I was reading something about the Yankees the other day, and the writer referred to the team’s “interlocking ‘NY’ logo.” There’s nothing remarkable about that phrase, of course — I’ve used it plenty of times myself in my own writing.

But are the two letters in the Yankees’ logo (or, more specifically, the Yankees’ multiple logos) really interlocking? No, they’re not. They don’t intertwine or wrap around each other — they’re just overlaid, and it’s not even clear which letter is on top.

By way of contrast, let’s look at the Twins’ logo:

Those two letters can accurately be described as interlocking. The vertical stroke of the “T” passes in front of the top arm of the “C” but behind the back arm. It’s not a particularly complex design, but it’s nonetheless a genuine example of interlocking letters, while the Yankees’ logo is not.

Here’s a simple way to think about it: For a true interlocking design, if you pick up one of the letters — either one — you end up picking up the entire logo. If a logo fails that test, it’s not interlocking.

Let’s look at some other current and historical MLB team logos and see if they qualify as truly interlocking:

Read more

This year’s Major League Baseball postseason kicked off yesterday, as the four wild card series began. And that meant it was time for ads to reappear on batting helmets (above), catchers’ helmets, and coaches’ helmets. These postseason ads began appearing in the 2024 postseason, so this is the third year for them.

You all know what I think of uniform ads, so I won’t belabor that point. Instead, I want to explore a question that somehow hadn’t occurred to me until now.

Read more

Hello! If you’re reading this post on the web, look up at your browser’s address bar. You’ll see something familiar up there: uni-watch.com, which was the old Uni Watch blog’s URL for many years before I shut down that site a few months ago and moved Uni Watch’s operations to Substack. Now I’ve applied that old URL, which I still own, to the Substack site.

Let’s shift to Q&A mode:

I’m reading the emailed version of this post. How do I see the new URL?

For any emailed Substack post, you can click on the headline (in this case it’s “Big Uni Watch News!”) to see the web version of that post. Or you can just go to the Uni Watch home page here. In fact, I recommend that you check out the home page so you can see the archive and various other features linked from the home page’s navigation bar.

I already bookmarked uniwatch.substack.com. Will that URL still work?

Yes. The old address will automatically redirect to uni-watch.com. (I did the same thing two years ago with my other Substack project, Inconspicuous Consumption, which was originally at paullukas.substack.com, but that now redirects to inconspicuous.info.)

The uni-watch.com URL is stupid and confusing, because it includes a hyphen. That just makes people mistakenly refer to Uni Watch as Uni-Watch.

Agreed. Here’s the backstory: When web developer John Ekdahl (R.I.P.) and I launched the blog in 2006, we used uniwatchblog.com (to differentiate the blog from the Uni Watch column I was writing at the time for ESPN). After a few years, when it was clear that the blog had developed its own community, its own culture, etc., we wanted to switch to uniwatch.com, but that was already taken — some guy in Panama was squatting on it. We made several offers to him, but he wouldn’t budge. So we went with the hyphenated version — uni-watch.com.

The hyphen isn’t ideal, it’s true, and it can definitely lead to some confusion about the project’s name. But the same could be said about uniwatch.com, because it would lead people to mistakenly think that Uni Watch is one word (Uniwatch or UniWatch). There’s no perfect solution, except maybe uni_watch.com, and I would never do that because the underscore looks so awkward.

Did it cost you anything to make the URL update?

Substack charges a one-time $50 fee for applying a custom domain.

Why did you wait until now to have the Substack URL redirect to the old blog URL, instead of doing it right when the Substack site launched a few months ago?

Honestly, I hated the hyphen and was initially glad to be rid of it. But I ultimately decided that it’s more fun to have a custom domain name instead of a Substack-based URL, plus I figure there could still be some old blog readers out there who haven’t checked in on Uni Watch in a while and might plug in the old URL. If even one person does that and discovers Uni Watch’s new iteration, it will have been worth it.

Also, I have to admit, seeing the old URL up there on the address bar makes me feel like I’ve reconnected with an old friend. Sure, it may be a flawed, imperfect friend, but whatever — most of us are flawed and imperfect. I like that it provides a throughline of continuity from the old blog, and I hope you feel the same.

I think that’s it. If you have any other questions about this, post them in the comments and I’ll do my best to answer.

Uni Watch, created by Paul Lukas, has been covering the world of athletics aesthetics since 1999. He also writes Inconspicuous Consumption, which is sort of like Uni Watch for everything other than sports.

When people ask me about the uni-verse, I always say hockey has the most interesting uniforms. For starters, every part of the player’s body except the face is covered, so there’s a lot of real estate to work with. Second, there’s the oddity of the short pants paired with the long stockings. Third, hockey doesn’t require a uni number on the front, so there’s lots of room for a visually powerful chest mark. Fourth, hockey is the only sport that routinely treats the shoulder yoke as a design element. Fifth, goalie masks and pads are a whole sub-niche of visual interest. And last but not least, hockey is the only one of the Big Four sports where the jerseys are always designed to be worn untucked, which allows for belly striping, contrast-colored hemlines, and so on.

