Leave The Uni Critiques To Us, Please


By Phil Hecken

With good reason, Paul pretty much ignores all those “Worst Uniform” lists we see on other websites, and to my knowledge, he’s never compiled such a list himself. I tend to agree with him, but every so often, I see one of these lists that really makes me just shake my head in amazement. Now, I don’t normally even bother critiquing such lists, but one that appeared on Bleacher Report the other day really made me angry.

Now, as we’ve often been told, opinions are like certain parts of the anatomy — everyone has one. So, far be it from me to critique another writer’s opinion when it comes to uniforms. What appeals to me may look awful to you, and what I think is horrid, you may feel is the greatest thing since sliced bread. By the way, what was the greatest thing before sliced bread, anyway? But I digress.

So, while I may disagree with another writer’s opinion, that doesn’t make mine correct. When a writer appears to have just thrown together such a list, with errors and inaccuracies, however — well, that’s when I get my hackles up. And that’s what has happened on a few of these. Uniform lists are serious business — if you’re going to make one, you should at least do some fact checking and know of what you speak. With that in mind, I’ll repost the most recent “25 Worst Uniforms” list with the writer’s thoughts — and my own.

What prompted this was the author included a photograph of none other than Jerry Reuss, who is sporting the Bumblebee combination. I asked Jerry if he wanted part of my critique, but he declined (which was undoubtedly a wise move on his part). But that isn’t going to stop me from taking this one to task. So without further ado, here’s the list, and my thoughts. The uniforms are listed in descending order from 25th worst to worst.


25. Seattle Pilots – 1969

What he said: “The Seattle Pilots were an expansion team in 1969, playing for one season in Seattle before moving to Milwaukee and becoming the Brewers.

Take one look at their uniform, and you can see why they were run out of town in Seattle on a rail.”

My Take: Really? I think it’s a gorgeous uniform. Of course, with a critique like that to back it up, how can I argue?

24. San Diego Padres Camouflage (current)

What he said: “There is probably no team in professional sports that honors our nation’s military more or better than the San Diego Padres.

However, their camouflage uniform, in this particular instance, should have been marked as ‘classified.'”

My Take: Current uniform? Um, no. That’s what they wore last season. No, wait, here’s what they wore the past several seasons. In fact, they haven’t worn that particular camo since 2003. They even had a second ‘jungle camouflage’ uni after that. They’ve been wearing the desert camo since 2007. And this year, they have a newer one still.

I’ll agree with him that the camo (any iteration) isn’t one of the better uniforms out there, but at least know which one is “current”.

23. Philadelphia Phillies 1979

What he said: “The Philadelphia Phillies wore a variety of different uniforms from 1970 to 1990. However, this particular one was introduced in 1979 and was, in a word, colorful.

Just as colorful as the man wearing it in the photo.”

My Take: I have no problem if someone wants to include the “Saturday Night Special” on a “worst” list (although I think there are many candidates from the monochromes from which to choose). But to say the wore a “variety of uniforms” in that 20 year span? Actually, the Phils were remarkably stable during that period, which included the switch from flannel to doubleknit and included a zipper front for a number of years before returning to buttons in 1990. And for the most part, except for their powder blue phase, they wore the same uniform for that entire span. The author implies that they wore the SNS’s for more than the single, solitary game as well. No big complaints with this, but at least get some facts in there.

22. Pittsburgh Pirates Alternate Jersey (2008)

What he said: “There are three teams that made this list multiple times, and the Pittsburgh Pirates are one of them. This particular home alternate jersey was worn for one year, and then scrapped.

Good idea.

I’ve often wondered: Do teams just make up bad jerseys to try to take the fans’ minds off the terrible play happening on the field?”

My Take: Once again, fact check, dude. The “jersey” is actually a vest and it was worn for TWO seasons (2007-08). I don’t have a problem with him including it on the list, but please, at least know when it was worn.

21. Baltimore Orioles (1971)

What he said: “Last year, the Baltimore Orioles put out a throwback uniform, honoring the 1971 Baltimore Orioles and the orange uniforms worn for two games that season.

The ’71 Orioles were certainly special, but I don’t remember them playing on Halloween.”

