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

The Littlest Shark

IMG_3727.JPG

Here we have a school photo of young Andy Holmes, circa 1992, when he was 10 years old. “I had a San Jose Sharks jersey, and I wanted to wear a shirt and tie with the jersey over it, so I would look like a draft pick,” he recalls. “That’s how the draft picks always looked on hockey cards and things like that. But my Mom wouldn’t let me do that, so I just wore the jersey.”

A different story from Andy’s childhood is the subject of my ESPN column today. Enjoy.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: The Red Sox and A’s wore 1936 throwbacks last night — very nice. There’s video here. The A’s even had throwback batting helmets — rare for a visiting team — although Kila Ka’aihue wore a conventional helmet for his first plate appearance. He wore the throwback lid after that (screen shot by Nate Farrer). … The Redskins will preview their new alternate uni at a private event next week. … Remember when Kobe Bryant was wearing a clear facemask? The mask is now up for bids on eBay. … Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Bit of a uni number kerfuffle for the Bills (from Darren Walton). … Fun article about America’s favorite sports mascots. … Miguel Cotto is Puerto Rican, but ESPN.com’s Tale of the Tape graphic for his upcoming bout with Floyd Mayweather Jr. originally showed him with a Cuban flag. They later changed it to the Puerto Rican flag (good catch by Robert Onolfi). … Not often that you get to see the Dodgers’ white and blue satin sets in the same photo (big thanks to Tom Shieber). … Andrew Levitt found some 1930s footage of a Montreal-vs.-Toronto “box lacrosse” match in which the players wore Maples Leafs and Canadiens jerseys. If you want to see the full video, it’s available here. … Pretty amusing 1973 article about developing a better football helmet (from Greg Dooley). … Dylan PH Fernandez notes that Jrue Holiday of the 76ers has much thicker white outlining on his jersey collar than his teammates do. … Nick Orban was watching some highlight footage from the Finnish Premiere League and spotted two players on the same team wearing different sponsorship patches. … Coupla infographic-related items, including a new way to chart basketball positions and a chart of significant hits at the various Yankee Stadiums, (from Kirsten and Adam Jackson, respectively). … Cold night in Boston on Monday, so several players were wearing balaclavas (from Andy Chalifour). … New third jersey for Bordeaux (from Mark Coale). … Giving credit where it’s due: Nike is financing the renovation of a track and field facility (from Skyler Archibald). … New road kit for Celtic. “Unlike their home kits, the ‘Tennant’s’ sponsor logo is full-sized and in the middle of the shirt,” says Jon Forbes. “Also, they have added three vertical stripes of green, white, and gold to the sleeves.” … With Junior Seau’s death, lots of photos of him are floating around, including this one of him in a practice jersey that has Reebok and Adidas logos. Odd (from Casey Rafferty). … “I just saw a Majestic commercial that promotes their authentic jerseys,” writes Matt Fedorka. “At the 0:29 mark, they show a David Ortiz home jersey with an NOB. You can’t see me now, but I just face-palmed.” … “I was watching my beloved Spurs take on Bolton on Wednesday,” writes John Flanagan. “Younes Kaboul (Defender, Spurs) had his jersey ripped along his left side, so Spurs kit man Steve Dukes (Shirt monogrammed “SD”…which… how awesome is all the monogrammed Spurs coaching gear?) grabbed a new NNOB shirt, alerted a ref, and Kaboul ran over and switched shirts without stopping play.”

 

163 comments to The Littlest Shark

  • Matt C. | May 3, 2012 at 8:04 am |

    I loved the striped socks with the throw backs that the A’s and Red Sox wore last night. Nice to see everyone going high cuffed. Props to the A’s for going the extra mile with the navy helmets. My only problem is the A’s stuck with their white cleats. This created a snow boot affect with the amout of white in their socks. Would have loved the uni’s if they had gone with either black or navy cleats.

    • scott | May 3, 2012 at 8:12 am |

      Did the Red Sox in those days really wear red undershirts? I thought that was a change first made under Henry’s ownership.

      • Matt C. | May 3, 2012 at 8:27 am |

        Dressed to the nines have them wearing white undershirts in 1936. The navy undershirts started in 1938 according to the site.

        To my knowledge, white undershirts aren’t allowed now (atleast long sleeves).

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 8:43 am |

          White undershirts aren’t allowed? Really?

          (assuming that’s true)

          What is with the MLB and these COMPLETELY POINTLESS uniform rules? I mean, damn. Stop being control freaks, MLB.

        • Matt C. | May 3, 2012 at 8:55 am |

          White undershirts aren’t allowed only because it can conseal the ball, and make it a huge advantage for a pitcher. It’s out of fairness, not out of control.

          Even in my youth leagues and high school, pitchers only were not allowed to wear white undershirts. I’m assuming MLB applies this to everyone to attempt to have consistancy.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 9:01 am |

          White undershirts aren’t allowed only because it can conseal the ball

          …but wearing baggy white jerseys and white pajama pants doesn’t potentially conceal the ball? Ok… if they say so…

          Why don’t they just use neon green/orange/pink baseballs?

        • Shaftman | May 3, 2012 at 9:10 am |

          THE

          I think Charlie O just sat up in his grave and started clapping.

        • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 10:18 am |

          There’s nothing in the official MLB rules disallowing white undershirts or sleeves. They have to be a “uniform solid color,” so unless “color” means “not white,” white’s allowed. They can’t be “ragged, frayed, or slit,” and they can’t have anything on them that looks like a baseball. The pitcher’s glove can’t be white or gray.