But there have been several players over the years who prefer to wear their jersey tucked in. The prime exemplar of that style nowadays is Flyers center Trevor Zegras (shown above), who’s been tucking the back of his jersey into his pants for several years. But he may have to curtail that shirttail quirk: Zegras was called for a minor penalty for “improperly wearing the equipment” in last night’s Flyers/Bruins preseason game. The website Scouting the Refs reports that it was the first such penalty since 2013.

But it probably won’t be the last. After Zegras was penalized last night, NHL Network insider Elliotte Friedman tweeted that the call was part of a larger crackdown on equipment-related issues:

Read more

When I wrote yesterday about the Rays’ new road greys, I mentioned that the team was poised to possibly set a new uni-related record. Here’s the situation: Entering play yesterday, the Rays were in first place in the American League East, and their magic number for clinching the division was two. They were scheduled to play a split doubleheader against the second-place team, the Yankees, and the new greys were slated to make their on-field debut in the nightcap game. So if the Rays lost the first game but won the nightcap, they would clinch the division during the new road uniform’s inaugural game.

As you can probably surmise from that image shown above of third baseman Junior Caminero, that’s exactly what happened.

While I haven’t done any deep research on this, I think it’s safe to say that this is the first time an MLB team — or, most likely, any Big Four pro team — has clinched a division, league, or championship title, or even a wild card berth, while wearing a uniform for the first time. Or to put it another way, the Rays’ new road uni has just set the record for the fewest on-field appearances (one) for any uniform worn in a clinching game.

All of which leads us to an obvious question: Which uniform(s) previously held that record?

Read more

You don’t expect to have MLB uniform news breaking in late September, but that’s what happened yesterday, as the Rays announced a new set of road greys (shown above). The new design will make its on-field debut tonight, in the second game of the team’s split doubleheader against the Yankees. Since the Rays’ magic number for clinching the American League East is two, they could end up clinching the division while wearing this design, which would presumably mark the first time in MLB history that a uniform’s on-field debut was also a clinching game.

Read more

Journeyman NHL right wing/thug Ryan Reaves announced his retirement on Instagram the other day, bringing an end to his 16-season career. The Associated Press’s report on this development, which was picked up by dozens of other media outlets, began with an intriguingly uni-centric slant, as follows:

Enforcer Ryan Reaves said Wednesday he is retiring from hockey at age 39 after playing more than a decade and a half in the NHL, leaving just three players left who do not wear a visor.

Now that’s what I call a proper sense of journalistic priorities! If only every sports news item could lead with the story’s uni-related implications.

In case you’re wondering (as you should be): Hockey visor history is a bit sketchy, but research by the Society for Independent Hockey Research indicates that the first clear face shield was worn by Cariboo Hockey League player Kenneth William Clay in 1964, after he suffered an on-ice eye injury. A similar situation led Ontario Hockey Association player Kevin Neeld to create the “Neeld Shield” in 1973. Neeld eventually wore his visor while playing in the WHA, but the first player to wear a visor in the NHL appears to have been Islanders right wing Anders Kellur in 1979. An increasing number of NHL players began wearing the visor over the next few decades, until the league finally made visors mandatory for new players in 2013, with existing players grandfathered. Now that Reaves is hanging up his skates, the league’s last three visor-free holdouts are Predators center Ryan O’Reilly, Stars left wing Jamie Benn, and Wild defenseman Zach Bogosian.

This same cycle — innovation, big league debut, gradual adoption, grandfathered mandate, and universal use after the final holdout either retires or joins in — can be observed for lots of other sports safety accessories. In Major League Baseball, for example, DIY batting helmet earflaps eventually led to the first true earflapped helmet in 1964. The flap gradually gained acceptance throughout the 1960s and ’70s and then became mandatory for new players in 1983. It initially appeared that the last grandfathered holdout was Red Sox DH Gary Gaetti, who retired in 2000, but then Tim Raines, who had retired in 1999, came out of retirement in 2001 and continued to play in 2002 before finally retiring for good, making him the final flap-free MLBer.

I’ve created a table showing how this cycle has played out for a bunch of different safety innovations in MLB, the NFL, and the NHL:

Read more

Early July was a busy time — Independence Day, summer vacations, Uni Watch moving from the blog to Substack. So it’s possible, maybe even likely, that you missed a major uni-related development that took place on July 11. In fact, I initially missed it myself.

That’s the day that MLB pitcher Chris Paddack, having been released by three teams over the previous two months, essentially gave up on his MLB career and signed a contract to pitch in Korea. That was very bad news because, as longtime readers are well aware, Paddack had been a Uni Watch favorite due to his impeccable stirrup stylings since arriving in the big leagues in 2019. In 2022 I even interviewed him about his stirrup practice.