My Take: It’s actually debatable how many times the 1971 Orioles wore their Brooks Robinson-designed orange blossom specials, and it may have been two games. But they also wore them in 1972. It’s the devil that’s in the details, and obviously the author can’t be bothered with those.

20. Brooklyn Dodgers (1944)

What he said: “In 1944, the Brooklyn Dodgers sported their normal home/road jerseys, but also decided to go with a powder-blue look for their alternate jerseys.

They may have been known as ‘The Bums,’ but they were sure purdy-lookin’ Bums.”

My Take: At least he got the year correct. First of all, they were alternate uniforms, not jerseys — MLB hadn’t yet adopted the softball look in 1944. Secondly, while they may indeed have been powder blue in color, they were also satin, and were designed especially for night games. But that’s not really important when you can just take a cheap shot at the uni for a laugh, right? Also, they were “Dem Bums” not “The Bums.” Finally, it’s probably unimportant to note that fans voted for this uniform to be worn six times this year (albeit in modern fabrics) as a throwback.

19. Cincinnati Reds (1991)

What he said: “The Cincinnati Reds, the oldest professional sports franchise in America, have certainly had their share of uniform changes over the years.

This one from 1991 wasn’t meant to be a throwback, but it should have been a throw-away.”

My Take: Yeah, um. Actually this one was meant to be a throwback. Perhaps our esteemed scribe was thinking of the 1993-1998 uniform, which did have a white pinstriped crown, but that’s not what he said.

18. Milwaukee Brewers (1978-Early 80s)

What he said: “I absolutely loved the Milwaukee Brewers back in the late ’70s and early ’80s. The Brew Crew were always fun to watch.

But powder blue with yellow trim on the road? Really? Someone actually thought that up and ran with it?”

My Take: I actually don’t have too many OCD quibbles with this. Although the Brewers were born in powder blue, they did wear that particular iteration from 1978 to 1984. And that’s a gorgeous uniform.

17. Pittsburgh Pirates (1977)

What he said: “Back in the 1970s, the Pittsburgh Steelers were the dominant team in the NFL, winning four Super Bowls.

My only guess here is that the Pirates wanted to represent their intra-city brethren.”

My Take: While there is some truth to the “lets all wear black and gold,” and the Bumblebee combination was new that year, the Pirates had been wearing black and gold since 1948; certainly they didn’t just “change” to imitate the suddenly-successful Steelers (remember, until they won Super Bowl IX in 1975, the Steelers had won exactly ZERO NFL titles, pre- and post-Super Bowl). Now, as to one’s opinion on the Bumblebees, that’s entirely subjective. And did he have to use Jerry for his splash?

16. Washington Senators (1950)

What he said: “The 1950 Washington Senators were not a very good team, kind of like most Senators teams over the years. However, in 1950, they apparently tried to spice things up a bit.

The Senators always wore some of the plainest uniforms in all of baseball throughout their existence…save for one year.”

My Take: Ah…the “random old uni” shot. As in, I really know my history, so check this out. Only problem is, they wore that uniform for quite some time. I’m not even entirely sure that hand colored baseball card is correct, but to include it on a “worst” list? Really? How is that any better or worse than any other 1950 uni?

15. Arizona Diamondbacks (1990s Alternate Uniforms)

What he said: “The Arizona Diamondbacks decided to make a splash in the 1990s with their alternate uniforms.

A splash is one thing. Downright bold purple is another entirely.”

My Take: I’m not entirely disinclined to disagree. Although I’m pretty sure that cap was a BP cap. Next…

14. Colorado Rockies Purple Uniforms

What he said: “You know, I’ve been to the Rockies a few times. It’s surely one of the most beautiful settings in the country.

But I don’t ever recall seeing anything purple while I was there.”

My Take: Wait…didn’t we just see that combo on the D-backs? Guess he’s gotta be consistent. And while I wouldn’t necessarily call this gloaming purple, there’s a reason they’re called purple mountains majesty.

13. Montreal Expos (1970s)

What he said: “The Montreal Expos joined the National League as an expansion franchise in 1969, and they were named in honor of the 1967 World’s Fair in Montreal.

Apparently, the team wanted to put its players on display as well.”

