be done a lot.

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

        There was an article about it a couple of years ago in The Hockey News (and they have an annual story about jerseys which references it, so wait until the holiday season, and you might see it again). A team that wants to wear white at home for a particular game applies to the NHL for permission. The NHL grants it fairly readily, on a limited basis. They also make sure that the visiting team in question is not unduly inconvenienced (for example, a west coast team in the middle of a seven-game eastern swing will not be forced to lug the extra uniforms and helmets for one game).

    • Doug | October 19, 2011 at 10:42 am |

      I still cannot get used to the color-at-home paradigm. I suppose if I’d only ever seen hockey since then it would be fine, but the thing is: I’m too old for that now. It’s like the NHL doesn’t care about us non-kids…

      • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        They don’t, you’ll die soon and we will live forever.

    • Russ | October 19, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

      Why not color v color?

      When did white become a default? If everyone gets so upset about BFBS, why is it ok to wear white when there are very few team’s who actually have white as a team color? We all have color tvs now, and I’m sure the players and fans would be able to distinguish a red Blackhawks jersey from a blue Blues jersey.

      Also, Why does there need to be a league-wide mandate? Let one team (either Home or Away) chose dark or light and the other does the opposite. I’m tired of seeing so many white jerseys.

      • phillipwilson | October 19, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

        +1

        Although more teams would need to break out of the Blue/Red/Black mode. But plenty have secondary colors that could be used.

        No hockey here, but cool infographic on team colors.
        http://www.thesports...

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 8:43 pm |

        Also, Why does there need to be a league-wide mandate? Let one team (either Home or Away) chose dark or light and the other does the opposite. I’m tired of seeing so many white jerseys.

        For the convenience of the visiting team. Suppose you’re the San Jose Sharks, and you’re going on your annual long trip to the East. Seven games, eleven days. One Saturday night, you’re in Montreal, then you play in Boston on Monday. Now suppose the home team has the absolute right to choose their colors. Montreal loves their “Sainte Flannel”, so the Sharks will need their white jerseys, socks, and helmets. But suppose futher that for whatever reason, Boston wants to wear white (or yellow) on Monday. So the Sharks would have to bring their black helmets and colored (black or teal) jerseys and socks, too.

        By a more-or-less bright line rule that the home team wears colors (or white, for that matter), the visiting team need only bring the contrasting uniform, and it’ll be good for the entire road trip.

    • ken | October 19, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

      Hockey Jerseys

      I’ve been a fan since 1972 and grew up on the white at home. When the NHL change to color at home I wasn’t a big fan but being from DC I’ve become a fan of color at home [Rock the Red]. The more I think about it… color on color would work provided there are different in colors [so Det would have to be in white when playing in DC]

      • Russ | October 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

        Yes, white should only be used when the primary jersey clashes with the opponent.

        Australian Football and Rugby understand this. Having a primary jerseys can build a brand much stronger than if you play half your games wearing a blank canvas with a logo and some team color piping. The NFL is so concerned that teams do not overuse their alternates but forcing teams into a white jerseys for 8 games dilutes the brand.

        Detroit can wear white when they play the Caps or Hawks. Their white jerseys is probably more iconic than the red anyway.

  • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 8:03 am |

    Gotta admit, I just don’t see Paul’s complaint regarding the red/blue mixing for the Rangers. Looks fine to me; I see it as Texas pulling off the rare feat of balancing two coequal colors to a degree unmatched since the early Expos. What bugs me is that the red cap just doesn’t look like the Texas Rangers to me. Historically, they’re a blue-cap team to me, and their type, chest and cap, is too similar to the divisionmate Angels with a red cap. (Also the drop-shadow looks less unbalanced to me on the blue cap than on the red; I think the red drop-shadow is “softer” somehow on blue than the blue drop-shadow on red.) If they’d reverse things and go blue caps & sox with red jersey lettering, I think they’d have a winning look.

    • scott | October 19, 2011 at 8:09 am |

      I never understand the complaints about the Rangers wearing red caps with their blue-lettered white uniforms. No one seems to mind that the Red Sox have long worn a navy cap with their red-lettered white uniforms (and in recent years have worn red sleeves with that uniform, too).

      • Paul Lukas | October 19, 2011 at 8:19 am |

        No one seems to mind that the Red Sox have long worn a navy cap with their red-lettered white uniforms

        But the Boston’s shade of navy (and the Cardinals’ shade, while we’re at it) is so dark that it’s almost black. So it goes with, or complements, almost anything. But the Rangers use a royal blue, and I find that their red caps clash with the royal blue on the white jerseys.

        • Mike Engle | October 19, 2011 at 9:59 am |

          The red drop shadow of the Texas Rangers’ blue letters makes the lettering look purple. Add the red hats and socks with the “purple” letters, and it all looks fucking gross.

        • Pete | October 19, 2011 at 10:49 am |

          Paul, what would you think of the Rangers returning to a cap similar to their first look – a blue cap with a red bill?

          Personally, although I prefer the Rangers’ blue hats, I don’t mind the red-over-white. I think there’s enough red in the white uniform – outlining of the letters, piping on the sleeves and legs – to play off the red hat.