Unfortunately, two Tommy John surgeries and other physical maladies took their toll on Paddack’s pitching. But while his mound game faltered (his record this season was 0-7 with a 6.79 ERA), he remained a true stirrup stalwart to the end, continuing to wear the old-school look during his short 2026 stints with the Marlins, Reds, and Rangers. (Sadly, he’s been wearing socks, not stirrups, for his new Korean team, the Samsung Lions.)

But as so often happens in this world, when one door closes, another one opens. In this case, Paddack’s departure from the big leagues has cleared the runway for the emergence of a new hosiery hero. Ladies and gents, I give you Guardians pitcher Parker Messick.

Read more

I confess that I had never heard of Hyrox — a hybrid fitness race that combines running with workout stations — until a couple of days ago. Neither had lots of other people, perhaps including you.

But I’ve definitely heard of Hyrox now, and I bet you have as well, because a Hyrox athlete named Joanna Wietrzyk — a 24-year-old Australian who’s the Hyrox women’s world record holder — has gone viral after she suffered an apparent bout of gastric distress and had literal excrement running down her legs while competing at an event in Beijing over the weekend. Or to put it another way, she suffered the ultimate uniform mishap.

Despite the obvious risks of cross-contamination, especially in a sport that has multiple athletes using communal equipment at shared workout stations, Wietrzyk was allowed to remain in the race (and ultimately won!). Hyrox officials initially praised her perseverance through adversity but then backtracked and said she should have been removed from the event once she became a walking biohazard. They’ve amended their rules accordingly.

As you might expect, this storyline has generated a lot of media coverage, which leads to a tricky question: What’s the best way to describe what happened to Wietrzyk? If you’re a magazine that’s allowed to publish profanity, like Rolling Stone, you can give your story a snarky headline like “This Hyrox Race Became a Literal Shitshow.” But what if you’re an ostensibly respectable news outlet that wants to describe a dirty situation without using dirty words?

Here’s how more than a dozen media operations answered that question while covering the Wietrzyk story, in roughly ascending order of explicitness:

Read more

As we approach the first Sunday of the NFL season, I want to take a moment to address an important uni-related development that you may have missed — or at least you may not have realized its uni-related significance.

I’m talking about NFL commish Roger Goodell’s new four-year contract extension, which was announced last weekend. It will keep Goodell running the league through March of 2031, by which time he will have been commissioner for 25 years — longer than anyone except Pete Rozelle.

Goodell’s no angel, and there are plenty of valid critiques that could be leveled at him, but I was still happy to hear he’ll be sticking around. Why? Because he is apparently the bulwark that has kept advertising patches off of NFL uniforms.

Read more

Uni Watch is usually about the visual world, but today I want to talk about something from the world of words and phrases. Consider Reds pitcher Andrew Abbott, whose stats are shown above (and who I chose completely at random for this discussion). For most of my life, a writer or broadcaster referring to his earned run average would use one of the following phrasings:

• “He has a 4.43 ERA.”

• “His ERA is 4.43.”

• “… and a 4.43 ERA.”

But at some point in the past 10 to 15 years, we entered a new ERA era. It’s increasingly likely that a writer or broadcaster discussing Abbott’s statistics would now say that he has “pitched to a 4.43 ERA.” To be clear, the older wordings are also still in use, but the newer “pitched to a” wording has staked out some serious rhetorical real estate in recent years, and its use appears to be growing.

For reasons I can’t fully explain, the “pitched to a” phrasing makes me itchy. Maybe it’s that it feels unnecessarily wordy and thus inefficient; maybe it’s that it sounds too jargon-y; maybe it’s just that it’s not what I grew up with. In any case, it seems like a classic case of fixing something that ain’t broke. If the guy has a 4.43 ERA, just say he has a 4.43 ERA! But an increasing number of baseball media members apparently don’t see it that way.

Why did this new expression come into vogue? Does it reflect some sort of newfangled approach to assessing statistics? Something analytics-driven, maybe? My initial research came up empty, so I contacted longtime baseball scribe Jay Jaffe, who currently writes for FanGraphs after previous stints at SI.com and Baseball Prospectus, to see if he had any insights.

Read more

By now you’ve probably heard about the uni-centric events of last Friday’s Cardinals/Rockies game, when Cards pitcher Hancel Rincon, who was making his big league debut, was told by home plate umpire Doug Eddings to straighten his off-center cap.

Just about everyone seems to agree that Eddings was out of line, and maybe a liar to boot (he claimed after the game that he had ordered Rincon to reposition his cap because a Colorado player had complained that the off-center headgear was distracting, but the Rockies denied that). Eddings apologized to Rincon the next day, reportedly after being reprimanded by the league office for overstepping his authority. Players on both teams wore off-center caps on Saturday as a gesture of support for Rincon. The Cardinals’ Double-A affiliate has even turned the incident into a promotion by announcing a crooked cap giveaway for this Thursday.