        • Chance Michaels | May 3, 2012 at 11:25 am |

          Charlie O? That Johnny-Come-Lately.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:47 am |

          Interesting.

          So, there’s been at least 2 separate occasions where the MLB has flirted with the idea of using a non-white ball, but it’s never caught on for some reason. Weird. In a game where the uniforms are predominately white or gray, a brightly colored ball makes a lot of sense.

        • Matt C. | May 3, 2012 at 3:59 pm |

          Totally agree with The Jeff on the ball color. Even high school girls softball uses a neon yellow ball (atleast here in MA).

    • Connie | May 3, 2012 at 9:01 am |

      Those ’36 Sox unis are the coolest in franchise history. Wow.

      • Eriq Jaffe | May 3, 2012 at 9:14 am |

        I had the Orioles/Yankees game on yesterday, and Gary Thorne asked Nomar if he was upset that he had to be calling the game instead of wearing the socks that Boston was wearing. And Nomar said that yes, he was.

    • wollen1 | May 3, 2012 at 9:15 am |

      When I first saw pictures of the Sox, I didn’t even notice that they were wearing throwbacks because the ’36 home uniform looks so much like the current one. Then I saw the Phila. Athletics…nice look. Loved the high cuffs on both teams. It seems like MLB is paying more attention to uniform accuracy in throwback games than it used to. I’m not certain, but it looks like both teams’ unis were made by Majestic. If so, they’ve really picked up their game in the accuracy department. Good job overall if the Red Sox lineup is not taken into consideraion.

  • Dumb Guy | May 3, 2012 at 8:16 am |

    Puerto Rico flag: Blue field, red stripes (just like the USA–of which PR is a territory, get it?).

    Cuban flag: Red field, blue stripes (the opposite of the USA).

    (Just an easy way to remember the diff)

    • Mike Engle | May 3, 2012 at 8:33 am |

      I once saw a wristwatch for sale at a Florida flea market, where the face had a Cuban flag with “Puerto Rico” written underneath.
      Oops.

      • Dumb Guy | May 3, 2012 at 9:16 am |

        Mis-labeled merchandise at a flea market??? No way!!

        • Turtle12 | May 3, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

          I once saw a “Kenturky” basketball jersey at a flea market. I still kick myself to this day for not buying one.

  • MikeD | May 3, 2012 at 8:21 am |

    The A’s would have looked better with black cleats. Their socks were white on bottom with white cleats. Looked a little odd.

    • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 3:01 pm |

      If that were a team’s modern look, I’d like it. But yeah, since this was a throwback game it looked odd.

  • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 8:22 am |

    Am I the only one that really doesn’t like when teams wear throwback uniforms that are a completely different color scheme than normal? The A’s in navy caps just seems really wrong.

    As for the Redskins new alternate, which the link says is a throwback, I bet it’ll be an early 60’s uniform with the feather helmet. I don’t see them wearing the 94 throwback again, and they’ve already used both the spear and the yellow helmet within the past decade.

    • Rob H. | May 3, 2012 at 8:28 am |

      Didn’t we see somewhere somebody a few days ago saw stuff looking like the 1970-71 Yellow Helmet era hanging in a locker or something?

      • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 8:34 am |

        I don’t remember that, but I guess it’s possible. That just seems like an odd choice.

        They wore a hybrid fauxback uniform with the 50’s colors, late 60’s logo and 70’s striping pattern for their 70th anniversary.

        They used the 70-71 yellow helmet uniform for their 75th.

        I don’t see why they’d use that one again for the 80th.

        *shrug*

        • Dumb Guy | May 3, 2012 at 9:18 am |

          I hope the Feather-Back returns. It’s a great helmet (at least in a throwback usage).

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 10:01 am |

          I hope the Feather-Back returns. It’s a great helmet.

          (fixed)

          Offensive team name or not, that helmet was really ahead of it’s time.

    • KT | May 3, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      “Am I the only one that really doesn’t like when teams wear throwback uniforms that are a completely different color scheme than normal?”

      Are they period-correct? If so, isn’t that the whole point?

      The Bucs’ throwbacks are orange. That’s “a completely different color scheme than normal,” if you consider the red, black and pewter to be “normal.”

      Didn’t the A’s have blue caps in 1936?

      • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 10:18 am |

        For the record, I’m not a fan of the Bucs wearing those stupid creamsicle things either.

        I’m just tired of throwback jerseys everywhere. If a team is celebrating an anniversary or something, ok, fine. But randomly wearing a uniform from the past for seemingly no reason… ugh, enough already.

        • scott | May 3, 2012 at 10:42 am |

          And the same “enough already” standard should be applied to the random wearing of softball tops in baseball. White at home and gray on the road should suffice.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 10:45 am |

          Ugh. NO.

          The teams should be allowed to wear the colors they want. Mandatory gray on the road is bullshit. If a team wants their road uniform to be a colored jersey, then why the hell shouldn’t they be able to do that?

        • ChrisH | May 3, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          Or worse, when teams ‘throwback for throwback’s sake’ to another team’s history:

          http://superichirocr...

          I also don’t ‘buy into’ and think it’s a bit odd for MLB teams to dress (in often error-prone fashion)like minor leagus clubs and Negro league teams that just so happened to play in the same city at some point, but as long as there’s a market for such displays and the products related to them, they’ll continue.

  • Joe Shabbadoo | May 3, 2012 at 8:36 am |

    I really wish the Red Sox would go back to those stirrups/socks full-time. Those were always sharp.

    • Le Cracquere | May 3, 2012 at 10:53 am |

      I wish that about all the teams. Unfortunately, the players just don’t care.