          A lot of it depends on how much contrast you prefer. I’d kind of like to see the Rangers wear the red hat with the blue alternate (only done once, on Opening Day 2000), or even the blue hat with the red jersey. Some people might read that and barf a little, but I like it. Just like I enjoy the Cardinals’ navy hat. But those red shoes just bug me…

        • Bert Echo | October 19, 2011 at 11:13 am |

          I do think the blue hat with the red bill would look great with the whites.

          Mike: I know what you mean about the red drop shadow making the blue look purple. I really only notice that on the grays though.

        • Jim Vilk | October 19, 2011 at 11:16 am |

          The red drop shadow of the Texas Rangers’ blue letters makes the lettering look purple.

          I’ll agree with Mike there, but I don’t mind the Rangers mixing the red and blue on a larger scale. Get rid of the drop shadow (I could do without the font, as well) and make the striping one color.

    • Chris Holder | October 19, 2011 at 8:49 am |

      Do the Cardinals wear their navy caps on the road (I honestly don’t remember)? If so, it would be nice to see Texas maybe stick with the red at home, so as to balance things a little. In reality it just proves the problem with WAY too many MLB teams using red and/or blue in their color scheme. The Tigers and Cards would have been a bit more visually appealing, IMO.

      • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 9:00 am |

        In reality it just proves the problem with WAY too many MLB teams using red and/or blue in their color scheme.

        I think in this instance, it just proves that teams that take their name from a particular color should wear that color and not muddy things up with road caps in a completely different, non-team-name-related, color. You’re the Cardinals. Wear red. Not navy blue on the road. If the Cardinals would just wear, you know, the color they’re named after, and if the Rangers would wear blue caps like God and Nolan Ryan intended, then this would be a great-looking series.

        • scott | October 19, 2011 at 9:57 am |

          Gotta disagree. The Cardinals look great with the navy caps on the road. In fact, I appreciate that both the Cardinals and Tigers, as another example, have fairly unique identities depending on whether they are playing at home or on the road. Hey, just because the Tigers are, you know, named after an animal with orange stripes doesn’t mean their home uniform has to have orange. :)

        • Dan in Houston | October 19, 2011 at 10:32 am |

          Nah, they should stick with the navy on the road. Not only is a call back to the tradition of the teams of the 40’s, it looks good.

          Plus, the team isn’t named after a color, but a bird, which does have some dark patches on it. If we were talking about Stanford, that’d be a different case.

        • Dan in Houston | October 19, 2011 at 10:34 am |

          Unless you’re thinking they’re named after one of these guys:

          http://www.twcenter....

          No dark colors there.

        • Csikos | October 19, 2011 at 10:58 am |

          Na…that is just Catholic BFBS. Looking to sell some additional merch to the masses…

        • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 11:38 am |

          In this time of contrived alternate caps (such as the Cards’ Sunday home specials), the navy road hats on the Cardinals look great. They’re an accurate throwback to the last road uni Stan Musial wore and the first that Bob Gibson and Lou Brock wore.
          http://www.baseball-...
          http://www.steves-co...
          http://www.1965topps...

          To anyone from St. Louis or whose baseball watching experience goes back that far they’re a more-than-appropriate connecting of two eras.

      • Hank-SJ | October 19, 2011 at 9:06 am |

        They do http://i.huffpost.co... (and it pains me to use this shot from the clincher against the Fightins.)

  • M-N | October 19, 2011 at 8:05 am |

    As a weeknight/weekend softball player I always wear my wedding ring on my toothfairy necklace, and I know a couple of other guys that do the same. It keeps the thing from falling off your hand when changing from batting gloves to fielding glove, and it beats puting it in the car ashtray.

    • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 11:40 am |

      Also beats having to have it cut off in an emergency room if you happen to injure your left hand.

      50+ years of playing ball I always took mine off…when there was one to wear, that is. :)

  • Chris M | October 19, 2011 at 8:21 am |

    Upon hearing the tragic news of Kent Hull’s passing, I saw this photo of him, Jim Kelly and Frank Reich just before Super Bowl 28:

    http://www.buffaloru...

    Does anyone have any idea why Jimbo is wearing #10 instead of #12?

    • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 10:41 am |

      Maybe his 12 practice jersey got ripped or lost, or something…

      I know Deion Sanders wore #2 at practice when he was with the Cowboys, although that was his number in college.

  • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 9:32 am |

    Seconded. And at first I was happy to switch to color at home, out of the belief that color contrasts with ice better than white. But it doesn’t seem to be borne out in practice.

    That makes little sense. The lack of contrast will remain, because one team will still be wearing white.

    As for the “if the home team wears white, we get to see the rest of the league’s colors” argument, that isn’t as potent as it used to be, now that televised hockey (full games and highlights) are all over free TV, satellite TV, cable TV, YouTube, mobile devices, etc. There are plenty of opportunities for say, a Penguins fan, to see the Jets uniforms.

    Really, it comes down to personal preference, based on what you grew up with. When I was 5, it was still color-at-home. A few years later, it switched, and I got used to white-at-home. But I’d rather have a system that affords a team like the Canadiens to wear their iconic reds in front of their own fans.

    • Tom V. | October 19, 2011 at 11:02 am |

      Lets say you’re a season ticket holder. You go to 41 games a year. Currently you’d see (home team color) versus white for every game. The other way, you’d see white versus (visiting team color), visually more appealling I think.

      • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 11:12 am |

        On the other hand… if your team’s colors are red and black, why should you want to see them wearing white? When you’re talking about season ticket holders, visually appealing means that “our uniforms don’t suck” not “look at all the pretty colors the rest of the league wears.” Maybe the casual sports fan might want to see more colors – but they’re watching on TV, not buying season tickets.

        • concealed78 | October 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

          It’s a lot more interesting to watch the NBA / NHL home team in white vs. a road team in color than a home team’s primary color vs. white for 41 home games.

        • Tom V. | October 19, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

          Theres no shortage of red and black in a white home jersey. Theres no shortage of color in any home jersey. What hockey doesn’t have a white jersey?

    • Teebz | October 19, 2011 at 5:09 pm |

      It’s a very simple argument if you want to base it in a historical context.

      Good guys wear white. Villains do not. The home team are the good guys. For example:

      – hero cowboy (or cowgirl so I’m not portrayed as sexist – Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead) vs. the villain sharpshooter in the black hat and long coat (Gene Hackman in the same movie).
      – hero knight vs. the evil Black Knight.
      – Snow White vs. the dressed-in-black evil queen.
      – fair-haired and fair-skinned Sleeping Beauty vs. the clad-in-black Maleficent.
      – 101 Dalmatians vs. Cruella de Vil’s black outfit.
      – fair-skinned Ariel vs. the evil and blad-clad Ursula.
      – the pastel-coloured Dorothy vs. the Wicked Witch of the West’s little black outfit (which was more pronounced in black-and-white).

      Need I say more?

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 6:54 pm |

        Your “historical analysis” is silly. Better to confine it to the history of hockey sweaters.

        As the fantastic website NHLUniforms.com tells us, in the early years of the NHL, teams had one sweater, most often a colored one (the Canadiens quickly settled on red; Toronto returned to blue when Conn Smythe bought the team; Boston was initially white, with brown and gold striping; the Rangers were blue; Detroit was white with red striping, then solid red; Chicago was first white with black striping, then reversed). The first teams to adopt change sweaters were Toronto (for games against the Rangers) and Detroit (for games against the Canadiens). Indeed, the Rangers were the last team to adopt a change (white) sweater, and that was in 1951.

        So from a hockey perspective, the “good guys” didn’t necessarily wear white.

        • interlockingtc | October 19, 2011 at 7:45 pm |

          I grew up with white at home. I followed the North Stars religiously. Almost all their road games were televised. I saw them in green ALL the time, in all the hostile environments. Very occasionally a home game would be televised, and when they skated in front of the cheering crowd in those bright white jerseys it was a thing to behold. I rarely got to a game myself.

          My other great NHL memory is following the rise of the expansion Islanders from afar. They were so truly awful. But their incredible turnaround–which I witnessed in the form of SI articles or other sports magazines, cards, highlight reels, or the rare televised game–was inspiring…and Nassua Coliseum rocked as the Islanders did the improbable wearing white at home.

          The association is so strong that I cannot to this day wrap my head around home teams wearing dark jerseys. It looks and feels so wrong.

        • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

          My point exactly. You grew up with white-at-home, so that seems right to you. Fair enough. But different people have different memories. The very first game I went to was in 1968: Blackhawks vs. Blues at the Chicago Stadium, and the Hawks were in red. For many years before you were born, the NHL was color-at-home.

        • Teebz | October 20, 2011 at 11:05 am |

          Except that white, in the early days of hockey sweaters, wasn’t actually white. It was a cream colour because they hadn’t perfected the science of white dying yet.

          Historically, almost all good guys wear white in fairy tales and stories. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | October 19, 2011 at 9:55 am |

    I don’t get why teams have to “pick” between red and blue. Personally, I like the white unis of the Rangers with red hats and socks. It’s not preferable (I would like to see a darker blue and maybe some red trim), but it looks nice. Same with the Texans. Why do they have to choose between red and blue? Can’t they be both.

    The NY Giants do it on a regular basis.

    (Yes, I’m hashtagging school.)

    • Pete | October 19, 2011 at 10:51 am |

      And lots of people complain about the Giants’ use of red. Yet inexplicably, some of those same people adore the red jerseys on Ole Miss.

    • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 11:22 am |

      I want to see the Texans wear the blue pants with their red tops some time. I think that would be a good look along with the blue helmets. As long as they keep the red socks, of course.

      • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

        I give you…the Florida Blazers (was era of high white socks, of course)…
        http://4.bp.blogspot...

      • Kyle Allebach | October 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm |

        I disagree. I don’t think that’ll look good. However, Blue pants, red socks is a look they should go back to.

        I like the Texans blue and red jerseys, and I like the NY Giants blue home/red away schnick. I mean, red and blue is in that flag I see on those snazzy, respectable Stars and Stripes hats, so I don’t see why it cannot work for a team.

  • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:02 am |

    “I have no idea what the TV show Tosh.0 is”

    It’s the internet, but on TV.

  • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:12 am |

    Haha. That guy’s name is “Hamburger,” a fact made funnier by the fact that it’s printed so seriously in that fancy Rangers NOB font.

    • NameFame | October 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

      Your name is Casey. Ha Ha!! (ala Nelson Muntz).

      Why do you have a girl’s name?
      Do you always strike out?

  • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am |

    1. Dotel still plays?

    2. What a beauty in those stirrups. The Cardinals would far less loathsome if they’d all show those hose. That, and if La Russa left and Carpenter shaved his stupid soul patch and stopped being such a general tool.

    • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      Carpenter would look a little silly if he shaved off the soul patch now (since he’s let the rest of his beard grow in).

  • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am |

    While trying to get some comparisons of old/new Cardinals jerseys, I’m finding that the birds and bats seem to float up and down – at least compared to the buttons on the jersey (http://www.stltoday....). One example I found that seemed very interesting was this “authentic” McGwire jersey with (I assume) velcro in place of the second button. I haven’t seen that on any other Cardinal jerseys I’ve seen close enough to tell.(http://www.ebay.com/...)

    • Wally1912 | October 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

      I threw together this image showing the level of the Cardinal’s beak in realtion to the top button. I found images of team-issued jerseys from various years.

      http://farm7.static....

      The late 50’s and 60’s version where the beak was higher towards the top button was pretty much mirrored by the 1992 through 1997 jerseys. The redone birds in 1998 look to have moved the beak to about the mid-point between the top and second buttons. When Majestic took over from long-time manufacturer Rawlings in 2003, the bird’s beak looks to have been lowered a couple of inches toward the second button.

      • Michael Emody | October 19, 2011 at 3:40 pm |

        Excellent depiction of Cardinal jerseys, Wally. I’m wondering if the thickness of the embroidery caused some players, pitchers maybe, to complain about chaffing (shout out to Jimbo Jones!) on the arm, so they lowered it an inch or two to see if it helped.

        Although embroidery can’t be as rough as the three and four layers of lettering/numbers on many team jerseys. So who knows.

      • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 6:57 pm |

        I like that ’95 Cardinals jersey with the red buttons.

      • TomC | October 20, 2011 at 12:31 am |

        I’ll bet the folks at the Liebe Company (from the Recycling video)would have some insight.

    • rdb | October 19, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

      That McGwire jersey isn’t authentic.. Those numbers aren’t right at all.

  • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 am |

    Could Robert Tusso’s TMI contribution be an explanation for Jonathan Quick’s black “socks” that were discussed yesterday?

    Like, maybe he was trying to say that Quick isn’t actually wearing any socks, and what we were seeing as black socks is actually just the jock.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    count me as another who thinks the Rangers look OK with red caps. They look fine to me because the hats match the sleeves and (when applicable) socks, unlike the road unis of their WS opponents.

  • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    Good on Nebraska for saying no to the alts. Too bad they didn’t say no to the mismatched N patches.

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:40 am |

      That article is wrong about Neb’s “unchanging” uniform, though.

      Since going to the ‘N’ on the helmet, the facemasks have changed colors, sleeve stripes have been added, removed and changed, TV numbers have been added and removed, etc.

      Not many uniforms are really, unchanging. It’s usually more like slow, gradual change.

      But glad they didn’t go BFBS.

  • Ryan | October 19, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    Are the Cards possibly trying to shrink the strike zone for their batters by wearing the logo lower?

    • Doug Rogers | October 22, 2011 at 8:59 pm |

      I was thinking the same.

  • Ryan | October 19, 2011 at 10:26 am |

    Also, two more things.

    1. Didn’t the NHL insititue a policy (last year?) that said you can wear white at home for a select number of games each year.

    2. No pic, but Jim Ramsey (NY Rangers medical trainer) was wearing pink latex gloves last night.

    • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:51 am |

      This might answer my previous question.

    • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 11:05 am |

      I never heard of such a policy, but generally, as long as it’s league-approved, teams can occasionally go reverse-jersey.

      It probably happened a lot more frequently prior to 2003, as teams tended to wear dark alternates at home. Toronto forced teams to wear dark at ACC from 2003-2011 when wearing their now-retired third.

      Montreal (2003-06, 2008-09) and Vancouver (2010-11) have also worn white throwbacks at home. Although, their claiming their current white jersey as a “1971 throwback” greatly offended me (wrong collar, wrong number style, and if the Canadiens had used NOBs in 1971, they would not have been in the team’s current rounded font).

      • Rob S | October 19, 2011 at 11:16 am |

        By the way, while I’m ragging on the Habs… I find it totally amusing that the patch they wore on their regular unis during the 2008-09 season bore the legend “100 Seasons/Saisons”, considering that thanks to the 2004-05 lockout, 2008-09 was actually only their 99th season. Especially amusing is that they had an alternate patch, worn on their throwbacks (as well as on their regular uniforms throughout 2009-10), that only had numbers (“100″, “1909-2009″).

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 6:46 pm |

        Yes, the NHL allows teams to wear white at home, with league approval. They work together to ensure that the visiting team for the proposed date has plenty of lead time and is not too inconvenienced (for example, a west coast team would not be required to wear their colored uniforms for one game in the middle of a seven-game east coast trip (so they don’t have to lug the extra jerseys, socks, and helmets).

  • Casey Hart | October 19, 2011 at 10:39 am |

    Is this what that ref meant when he flagged someone for “giving him the business?”

    • MPowers1634 | October 19, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

      That’s crazy funny!

  • John Q | October 19, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    I think the birds & bat on the Cardinals jerseys have actually gotten bigger over the years which might be the reason why the bat is lower than is used to be.