Moreover, as Cardinals manager Oliver Marmol pointed out after Friday’s game, Rincon is hardly the first MLBer to wear his cap off-center. Marmol cited Dontrelle Willis, Pedro Strop, and CC Sabathia as previous exemplars, and I’d toss in Pokey Reese, Ian Snell, Alex Colome, and my favorite, Abe Alvarez, who was was legally blind in his left eye and rotated his cap to that side to help cut down on flickering light and shadows.

In short, the consensus among just about everyone except Doug Eddings is that players should be able to wear their caps however they like. But that leads us to a question I’ve been pondering for a while now:

Read more

As you’ve probably heard by now, Red Sox radio broadcaster Will Flemming generated some controversy during Sunday’s Bosox/Yankees game by suggesting that the Sox should bean a Yankees player in retaliation for Yanks second baseman Jazz Chisholm Jr. stealing two uncontested bases during the 8th inning of a lopsided game. Flemming then indicated that the Sox pitcher at the time, Jovani Morán, should fight Chisholm.

Flemming’s on-air comments (for which he later apologized) echoed a lot of the chatter surrounding Mets reliever Jefry Jan’s airborne strikeout celebration, which I wrote about a few weeks ago. Lots of people, including one Uni Watch commenter, have suggested how lucky Yan is that pitchers don’t have to bat anymore, so he can’t be beaned in retaliation for his antics.1 Mets Police blogger Shannon Shark (full disclosure: a friend of mine) went further, writing, “If he does this to me, the next time I’m up I lose [the] grip on the bat and it accidentally goes flying at the mound.”

Some people refer to this type of retaliation as “the players policing themselves,” or “enforcing the unwritten rules,” or “on-field justice,” or “making sure the game is played the right way” or “making sure they respect the game.” Those phrases all sound righteous, but that righteousness, however good it may feel, really boils down to a simple point of view: “I think you’re a jerk, and therefore I feel entitled to physically assault you.” It’s the worst, most immature kind of Neanderthal behavior — much worse than the perceived slight it’s responding to.

Read more

I was checking the ESPN website on my phone a few mornings ago and saw the headline and video preview image shown above. I didn’t know who “Berry” was, but I could tell he was a base coach, not a player, because he was wearing a Cool-Flo helmet. “Hmmm,” I thought to myself, “interesting to see a coach wearing No. 0.”

Then I scrolled down to the next story, where I saw this:

Whoa — what are the odds that the top two stories on ESPN’s MLB page at any given moment would show one base coach wearing No. 0 and another one wearing No. 99? (For the record, that’s Quintin Berry of the Cubs and Willie Harris of the Reds, both of whom coach third base.)

That got me thinking about coaches’ uni numbers. Of course, many pitching coaches, bench coaches, and other MLB coaching personnel now wear windbreakers or hoodies (just like their managers), so their roster numbers are essentially moot. But base coaches still wear jerseys, so their numbers remain visible. Are there other base coaches who wear 0 or 99? Are there coaches who are assigned those numbers but we’d never know because they don’t wear jerseys?

I was curious, so I looked up the “Coaching Staff” page for every team on MLB.com. I found some interesting stuff, including the following:

Read more

But while the NFL may be able to kill off the Pro Bowl, they can never kill our memories. With that in mind, here’s a fond look back at the 10 worst — or at least most comical — designs in Pro Bowl uniform history, going from somewhat amusingly bad to full-on hilariously bad1, beginning with…

10. The Rear View (2009-10)

Too be fair, these uniforms weren’t so bad when viewed from the front. But oy, that back view. The weird contrasting fabric panels, the Pro Bowl logo patch under the uni numbers, the spikes wrapping around the players’ butt cheeks — it was all too much. If you squint, you can also see that the jerseys had a sublimated star pattern, although it’s hard to make out. But don’t worry — a bit later on we’ll be seeing some sublimated stars that are much easier to discern!

9. The Fadeaway Gradient (2001-02)

Pretty tame by Pro Bowl standards, but it was still pretty weird to see a gradient design on the gridiron, especially in 2001. The Falcons wouldn’t follow with the NFL’s first non-Pro Bowl gradient uniform until 2020.

Read more

The Bills unveiled their new alternate uniforms last month. Whatever else you may think of them, I’m genuinely puzzled by the decision to go with grey1 jerseys and pants. To me, grey just looks so, you know, grey. It’s drab, it’s blah, it’s dingy, it’s dreary. Why would you want to look like that?

I know, I know — the Bills play in Buffalo, which is a pretty drab, dreary place, at least in the popular imagination. But even if that were true (it’s not), why would you want to highlight that? It’s one thing for them to go with a whiteout uniform, because (a) Buffalo is famously snowy and (b) white is a legit football uniform color. But grey? Ugh. (For what it’s worth, Bills fans apparently agree with me.)