    • Jim Greenfield | May 3, 2012 at 1:49 pm |

      Seeing the video of 18 players with high, colored socks brings to mind the Beach Boys song “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”.

  • Randy | May 3, 2012 at 8:43 am |

    Wish the A’s would embrace their entire history more often like other teams that have moved do. They advertise 4 world titles (Oakland), but in reality the franchise has 9, which is 3rd best all-time. Loved seeing the Philly A’s look… very sharp.

    • John English | May 3, 2012 at 11:04 am |

      Ditto, man.

  • Ricardo Leonor | May 3, 2012 at 8:55 am |

    Really cool poster with all the major events and hits at the various versions of Yankee Stadium. I assume the retired numbers are placed in the position of the particular player on the field……

    Except both Reggie and the Babe were right fielders not left….

    • Bryan | May 3, 2012 at 9:37 am |

      Plus, they have Ted Williams listed in RF

      • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 10:20 am |

        They also have Chambliss’ homer going to left center; it actually went to right center.

    • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 10:22 am |

      I believe Ruth played LF in some ballparks where LF had less ground to cover. But in Yankee, of course, RF had the smaller area.

    • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

      Great concept but they clearly didn’t do their homework on. Fair enough that they got some of the history wrong, but as graphics designers someone should’ve noticed that… THE FACADE IS UPSIDE DOWN!

      • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

        oops, forgive the typo

  • Seth H | May 3, 2012 at 9:13 am |

    “Kaboul ran over and switched shirts without stopping play”

    Can’t imagine why so many Americans don’t love soccer, a sport where a player can run off and change shirts, and his absence from the field has absolutely no impact on the game.

    • KT | May 3, 2012 at 10:04 am |

      Yawn.

    • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 10:24 am |

      Seth, go get yourself a clue.

      • Seth H | May 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

        Your well thought out argument and reasoned defense of soccer have overwhelmed me.

        In the face of such logic I have no choice but to recant my prior statement.

    • Ry Co 40 | May 3, 2012 at 10:54 am |

      dontcha mean:

      “Can’t imagine why so many Americans don’t love FUTBOL, a sport where a player can run off and change KIts, and his absence from the PITCH has absolutely no impact on the MATCH”

      (there’s GOTTA be other words for “Americans” & “player”… help me out here)

      my goodness, i dislike soccer culture…

      • Ryan | May 3, 2012 at 11:01 am |

        Yanks?
        For “player,” I got nothin’. I’m pretty sure most of the MVP-type awards use the word “player” in their names.

        • Chris K | May 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm |

          Well Alex…. What is a participant? Where’s Peter Roget when I need him?

      • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 11:11 am |

        RyCo: I get what you’re saying, I’m sure some American soccer fans come across as pretentious, but let me address the language issue as a 50-something American who has fallen hard for soccer in the last few years. I attend MLS games and watch some on TV, but 95% of the soccer I’ve watched has come from England, or other European countries, and been broadcast by English announcers. It’s their game, and in their language, it’s a pitch, and kit, and a football match. You listen to that every week for a few years and it just becomes natural to use that language. I have to force myself to call it a field, a game, or even soccer. I’m not being pretentious, just using the terms that come naturally when you become steeped in another culture and one that originates in another country.

        Wouldn’t you expect British fans of baseball to call it a field, and refer to a “baseball game”? My experience is that some Brit fans of American sports adopt our lingo when talking about them, some don’t; I’m fine with it either way.

        • Whirling Darvish | May 3, 2012 at 11:42 am |

          I can definitely understand why if you’re a big fan of the European game you’d be used to those terms and use them.

          However, as a Brit who’s lived America, I always find it strange when people (either in Britain or the US) scoff at calling the sport ‘soccer’. Usually these people don’t know what they’re talking about.

          Soccer is a word that was coined in England (so it’s hardly an American invention) and which is a neat way of differentiating the sport from other versions of football. It used to be used very often in Britain, especially in areas where rugby was also popular. My Dad, who’s had a season ticket at a lower league club since the 1960s, calls it soccer quite often, and no TV soccer fan would dream of picking him up on it and claiming he’s not using the authentic term.

          So just say what comes naturally, and ignore the people who get uptight over such things. I’m a fan of American sports as well, and I can’t quite force myself to say DE-fense instead of De-FENCE. I don’t think it matters very much though.

          And to the people who say soccer is really boring, don’t worry, I think the sport is doing well enough without your support.

    • Ryan | May 3, 2012 at 10:58 am |

      I’ll take the bait, troll.

      The only time in recent memory I can recall a ref actually stopping the clock is during the two power outages that MLS had during (I think) the MLS Cup Final a few years ago at the Home Depot Center. Other than that, any stoppage in play–whether for an injury, jersey change, time-wasting by the team with the lead, etc.–that occurs during the 45-minute half is added on at the referee’s discretion at the end of the half. This is most commonly known as “stoppage time” or “injury time.”

      While I didn’t see the Spurs/Bolton match yesterday, I can only presume, from the activity of the cameras, that a player had kicked the ball out of bounds as a show of good sportsmanship against a team who would otherwise be down a man for under a minute.

      What confounds me is how so many of my fellow Americans think the timing of soccer is boring. You have 90 minutes of play on the field, and most games are typically done in about 2 hours, when you factor in halftime and stoppage time. In football, games typically clock in around 3 hours, sometimes 3:15. There’s 60 minutes of play on the field, so that’s already less efficient. Then there’s all those damned commercial breaks.