My Take: Expos enter league 1969? Check. Named after Expo ’67? Check. 1970’s uniforms? Um. The photo our writer chose was actually from the 1982 All Star Game (which was played in Montreal). And they didn’t wear that style, with the racing stripe piping until 1980. So close. Now, worst uni? I was never a fan of the wide striping added in 1980, but the 1970’s Expos uni was a classic.

12. Tampa Bay Devil Rays

What he said: “It’s pretty bad when players extend their careers to pad stats and play for some less-than-stellar teams.

But to have to do it in uniforms like this…wow.”

My Take: Not sure the shot at Boggs was necessary, but I can’t disagree with anything he said.

11. Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs

What he said: “Obviously, this is not a major-league team. However, there was NO way this uniform couldn’t be included.

Minor-league teams will go to great lengths to try to draw in more fans, and having players come out in pseudo-tuxedos is definitely an eye-catcher.”

My Take: Since the Title of our author’s post was “The 25 Worst Uniforms in Baseball History,” I guess I can’t complain about a MiLB uni being thrown in. But he really didn’t try very hard to find one, now, did he? I mean, c’mon man, there’s worse than the tux.

10. Boston Red Sox (St. Patrick’s Day Uniforms)

What he said: “For several years now, the Boston Red Sox have honored the Irish on Saint Patrick’s Day, March 17.

However, how about honoring them in another way?”

My Take: There are plenty of teams who have worn St. Paddy’s day (or even halfway to St. Paddy’s Day) uniforms, and some are better than others. But the Red Sox one is fine. If you really want to include a one-off, spring training jersey on this list, how about something from 2011 with the disgusting shoulder yoke?

Update: As a reader recently pointed out, the Red Sox did wear those green tops on April 20, 2007, in a regular season game against the Yankees.

9. Florida Marlins (1993)

What he said: “When the Florida Marlins joined the National League in 1993, they made a splash right away with their teal uniforms.

I actually own one. Seriously. I was not of a sound mind when I bought it, but I have it proudly hanging in the very dark recesses of my closet.”

My Take: Well, that’s batting practice jersey, so I’m not sure it even counts. I’m guessing the author probably didn’t know that. But hey, he OWNS one, so he must know that. The Marlins have NEVER worn a teal jersey in actual game play — the closest they have come is teal sleeves and caps. And they ditched those pretty quickly too. Jim Vilk may have worn that, but the Marlins never did, not when it counted.

8. San Diego Padres (1972)

What he said: “The San Diego Padres and Pittsburgh Pirates both at one time in their franchise histories decided it was a good idea to wear all yellow.

These uniforms have since been worn on a few occasions on throwback nights. I think they should rename those nights ‘Throw-Away’ or ‘Throw-Up” Nights.’

My Take: I won’t criticize that the splash photo is a throwback and not the original (hey, google is hard to use). I won’t even criticize the fact that you could call those unis “gold” and not “yellow.” And he did get they year correct. As far as “worst” uniform? YMMV.

7. Chicago White Sox (Mid 1980s)

What he said: “About all I can say about this particular uniform, worn by the Chicago White Sox in the 1980s, is that the clubhouse manager must have had to keep a LOT of Purex and Woolite around to keep those colors looking fresh.”

My Take: I’ll give you the ‘beach blanket bingo’ uni wasn’t necessarily the greatest in history, but was it really any “whiter and brighter” than any other uniform of the day? Or any day? Or did he like to take the overexposed photograph for a cheap laugh? C’mon guy, that uni was bright but it was hardly more “colorful” than the Tequila Sunrises. And hey, Tom Terrific won #300 in that. How bad could it be?

6. Kansas City Athletics (1960s)

What he said: “Wow. To think that the great manager, Tony La Russa, once had to bear the indignity of wearing this particular uniform.

And then he went back and managed them later on. He got over the embarrassment quickly.”

My Take: Cheap laugh at LaRussa’s expense. OK, maybe our author isn’t so bad after all.

5. Pittsburgh Pirates (1979)

What he said: “Dorkish, garish, outrageous, color-blind. Call the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates whatever you want.

But they were family. And they were champions, no matter what they were forced to wear.”

My Take: And just how in the hell is this uniform any different than what you picked at #17? Jeebus — the Bumblebee Pirates wore at least 9 different bumblebee combos, and you picked the exact same combo for TWO of your worst uni choices? Proofread much?