And that leads me to a simple question: Has there ever been a good grey football uniform? Is such a thing even possible?

It’s worth noting that lots of NFL teams over the years have worn grey pants. I’m not talking here about ostensibly silver pants that just look grey in today’s modern fabrics (like what the Raiders currently wear, for example); I’m talking about true grey pants, which have been worn at various points by the Colts, Eagles, Giants, and others. I’m not a big fan of any of those pants (in each case, I think white would be better), but they weren’t bad enough to ruin a uniform all by themselves. So the real problem here is the use of grey jerseys — which are even worse when paired with grey pants. Let’s review some recent NFL examples:

Detroit Lions (2017-2023)

Read more

I recently wrote about MLB’s relatively unknown “bannermark” logo, which debuted at the 1970 All-Star Game and appeared on the All-Star Game MVP trophy throughout the 1970s. You can see the bannermark-emblazoned trophy in the photo above, which shows Reds outfielder George Foster receiving the trophy in 1976. (Also: UPI misspelled Monte Irvin’s first name in the caption!)

But here’s something I didn’t know until reader Michael Ortman recently brought it to my attention: The bannermark was also showcased on a trading card! In fact, the entire All-Star MVP trophy had its own card in 1972.

There are so many weird things about this. For starters, Topps referred to this hardware as the “Commissioners Award” (note the missing apostrophe), but the object in the photo is engraved with “Commissioner’s Trophy” (emphasis mine).

Read more

Royals catcher Salvador Perez, who hails from Venezuela, had three shout-outs to his homeland written on his chest protector last night (see above). The messages translate to “God bless you VZ,” “We are with you,” and “I love you, Venezuela,” all of which refer to the devastating earthquake that hit that nation on June 24.

Although Perez conveyed his sentiments on his catching gear, most Venezuelan MLB players have been showing support for their countrymen by having “VZ” embroidered onto the side of their caps. The interesting thing, at least to me, is how non-uniform these uniform adornments have been. They’re all on the right side of the cap (the left side is already occupied by the New Era logo, grrrr), but aside from that there’s very little consistency to them. There are lots of different fonts and type sizes, and even the positioning of “VZ” lettering varies quite a bit from player to player, or at least from team to team.

To be clear, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. On the contrary, the variety of “VZ” inscription styles makes the whole effort feel a bit more homespun, less corporate. I’m just surprised — pleasantly so — that the MLB bigwigs didn’t issue precise specs for everyone to use.

As of Opening Day, there were 60 Venezuelan players on MLB rosters — the second-highest total of any non-USA country (trailing only the Dominican Republic’s 93). I couldn’t find photos of every Venezuelan player, but I did manage to piece together a pretty good assortment of shots from 15 teams. This gallery is not intended to be complete or definitive, but it at least gives some sense of the range of “VZ” treatments that have been out there on the field over the past month and a half. Take a look:

Angels

Astros

Atlanta

Brewers

Dodgers

Giants

Guardians

Mets

Padres

Phillies

Red Sox

Reds

Royals

Tigers

Yankees

One exception to putting the “VZ” on the right side of the cap came on July 4. Since all caps that day had the “USA 250” logo on the right side, Venezuelan players’ caps had the “VZ” on the left — but positioned far back from the New Era maker’s mark:

In addition, at least one Venezuelan third base coach — Rouglas Odor of the Guardians — has been wearing the “VZ” on his helmet:

If you want to contribute to the Venezuelan earthquake relief effort, you can do that via highly reputable organizations here and here.

Reminder

As I recently mentioned, this will be the last freebie post here on Uni Watch. Going forward, new content will be available only to paid subscribers.

Here’s a quick Q&A:

What about the free articles you already published?

All previous free articles, including this one, will remain free and accessible to all in the archive.

So if I don’t pay, the articles won’t be emailed to me anymore?

If you’re a free subscriber, each post will still be emailed to you and you’ll be able to read the headline and the first paragraph or two. To read the rest of the post, you’ll need to become a paid subscriber.

I already have a paid subscription to Inconspicuous Consumption. Can I get a discount if I also sign up for Uni Watch?

Unfortunately, Substack doesn’t have a bundled-purchase functionality. For what it’s worth, the $30 annual fee I’m charging for Uni Watch is the lowest subscription price Substack allows, and Inconspicuous Consumption is only a bit higher ($35), so you’re already getting a pretty good deal.

I like Uni Watch, but I don’t feel like paying for it.

That’s up to you, of course — we all make yea-or-nay purchasing decisions every day. But I can’t work for free, and I think it’s fair to charge a reasonable price for my work. If Uni Watch seems like a worthwhile purchase for you, that’s great! If not, I understand.

Okay, okay — I’ll pay up. How do I do that?

Look here.