      As best as I can tell from having watched the sport on numerous occasions every year, about 30-35 seconds will come off the game clock (if it’s running) while the team goes to the huddle, then to the line of scrimmage. Then your typical play will last anywhere from 3 to 10 seconds. Then another 30 seconds off the game clock. Wash, rinse, repeat. For a punt or XP, up to 11 new players will come on to the field. Then, 11 more different guys come on to the field to play for a few minutes. Hockey’s really the only fact-paced sport among the big four, and even those games can get bogged down by penalties, offsides, icing, and pucks leaving the rink.

      • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:04 am |

        It’s not the timing we find boring. It’s the boringness we find boring.

      • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:09 am |

        Yeah, but in soccer that’s 90 minutes of NOTHING HAPPENING. (at least, that’s the perception) You have to admit that in the NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB a player needing a new jersey would either cause a play stoppage or the player would be forced to sit out while changing. The idea of being able to change jerseys while still on the field during active gameplay is rather damning for soccer.

        I will say that the NFL can get a bit annoying if you’re watching with commercials. Thanks to my working 3rd shift, most of my football watching is done the day after with no commercials and the games are typically around 2 hours that way.

        • Lee | May 3, 2012 at 11:30 am |

          That’s YOUR perception.

          And frankly, one player missing one play from an NFL or MLB game would have the same effect as a soccer player being off the field for a short period of time: very likely little effect, occasionally glaring.

          Lee

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:39 am |

          Oh please. A 5 on 4 in the NBA would be exploited like crazy. A missing outfielder? Damn straight the next hit is going straight to that field. It might not be quite as obvious in the NFL, but that’d depend on which position is missing and what the playcall was.

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:49 am |

          In hockey, it’s called a power play and it’s kind of a big part of the game.

        • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

          It’s no different from a red card, which results in 10 vs. 11 for the duration of the game. This was just a red card situation that lasted 30 seconds. Hell, it happens all the time. If a player is injured and needs medical attention, he often comes of the field for a few minutes. Teams would rather play short for a short while than use one of their three allowed subs at that particular point.

        • Perry | May 3, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

          Okay, I realize this is pointless, so this is my last word on the subject. Not every sport is everyone’s cup of tea, and that’s fine. I don’t quite get why soccer seems to make its detractors so damn livid, though (not saying you’re this way, but some people seem to go out of their way to denigrate the game).

          There’s a REASON it’s the world’s most popular sport, and there’s a reason 600,000,000 people worldwide watched this week’s Manchester City vs. Manchester United game. We’re not all idiots. And I say that as someone who ignored the sport for the first 50 years of my life.

        • David | May 3, 2012 at 12:33 pm |

          Q: Why do millions of people around the world play soccer?
          A: So they don’t have to watch.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

          There’s a REASON it’s the world’s most popular sport

          Popular doesn’t always mean good: just check the Top 40 music charts.

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

          I honestly believe this. If baseball and soccer had never existed up until this point and either one of them (or both) were introduced, they’d be about as popular as frolf (as spectator sports).

        • Ry Co 40 | May 3, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

          “There’s a REASON it’s the world’s most popular sport”

          IMO, because it’s the cheapest and easiest to play…

          easiest, meaning, only 4 people can kick around the ball and have a fun time, or good “game”

          all you need is something resembling a ball, and an open space. the poorest 3rd world countries can, and do, play.

          compare that to a good game of basketball. you need a few people, and a decent ball to dribble, but you also need a decent surface and a hoop/backboard or two.

          football, similar to soccer where you only really need a ball and a space, but you also need at least 8-10 people for anything woth a game

          almost the same as baseball/softball…

          hockey, forget about it…

          that’s why soccer is the world most popular game (again, IMO).

          i don’t mind soccer all that much. was in Foxboro 4/97 and Columbus 2/01 (La Guerra Fria) for the US vs Mexico qualifiers. was also in DC 8/97 celebrating a US goal when, surprise, Jamaica walked down and scored the other goal when we least expected it… a minute later. i just don’t like the elitist attitudes of most (if not all) of the soccer fans i’ve run into. in fairness, i don’t like Steelers fans for the same reason.

        • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 2:25 pm |

          I got your back, Perry. I’m a late convert to the outdoor game as well.

          Every sport has its pros and cons. You don’t like soccer, fine…but why waste so much time trying to convince fans of the game how boring it is? Y’all remind me of my dad. He just loves himself a 1-0 pitchers duel in baseball (talk about nothing happening, especially if it’s mostly strikeouts), but if he sees a nil-nil score for a soccer match, his first word is “Boring!” Did he even check the highlights to see if there were some great saves by the goalies? Of course not.

          Now I enjoy a good baseball game, and even a good pitchers duel as much as the next guy, but don’t try to tell me baseball’s superior to soccer and I won’t try to tell you soccer’s superior to baseball. Because they’re not.

        • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 3:15 pm |

          As for the terminology, if you didn’t invent the sport, I don’t see what’s wrong with using the terms of the people who did invent it. Let’s say baseball all of a sudden takes off in England, but they decide to call it a baseball square instead of a diamond (it’s all a matter of perspective, eh?). You don’t think Americans *cough*jeff*cough* would be saying, “Get a load of those goofy British…they don’t even use the right words!”

          Sometimes I use European terms for soccer and sometimes I use American terms. Doesn’t really matter to me.

        • StLMarty | May 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm |

          I have to agree with Vilk.
          And who cares if a guy wants to put ketchup on his dog.
          I realize Perry Ferrel has turned into a real douche, but he had a great line back in the day.
          “There ain’t no wrong, there ain’t no right. There’s only pleasure and pain.”
          People liking soccer does not cause me pain, but the stripes on the Blues breezers do.

