The Joy of Six

History of sorts was made in Colorado last night, as Alex White — freshly called up from the minors and installed in the starting rotation — became the first pitcher in Rockies history to wear a single-digit uni number. Well, sort of the first: The Rox have also had two single-digitized position players who’ve been forced to take the mound during extreme circumstances: Brent Mayne in 2000 and Todd Zeile in 2002 (couldn’t find a photo of his mound stint, alas). But I’d say those two get an asterisk, since Mayne and Zeile weren’t normally considered pitchers.

I’m not sure why White is wearing No. 6 this season. Last year he wore 43 for the Rockies and 32 for the Indians, but he began wearing 6 in spring training this year. Anyone know why? (This is the part where we all get to say, “Maybe it refers to his blood alcohol level.”)

White becomes the second single-digitized pitcher in the bigs this season, joining Kyle Drabek of the Blue Jays. I’d love for the Jays and Rox to play each other, so we could have an all-single-digitized pitching match-up (has that ever happened before?), but the two teams aren’t scheduled to play each other during this year’s slate of interleague games. So either Drabek or White will simply have to be traded to the opposite league. Nothing else will do.

I believe the last single-digitized pitcher before Drabek was Josh Towers. Unfortunately, his time in Toronto didn’t overlap with Drabek’s, so the Jays never managed the trick of having two single-digitized pitchers on the same roster (not sure if that’s ever happened either).

The last pitcher to wear 6 prior to White, at least that I’m aware of, was Rob Bell of the Rangers in 2001. Bell took the single numeral after being traded in mid-season. Wayne Gomes did the same thing that year, wearing No. 2 after joining the Giants in July (although I can’t find a photo of that, alas).

My favorite single-digitized pitcher is Boomer Wells, who briefly wore No. 3 in 2005 as a shout-out to the Babe. But after getting off to a rocky start, he switched to 16 about a third of the way through the season.

Another interesting case is George Brunet of the Pirates, who wore No. 4 for a couple of games late in the 1970 season before switching to 22. The odd thing is that 4 was Ralph Kiner’s number, and the Pirates eventually retired it in 1987. You have to wonder what took them so long (Kiner retired in ’55 and was inducted into the Hall of Fame in ’75). If they had taken his number out of circulation sooner, it wouldn’t have been available for Brunet to wear.

The most popular single-digit numbers for pitchers over the years have been 8 (worn by Bob Priddy of the Pirates, Bob Baird of the Sens, and Bill Monbouquette of the Giants in the 1960s) and 7 (Atlee Hammaker of the Giants in ’85, Jeff Juden of the Indians in ’97, and Towers from 2003-07, which is by far the longest run for a single-digit number on a pitcher’s back). At the other end of the spectrum, I believe no pitcher has ever worn 5 or 9. Or, for that matter, 0.

Although it’s a bit strange to see a single-digitized pitcher on the mound, there’s something to be said for a pitcher wearing No. 1, since that’s also his position number. To my knowledge, only two pitchers have worn 1: Jack Jenkins of the Senators in 1962 and Matt Young of the Mariners in 1990.

I used phrases like “to my knowledge” and “I believe” a lot in this piece, because (a) I’m mostly working from memory here and (b) although there are some lists of single-digitized pitchers floating around the web, I don’t trust them. George Brunet, for example, wasn’t on any of those lists until Keith Olbermann was watching some old footage a few years ago and spotted him wearing No. 4. And Jack Looney of SABR once gave me a list that included Mark Small of the Expos wearing No. 0 in 2000, which is wrong on multiple counts (Small’s entire career consisted of 16 games for the Astros in 1996, when he wore No. 36; meanwhile, the Expos didn’t have a No. 0 in 2000). So if anyone can refute or amend anything I’ve presented here, please feel free to do so.

+ + + + +

ESPN reminder: In case you missed it yesterday, here are the results of my “Redesign the Hornets” contest.

In addition, if you read that column prior to 2pm yesterday, you may have missed Leo Strawn Jr.’s really fun New Orleans Rhythm design. He submitted it in time for the contest, but for some reason it never showed up in my in-box. Then he sent me a follow-up note yesterday afternoon, which I did receive. I like his design, so I added it to the “Honorable Mention” section. Frankly, if I had received it the first time around, I probably would have included it among the top five picks. Sorry for the snafu, Leo.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Really fun article about the new dress code in chess (from Joe Makowiec). … I’m very pleased that my city is about to start a bike-sharing program. I’m not so pleased to learn that the bikes will be instruments of corporate douchebaggery. … Look at this early version of the Swinging Friar. Brady Phelps spotted that in a display case at Petco Park. … Leandro Rosas, Jr. bought himself this swell 49ers helmet chair a few days ago. Better put another lock on the door, Leandro, or else Brinke will be coming to heist it from you! … Interesting move by Cowboys draftee Tyrone Crawford, whose Twitter page shows a Cowboys helmet without the star logo, because he still has to earn his star (from Steve King). … “What is this Washington State logo that Howard Stern is wearing?” asks Rick Rutherford. “I have lived in Washington my entire life and I have never seen it before.” … “I attend Purdue University, and one of my fraternity brothers has recently been awarded the position as a Purdue Pete, our school’s mascot,” writes Kyle Bayram. “He let it slip to me the other day that Nike and Purdue had requested that all of the football uniforms worn by the players — and by Purdue Pete — be returned because they are changing the designs and possibly adding an alternate uniform. Sure enough, I asked a local Purdue athletics store about this and they said they had to give all of their replica football uniforms in stock back to Nike for changes.” … Not sure I’ve eve seen this before: full armpit exposure on a high school softball uniform. That’s Waco Reicher Catholic High School pitcher Beth Tobin (from Matthiew Mitchell). … No photos, but Southern Miss football will be wearing 1970 throwbacks for at least one game this season (from Landon Howell). … Good video showing what the 76ers’ equipment manager did during the first round of the playoffs (from Erik Autenrieth). … New kits for Stoke City and Newcastle United (from Jon Forbes). … Interesting story behind the uni number choice for one of the Eagles’ new draftees (from Brice Wallace). … I think we may have seen this helmet cart photo before, but once more definitely can’t hurt (from Garrett Schabb). … “Some bizarre news from Cardiff City, where the new Malaysian owners want to switch the club’s colors from blue to red because ‘red is seen as a more dynamic colour in Asia when it comes to marketing merchandise,'” says Nick, who asked that his surname not be used. “Cardiff has been wearing their blue and white jerseys since the days when the Chicago Cubs were winning championships and the Qing Dynasty ruled China. Crazy.” … Brandon League looks like he’s wearing a long-sleeved undershirt, but he’s actually wearing compression sleeves (screen shot by Rick Rutherford). … Here’s a review of the Mumbai Indians’ cricket uniforms (from Harsh Kalan). … Cuban volleyballer Fernando Hernandez has the Cuban flag design shaved into his head (from Jeremy Brahm). … RIP, Maurice. It’s been one helluva wild rumpus.