Uni Watch, created by Paul Lukas, has been covering the world of athletics aesthetics since 1999. He also writes Inconspicuous Consumption, which is sort of like Uni Watch for everything other than sports.

Subscribe now

Note: This post includes some video clips that are essential to the story, so I strongly recommend that you read the web version, not the emailed version. Also, there’s an important programming note at the end of the post, — Paul

Unless you’ve been under a very large rock, I assume you’re at least vaguely aware of Mets rookie reliever Jefry Yan, who was called up last week from Triple-A and has achieved instant fame due to the very distinctive celebration routine that he executes after striking out a hitter. In case you haven’t yet seen it, here’s a good look, including replays from several different angles:

Yan has been doing this jump-split-slide choreography for several years now at various stops in his career, including in the minors, spring training, Japan, the Dominican Winter League, the Caribbean Series, and so on. He’s attracted some media attention before, but the coverage really exploded when he got called up to the bigs last week, made his MLB debut on Wednesday, and struck out the first batter he faced.

The response to Yan’s gymnastics has been interesting. While there’s been some gnashing of teeth by old-schoolers who think he’s disrespecting the game (or words to that effect), my general impression is that his celebration has been pretty well received. One reason for this, I’m fairly certain, is that Yan has had a long, tough road to reach the majors, including a four-year period when he was out of organized ball altogether and worked primarily as a roofer, so his story has a certain Horatio Alger factor that makes his celebration feel earned. It probably also helps that his general demeanor seems to be more jovial and than sneering. (Unfortunately, he doesn’t speak English — or at least there are no English-language interview clips of him that I’ve been able to find — so it’s hard to get a deeper sense of his manner and tone, but he does seem to smile a lot, which goes a long way.)

Yan has pitched in only two Mets games so far, and he had strikeouts in only one of them, so it’s still early days. But I wanted to discuss some of the nuances of his situation, and I knew just the person to call: Ken Davidoff. Although he’s now a journalism professor at Endicott College in Massachusetts, he spent more than 20 years as the national baseball columnist for Newsday and then The New York Post, and he’s also the co-author of a recently published book called 101 Lessons from the Dugout, which is about how developing good baseball habits can be a guide for living a successful and virtuous life, so I thought he’d be the perfect guy to address some of the issues raised by Yan’s celebration. Here’s the transcript of a Zoom call we had yesterday morning, edited for length and clarity:

Uni Watch: What was your first thought or reaction when you saw Jefry Yan’s strikeout celebration?

Ken Davidoff: I was amused. I mean, I think it’s entertaining.

UW: There have been lots of relievers over the years who’ve had signature celebrations, like Fernando Rodney with the bow and arrow, and even going back 50 years ago, you had Tug McGraw thumping his glove against his thigh as he walked off the mound, which for that era was very demonstrative. How do you feel Yan’s celebration either fits into or deviates from that tradition of relievers with a signature celebration move?

Davidoff: Oh, I think it very much fits into it. And the more you learn about his story, the more I felt like he’s earned the right to dance. It’s just such a great story — he’s obviously just so grateful to have persevered and made it to the big leagues, so let him dance.

UW: Yeah, I’ve noticed that as well, that a lot of people seem to like his backstory. And as a result — I mean, I’m projecting a bit here, but it seems like people who might otherwise find his theatrics objectionable, or at least an eye-roll kind of situation, are more inclined to forgive or even embrace what he’s doing. So you think that’s a big part of it?

Davidoff: I don’t want to speak for the public at large, but my reaction certainly was colored by that.

Share

UW: He’s pitched in only two games so far, and he didn’t have any strikeouts in one of those appearances, so he’s only done the celebration in one game. And when he came into that game, the score was 4-3 in the 6th inning. Do you think his routine would land differently if it’s a game when the Mets are losing 8-1, or even winning 8-1?

Davidoff: That’s a good question. I think there’s nuance to it, and I think it’s episode by episode. The fact that the Mets’ season is basically done also plays into it. If they were in the thick of it and he did it during a blowout game, that might color things differently. So yeah, I think it’s a very context-dependent thing.

UW: You recently co-authored a book called 101 Lessons from the Dugout. Does Yan’s celebration fit into any of those 101 lessons in either a positive or negative way?

Davidoff: You know, I looked through the book again before this call, and we don’t have a chapter that really nails this dynamic. And in retrospect, I regret that we don’t, because I think this is a real thing, that line between celebrating and showboating, between respecting your opponent and disrespecting your opponent.

The closest thing we have is Chapter 82, “The Head Trip,” which is about controlling your emotions, controlling your temper. But that’s more about staying in control when you get a bad break, so it’s not quite the same. I do wish we had covered this.

UW: You and I are a pair of middle-aged white guys. When it comes to something like this strikeout celebration, how much of this type of behavior, and the response to it, do you think is generational and/or cultural?