4. Chicago Cubs Road Bear Jerseys

What he said: “Rod Beck was a pretty intimidating-looking closer during his major-league career.

But couldn’t the Cubs have at least put a meaner-looking bear on the jersey?”

My Take: There are probably 20 royal or navy alts (if not more) worn in the past 3 decades, and this is the worst? Whatever, it’s his opinion. Pretty sure he was just grasping at straws by this point though.

3. Kansas City Royals (Late 1990s)

What he said: “This particular Kansas City Royals uniform, aptly modeled by the fashion-conscious Johnny Damon, is a train-wreck turned into a monstrosity.

It’s no wonder Damon headed to Oakland. At least their uniforms were bad, but tastefully bad.”

My Take: OK, I can’t argue with any of the TATC unis, but this was the first one — played in 1998, before MLB thought it might be a good idea to make this basically a league-wide deal. And it’s far from the worst (but that’s all a matter of opinion, I guess). Might have been nice if he actually mentioned it was a Turn Ahead The Clock uni or even gotten the year, since it’s not exactly difficult to find. But that might have required effort.

2. Houston Astros (1970s)

What he said: “Houston, we have a problem…

There has already been more than enough said about this particular uniform over the years. I really don’t think at this point that there is anything more witty that I can add.”

My Take: If only he’d applied that same logic to the prior 23 uniforms.

1. Chicago White Sox (1976)

What he said: “Yes, this was actually an idea that someone came up with.

This was by far the worst uniform ever made. Even opposing players thought so.

Opposing Kansas City Royal John Mayberry once exclaimed, ‘You guys are the sweetest team we’ve seen yet.'”

My Take: Really can’t argue with this — this may not have been the worst uniform ever, but it was probably the stupidest. Always a safe choice for any “worst” list.


Whew. OK, that was probably an exercise in futility, but I feel much better. Lets leave the uni critiquing to Uni Watch. And if you’re going to do a “worst” list, it’s better to post just the unis and let them speak for themselves.


all sport uni tweaksUni Tweaks

We have another nice of tweaks today.

If you have a tweak, change or concept for any sport, send them my way.

Remember, if possible, try to keep your descriptions to ~50 words (give or take) per tweak. You guys have been great a keeping to that, and it’s much appreciated!

And so, lets begin:


Up first is Mark Peterson, with a “fake” team, and a great concept:

Hey Phil

This one was a rainy weekend concept I came up with.

“This is for a Tampa Bay team (or any newish-team) looking for a green look with a retro cartoon mascot.

The home features a button-vest with green sleeves & pinstripes. Wordmark, sleeve patch & front numbers would be chain stitched & have a white outline, and some rings to go on the stirrups.

The road version with green pant stripes, the logo, and something the onion mascot would be terrified of.”

Hope things are well.


Next up is Walter Helfer, who has taken on another team who stinks, the Mets:

Dear Phil,

I can take or leave the pinstripes, but I love the soutache trim on the solid whites. So I put them on the striped uniforms. Unique! I like the drop shadows from the current jerseys, but I made them orange. Road: Added orange to the sleeve and trouser piping.



And closing out the tweaks today is Dave from Mixed Media, who sent these to Paul, who forwarded them to me:

Hey paul –

just going through an old archives CD (about 10 years old) and found some concepts that are timely again.

One is a refresh of the Winnipeg Jets logo – not perfect – but of that time for sure. Perhaps we do get a new Winnpeg Jet design if the Coyotes move back there or more than likely they’ll slap on the old and call it retro (there is something beautiful about that original design!)

Also including a Bills refresh from around ten years ago as well – whenever they redesigned their uniforms last and there was a talk a new logo (similar to the buffaslug) – this one combines old and new.

Maybe you can do something with these…

Hope all is well – we got MORE snow here.


P.S most of these were done in Coreldraw – let’s just say Illustrator didn’t find them to easy to work with…


Thanks tweakers! Back tomorrow with more.


Benchies HeaderBenchies

by Rick Pearson


When you don’t play ball for a living, sometimes getting there is half the, um…fun.


And here is your full size version.