  • Luther Mahoney | May 3, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    Just saw the 1930s lacrosse video. The British Pathe site also has a couple of videos showing
    footballs (soccer) being made. Also,there is a 1939 video from the Umbro plant where the shirts
    of FA Cup final teams-Portsmouth vs Wolverhampton-are being made.

    • Terry Proctor | May 3, 2012 at 9:57 am |

      Wicked head shot that the Leaf player delivered to his Habs opponent. Must have been the influence of the sweaters they wore. Go Leafs Go!

  • bulltit | May 3, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    This infographic was sent out yesterday from the You Can Play Project (youcanplayproject.org) breaking down stats/awards for the 48 players that have signed up and provided their support.

    Love that it’s designed like the back of an old hockey card.

    http://sixteenwins.c...

  • Jason M (DC) | May 3, 2012 at 9:26 am |

    Mr. Met is the #1 favorite mascot? Over the Phanatic and the San Diego Chicken??? No way, man.

    • ChrisH | May 3, 2012 at 9:59 am |

      Mr. Met is nothing more than a Mr. Red knockoff. That said, The Reds have 4 mascots…3 too many IMO!

      http://mlb.mlb.com/c...

      Youppi! is under-rated.

      • Rob S | May 3, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

        Mr. Redlegs has psychotic eyes.

    • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2012 at 1:33 pm |

      What the hell is the Phanatic and what doesn it have to do with Philadelphia or baseball? Same goes for the Chicken.

      As for Mr. Red, Mr. Met would kick his ass.

      (Let’s Go Mets!)

      • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

        What the hell is the Phanatic and what doesn it have to do with Philadelphia or baseball?

        What the hell is a Phillie? Exactly.

        • Connie | May 3, 2012 at 2:41 pm |

          I hated the San Diego Chicken, I hate the Phanatic.

          I love Mr Met (and Lady Met!) and enjoy those wurst races in Milwaukee and kinda like the Presidents in DC.

          Basically, I don’t want the mascots to hang around after their shtick is done (wursts, prexies) and I don’t want the ones who do hang around to do anything other than to pose for a photo with fans. No skits, no improv, no nothing with players or umps.

          And that’s final, dammit.

    • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 2:33 pm |

      None of those compare to the Pirate Parrot.

      • Chris K | May 3, 2012 at 6:28 pm |

        Mariners have a moose. I’m constantly finding antlers on the beach. Kidding aside, I would have liked it more, if they had stayed with a more seaworthy creepy critter. Seriously, most of these sacks of fur are really creepy.

  • Jason M (DC) | May 3, 2012 at 9:27 am |

    I had that same San Jose Sharks jersey back when I was in high school.
    I wish the Sharks would go back to something similar to their original jersey. They especially need to ditch the yellow.

    • Jet | May 3, 2012 at 10:40 am |

      Despite the “trendy” colors, the original Sharks jersey still employed traditional waist and sleeve striping. It still looked like a hockey jersey. It wasn’t until a few years later that the Ducks opened the door for weird asymetrical striping and teams like Calgary and St. Louis followed suit. Man, did I hate that stuff.

      -Jet

    • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 10:58 am |

      Yellow? What part of a Sharks jersey is yellow?

      Anyway, the front numbers are stupid, but I don’t have a problem with the Sharks current look (except that the black alt looks like a practice jersey). They definitely got it right the first time, though. Their original look is the best they’ve ever had, especially the home (white) jerseys.

      • Lee | May 3, 2012 at 11:33 am |

        I don’t know if I’d call it “yellow”, but the gold-ish color:
        http://www.sportsmem...

        Ditch that and the front numbers, and you have a nice uniform, imo.

        Lee

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:52 am |

          It’s orange, but now that I look at it, I guess I can see how you’d think it’s yellow (maybe because the orange stripes are so thin compared to the black and white ones).

        • Jason M (DC) | May 4, 2012 at 4:17 pm |

          Yeah, whatever the color of the stick is that they incorporated into the stripes.

      • Jason M (DC) | May 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm |

        I agree. The original look was great. And tightening up the logo would have made it better… as long as they kept the top of the triangle straight.

    • walter | May 3, 2012 at 2:23 pm |

      It aggravated me the way one of the shark fins on the shoulder yoke was rear-facing. Both should have faced forward.

      • ChrisH | May 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm |

        I never liked that the color of those fins did not match the color of the shark on the chest.

  • Sooz | May 3, 2012 at 9:33 am |

    Does Jrue Holiday’s jersey have an extra thick white outline, or is it just missing the blue outline that would cover part of the white? at first glance it looks like there is the same blue outline, or is that just a shadow? It doesn’t appear to have the blue outline on the left side (his right).

    • Tom V. | May 3, 2012 at 10:08 am |

      It usually takes til like 4pm for my brain to fill up, but the name “Jrue” (first time I ever saw that spelling) which I imagine is pronounced like “Drew” just put me out of commission for the day.

    • DylanPHF | May 3, 2012 at 11:23 am |

      It doesn’t appear the blue is a shadow: http://cdn.bleacherr...

  • Chris Holder | May 3, 2012 at 9:38 am |

    I don’t know. I totally get what you’re saying, and want to agree with you. When the Braves wear Milwaukee or Boston throwbacks, I think it’s neat. But if they up and moved back to either city, would I still be a fan? Hell no! I’m a fan because they represent MY part of the country. If they were representing Milwaukee/Wisconsin, why would I have a reason to care?

    The Oakland A’s have won four championships. I just don’t think I could celebrate championships won in other cities for other fans. It would just feel wrong. Paul talks so much about franchises being sources of civic pride, and I think that influences my line of thinking here. While there are certainly plenty of people that come to be fans of teams halfway across the country, if you are a fan of a team because of its proximity to you… I just don’t get celebrating its accomplishments elsewhere.