 

193 comments to The Joy of Six

  • Boxcarvibe | May 9, 2012 at 7:45 am |

    Single-digit pitchers belong in college ball, along with home white pants worn by road teams and aluminum bats.

    • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 8:09 am |

      Why?

      • Andy | May 9, 2012 at 9:09 am |

        Because you wear road pants on the road, and that’s that. Road pants are not white. Also, the phrase ‘the crack of the bat’ doesn’t carry the same romance when the ‘crack’ sounds more like John Henry pounding railroad spikes.

        • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 9:38 am |

          Because you wear road pants on the road, and that’s that. Road pants are not white.

          Arbitrary rule is arbitrary.

          Also, the phrase ‘the crack of the bat’ doesn’t carry the same romance when the ‘crack’ sounds more like John Henry pounding railroad spikes.

          So the “the crack of the bat” is replaced with “the clang of metal on leather”, romance preserved.

        • Chance Michaels | May 9, 2012 at 10:25 am |

          You’re right, THE. Maybe there isn’t any reason not to wear a powder blue tuxdeo.

          It’s a nice color on its own, and if aesthetics aren’t contextual…

        • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 10:40 am |

          I don’t know about powder blue tuxes, but I do know that the Blue Jays would look far better in powder blue than they ever have in gray.

          There’s just no reason for silly blanket uniform rules. How dare a team try anything different.

          Road pants should be whatever color the team wants them to be, including white. If a team is wearing, for example, a red hat with a white logo and a red jersey with white numbers, then white pants make more sense than gray ones (red would be best), do they not? If teams are going to continue wearing colored jerseys (and despite Phil hating it, they will), then wearing pants which better match the upper half of the uniform is a good thing.

        • Omar Jalife | May 9, 2012 at 10:42 am |

          Sometime ago I read (I think it probably was here) teams used dark (or at least not white) pants on the road due to the difficulty of finding dry cleaners on the road. So yes, its arbitrary and teams should use any pants color now.

    • Jim Vilk | May 9, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      Is this the NFL? No. Let’s not institute a numbering system in MLB, please. All I care is that it’s between 0 and 99.

      • Phillipwilson | May 9, 2012 at 12:17 pm |

        1 and 99 please. Can’t stand 0. Even worse 00.

        • Mark in Shiga | May 9, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

          Both 0 and 00 are vastly preferable to the garbage in the 60s that they’ve been increasingly handing out in recent seasons!

  • Jack | May 9, 2012 at 7:51 am |

    I remember watcing the movies Rookie of the Year and Angels in the Outfield as a kid and thinking something wasn’t right because the pitcher in both movies wore a single digit uni-number (#1 in ROTY and #5 in AitO).

  • Alex | May 9, 2012 at 7:59 am |

    I know Alex White wore #6 in college at North Carolina; if I recall correctly he occasionally came in as a DH and pinch hitter too. Players can obviously wear whatever number they choose, but I wish pitchers would stay above 15.

  • Dumb Guy | May 9, 2012 at 8:02 am |

    I’m a big fan of oversized things. I guess that’s why I love the helmet carts/buggies so much. THAT is a wonderful pic.

    • Valjean | May 9, 2012 at 1:02 pm |

      +1

      And notice how the logos on the buggies are gi-normous! I assume that’s for better visibility from the stands (as that shot is from the first “Super Bowl” in ’67 in LA, yes?)

  • Mike Edgerly | May 9, 2012 at 8:10 am |

    Wait a minute, aren’t Cardiff the “Bluebirds”, and the owners want to change to Red? This is wankier than what Venky’s did to Blackburn (see yesterday’s ticker). Money > Tradition.

    • Anthony | May 9, 2012 at 10:23 am |

      It’s absolutely ridiculous that they’re putting money ahead of tradition. However, that’s the world of football….

    • diz | May 9, 2012 at 12:53 pm |

      Seems an obvious publicity thing to let the media know they’re “considering” it, then to announce they’re not changing because of “supporter reaction” after a few months.

      Also seems an obvious media thing to big up something mentioned off hand as a major decision to fill up space as the European club season winds down a bit.

  • Josh | May 9, 2012 at 8:14 am |

    The link to the Southern Miss football jersey requires a password.

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 8:19 am |

      Huh. Wasn’t like that yesterday.

    • Simply Moono | May 9, 2012 at 8:34 am |

      Somebody who can access it should download/make a screengrab of it and re-upload it to an image hosting site.

  • Connie | May 9, 2012 at 8:18 am |

    There was a spirited discussion here occasioned by the roll-out of the new Nets logo, one salient element of which was its black-and-white-ness. A lot of us thought that b&w could be cool, especially if silver was prohibited.

    So I find it depressing that one of uni history’s finest b&w franchises, Newcastle United, is taking up colors for its new Away kit. Not-Black for Not-Black’s Sake? Terrible. Poor Magpies and Magpie lovers.

    • Whirling Darvish | May 9, 2012 at 8:35 am |

      They’ve actually had some wacky away kits since the 1970s.

      http://www.historica...

    • Patrick | May 9, 2012 at 8:40 am |

      Newcastle United has often had a different colored away kit.

      http://www.historica...

      • T'Challa | May 9, 2012 at 8:52 am |

        holy random colors Batman! those 75-76 away socks are awesome! I’m now gonna waste some time seeing if I can find a pair for sale.

    • Chance Michaels | May 9, 2012 at 10:14 am |

      That’s the whole point of a clash kit; to be worn when playing at another club which wears the same colors. Some clubs have a traditional change kit color (Arsenal usually wore gold, although that’s changed in recent years), some don’t.

      Clubs, at least in England, often use it as an opportunity to boost merchandise sales by grabbing the hot color of the moment. I actually find it preferable to our system; that way clubs can sell BFBS stuff and not screw around with their primary uniforms. The result is that team colors are almost never changed; why would you need to?

    • Perry | May 9, 2012 at 10:22 am |

      The Euro soccer system is to allow home teams to wear their “normal” colors, while the away team can do likewise only if it’s distinguishable enough from the home colors to satisfy the ref. So that pretty much requires the away kit to be a completely different color scheme than the home kit. For example, Arsenal wear red/white at home but their away kit is usually yellow or blue. So there’s no way Newcastle to could use black/white in their away kit.

      I have noticed some teams going to an away kit that is predominantly some color completely different from the home kit, but that features a narrow band of home colors. Here’s an example from Barcelona:
      http://www.jersey99....

      • Connie | May 9, 2012 at 11:37 am |

        I don’t know jack. Good to get educated, though.