PS Parting Shots

It was “everybody dress like Mariano Rivera day” yesterday (also known as “Jackie Robinson Day”) so lets take a quick peek at some of the highlights:

✔ Jackie was a Dodger. So was Don Newcombe. Nice touch.

✔ This is always a cool look.

✔ Jackie’s widow Rachel is always on hand for these games. She was at Yankee Stadium last evening.

✔ She got a hug from the last remaining guy to wear #42 in non-JRR day games.

☹ Wouldn’t want to let JRR Day interfere with the wearing of the softball tops at Fenway.

✔ Even the umps wore #42 yesterday.

☛ Anyone else think all jerseys should be NNOB all the time? C’mon, how great does this look?

₪ What’s with the socks? Not particularly liking that white line (hemline?) down the back.

Everyone have a good Saturday.


I flipped on the White Sox game tonight, and thought, why NNOB? It took me about 20 seconds to realize it was “42”³ day. I need to mark that down, so I can measure it against how long it takes me next year. I can start a “senility graph.” — Michael Emody

104 comments to Leave The Uni Critiques To Us, Please

  • The Jeff | April 16, 2011 at 7:08 am |

    By the way, what was the greatest thing before sliced bread, anyway?

    That would be The Wheel. Prior to that was Fire.

    • jdreyfuss | April 16, 2011 at 8:37 am |

      Charles Lindbergh, I think.

  • BurghFan | April 16, 2011 at 7:21 am |

    I didn’t get to yesterday’s post until late, and want to post my biggest complaint with Majestic: the crappy job they do with throwbacks. It can’t be that hard to get them right.

    (And Bill missed the biggest problem with the stars on the cap – Stargell Stars were always gold. Where they were placed on the cap was up to the recipient, and some were on the brim of the gold cap.)

  • Matt Beahan | April 16, 2011 at 7:37 am |

    I’ve long since learned not to get annoyed by anything I read on Bleacher Report. There was actually a “Worst NHL Uniform” list recently that was even more poorly-researched than the MLB one here.

    I guess those are the pitfalls when anyone can add content.

    • Teebz | April 16, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

      That’s what you get from people who have rarely seen the history and overall aesthetics in hockey. Everyone knows you don’t have bleachers at hockey games as well. LOL

  • Tommies | April 16, 2011 at 7:38 am |

    No screenshot but I noticed while watching the Twins/Rays game last night that Ron Gardenhire was wearing #42 on the sleeve of his jacket, much like the umpires did.

  • Joe Barrie | April 16, 2011 at 8:07 am |

    I found your criticisms of “Bleacher Report” rather sad.

    And – they were “The Bums”.

    • LI Phil | April 16, 2011 at 10:19 am |

      they were? really?

      i checked with my dad, who happens to be lying in a hospital bed at this moment, and he did, in fact, confirm the dodgers were lovingly referred to by brooklynites (of which he was one) as “dem bums”

      maybe they were “the bums” to some, probably yankee/giants fans

      • The Jeff | April 16, 2011 at 10:25 am |

        On the other hand…


        Seems to be kinda interchangeable. (or maybe Brooklynites just talk funny)

      • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

        Pretty sure one is the descandant of the other.

        “Dem Bums” was Brooklyn’s own colloquialism, and the original form. Eventually, it became sort of mainstreamed, used by writers and broacasters alike, similar to calling the Cardinals the “Redbirds.” The accepted unoffical alternate moniker.

      • Joe Barrie | April 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm |

        I lived in Brooklyn from 1935 to 1952. A cabdriver (we had American-born ones in those days), might say “dem Bums” as he might say “toidy toid street”, but most people there didn’t talk that way.

        The current equivalent is the fake Boston accent in so many movies these days.

  • Eric | April 16, 2011 at 8:08 am |

    When it’s done by amateurs, it’s typically a POS list. However, between the moderators and more than a few of the posters, I’d love to be a fly on the wall at a discussion where best/worst was discussed.

    I wish I could remember which online non-car magazine it was, but one had the “Best 10 Cars To Stop Production in 2010” and the “Worst 10 Cars To Stop Production in 2010”

    …The Chrysler PT Cruiser was somehow on both lists.

  • Eric | April 16, 2011 at 8:18 am |

    I was unclear…between the moderators and posters on THIS site.