    Take a look at the birds on this Ozzie Smith jersey:

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

    Now compare it to an Albert Pujols jersey:

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

    I also think the current Cardinal jersey without the trim is kind of boring. I think the Cardinals “pullover” jersey is one of the rare occasions where the pullover version is better than the button up style.

    • Ed Hughes | October 19, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

      I wonder if perhaps the Cardinals’ lowering of the chest insignia is a ploy to get a smaller strike zone. Do the umpires use the “letters” as the upper range or do they just use the chest/armpits/other anatomical reference point?

  • =bg= | October 19, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    boy do i love that helmet placemat. cooolcoolcool.

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:45 am |

      Abed?

  • Silver Creek Doug | October 19, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    MSU isn’t wearing those jerseys this weekend Paul.

    They will wear them for the season-ending rivalry game against Ole Miss Thanksgiving weekend.

  • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    PAUL!

    Sorry, to yell, but I was just wondering if you’ve gotten any leads on the ‘special’ Northwestern unis?

    We talkin’ Vader, Putty Patrol, Grimace…? What information do we have (if any)?

  • Roger Faso | October 19, 2011 at 10:47 am |

    I’m going to commission my kid to draw up an A’s Xmas card.

    Lew Wolff will be portrayed as the “Grinch That Stole the A’s Out of Oakland.”

    worst owner ever

  • Doug | October 19, 2011 at 10:48 am |

    Say what you will about the red caps at home, blue on the road, for both the Rangers and Cardinals (although I concede Paul’s point about the aesthetics, particularly for Texas): The only teams in the Fall Classic are the ones who have that distinction, so clearly in 2011 that’s what it took.

    The question now: Will the fact there won’t be a Sunday game in St. Louis and the fact they won’t get to wear their alternate (mostly blue) cap at home prove to be a blessing for the Redbirds? Or might that have been the sartorial difference that would have gotten them a title?

    Oh, come on: With what we discuss here, it’s not like how they play is what really wins the Series.

    • Pete | October 19, 2011 at 10:58 am |

      It’s like that line in Catch Me If You Can:

      “The Yankees always win because the other team can’t stop staring at the pinstripes.”

      Of course, that begs the question of why the Astros lost 100 games.

      • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 11:19 am |

        They were staring at da Choo Choo tchwain!

      • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 11:29 am |

        The Astros never actually wear their pinstripes. They’re always in the brick tops.

  • kdf | October 19, 2011 at 11:00 am |

    Anyone know if the Bills will do a Kent Hull memorial? He’s in their Wall of Fame so I’d imagine they’d do something…

  • Jim BC | October 19, 2011 at 11:21 am |

    Good on the Kings for wearing white last night… however, could it be that they are showing off their new white jerseys so more people would buy them? Crap.

  • Drew C | October 19, 2011 at 11:24 am |

    Just a couple Buffalo Sabres uni related items. Sorry, no pics of these yet, perhaps someone could help out.

    1. It appears Tyler Myers is again removing his NHL shield from his jersey collar.

    2. Last night against the Montreal Canadiens, Patrick Kaleta blocked a shot off his skate and it caused his skate blade to break nearly in half. The refs took their time blowing the whistle (as is tradition in Montreal) and he went off. When he came back, he had a different, non-matching skate.

    And yeah, I’d LOVE for the NHL to revert back to whites at home.

    • Jim BC | October 19, 2011 at 11:48 am |

      Also – this just in! Derek Roy wears number 9! I’m so glad they have the numbers on the front of the helmets now to really drive this home:

      http://scores.espn.g...

      • Drew C | October 19, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

        Yeah, the number redundancy is brutal, isn’t it? When they show the players on the bench on the broadcast, those helmet numbers are just glaringly stupid. Of course, you could argue the front jersey numbers are equally stupid, but you have to agree if you have one or the other, there is no need for both. Yikes.

        • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

          Eh, I’m getting used to the front helmet numbers. I wouldn’t be surprised if the league put them on so as to more readily identify players in those big scrums along the boards for disciplinary reasons.

      • ken | October 19, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

        well..for starters I’m glad Roy doesn’t wear 6.

        • Drew C | October 19, 2011 at 4:47 pm |

          That one got me.

    • Ryan | October 19, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

      In reference to the NHL shield. I know Mike Richards always snips the top points of the shields on his jerseys off. Maybe they are irritating in some way?

      http://i212.photobuc...

      • Drew C | October 19, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

        Good catch. I’m assuming that’s the reason for Myers as well.

  • Jim K | October 19, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

    I’m glad to see someone write about Al lerner’s role in the Browns move to Baltimore. That has been swept under the rug in Cleveland. Nobody ever mentions it. Art Modell gets all of the blame and he deserves lots of it. Lerner deserves his share too.

    That “AL” on the sleeve should have been removed the year after he died like most other tributes. Lerner was not George Halas or Babe Ruth for sure. In my opinion it should have never been the jersey to begin with after his role in the move. Since it is there it should serve as a reminder of who helped move the Browns out of town and who replaced them with the cheap imitation the is the current Cleveland Browns.

  • pflava | October 19, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    To me, the big problem with the Rangers using both red and blue is that they look like two different teams. And those teams are the Rangers and Angels. That’s not good. And honestly the red caps/sleeves with the white home’s just look borrowed, like their equipment got lost. The Rangers look SO much better as a blue team anyway.