    • Chris Holder | May 3, 2012 at 9:39 am |

      Argh… I’m an idiot, but I’ll also blame this partially on using a new browser. I meant this for Randy’s comment above.

    • Shaftman | May 3, 2012 at 10:00 am |

      But at the end of the day you are celebrating the franchises accomplishments and you root for the franchise.

      Just the way I see it.

      • Chris Holder | May 3, 2012 at 10:22 am |

        Yeah… it’s a gray area, and I can see arguments for each side. I just can’t say I really care what the Boston or Milwaukee Braves did. But, YMMV. Nothing wrong with celebrating the entire franchise I guess.

        • Shaftman | May 3, 2012 at 10:42 am |

          I agree that it can be either/or. Just easier for me to be mad at teams like the Nationals that think they were never the Expos but were the Senators.

          It’s also why I don’t agree with the new Winnipeg team being called the Jets. Different franchise…come up with new or embrace you’re own history and leave the Jets to the Coyotes (they could actually use it).

          But like I said, I don’t have an issue with the Fan looking at it as “City” first if that’s what they choose.

    • Le Cracquere | May 3, 2012 at 11:01 am |

      I know what you’re saying, but I still feel an emotional share in the club’s Milwaukee and Boston histories as well … it seems inseparable from the franchise.

      And don’t forget that even before 1966, Atlanta was a Braves farm team of long standing. Many Boston & Milwaukee Braves players called Ponce de Leon Park home, and the locals’ loyalties skewed accordingly.

      • Gusto44 | May 3, 2012 at 11:54 am |

        No doubt, a small number of hardcore fans feel a certain connection with their team, even when the history didn’t occur there. It’s admirable that nearly a half a century later, anyone can recall where a minor league team played, who happened to be an affiliate of the parent club. But even in 1966, the overwhelming number of Atlanta residents could have cared less about the Milwaukee Braves. Why? Because the major league Braves didn’t play there.

        A franchise has, and always will be truly connected to where the history occurred. How many of today’s Atlanta Braves fans under the age of 60 can honestly say when the Milwaukee Braves won it all? Very few.

        The reason people like celebrating titles won elsewhere is more of a boastful exercise than anything else. It’s just weird more than anything else. Yes, in historical, overall franchise terms, the history should be recalled. But to do so by claiming that history in terms of the current city is just like wearing elevator shoes. It’s just not authentic, and most people know it. And many people who cling to those the old history which they never experienced or have a family connection, seems fake. As the late Mike Wallace used to say, “come on”. How many Philadelphia A’s fans are still alive? Many of those fans dumped the A’s and converted to the Phillies.

        The reality of the situation is that the San Francisco Giants and Atlanta Braves have one World Title, and the Oakland A’s have four. Nothing wrong with that.

        • Chris Holder | May 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

          Well said.

          I respect what the Braves franchise has achieved, over the last century plus. But that doesn’t mean I think Atlanta should claim any titles won before 1966 (I don’t). The team today is the Atlanta Braves, and the Atlanta Braves didn’t win any of those titles.

          I don’t want to forget a franchise’s history. But you can separate the overall franchise from the current place of residence. And obviously, I think people should.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 12:22 pm |

          I think the distance of the move plays a big part in the fan perception.

          The best baseball example would probably be the Angels. Brooklyn to Los Angeles is a pretty big move, but Los Angeles to “California” to Anaheim isn’t really a fan losing movement. If the Angels actually had any real success prior to 2002, most fans probably wouldn’t care if they were LA or Anaheim at the time.

          I’m pretty sure that 99.9% of Raiders fans all claim 3 Super Bowls. The fact that one of them was in LA is irrelevant.

        • Gusto44 | May 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm |

          Agreed, I think we can all respect and enjoy the history of any team, and there’s nothing wrong with the occasional throwback uniform from another era and city.

          And if the Atlanta Braves were to ignore the likes of Warren Spahn and the 1914 Miracle Braves, that would be dead wrong. It’s the claiming, as if that history occurred in that city, is where I draw the line.

        • Le Cracquere | May 3, 2012 at 12:50 pm |

          Didn’t realize it was “inauthentic” of me to think fondly of the ’14 and ’57 championships, or of the ’49 and ’58 pennants. (And I’m well under 60 … though it’s not distant enough for comfort.)

          Who knows, maybe the sentiments I and other Braves fans have towards the likes of Spahn, Lew Burdette, Del Crandall, Alvin Dark, etc., are what a certain defunct political theorist called “false consciousness.” They’re not, however, forced or affected in any way, and they certainly don’t amount to an unnatural “claim” that bears cavilling about or needs defending.

  • Rob H. | May 3, 2012 at 10:05 am |

    Paul – so about a month later are you still on the I-can-take-or-leave-an-occasional-Diet-Coke-if-I-want bandwagon or are you back to chugging them?

    • Paul Lukas | May 3, 2012 at 11:52 am |

      I stayed completely off the stuff for 10 days. Since then I’ve had the occasional swig — like, literally just a swig or two per day, never more than that (and on some days none at all).

      So I’d say this detox program was a success.

      • Rob H. | May 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm |

        Good job. I’m still unsuccessfully trying to kick the soda habit.. (And not diet either, the hard stuff.) 48 cans every two weeks – a case of Dr. Pepper & a case of Coke.

        Do you feel healthier?

        • Paul Lukas | May 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm |

          No particularly. But I know it’s better for me in the long run, even if I can’t feel it now. And it feels very good to know I was able to stop doing something that had become such an ingrained habit.