    • Forbes | May 9, 2012 at 5:47 pm |

      I did say in the email that it was the away kit, as is the keeper kit in the picture. It was just left out of the post.

    • 1vox | May 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm |

      speaking of black/white kits and magpies…the collingwood magpies of the afl have always worn black and white…120 years worth…and it looks sharp…

      https://www.facebook...

      always wondered why there aren’t b&w color schemes here in the usa…not a big fan of the nets new logo, but it will be a cool change of pace to see a club wear just black and white here…

  • Andrew | May 9, 2012 at 8:39 am |

    The single digit pitcher always causes me to do a double take….Thanks for the knowledge, Paul!

  • BirdsForBrains | May 9, 2012 at 8:50 am |

    HARTNELL (helmet number) DOWN!

    During last night’s game against New Jersey, Flyer Scott Hartnell lost the #1 from the front #19 on his helmet (a new rule this season mandates all players have numbers on the back AND front of their helmets).

    Does anyone have a photo of this?

  • Todd R | May 9, 2012 at 8:54 am |

    The Padres swinging friar art dates back to the Pacific Coast League days, pre 1969 National League Padres.

  • Michael Churchill | May 9, 2012 at 8:55 am |

    The term “Corporate douchebaggery” rears its head again.

    I can see Paul’s points about advertising on uniforms, footpaths in historic areas, schools and the like… and I agree with him, on most of those.

    However, I don’t see a problem with sponsorship of a service which, if not for some sort of sponsorship, would not otherwise exist. Sometimes corporations do things for reasons of social responsibility. I’m not claiming that Citibank are in this case, but sometimes…

    Would you rather have no bike-sharing scheme than one with sponsorship? Or is it just because it’s Citi?

    By the way, in London the equivalent scheme is sponsored by the same bank which has put its name to Paul’s newest neighbourhood arena.

    • Fred | May 9, 2012 at 9:07 am |

      Maybe the Bike Share program has some innate knowledge about people who run Citi. Maybe they’re big bikers who support the biking lifestyle, much like how Paul likes to choose his advertisers here on the website. Could be that, or it could be simply because Citi thinks it’s a viable option. For bikers, I’d like to think that it’s a possibility they chose Citi out of other potential advertisers.

      • Fred | May 9, 2012 at 9:09 am |

        Oops I should clarify some more. “or it could be simply because Citi thinks it’s slapping a decal on the bikes is a viable option for their advertising and the Bike Share people quickly said yes when Citi showed them the money.”

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:17 am |

          You know, the bikes aren’t even “sponsored by Citi”; they are literally called CitiBikes, as if Citi had suddenly gone into the bike biz. The whole thing reeks.

      • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:21 am |

        Maybe the Bike Share program has some innate knowledge about people who run Citi. Maybe they’re big bikers who support the biking lifestyle, much like how Paul likes to choose his advertisers here on the website.

        False equivalence. This is a private web site that gives away its content for free, and the only way for that to work is to have advertising. That’s been a standard media business model for centuries.

        The bike share program (a) charges money and (b) is a public program, not a private one. So this is another case of our civic institutions being put up for sale. Not quite the same as selling an ad on the door to City Hall, but related. It’s wrong.

        • Chance Michaels | May 9, 2012 at 10:17 am |

          this is another case of our civic institutions being put up for sale. Not quite the same as selling an ad on the door to City Hall, but related. It’s wrong.

          Dont you mean “Citihall”?

        • Nick | May 9, 2012 at 11:15 am |

          Most of these programs are public-private partnerships operated by a private company (Alta Bicycle Share)

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:09 am |

      Would you rather have no bike-sharing scheme than one with sponsorship?

      The very definition of a false choice.

      • Andy | May 9, 2012 at 9:16 am |

        Well, I mean, if I was a taxpayer, personally, I wouldn’t mind throwing a few dollars toward a non-sponsored bike share program every month (2, 3, 5 dollars), just as people throw 10, 20, 30 dollars toward trash removal every month. Problem is, though, not everyone wants to do that, which is probably why they turned to a sponsor.

        Bike share rocks, though, except for the ugly-ass bikes, and I’m also not sure how it is in a more crowded city like NY, but it’s probably one of the best things about taking a vacation to Denver.

        • concealed78 | May 9, 2012 at 11:28 am |

          “if I was a taxpayer”

          What do you mean? Everyone is a taxpayer.

          “I was a taxpayer, personally, I wouldn’t mind throwing a few dollars toward a non-sponsored bike share program every month”

          I would. We’re taxed to death (literally) enough as it is.

      • Michael Churchill | May 9, 2012 at 9:33 am |

        My point is that this scheme probably wouldn’t happen without some sort of sponsorship. The fees charged wouldn’t cover the initial cost of set-up and probably not the cost of repairing/replacing broken/vandalised/stolen bikes either. In this case perhaps sponsorship, with corporate logo plastering, is a necessary evil.

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:47 am |

          My point is that this scheme probably wouldn’t happen without some sort of sponsorship.

          And education funds would be cut unless there’s advertising on school buses. And NBA ticket prices will rise unless there’s advertising on uniforms. And…

          Once you accept these lies, there’s no end to it.

      • Kevin B | May 9, 2012 at 9:45 am |

        He may have just been asking a question in an attempt to understand your position, like I am. Paul, would you rather have no bike-sharing scheme than one with sponsorship?

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:57 am |

          But that’s a false choice. It’s like asking if I’d rather eat at McDonald’s or go hungry. To accept the premise of the question is to accept the notion that sponsorship is the only way to have this program, which it isn’t. I reject the premise of the question.

        • Michael Churchill | May 9, 2012 at 10:17 am |

          OK. Let’s talk numbers. The Barclays Cycle Hire scheme in London is expected to cost £140 million ($226 million) over six years to implement. The revenue from the fees paid by users was supposed to cover maintenance and up-keep, but so far more journeys than expected are of the “free 30 minutes” type and there has been greater expense due to repairs and vandalism. Barclays Bank are contributing £25 million. “Sponsorship is a necessary evil” is a “lie”, so how else would that be paid for?

        • Kevin B | May 9, 2012 at 10:19 am |

          I’m not saying those are the only two choices in the real world. Certainly we can both come up with other options if we thought a bit, but I’m using this to gauge how strongly you feel about what you have termed “corporate douchebaggery”. I don’t quite “get it” when it comes to your take on the topic, so I’m trying to understand. SO, if those were the only two choices that someone was willing to implement, which would you prefer?

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 10:29 am |

          “Sponsorship is a necessary evil” is a “lie”, so how else would that be paid for?

          The same way you pay for any other worthy public policy: appropriate taxation, so the public helps support a program for the public good. Shared responsibility, social contract, etc., etc.

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 10:31 am |

          SO, if those were the only two choices that someone was willing to implement, which would you prefer?