    And I completely agree with those above talking about the purple effect – I always see that. Their numbering/lettering is too busy. Lose the black dropshadow and multiple outlines. And a blue cap/red bill with the current “T” logo in white (no shadow) would look phenomenal!

  • Josh | October 19, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

    Paul,
    The Cardinals actually wear navy belts on the road. However, they still wear red sleeves and shoes.

    http://www.reviewstl...

  • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

    Nothing earth-shattering here, but you’ve gotta be happy when the local news includes a story about the company that does last minute adjustments to the home team’s jerseys (including adding the patch for the last series of the year):

    http://www.fox2now.c...

    (I THOUGHT I was on to a scoop when I saw two patches being pressed on to two different sleeves at the same time, but it turns out they were going on two different jerseys)

  • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

    Anyone know the last time a World Series took place where one team only wore it’s location on it’s chest the entire series, while the other team only wore it’s team name on theirs?

    • Mike Engle | October 19, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

      1981 Yankees and Dodgers?

    • Keith | October 19, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

      2009 Phillies and Yankees

      2003 Marlins and Yankees

      • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

        Did the Marlins only wear their black jerseys when they played in New York? Because their road grays say “Florida” on them.

    • Valjean | October 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

      By the same logic: 2006 Cards and Tigers?

      • Keith | October 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

        Yep, missed that one.

    • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

      I guess NY (and therefore D) counts, OK.

    • Josh | October 19, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

      Under that logic, then the 2001 DBacks / Yankees both had their location on their jerseys (Old Diamondbacks home jerseys just had the “A” logo).
      That’s gotta be even more rare.

      • Mike Engle | October 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

        Phillies and Rays lacked geography on all jerseys. Just the names, every single game. Just as rare, if not rarer, IMO.

        • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

          Pirates & Orioles in 1979
          Cardinals & Royals in 1985

          Any others?

    • Valjean | October 19, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

      Good thread — a few more going back to the ’80s:

      1983: Phils, O’s
      1984: Tigers, Pads

      Those holdover ’70s unis were great for avoiding geography. I especially liked ’74 (A’s, Dodgers): no locations at all.

      • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

        ’83 Phillies are debatable, though. Did the P on the chest stand for the city or nickname?

        • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 3:45 pm |

          The city.

        • JTH | October 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

          But on both the home and the road jerseys? Hhmmmmmmmmmmm?

      • timmy b | October 19, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

        1950 Phillies (nickname) – Yankees (place name)
        1952, 1953, 1955, 1956 Dodgers (nickname) – Yankees (place name)
        1957, 1958 Braves (nickname) – Yankees (place name)
        1960 Pirates (nickname)-Yankees (place name)
        1964 Cardinals (nickname) – Yankees (place name)
        1968 Cardinals (nickname) – Tigers (place name)

  • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

    Just an update…

    Large front page headline in Strib this a.m….

    “Time is running out
    on stadium, NFL says.”

    Basically, the story reports the NFL told legislators the league won’t stand in the way if the Wilfs decide to sell or move the Vikings.

    • Komet17 | October 19, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

      Good news for Chargers fans…

      • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

        What if the NFL moved ‘em both to town in the same year?
        If two teams in LA in a new stadium, one in each conference, ala NY were the goal, that would be the way to do it.

        What a bombshell that would be:
        VIKINGS, CHARGERS BOTH
        MOVING TO L.A.!

        Gee, that wouldn’t get the league any attention or anything.

        Neither team would be forced to be the second one in, and it would galvanize the crap out of the fan base by essentially “forcing” them to declare their allegiances. Talk about bar talk and social media buzz.

        (Yes, possibly could be Raiders instead of Chargers, since they still have right of first refusal on L.A. market, I believe).

    • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

      That could just as easily be taken as an endorsement of the Ramsey County site as an endorsement of the move to Los Angeles. A bad lease doesn’t negate the presence of a strong fan base, Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens notwithstanding. I still think it’s more likely that the Jaguars will move than the Vikings.

      • Ricko | October 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

        Some issues with Ramsey County site starting to get brought up. For one, saying environmental impact study (the site was an arsenal) may take longer than expected…which would be too long for the time window in this.

        Just a little murky, and NFL kicking the side of the box to keep the marbles moving.

        • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

          There’s also the Metrodome site to consider then. As far as I’m aware it’s still considered viable option for Hennepin County to rebuild the stadium there with some incentives for the Vikings to stay. I know Ziggy Wylf is willing to front some of the costs to build a new stadium in Minnesota.

        • Ry Co 40 | October 19, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

          “kicking the side of the box to keep the marbles moving”

          i like that one, ricko! good stuff

    • R.S. Rogers | October 19, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

      Whatever. LA can have the Vikings, but for the love of Pete, change the name! Teams should have names that make sense for their community. Vikings makes sense in Minnesota. Lakers — er, I mean, Vikings does not make sense in LA. (Jaguars kind of would, though, if that ever happened.) If LA gets a new team, the California fans deserve a new name.

      • Simply Moono | October 19, 2011 at 7:13 pm |

        “Soon it was commonplace for entire teams to change cities in search of greater profits. The Minneapolis Lakers moved to Los Angeles where there are no lakes. The Oilers moved to Tennessee where there is no oil. The Jazz moved to Salt Lake City where they don’t allow music. The Raiders moved from Oakland to LA back to Oakland, no-one seemed to notice.”