  • KT | May 3, 2012 at 10:05 am |

    As for Spurs’ equipment guy’s monogrammed stuff…they all do that. It’s even made its way over here. Initials go on all casual team gear.

  • Shane | May 3, 2012 at 10:38 am |

    By chance, does Everyone’s Favorite Comrade offer the stirrups that the Red Sox were wearing last night? I’ve only been able to find sites that have a 12 pair minimum order.

    • Chance Michaels | May 3, 2012 at 11:29 am |
      • Shane | May 3, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

        And I’ve just emailed Robert. Huzzah!

    • Phil Hecken | May 3, 2012 at 10:27 pm |

      “By chance”

      ~~~

      i see what you did there

  • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 10:39 am |

    I still see a Cuban flag for Cotto in that second picture.

    Did they change to a Puerto Rican flag and then change it back to Cuba’s flag?

    • Ryan | May 3, 2012 at 11:03 am |

      As Dumb Guy mentioned toward the top of the comments, the Puerto Rican flag is similar to the American flag, insofar as there’s red and white stripes with a blue field for the star(s); Cuba’s is the opposite, with blue and white stripes with a red field.

      • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:08 am |

        Uh, no shit. I don’t know what you’re seeing when you click the links, but I see Cuban flags on both.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:15 am |

          http://img534.images...

          That’s what you should be seeing.

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:27 am |

          Is that what you get when you click my link or did you photoshop that?

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:33 am |

          That’s the image I get on your link. The only photoshopping I did was cutting that out to avoid showing the other tabs on my browser.

          I’d say you need to clear your cache, but if you hadn’t been there before today that shouldn’t actually be an issue. I don’t know why you’d get a different image. Maybe ESPN’s site links to different image servers based on the geographic location of the visitor and they haven’t updated all of them? I don’t know.

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:43 am |

          What about this image? That’s a direct link to the jpeg that’s coming up for me on espn.com.

          And I thought about the cache thing, too. But the first time I followed Paul’s link was literally less than a minute before I posted that comment.

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 11:52 am |

          I’m completely clueless on what you’re seeing. No editing at all: http://img651.images...

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 12:11 pm |

          That’s fucking crazy, because here’s what I get when I go to the page.

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 12:19 pm |

          Just sent the link to a coworker. He’s getting the PR flag, too.

          What. The. Fuck?

        • The Jeff | May 3, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

          Wow. I’d be really cautious around anyone with a goatee if I were you. You’ve gotta be stuck in either the Twilight Zone or an alternate dimension.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 3, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

          If you haven’t already, refresh your page while you’re on it.

          What happened is simple: They corrected their error and uploaded the photo under the same file name as the one with the Cuban flag. But because your browser already downloaded and processed the information of that image file (let’s call it Boxing.jpg) it saved that info so that the next time it opened that page, it just accessed it’s saved version of Boxing.jpg rather than downloading and processing it over again.

          Once you hit refresh while on the page or close your browser or even just wait long enough, you’re browser will correct it’s error by re-downloading and processing the new information.

          Make sense?

        • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 2:05 pm |

          No, that doesn’t make sense because as I said, the first time I followed the link was AFTER the image was already corrected (see the cache references above).

          I should never have downloaded the Cuban flag image in the fist place.

          Trust me, I’ve refreshed, closed my browser, etc. I’m still seeing a flag with blue stripes.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 3, 2012 at 2:11 pm |

          Did you ingest some psychocybin mushroom?

        • Chris K | May 3, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
        • Phil Hecken | May 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm |

          “Did you ingest some psychocybin mushroom?”

          ~~~

          what the fuck is a psychocybin mushroom?

          do you mean a psilocybin shroom?

          i, um, wouldn’t have any um…experience with those, i uh, just know the name

  • Jet | May 3, 2012 at 10:43 am |

    Great shot of the two different satin Dodgers unis together. I notice they had two different caps as well – was that standard for the two different unis? The cap with the white brim went with the white satins?

    -Jet

  • Jet | May 3, 2012 at 10:45 am |

    Well I generally have to admit that I’m pleased with the look of most of the throwback baseball unis so far this season, I would like them sooooo much better if they were rendered in durene, flannel, cotton, wool, whatever – just not polyester.

    -Jet

  • DBaller | May 3, 2012 at 11:02 am |

    I hate to pick nits, but is there not way too much blue in those Red Sox socks? I really like that style, I wish the O’s and Pirates would embrace it again, as well.

    • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:32 am |

      There probably should have been just a bit more red. Compounding the issue was that most of the players were wearing their pants way too high.

      • Jim Greenfield | May 3, 2012 at 2:00 pm |

        The players that go high cuffed are all too high cuffed. Mid calf is my preferance. But beggers can’t be choosers. They seem to be wearing socks, not sturrups. Again, that is fine with me. The differance is negligable and many find sturrups distracting.

    • StLMarty | May 3, 2012 at 11:54 am |

      …if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

    • StLMarty | May 3, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

      testing testing

      • suprfrog | May 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |

        Hey, you dang woodchucks…quit chuckin’ my wood!

  • Le Cracquere | May 3, 2012 at 11:05 am |

    The Athletics throwbacks throw into sharp relief an annoyance of four decades’ standing: that damnable apostrophe-s that defaces the Oakland caps. With just the traditional “A,” they’d have one of baseball’s nicest and classiest caps; the goofy “A’s” turns it into something fit only for the minors.

    If they relocate (to San Jose or wherever), I hope the move provides an impetus to finally lose that cheesy excrescence.