          Sorry, but I’m not rising to that bait. It’s a false choice, an intellectually dishonest choice. It’s like asking if I’d rather have baseball with uniform ads or no baseball at all. It’s a bogus exercise, and I refuse to play along.

        • Tony C. | May 9, 2012 at 10:55 am |

          yes but to add an extra program like this would either require an increase in taxes or cuts from other areas. I doubt people would like to see their taxes increased

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 10:59 am |

          yes but to add an extra program like this would either require an increase in taxes or cuts from other areas. I doubt people would like to see their taxes increased

          Right. Because people want something for nothing. But that’s bullshit. Responsible public policy involves shared responsibility, a fair tax code, civic dignity, etc. And I’ll keep advocating for all those things before I accept the notion that civic institutions should have corporate sponsorship.

        • Patrick | May 9, 2012 at 11:21 am |

          If Citi does want to contribute to the program out of social responsibility, surely there is a way for the city to recognize their efforts without pasting their name at least 4 places (assuming they are symmetrical) on the bikes.

        • Tony C. | May 9, 2012 at 11:41 am |

          paul… you are expecting the people to do the right thing… yesterday, that worked out very well for the homosexual community in North Carolina

        • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

          paul… you are expecting the people to do the right thing… yesterday, that worked out very well for the homosexual community in North Carolina

          I’m not “expecting” anything. I’m just doing what I always do: advocating for a point of view in an attempt to persuade others to see and share that point of view.

          Will that always work? No. But I don’t see what the alternative is. Since N.Carolina voted in favor of bigotry, should we just accept that bigotry should be part of public policy? No — we’ll go back and fight some more. Some fights are long, some are uphill. That doesn’t mean they’re not worth undertaking. For me, the fight against corporate sponsorship falls in that category.

      • Arr Scott | May 9, 2012 at 10:49 pm |

        In this case, it actually is a true choice. For how many years has NYC run this bike-share program without corporate sponsorship? Zero. Bike-share is not a necessary public good. It’s a private good that government is taking a hand in helping to create. If there’s anything unnatural or douchy going on here, it’s spending scarce public funds on what is essentially a private business that provides a luxury service to a paying few. I’m a huge fan of bike share, but this ain’t the fire department or the public schools.

    • Bernard | May 9, 2012 at 9:17 am |

      This is exactly like going to a Rolling Stones concert and saying, “Oh, Jesus Christ. They’re playing (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction again.” Why do people continue to bitch about something that a) they know is coming and b) has already been discussed/dissected/agonized over ad nauseam?

      • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:22 am |

        This is exactly like going to a Rolling Stones concert and saying, “Oh, Jesus Christ. They’re playing (I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction again.” someone complaining about a comment thread.

        Fixed.

        • Bernard | May 9, 2012 at 10:03 am |

          Didn’t realize you welcomed the same old complaints. My bad.

    • Whirling Darvish | May 9, 2012 at 9:28 am |

      It seems not everybody is such a fan of bike-sharing schemes…

      http://www.guardian....

      I agree though that while the Citibank logo isn’t ideal, it’s less of an issue here than in other areas, such as the sidewalks of the French Quarter.

      • Michael Churchill | May 9, 2012 at 9:46 am |

        Thanks for the laugh. When I saw that the article was nearly 2 years old, I had to google to make sure that the fruit-loop didn’t get elected.

        • Perry | May 9, 2012 at 10:32 am |

          Nah, he was kind of a fringe guy (although a Tea-Party fave) who got the Repub nomination only because the anointed candidate went down in flames in a plagiarism scandal. Not that I’d bet he doesn’t have similar beliefs about bike sharing….never can tell with Republicans these days.

        • Seattlearmyguy | May 9, 2012 at 1:03 pm |

          Wow, didn’t realize I was reading HuffPo.

      • Whirling Darvish | May 9, 2012 at 9:48 am |

        Paris manages to run a large scheme, with similar pricing (if not cheaper) to the NY scheme, without corporate sponsorship.

        http://inhabitat.com...

        I don’t know the details of the Velib (maybe they recoup funds from sponsoring the bike stations or some other element of the scheme) but it’s not a straight-up choice between the Citibike or no bikes at all.

        • Michael Churchill | May 9, 2012 at 9:53 am |

          In Paris it’s run by JCDecaux, an advertising company, in exchange for an almost-monopoly on all billboards in the city.

        • Shaftman | May 9, 2012 at 10:46 am |

          So maybe this would be a better question for Paul….

          Would you prefer the advertising on the bikes (like Citi) or a quid pro quo where the contributing company is given other products of monetary value (such as billboards, or tax breaks…)?

        • Omar Jalife | May 9, 2012 at 10:57 am |

          Mexico City has a program sponsorship free. It is called the Ecobici http://www.treehugge... (yes the article is old) Sin ce then the program has expanded to more areas in the cityand here’s the website (spanish and down but maybe you have luck) http://www.ecobici.d...

          Also, you have to pay about 300 pesos (less than 30 USD) a month and you have rides of 45 minutes before you need to return it to another parking station. IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT SPONSORSHIP

        • Tony C. | May 9, 2012 at 11:38 am |

          omar: either it didn’t last long or everyone here brought down the site because the official Ecobici site is dead

        • Omar Jalife | May 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

          I’ve learned that due to the upcoming elections government sites are underfunctioning to avoid propaganda from the different parties. So proabably will work again after July 1st, sorry

    • Christopher F. | May 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm |

      Why can’t Citi just donate the bikes sans advertising, and release a press release or whatever on their site?

      • Tom V. | May 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm |

        This is probably part of their marketing budget/program and not part of their charity program, etc.

      • Phil Hecken | May 9, 2012 at 7:40 pm |

        “Why can’t Citi just donate the bikes sans advertising”

        ~~~~~

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        HA

  • ChrisH | May 9, 2012 at 8:57 am |

    “…I believe no pitcher has ever worn 5 or 9.”

    No photographic evidence, but when Saul Rogovin signed with the Phillies as a free agent in July of 1955, he wore #9 (for 12 games?).

    http://www.baseball-...

    Does Roy Hobbs qualify?

    http://www.youtube.c...

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:28 am |

      Didn’t know about Rogovin — excellent! Exactly what I was referring to when I don’t trust the lists that are out there.

    • Jeremiah | May 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

      Couldn’t find a photo, but Baseball Reference shows Dooley Womack wore #3 briefly for the A’s in 1970.
      http://www.baseball-...

    • BrianC | May 10, 2012 at 10:33 am |

      Or Ted Williams. He pitched part of a game once for the Sox.

  • Randy | May 9, 2012 at 9:01 am |

    I guess I’m not much of a baseball fan… I never knew single digits was such an odd thing for a pitcher, nor would I consider it odd if I saw it. I wouldn’t think twice about it. It’s just a meaningless number.