  • Gary | October 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

    Amen on the birds-on-the-bat feeling gravity’s pull (love both StL and REM). And what about the sleeves? Not just on the Cards’ jerseys either. They’re even longer than golf shirts, some really 3/4 sleeves. I’ll take the Ted Kluszewski/Phillip Rivers shorter sleeves (as seen on ’64 & ’67 World Champion teams) and overall Mad Men-era slimmed-down look over this pajama parade any day.

    • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

      Thank you. There needs to be a revolt against clothing that’s cut like a garbage bag.

  • birdbats | October 19, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

    The birds on the bat dropped between the 2003 and 2004 seasons. When Majestic started supplying the Cardinals jerseys in 2003, it did a fair job of replicating the quality of the Rawlings jerseys the team wore through 2002. But, in 2004, Majestic made several subtle changes that reflected a drop not only in the logo, but also in terms of quality. The logo dropped about an inch in 2004. You also can see changes in the embroidery, as illustrated in these photos.

    http://i177.photobuc...

    http://i177.photobuc...

    The drop of the logo is especially noticeable when the team wears throwbacks.

    http://i177.photobuc...

    I wish Liebe still did the embroidery and other sewing. The quality was so much better.

    • Ben Fortney | October 19, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

      Ugh. Up close the Majestic embroidery looks like shite.

      • birdbats | October 19, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

        You’d think the machine embroidery would be sharper and more precise than human work. But, as you can see, Liebe’s seamstresses were much better than Majestic’s machines.

        • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

          You get more uniformity with machine work, but more precision with handmade, since the embroiderer focuses on each stitch instead of the overall design.

    • birdbats | October 19, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

      Just to clarify, the birds-on-bat logo dropped in 1992 when the team switched from pullovers to buttons. So, today’s jerseys are much different than the old knit pullovers. I was just addressing the most recent change in 2004.

      • Michael Emody | October 19, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

        Jeez, is it so hard to do hand embroidery on players jerseys, and machine embroidery on the other $300 jerseys they make? How many actual jerseys does a team need in a season, 2-300? Yeah, the Majestic jerseys look like shit in comparison to the Rawlings.

    • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

      HOLY COW that’s anal. If I wasn’t married …

      In what may be a dumb question, I have to ask – what if you have 2-3 jerseys from the same era next to each other? Do the birds vary much (or at all) within the same generation? If not, than these changes are more significant than the Dodgers logo changes brought up over the last couple weeks!

      Also (and this may be tough because of sizing issues), are these changes reflected in the “official” birds on bat logo, or is it just a jersey anomaly?

      • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm |

        “HOLY COW that’s anal. If I wasn’t married …”

        ~~~

        dude…wtf?

        • JimWa | October 19, 2011 at 11:08 pm |

          That was my way of suggesting that I liked his attention to detail … but maybe my choice of words left something to be desired.

  • timmy b | October 19, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

    Paul,

    Excellent link to the World Series Program history. I know others may have a better collection, but I have most WS Programs back to 1974, and since I’ve always been an NL fan, some NL Programs from 1970-1973. The quality of the current crop of WS progs beats that of the Super Bowl programs. At one time (1974-1992) though, the WS progs were generic garbage. But starting in 1993, MLB really stepped it up with the quality of the WS progs and today, in North America, they are second to none when it comes to “big event” programs, including the Super Bowl. And I speak as one who likes football much more than baseball.

    I collect WS, SB, Masters, Open Championship, FA Cup Finals, Stanley Cup Finals as well. But the BEST programs of the lot are the Aussie Football League Grand Final Records.

    240 pages but jammed with excellent historical articles, far and away the best player profiles and season in review articles. The detail and scope of the stuff in there is awesome.

  • Chris Holder | October 19, 2011 at 3:47 pm |

    I haven’t been able to keep up with the site as much as usual this week. Has anybody mentioned the uniforms that Mississippi State unveiled for this year’s “Egg Bowl” game against Ole Miss? I found an article, with picture, right here.

    The highlight? Gold numbers and cleats. Not really a great look with maroon, IMO.

    • Andy | October 19, 2011 at 3:52 pm |

      Since when is maroon and gold not a great look!? Maybe not for Mississippi State, but certainly excellent in it’s own right.

      • Chris Holder | October 19, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

        To each his own. I don’t personally like the combination shown in the pictures. I think it works for a school like Minnesota, but for MSU? It’s GFGS. Just as stupid as the black jerseys they have brought out on occasion.

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | October 19, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

    I hope the links work because I found what I want for Christmas!!!

    http://www.amazon.co...

    And check out some of the related items and items that were also bought. Bacon themed adhesive bandages, bacon air fresheners, bacon flavored lip balm, bacon wallet among other goodies there…
    I feel like I’m missing one in the related items though. Oh yeah, bacon socks…

    http://www.amazon.co...

  • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 6:21 pm |

    Notre Dame will debut new helmets Saturday night against USC:

    http://www.facebook....

    A new, very shiny, metallic gold. Reportedly looks very good in HD.