    • Brinke | May 3, 2012 at 11:21 pm |

      The San Jose A’s. They need a new place to play. The Coliseum is a disaster. Well, Candlestick is on its way out, the Coliseum can be next.

  • Chance Michaels | May 3, 2012 at 11:49 am |

    Wait – there’s something very odd in that photo of the Dodgers’ two satins.

    The white jersey on the left says “Brooklyn” on it! Prototype? ‘Cause every photo of the actual game jerseys I’ve seen features the standard home “Dodgers” script. The Times article about the satins mentions a “Dodgers” script at home.

    And while we’ve talked about the white-crowned caps, I don’t ever recall seeing a picture of the blue-with-white-visor cap before.

    Outstanding. Where did this picture come from? Was there any context?

    • JTH | May 3, 2012 at 11:55 am |

      Good catch. Possibly a gray satin prototype?

    • Paul Lukas | May 3, 2012 at 11:59 am |

      Prototypes, I’m guessing. No background context for the pics, alas.

  • Kyle Allebach | May 3, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    So, did you know that Ball So Hard University sold college t-shirts?

    • Dumb Guy | May 3, 2012 at 12:29 pm |

      I don’t get it. (nor do I care for the shirts)

  • Darren Walton | May 3, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

    Jeremy Lin has a delicious jersey.
    http://content.usato...

  • Coleman | May 3, 2012 at 1:01 pm |

    Not technically related to todays topics, but saddening nonetheless: I recently went to my 10 year old nephews baseball game. As we were leaving his house I looked down at his pants and what did I see? I’ll tell ya what I did NOT see, any blousing whatsoever. So naturally I stopped him, grabbed him by the ankle and told him I wouldn’t watch a single inning of him dressed so badly. I was kidding, but when I tried to show him how to blouse his pants I found that they didn’t even have elastic in them! Such a sad day.

  • Paul Lukas | May 3, 2012 at 1:35 pm |

    Today’s ESPN column is up:
    http://espn.go.com/b...

    • DenverGregg | May 3, 2012 at 1:53 pm |

      Nifty little project he’s got going, but the first several items on the auction listing might chase off some bidders.

      • ChrisH | May 3, 2012 at 2:18 pm |

        …and some potential employers?

    • M.Princip | May 3, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

      "Remember how exciting it was to receive mail back when you were a kid?" Hellz yea, nice form letter from Jim Zorn, and signed picture with my name on it.

      • M.Princip | May 3, 2012 at 3:55 pm |

        Love the Nordiques envelope, too bad it has a rip through the address.

      • Shane | May 3, 2012 at 7:18 pm |

        Quite awesome. I wrote to Patrick Roy asking for an autograph once. Took about 9 months, but getting home and seeing an envelope in the mail on Colorado Avalanche stationary was AMAZING.

    • GMoore | May 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm |

      I did the same thing in the early 70’s, strictly with baseball teams. I still have the envelopes, pictures, schedules, and autographs I received way back then.

    • quiet seattle | May 3, 2012 at 10:40 pm |

      I loved that.

      I relived my childhood there for a minute: That hope and anticipation…then the reward!

      You actually had to wait for stuff back then. :)

  • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

    You know, in a real world application,the logo doesn’t look so bad.

    • Andy | May 3, 2012 at 3:08 pm |

      Agreed. The chunkiness of embroidery plays into the old time aesthetic much better than a clean, digital rendering.

    • M.Princip | May 3, 2012 at 4:04 pm |

      From a distance, I would assume, most people think he’s wearing an NYPD hat.

      • Ben Fortney | May 3, 2012 at 6:00 pm |

        I thought “Raiders” when I first saw it.

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | May 3, 2012 at 2:37 pm |

    It is standard in England and Scotland for the manager and coaches to have monogrammed training tops:

    Chelsea manager Roberto di Matteo (pictured here with former manager Andre Villas-Boas, under whom he was a coach, and whom he later replaced):
    http://i.telegraph.c...

    Stoke manager Tony Pulis (who also always wears a team cap):
    http://static.guim.c...

    Arsenal assistant manager Pat Rice:
    http://arsenalghana....

    A distinctive breaker of this tradition is Sunderland manager Martin O’Neill, who (for reasons known only to himself) wears no. 31:
    http://www.mirror.co...

  • Kyle Allebach | May 3, 2012 at 3:20 pm |

    Just saw this on the NFL Network. Weeb Ewbank’s hat has a striping pattern to match the helmet of the Jets. My only complaint is that the Jets logo isn’t on the sides of the hat.

  • DBaller | May 3, 2012 at 4:51 pm |

    I know this is off-topic and may have been asked before, but it’s just something that crossed my mind. Is Paul’s aversion to the Mets’ orange squatchee caused by a distaste for contrast colored squatchees in general or just because it wasn’t traditionally their style? Thanks!

    • Paul Lukas | May 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm |

      The latter.

  • Rex | May 3, 2012 at 5:06 pm |

    HOLY SHIT, Junior Seau looks like a giant next to Belichick in that photo.

  • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

    Orange Hats Held Hostage: Game 25
    http://scores.espn.g...
    No. End. In. Sight. Free the orange hats!

    • Jim Vilk | May 3, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

      Actually, on an overcast day that Marlins uni really pops, but that’s besides the point.

    • Wheels | May 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

      Free the gray tops!

      • chuck | May 3, 2012 at 10:13 pm |

        Indians need to free their grays also, they insist on wearing the blue softball tops on the road.

  • Pete Puma | May 4, 2012 at 9:31 am |

    Could Seau possibly be wearing a vest over his jersey in that photo? It’s the only explanation I can think of for the logos.