    • pushbutton | May 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm |

      Are you the devil?

      • [name redacted] | May 9, 2012 at 9:38 pm |

        “no good sir, I’m on the level.

        Monorail!”

  • JerryB | May 9, 2012 at 9:12 am |

    That 49ers chair is ridiculously awesome! Also, please tell the NFL to bring back the helmet carts.

  • Pat | May 9, 2012 at 9:12 am |

    As a confirmed softball dad I can report that the majority of softball uniforms worn by girls are either sleeveless or in many ways similar to basketball uniforms. It is easy to recognize the softball players by their tan lines in the summer. Don’t even get me started with the team names…

  • Chris Holder | May 9, 2012 at 9:13 am |

    Paul, my city (Chattanooga, TN) is also starting a bike-share program – there’s actually a “station” just outside my office window (Curiously, I think we are joining NYC and just a handful of other cities in doing this. Pretty significant, considering our size.). From what I have seen of the bikes, ours will only have the name of the company on them. It’s the same company doing the bikes in NYC, actually. That leads me to the conclusion that in time, I’m sure the program here will pick up some sort of sponsor as well. There’s certainly more eyeballs to see the sponsor name in NYC.

    I’m not much of a biker (except recreationally from time to time), but perhaps I’ll give it a shot sometime to go pick up lunch across town.

    • Andy | May 9, 2012 at 9:17 am |

      Boston and Denver are the only places I’ve actually seen it, but I’m sure it’s elsewhere.

      • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am |

        One thing I love about Minneapolis is that the city buses have bike racks, so you can put your bike in the rack and then get on the bus to take your bike across town to a park or whatever. Very enlightened. Do other cities do this? NYC sure doesn’t.

        • Tony C. | May 9, 2012 at 9:46 am |

          Orlando area buses bike racks as well. i think Fayetteville NC buses do too

        • Mike V. | May 9, 2012 at 10:09 am |

          Pittsburgh buses, what is left of them, have bike racks. Maybe not ALL buses, but the newer models sure do

        • Perry | May 9, 2012 at 10:36 am |

          Denver and Boulder do it. I use them almost every day — throw the bike on the bus for my inbound 20-mile commute, then ride the return leg home. (Or vice versa when it’s really hot in the summer.)

        • Fred | May 9, 2012 at 10:47 am |

          Bike hooks inside a Portland, OR bus.

          http://www.metrocoun...

          You can also put them out in front too.

        • Fred | May 9, 2012 at 10:48 am |

          Woops the bike hooks are in the railcars, not bus.

        • Chris | May 9, 2012 at 11:07 am |

          DC Metro has bike racks on buses. But they also don’t allow bikes on Metro trains during rush hour.

        • Jim Vilk | May 9, 2012 at 11:16 am |

          Man, even Akron buses have bike racks.
          http://www.youtube.c...

          This “New York” of which you speak…what kind of backwater borough is it, anyway?

        • concealed78 | May 9, 2012 at 11:31 am |

          Chicago CTA buses & trains as well:

          http://www.transitch...

        • Ken | May 9, 2012 at 11:40 am |

          Boston also has bike racks on the front of the MBTA busses.

        • dwight | May 9, 2012 at 11:42 am |

          Houston METRO buses have bike racks

        • Josh | May 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm |

          The buses in Phoenix have bike racks, but our bus system is so inefficient, and the city is so spread out, that the only people who actually use buses are transients and handicapped people who can not drive.

        • Tom V. | May 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm |

          Josh, much the same in Orlando. Too spread out and very sparse bus system. It’s probably efficient across a few major arteries but other than that it’s nearly ineffective.

        • Will S | May 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          As of 2009, even the lowly small city (110,000) of Thunder Bay, ON Canada has bike racks on all city buses.

          http://www.thunderba...

        • Eddie | May 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm |

          Fresno does

        • Ken | May 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm |

          San Francisco buses do this, and you can take your bikes onto certain BART trains. Don’t think you can take it on the old MUNI, though.

        • Valjean | May 9, 2012 at 1:06 pm |

          Seattle too. Even in the rain.

        • Shane | May 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm |

          My little corner of nowhere has buses with bike racks.

        • Donald | May 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm |

          Allow me to add Columbus OH to the list and I believe Cleveland RTA has a system in place for it.

        • Ryan | May 9, 2012 at 2:40 pm |

          St. Louis’ buses have bike racks. Also allowed to take them on our lame light-rail mass transit, which I didn’t know until now.

          http://www.metrostlo...

        • Chris K | May 9, 2012 at 3:25 pm |

          Seattle and surrounding areas have bike racks on transit buses.

        • Kyle Allebach | May 9, 2012 at 5:31 pm |

          SEPTA does (Philadelphia and local suburbs), but it’s not on every bus.

        • Skycat | May 9, 2012 at 9:06 pm |

          Los Angeles has them, too.

        • Austin Shealy | May 9, 2012 at 11:08 pm |

          Add Austin, TX to the list

        • Scoops | May 9, 2012 at 11:50 pm |

          Toronto buses have bike racks.

          And I recognize those bikes. They’re BIXIs (BIke + taXI). I’ve never ridden one (I have my own bike), but they’re all around downtown Toronto.

          And apparently several other cities around the world. I was only aware of Montreal, where the company started.

          http://en.wikipedia....

        • Casey | May 10, 2012 at 2:20 am |

          Columbus (Ohio) does.

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

        Yeah, I’m curious to see how it takes in our smaller city (160k people). Seems it would have been more likely for the bikes to be sponsored here, to make up for less revenue, than in a city like NYC where there are a ton more bikers to pay for the program. Oh well. I hope it/they succeed, but it’s sad to see them (the company) selling out to the point of allowing sponsors to rename the bikes.

      • Whirling Darvish | May 9, 2012 at 9:38 am |

        This is the list of schemes by the company that’s doing the NYC one.

        http://en.wikipedia....

        • Whirling Darvish | May 9, 2012 at 9:40 am |

          or should I say ‘a list’, seems to have omitted the Chattanooga scheme.

  • Tom Nawrocki | May 9, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    I was watching the Rockies game last night (it was in San Diego, by the way, not Colorado) and almost sent a ticker submission in on Alex White’s number.

    Christian Friedrich makes his major league debut as the Rockies’ starter tonight. He wore No. 10 for a while in the minors, but Chris Nelson is wearing 10 for the Rockies right now, so Friedrich is apparently wearing boring old 53.

    • Perry | May 9, 2012 at 10:39 am |

      After the Mike Hampton Experience, I don’t ever want to see another Rockies pitcher wearing #10.

  • Pete | May 9, 2012 at 9:22 am |

    Rick White didn’t wear #0, but did at one point wear #00 for the Indians.
    http://www.baseball-...