Davidoff: I think it’s pretty huge. One thing that stands out in my mind, Paul, is that when bat flips really started to become a thing, let’s say in the 2010-ish time frame, and CC Sabathia was on the Yankees by then, and I remember talking to him about it. He said, “Look, man, if someone takes me deep, let them celebrate because they’ve earned that right!” CC was not showboaty at all, but he was emotional — when he had a big strikeout, he would roar and he wasn’t quiet. So yeah, I do think there definitely is a significant generational societal element to this.

UW: If a player does something showboaty, we’ll often hear the broadcasters — who, again, are usually older than the players — saying, “Oh, he’ll get plunked next time.” Or if it’s a pitcher, they’ll say, “He’s going to get one of his teammates plunked if he keeps that up.” But you’ve spent a big part of your professional career talking to these athletes. Do they really care so much about this kind of stuff nowadays?

Davidoff: I think it’s case by case, and I think that’s what makes the Yan thing so interesting, because his story is so compelling. If people think someone is a jerk, they’re not going to like his celebration. But it’s often the jerkiness will precipitate the celebration — there are people who you think are good guys, so you’ve fine with it if they celebrate, and then there are jerks, so you think their celebration just enhances their jerkiness. But there are also people who don’t celebrate at all, but who are still regarded as jerks. So it’s complicated. It’s a soup.

From what I’ve read, it seems like Yan’s teammates are enjoying it, so I think that’s the key dynamic here. And I know he got booed by the fans in Cleveland, but that’s fine — they should boo him! He’s the opponent and he’s celebrating.

UW: I’ve also heard some people say their biggest problem with the celebration is that he’s going to injure himself — twist an ankle, blow out a knee, something like that.

Davidoff: Yeah, that would be bad. But I’d file that under the same heading of “If everyone on the team is good with this…”

Paul here. Good stuff from Ken! Please join me in thanking him for his insights.

As for me: I’m generally not a fan of “Look at me!” antics, but I agree with Ken that Yan’s routine is entertaining. It has zip, pizzazz, charisma, all that fun stuff, and I’m pretty sure I’d think that even if Yan wasn’t playing for my favorite team. I do think it would probably be less appropriate in a blowout game, so I’m curious to see how he handles that type of situation, and I also wonder if the whole thing will feel tired and rote once the novelty wears off. Also, both of his appearances have been on the road, so we don’t yet know how the home crowd may egg him on, or how the team will promote his routine with scoreboard animations, a signature music clip (maybe Van Halen’s “Jump”?), and so on, all of which could quickly devolve into an insufferable shtick.

But my bigger concern is a practical one: Based on Yan’s first inning (admittedly a very small sample), it appears that he launches into his jump on every two-strike pitch, as if he’s anticipating the strikeout before it happens. If the pitch doesn’t result in a strikeout, he doesn’t do the full routine with the leg-split and the slide, but the jump still leaves him ill-equipped to field his position, and that’s not good.

To see what I mean, look at this next video, which shows the entire inning of Yan’s MLB debut from last Wednesday. Skip ahead to the following time marks:

• 1:02: 1-2 count, Yan jumps, pitch is fouled off.

• 3:37: 0-2 count, Yan jumps, pitch is grounded past shortstop for a single.

• 10:13: 0-2 count, Yan jumps, pitch is grounded to shortstop for a fielder’s choice to end the inning.

Yan didn’t jump for any pitches except when there were two strikes, so it was clearly something calculated, not spontaneous. And if any of those batters had hit a comebacker, he probably wouldn’t have been able to field it. Ditto if he had to cover first base on a grounder to the right side.

But there were encouraging signs of progress two days later, when Yan made his second appearance. He didn’t strike anyone out, but he did throw two two-strike pitches, both of which were taken for balls, and didn’t jump for either of them. So maybe the two-strike jump was just adrenaline from his MLB debut. Or maybe he only jumps if the batter swings. Or maybe someone on the coaching staff said something to him. Something to keep an eye on.

I mentioned all of this to Ken, who agreed that the two-strike jump could be problematic if it continues. He also said 101 Lessons from the Dugout has a chapter that relates to this — Chapter 44, “The Ready Position”:

Maybe we should chip and get Yan a copy of Ken’s book!

As I’ve written before, most notions of playing the game “the right way” are rooted in ancient codes of behavior that are foundational in our culture, like the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins. For example, we’ve all seen a batter stand and admire a ball he’s hit and then end up with a single when the ball hits off the wall instead of going out. Although you probably don’t think of that sequence in theological terms, the reason the batter’s behavior offends our sensibilities is essentially because he’s committed two of the deadly sins: sloth (by not hustling out of the box) and pride (by admiring his hit instead of running). The fact that he ends up with a single — instead of the double he would have had if he’d run hard from the get-go — reinforces the notion that engaging in vice has consequences. This, we intuitively understand, is a form of justice.