    • Coach | October 19, 2011 at 6:32 pm |

      Ugh. No way the helmets match the pants on a week to week basis. 23.9 Karat gold to match the dome, but not the pants. As an alumn, I am really disappointed and it stinks of Adidas poking their nose around. Should come out in the home version of the “heritage” jersey we wore vs. Michigan. Odd that Adidas is piggy backing off of Nike releasing the other version of the UofM heritage jersey.

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

        1) Reportedly, Notre Dame will wear blue on Saturday night. This from the twitter feed of the ND equipment manager: http://twitter.com/#...

        2) Nike did not release the “other version” of Michigan’s “heritage jersey”, Adidas did. Michigan has been outfitted by Adidas for two years now.

        3) Their pants have rarely matched the metallic gold helmets. They haven’t this year, because the Techfit material is not as shiny as the spandex materials that Notre Dame has used before this season.

        4) Adidas doesn’t make the helmets anyway.

        5) Notre Dame will also wear an “X” decal on the back in memory of graduate student-assistant Xavier Murphy:

        http://www.und.com/s...

    • Kyle Allebach | October 19, 2011 at 10:06 pm |

      So they’re not letting student managers paint the helmets? They’re killing a tradition for the sake of making the helmets look prettier?

      Way to hit a new low, Notre Dame.

  • Josh | October 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm |

    Totally random thought, but I do PA announcing for a local community college here in the Phoenix area, and before the game, two of the officials come upstairs to the pressbox to speak with the clock operator.
    I noticed a few weeks ago that the patches on the officials’ jerseys (American flag and the college football logo) are submilated, not actual patches.

    OK, carry on about the World Series…

  • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 7:03 pm |

    *sigh*

    white at home, for hockey, as god intended

    rangers with red caps/socks at home looks great…hope they keep that look for games 3-5

    time: im sorry ups missed the delivery on your ritalin today, they said tomorrow am, early delivery

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

      “white at home, for hockey, as god intended”

      If god intended it, why did he wait ’til after the first 40 years of the NHL to ‘intend’ it?

      And am I really time now?

      • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm |

        You mean you don’t see the obvious parallels to 40 years of wandering in the desert before reaching the promised land of white jerseys at home?

      • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 7:52 pm |

        nah…tim e gets autocorrected to time

        don’t feel like arguing with the man

        and yes…you’re too young to remember when the nhl was pure and good and 16 out of the 21 teams made the playoffs and everyone wore white at home…and the islanders were the best team on the planet

        as god intended

        now? who cares aboot hockey — and YOU of all people, who hate canadians, should HATE hockey

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

          Yeah, I should hate hockey, but I don’t. I love it. I even own a Toews Canada jersey, but I felt so guilty I immediately spent $200 on a fauxback USA jersey, too.

        • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 8:42 pm |

          shouldn’t you be like, occupying somewhere and complaining about corporate greed and shit?

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

          I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean…

          (Occupy Wall Street, I get that but I don’t get why this is directed at me.)

      • The Jeff | October 19, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

        God makes a lot of mistakes.

        • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 9:20 pm |

          no she doesn’t well…you proved that ;)

        • =bg= | October 19, 2011 at 11:57 pm |

          No, He doesn’t. Not ever, not once.

  • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 8:12 pm |

    Video feature on the new Notre Dame helmet:

    http://www.und.com/a...

    • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 8:20 pm |

      I’d be interested to see if anyone can find the 12 iterations oh helmets over the past 2 years that they referred to.

      • DJ | October 19, 2011 at 8:34 pm |

        Wow, that’d be an exercise in minutae. :-) From the video, you know that one version was worn beginning with the game at Boston College. However, I suspect that most of the 12 iterations were never worn in games.

        • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

          Well and in the four games prior to that, they wore 4 different shades.

  • Tim E. O'B | October 19, 2011 at 8:26 pm |

    Also, Hydro Graphics might be Nike’s NPC helmet painter of choice

    https://www.facebook...

  • concealed78 | October 19, 2011 at 8:41 pm |

    What the hell… Rangers in blue alternate tops? In the World Series?! That is just, wrong. Not on the biggest stage of the year. No, you don’t do that.

    Leave your cheap colored rags in the gift shop where they belong.

    • Phil Hecken | October 19, 2011 at 9:19 pm |

      +1

    • jdreyfuss | October 19, 2011 at 10:15 pm |

      +2

    • Jim Vilk | October 19, 2011 at 10:23 pm |

      At least they’re not wearing pink…

  • Jeff A | October 19, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

    FYI, Barry Melrose has a blog post up at NHL.com where he ranks his 5 greatest sweaters of all time…

    http://www.nhl.com/i...

  • Keith | October 19, 2011 at 9:16 pm |

    Concealed knocked it out of the park. You do NOT disrespect the World Series like that. It’s like wearing a polo shirt to a black-tie wedding. Really annoys me.

  • Patrick_in_MI | October 19, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

    Nice IHOP placemat, I should get that to go along with my IHOP mugs. Curious as to why the handles on the two mugs are different though. As an aside, anyone else getting a script error when opening the comments?

  • nobody | October 19, 2011 at 10:47 pm |

    I’m not sure if it’s just me, but something looks off about Dotel’s socks, almost like they ditched the navy.

  • luke markus | October 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm |

    ok the part about the hockey goalie jock thing is completely incorrect…. i am 15 and have been playing goalie for 10 years and i have never worn that thing in my life, or encountered any1 who has…….