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 9:27 am |

      Curtis Leskanic also wore 00:
      http://3.bp.blogspot...

    • Adam R. W. | May 9, 2012 at 9:47 am |

      I think Willie Mays Hayes also wore #00 for the Indians.

    • ChrisH | May 9, 2012 at 10:18 am |

      How could anybody forget Omar Olivares?

      http://3.bp.blogspot...

    • M.Princip | May 9, 2012 at 10:25 am |

      Oh man, I love the #00. The “prototype”. Would love to see it back in football.

    • Jim Vilk | May 9, 2012 at 10:45 am |

      Just wondering…which number is higher, 0 or 00?

      If I were a pitcher, I’d wear 0. As in, “How many hits are you going to get off me? Zero.”

      • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 10:54 am |

        0 is before 1
        00 is actually 100

        • Tom V. | May 9, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          So a routlette table technically has the numbers 0-36 and 100? Not buying it.

        • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 11:55 am |

          Different number systems. The 00 in roulette is actually 37, in much the same way that binary “10” is 2 or hex “10” is 16.

          /ok so I’m reaching a little, but that’s the only way to have 0 and 00 represent different values, otherwise there is no higher or lower

        • jrg | May 9, 2012 at 12:07 pm |

          00 is the “blacker than black” version of 0.

      • Adam R. W. | May 9, 2012 at 12:44 pm |

        They’re equal, As far as ordering the numbers, it varies greatly… It’s the same question as 01 and 1. When in a list, do you put 1 or 01 first?

        (A) 01, 02, 03, 1, 2, 3 etc.
        (B) 01, 1, 02, 2, 03, 3 etc.
        (C) 1, 01, 2, 02, 3, 03 etc.

        You can see NASCAR follows plan C as evidenced here (see treatment of 1, 01, and 09):
        http://www.nationwid...

        Also, it should be noted that the entry list linked to above contains cars #108, #124, #136, #174, and #176. Nascar officially issues the three digit numbers when more than one team registers a number. For instance, if three teams register #42, the first team will be issued #42, the next team to request it will be issued #142, and the third team to register it will be issued #242. They do this to keep the teams distinct in the owner points standings.

        No two cars can run at a race with the same number, so priority is given to the earliest register of the number. So if teams 42, 142 and 242 all race in separate races, there’s never a problem. If two or more teams with the same number show up for the same races, team 42 would run with #42. Team 142 and 242 would have to run a different number which has not been issued to a car at the race.

        And I believe the procedure is that if for some reason there are 110+ cars attempting to qualify for the race, and there are no more available numbers, car numbers can be determined after qualifying.

        So to answer your question, NASCAR thinks #00 is higher than #0.

        • Christopher F. | May 9, 2012 at 1:56 pm |

          All correct except the last part. 110 cars will never attempt qualifying for one of the 43 spots in a race.

          The most I’ve seen is maybe 47-48 cars.

        • Adam R. W. | May 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm |

          At the inaugural Brickyard 400, 85 cars showed up to qualify.

          Odds are there won’t ever be 110 cars showing up to qualify, but NASCAR has a plan in place in case that scenario ever comes up.

      • Mark in Shiga | May 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm |

        JRG is right — Japanese teams have been assigning both 0 and 00 at the same time for many years, and in lists ordered by jersey number, 00 always comes before 0, so 00 is somehow less than 0 in that sense.

        One example: http://www.kumagaya....

        The Hanshin Tigers also gave all their pitchers single digits during one of their earlier seasons. They had some weird numbering schemes; another one had players numbered in the order of the Japanese alphabet.

        Also, in Japanese high school baseball, players typically have their position numbers as jersey numbers. The second pitcher is usually 10 or 11, the backup catcher is 12, and the other backups get 13-18.

        (The numbers aren’t even sewn on the jerseys; the backs are blank, and the number is velcroed on. So the other 30-60 guys who don’t get to play in the games but still go to practice are unnumbered.)

  • todd krevanchi | May 9, 2012 at 9:23 am |

    RA Dickey wore #1 at Tennessee as seen in his feature on E:60.

  • quiet seattle | May 9, 2012 at 9:30 am |

    Oh, man, Leo Strawn Jr.s New Orleans Rhythm design is fantastic! The best of the bunch. Sleek and funky and cool.

    • 1vox | May 9, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

      thanks, man…i am cursing hotmail right now…grrrrr…

  • Rob H. | May 9, 2012 at 9:56 am |

    Is there a big market for bike sharing? It seems like if the location you wanted to travel to wasn’t served conveniently by subway or bus and it was short enough that you’d want to bike to, it’d just be easier to walk, and you wouldn’t have to worry about if the dock at your destination was full or if the dock at where you planned to pick up a bike was empty.

    And doesn’t the subway or bus pretty much get you close enough to walk to most places?

    But bringing your own bike could supplement bus service well, and yes, the buses in Pinellas County Florida have had bike carrying attachments as long as I can remember.

    • Chris Holder | May 9, 2012 at 10:09 am |

      Personally? I’d rather walk most places if it’s possible. If it’s not, I’ll likely be bringing my own bike. On the other hand, I can see it coming in handy if I’m on an hour lunch break and want to zip a dozen or so blocks downtown. Otherwise I’m a bit skeptical. Most people that like to bike already do so, and tourists would usually rather walk or drive (especially if they have kids) when out of town.

      To me, nothing beats a good subway/light rail system. I love using it when I’m a city with one.

    • Phil P | May 9, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      We have a bikeshare here in Boston (Hubway) and the bike docks (at least a few I’ve seen) are closely aligned with subway stops. I’m intrigued by the program, while it seems mostly impractical, as walking or subway seems easier for me, I can see it being fun to take a bike and go along the Charles River and ride over to Cambridge or something

      • Mike Engle | May 9, 2012 at 11:49 am |

        Montreal has a bikeshare (BIXI). There is almost always a large dock at every metro station, and plenty of docks throughout downtown. It’s obviously seasonal (the city takes the docks and bikes away for winter), but when it’s available, it’s great. Some neighborhoods, like the plateau, don’t have very good metro or bus access, and since BIXI is 24h (the metro and buses are NOT), it sure beats walking all the way home or taking an expensive taxi, just because you partied a little too long on Crescent Street.

        • Rob H. | May 9, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

          I wonder can you get DUI on a bike?

        • Mike Engle | May 9, 2012 at 1:48 pm |

          I’m not an attorney (yet), but I think that if you are operating a street-legal vehicle on a trafficked street (a bike would count, and notice I didn’t use the word “motor”), then you could theoretically get a DUI on a bike.
          But in common practice, I don’t think it would happen. Would you be acting responsibly for not operating a car while drunk? Yes. But would you be a dumbass for trying to ride a bike if that were to be too advanced of a task for you, given your state of inebriation? Yes as well.
          (The cops would probably ask if you had a good time and make sure you get home safely. Just make sure to tell them “Merci” and “Go Habs Go.” Take it from a former Montrealer like me.)