Certainly, nobody can accuse Jefry Yan of sloth. But if his two-strike jump leaves him unable to field his position, that seems like a case of letting pride get in the way of doing your job. Something to keep an eye on!

Meanwhile, you may have noticed that although Yan wears No. 84, he has No. 99 on his belt loop:

I initially figured, “Oh, he must have worn No. 99 at Triple-A and gotten a matching belt, and he hasn’t gotten a new one yet to match his MLB uni number.” But it isn’t quite that simple. Yan has worn lots of different numbers as a professional but, near as I can figure, his first time wearing No. 99 was this past winter, in the Dominican Winter League. He then wore 99 for the Mets in spring training but, oddly, did not wear the 99 belt (at least in any photos or footage I could find). As far as I can tell, he began wearing the 99 belt while pitching this year at Triple-A Syracuse — where his uni number was 70, not 99. And now he’s brought the belt with him to the majors. (If anyone can help flesh out this chronology, feel free to do so in the comments.)

It turns out that the 99 is part of Yan’s personal branding. He refers to his celebration dance as “La Sentencia 99,” which is also his Instagram handle. So that’s why he insists on wearing a belt emblazoned with a number that isn’t his uniform number. Personally, I find that much more annoying than the strikeout celebration. (In case anyone’s wondering, No. 99 is available. The last Met to wear it was pitcher Taijuan Walker in 2022. It’s not clear if Yan requested it when he was called up last week, but they may as well assign it to him, if only so his jersey will match his belt.)

The Mets open a three-game series tonight in Atlanta. Yan is well-rested — he last pitched on Friday — so there’s a good chance he’ll get the call at some point tonight. Stay tuned.

(Special thanks to Jerry Wolper for invaluable fact-checking assistance.)

An Important Note

I’m pretty happy with the way things have gotten started with this new Substack version of Uni Watch, and I’m feeling like I can keep this up for a bit. So the next post — which will be published either later this week or early next week — will be the last freebie. After that, new content will be available only to paid subscribers. (Content that was originally free, like this post you’re reading right now, will remain freely accessible in the archive.)

I realize some of you may not want to pay for Uni Watch, and of course that’s fine. For my part, I don’t want to write for free, and that’s also fine. If our priorities align in a way that results in you staying on as a reader, that’s great! If not, so be it. Either way, I hope you’ve enjoyed the Substack rollout.

Uni Watch, created by Paul Lukas, has been covering the world of athletics aesthetics since 1999. He also writes Inconspicuous Consumption, which is sort of like Uni Watch for everything other than sports.

Subscribe now

An interesting news story recently began circulating here in New York City, after someone spotted a bunch of rays — the fish — swimming in Newtown Creek, one of the city’s most notoriously polluted waterways. The wildlife sighting was fun, and it’s a promising sign that recent Newtown clean-up efforts may be succeeding. But my big takeaway from the story was the revelation that a school of rays is collectively known as a fever. As in, a pride of lions, a gaggle of geese, a pod of whales, a fever of rays.

Naturally, this got me thinking about MLB’s Tampa Bay Rays. Although they excised the “Devil” from their original team name in 2007 and made their brand identity more solar than piscine, they still have the ray logo swimming along on their jersey sleeve. A marketing slogan like “Catch Rays Fever” seems like it would be a natural, right? The promotional campaign could even be called the Fever Pitch!

And here’s another wrinkle: As you may know, Rays fans love their cowbells, a tradition that dates back to 2006, when Saturday Night Live’s famous “More Cowbell” sketch was shown on the team’s scoreboard. And what is the signature line in that sketch? It’s when Christopher Walken says, “I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!” So that’s another connection between “fever” and the Rays.

Despite all of this, some basic Googling couldn’t turn up any evidence of the Rays ever using “Rays Fever” or any similar promotional slogan. Then again, I don’t watch Rays games on TV or follow the team on social media — could they have been pushing the “fever” angle all along and I just didn’t realize it?

So I emailed the team a few days ago and asked if they’d ever taken a “fever”-ish marketing approach. They didn’t respond (dealing with the MLB trade deadline was apparently more important, go figure), so I rounded up a bunch of longtime Rays fans on the internet and asked if they could recall the team ever leveraging the “fever” angle. They all said no.

Really? If anyone from the Rays is reading this, I strongly suggest that you take steps to remedy this longstanding oversight. Think of the possibilities: A fever of live rays swimming in a thermometer-shaped aquarium! Ticket discounts for families or groups who come to the ballpark dressed as a fever of rays! Staffers who dress up as doctors and roam the ballpark diagnosing fans with Rays fever! Christopher Walken throwing out the first pitch!

It’s all there for the taking, people. You just have to get together and swim toward it — feverishly, of course.

Uni Watch, created by Paul Lukas, has been covering the world of athletics aesthetics since 1999. He also writes Inconspicuous Consumption, which is sort of like Uni Watch for everything other than sports.

Subscribe now