        • Christopher F. | May 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm |

          Rob H:

          Varies from city to city, state to state. I’m pretty sure you cannot get a DUI on a bike here in Louisiana.

          I also heard of a city in Minnesota (I think) that explicity encourages people who’ve had a bit too much to leave their cars and take a bike. And if you’re way too inebreated to do so, a cop will drive you home.

  • Brinke | May 9, 2012 at 10:08 am |

    PL is right. Want the helmet chair. But fix the logo first.

  • Brinke | May 9, 2012 at 10:21 am |

    PS
    requisite ugliest uniforms ever story from SFGate:

    http://blog.sfgate.c...

    • The Jeff | May 9, 2012 at 10:26 am |

      That list is completely invalidated by including the 80’s Seahawks and the green Notre Dame jerseys.

    • Bernd W | May 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm |

      I do like that picture 29 is credited to “Pedro Portal”.

  • BrianC | May 9, 2012 at 10:33 am |

    That Cardiff story reminds me of when Richard Petty signed with STP and they wanted to change his trademark blue car to red. They reached a compromise that had both.

  • Rob | May 9, 2012 at 10:39 am |

    Cardiff switching from their traditional colors cannot end well. I keep thinking of when some teams on this side of the pond changed their familiar look, like when the Pistons and the Capitals went from red, white and blue to teal during the 90s (because that was the hot color) or when the Islanders changed their logo to the fisherman one. It just ended very badly and wound up with the teams switching back after a few years.

  • Jim Vilk | May 9, 2012 at 11:01 am |

    Really fun article about the new dress code in chess

    “I get my kicks above the waistline bustline, sunshine.”

  • AceFace | May 9, 2012 at 11:03 am |

    Wouldn’t a bikeshare program count as public transportation? If so, public transpo has had advertising on it since the beginning of time. I don’t see the difference in philosophies.

  • AceFace | May 9, 2012 at 11:05 am |

    Oh and Los Angeles buses have bike racks. If the nation’s second-largest city can do it, why not the largest?

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 11:10 am |

      Los Angeles buses have bike racks.

      Really? Wow. We gotta get that here.

  • odessasteps | May 9, 2012 at 11:08 am |

    id love to see Paul do an article on kit/uniform changes that cuased a furor like the cardiff city situation.

  • Omar Jalife | May 9, 2012 at 11:27 am |

    Following on Putin’s red helmet and hockey attire yesterday: http://deadspin.com/...

  • Kyle | May 9, 2012 at 11:28 am |

    Paul, What is with the “click to continue reading”? I vote to get rid of it as it causes things to reload and just slows me down. If it is about advertising or something I suppose I understand, but I just do not see the benefit.

    Thanks, keep up the good work

  • Tom V. | May 9, 2012 at 11:37 am |

    Actually its a three part question. Would you rather have:

    -no bike sharing program
    -sponsored bike sharing program with rates
    -bike sharing with no sponsor with double the rates

    I wouldn’t give a rats ass if my bike was sponsored by Scores, and was pink with half naked girls on it. It’s saving me money and I’m I’m not buying what they’re selling anyhow, so let them waste their money.

    And if it’s sponsored by Citi(enter product here) I don’t care either. I am aware of the services Citiwhatever provides and will contact them as I need.

    I think one of the things with Citi sponsoring the bikes is the fact that so many tourists will be using them, and many tourists might not be familiar with Citi that they will just think the bikes are a clever play on the word city and not even get the reference.

    In any case, I think sponsored bike sharing is a good thing.

    • Shaftman | May 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

      The 4th option would be bike sharing with a sponsor who gets either tax breaks or some other benefit (free advertising on city buses, subway’s…) instead of puting the advertising directly on the bikes.

  • Phil P | May 9, 2012 at 11:39 am |

    Boston’s Hubway program has corporate sponsorship (http://thehubway.com...) but it’s hardly in your face. I think New Balance may appear on the signage, but it’s pretty tame (on the back wheel cover)

  • mike 2 | May 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

    I’ve been involved with trying to bring a bike share program to our city.

    One fundamental problem is that for the most part, local cyclists have their own bikes and don’t use it. It would be mostly used by tourists (who aren’t local taxpayers). For the most part local cyclists would rather that tax dollars be spent on bike infrastructure (i.e. bike lanes and bridges) rather than bike shares.

    • diz | May 9, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

      of course, more people on bikes makes proper infrastructure more viable

    • Phil Hecken | May 9, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

      wouldn’t it be better to have like a snowshoe share program?

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm |

    Once again I’m sure I’m in the minority but the more I see these San Francisco Giants road uniforms the more I’m hating the changes. Moving the sleeve striping up is a minor bug compared to the rest. The striping along the center of the jersey needs to become orange-black-orange like the rest of the jersey to balance it off. Or lose the orange on the rest and just go with a single black.
    The “SF” chest logo one shouldn’t need to exist at all but if it does I hate things like that on a road uniform. It would look fine on the home whites as an alternate but to me road jerseys are done right they way they do the other one with the city name across the chest. And this one has the same striping inconsistencies as the other one but since it only has the “SF” logo it bugs me even more.
    I’ll leave my rant about how with few exceptions (Tigers, Yanks home, Jays everything) all of the others should have to have a number on the front as well as the back. And not the right side mid-90’s Reds roadies, and not the sleeves Phillies. OK I’m done & feel better now…

    • TA | May 9, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

      Sounds like a lot of arbitrary rules. There’s no need to have the central piping match the sleeves. The Sunday road jerseys are great–they are modeled after the 80’s version, when the Giants were one of the earliest to switch from 70’s craziness back to a traditional style.

      • Bromotrifluoromethane | May 9, 2012 at 3:31 pm |

        That’s some of the main reasons I hated the 80’s version. I hated the “SF” on there and the annoying mismatched piping. What can I say? I’m anal. Everything has to match. Of course it also bugs me that the Mariners home and roads and Tigers and Red Sox homes don’t have sleeve piping to match the rest of the uniforms. It’s the same as not having a front number on there to me, it just doesn’t look uniform or finished.

        • walter | May 9, 2012 at 6:11 pm |

          I can’t begin to tell you how things seeming so peculiar and minor other fans don’t notice them drive me up a wall. It’s more or less the raison d’etre for this website. But don’t kid yourself: I noticed for years there seemed to be a moratorium on sleeve-end piping. Don’t have an idea why. I imagine it had something to do with the emphasis on pullover, sansabelt uniforms.

        • TA | May 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

          Just seems that it’s one thing to have aesthetic preferences and another to declare arbitrary rules like “It’s OK to have an abbreviated chest logo at home but not on the road.”

    • Brinke | May 9, 2012 at 10:11 pm |

      ooooo, i love em. The “SF” road alt, they’ve only worn once as far as I know- and I watch -every- game on the tube.

      • TA | May 10, 2012 at 12:30 am |

        They’re Sunday-only, and they haven’t had a Sunday road game since the first weekend. (They were rained out in New York.)

  • mike 2 | May 9, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

    Also, I’m glad Mike Engle mentioned Montreal’s bike share (Bixi) program because its a good opportunity to post this picture from a couple of years ago of a guy using a Bixi to cheat during the Montreal marathon.

    http://imgur.com/tmL...

  • Joe A. | May 9, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

    I think Howard Stern is wearing an old WSU Animal Hospital t-shirt. Which changed it’s name to Vet Teaching Hospital long ago.

  • Drew | May 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    Not that this really matters but the girl wearing the sleeveless softball jersey’s name is ‘Sarah Beth Toben’ not ‘Beth Tobin’. Little details but it’s cool to see someone I know on here.

  • 1vox | May 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    hey paul, i appreciate the addition into your column…looks like from the comment above you weren’t the only one who liked my design……

    thanks for the kind words in the uniwatch article, too…

    :)

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

      De nada. My repeated apologies for not having included it the first time around.

    • Simply Moono | May 9, 2012 at 9:53 pm |

      FWIW, I would’ve used 800 computers and smartphones to vote for your design over and over. It’s a sweet work of art.

  • Gary | May 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm |

    I guess MLB hasn’t gotten the memo about the Mets laying off the black – the logo they use on MLB.TV is still with the black background.

    http://flic.kr/p/bVc...

    • concealed78 | May 9, 2012 at 12:46 pm |

      It takes the media years to update their logos. Newspapers are the worst offenders. The Chicago Sun-Times still uses the 1991-2003 Padres cap logo.

      • Gary | May 9, 2012 at 12:51 pm |

        Damn, that’s crazy. I understand taking a year or so to pick it up, but over 5?

        • concealed78 | May 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm |

          2nd rate tendencies with 2nd rate sportswriters for a 2nd rate newspaper. The layout is tabloid-style, meaning only one person in a family can read it at a time. As I recall, they still used the Marlins teal-crown cap logo, which hasn’t been worn in any version since 1996.

        • Rob H. | May 9, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

          What drives me crazy is when SportsCenter doesn’t use the period correct logos, which sometimes they do. Like they’ll show a stat of Randy Jones saves from the 1978 Padres (which I have seen with the correct Padres logo) with the current logo. It must just depend on whoever’s putting together that graphic. Some of them care enough to get the right one, other don’t.

          And every now and then, if you really look close, you’ll see Mariners when it should be Marlins, etc.

    • Turtle12 | May 9, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

      The Atlanta Braves telecasts still list the Marlins as “Florida” when they show a graphic of the National League East standings.

      • Turtle12 | May 9, 2012 at 1:42 pm |

        Braves’

  • Winter | May 9, 2012 at 1:38 pm |

    Interesting Cal State Fullerton basketball promo pic from 25 years ago…

    https://sphotos.xx.f...

    • Paul Lukas | May 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

      From the untucked-jersey era.

  • ScottS | May 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm |

    I’m sure this has been talked of before, but the single-digit thing always reminds me of Koshien tournaments and the rigid numbering system applied there. It would be very jarring to see anything other than 1, 10, or 11 on the mound, but it happened from time to time…

    • Mark in Shiga | May 9, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

      When I was an exchange student and our local high school went to Koshien, the left fielder was the second pitcher. It did indeed seem weird to see number 7 on the mound!

  • ChrisH | May 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm |

    Re: The Swinging Friar

    Here’s an article about the artist:

    http://www.thearizon...

  • Tony C. | May 9, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

    https://www.facebook...

    this year’s Stars & stripes hats

  • David T | May 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm |

    I hated hated HATED it when Benito Santiago wore 09. Just looked wrong.

    http://postpix.palmb...

  • Ken M | May 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

    Hey Paul,
    I sent you a couple of emails today regarding pitchers and the number 1. The only other pitcher I could remember wearing it was Shawn Chacon in 2008 with the Astros. It was even included in the press release after they signed him:

    http://houston.astro...

    You ran that link back in 2008 a couple days afterwards. After doing some more research, I found a game-used-jersey collector/dealer that had some info on the subject. The write up for the jersey says that he only wore number 1 for a few day of spring before switching to 30 and 32. Reggie Abercrombie took the number after him.

    http://www.gameusedu...

    If anybody could find a pic or video to legitimize my claim, I’d be much obliged. I could swear I remember seeing a highlight video with him wearing it.

  • Patrick_in_MI | May 9, 2012 at 7:59 pm |

    That San Fran helmet chair is AWESOME! But…shouldn’t the facemask be gray? ;-) I wonder if they were made for all the NFL teams or if that was just a custom piece.

    Regarding the single-digit pitchers Paul, have you ever done a piece about how certain positions wear certain numbers (NHL & MLB)? I’ve noticed that an overwhelming amount of pitchers seemingly wear 30-49 and hockey goalies usually are in the 30’s. I wonder what the historic precedent is for this.

    • Rob S | May 9, 2012 at 9:00 pm |

      It was a really rare thing for an NHL goalie not to have either 1 or 30 back in the day, mainly because 1 was considered the default goalie number, and it was virtually unheard of for players to go over 30. On rare occasion, a goalie might get another number inside that range, though it would still be a two-digit number (single-digits were typically reserved for the top players).

      Eventually, goalies started settling into the 1/29-35 range for the most part, but as teams started retiring numbers, and younger players started taking higher numbers, goalies started going all over the place, though aside from 1 (where it’s still available), they stay out of the single-digits and teens out of tradition.

  • Wheels | May 9, 2012 at 8:55 pm |

    The Phillies’ Freddy Galvis properly wearing some stirrups tonight: http://cache.daylife...

  • Jim Vilk | May 9, 2012 at 10:08 pm |

    Orange Caps Held Hostage: Game 31
    http://www.daylife.c...
    It’s a proven fact – pitchers in black caps have given up far more home runs than pitchers in orange caps.

  • Brinke | May 9, 2012 at 10:33 pm |

    Tim Lincecum CleatWatch©:

    Started season with New Balance.
    Then went to Mizuno.

    Tonight, Nike. I don’t know that he has ever worn them.

    He continues to blow chunks in the first inning, tho. 2 on, 2 out.

  • Brinke | May 9, 2012 at 11:59 pm |

    Lincecum Update:

    Wearing the older model Majestic dugout jacket..larger SF on sleeve, different trim. Pitching coach does it a lot, too.