  • jdreyfuss | April 16, 2011 at 8:41 am |

    Factual errors aside, my biggest problem with the list was that the author gave no actual critique of the uniforms, except for saying purple looks bad, powder and yellow don’t go together, and the Cubs’ bear isn’t mean enough. He assumed that the reasons why 20 of those 25 uniforms were bad were self-evident and that makes for a very poor opinion piece, especially a humorous one.

  • JamesP. | April 16, 2011 at 8:54 am |

    Those are not socks…that would be stockings. Looks like tights football and baskeball players have been seen wearing…

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 16, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    Here’s another Bleacher Report uni-related ranking that’s just as insipid, careless and ridiculous:

    NFL Uniforms: Power Ranking Every Single NFL Team’s Helmet Logos

    • Coleman | April 16, 2011 at 9:33 am |

      I stopped to come back here immediately after seeing the Cardinals comment “A black helmet would look cool as well”. *Hangs head in disappointment*

    • Coleman | April 16, 2011 at 9:54 am |

      Okay, so now that I’ve finished the entire list I felt I should come back and tell you how angry I am with you. I’m kidding of course, but I can’t get those last few minutes back, and that list was terrible. It was terribly written, made mostly bad points, and worst of all it had no uniformity. Some of the slides had numbers, others were just a segue way into a different “category”. And worst of all, his number one helmet (no spoilers here) is just terrible. Terrible I tell ya!

      • Graf Zeppelin | April 16, 2011 at 9:59 am |

        Sorry about that. I saw it the other day and was going to link it here but didn’t get around to it; then I saw today’s headline and couldn’t help but track it down again. Some of those descriptions and comments are gob-smackingly stupid. The Raiders need to change their helmet? Seriously?

        • The Jeff | April 16, 2011 at 10:33 am |

          That guy’s still a moron, but as a Raiders fan… it wouldn’t hurt to modernize the logo a bit. The shield and crossed swords have to stay, but it’s not exactly uncommon to see fans with custom logos with skulls of various styles replacing the clean-cut pirate guy.

        • Graf Zeppelin | April 16, 2011 at 10:49 am |

          The Raiders’ uniform, helmet and logo are as close to perfect as the NFL can get these days. For the stupidest organization in pro sports, they at least get something right. (Which I can’t say for the secondstupidest organization in pro sports…)

        • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

          Bengals must be in the running for second.

        • captincanuck | April 17, 2011 at 2:56 am |

          Did he just call the Lions a “pretty new franchise” the franchise was established in 1929 and moved to Detroit in 1934. On top of that all his suggestions for changes are “add more black” and “add yellow/rave green to match with an eventual sponsor”. I want to shoot myself after reading that.

  • RS Rogers | April 16, 2011 at 9:11 am |

    So basically, the more a uniform design tries not to look like the 2001 New York Yankees, the worse it is. Except for the 1950 Senators. (If you’re going to put a Senators uni on a worst list, surely it has to be the 1956-1958 battleship drop-shadow unis.)

    Putting aside the one-offs and chaff that don’t belong on this list at all (BP unis, TATC, etc.), it’s basically a catalog of ways in which bright colors or design experiments are unwelcome to the author. And the more I see exactly that playing out on “worst baseball unis” lists, the more I grow to like certain of the bold, out-there uni designs that I used to kind of disdain myself. Particularly the Phillies blood-clot unis.

    • The Jeff | April 16, 2011 at 9:35 am |

      I’ve been working on a set of concepts for the entire league… it’s safe to say the author of that list is going to HATE me.

      • Coleman | April 16, 2011 at 9:55 am |

        I like it already!

      • jdreyfuss | April 16, 2011 at 10:48 am |

        Sounds good to me

    • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm |

      At the time, those drop shadow Senators unis were kinda cool, and a bit inventive.
      Nothing else quite like them, lettering-wise.

      Hmmm, just realized “left chest logo” once was the most coommon way to address pinsriped unis (Yankees, Senators, White Sox, Cubs, Redlegs). In the TV era, only the PHillies had letter across the placat. Until last Griffith Senators adopted it, too.
      Trying to think (without checking Okkonen) which was the first MLB TV-era team to wear pins that didn’t have a “left chest only” logo on the jersey (like ). The last Griffith Senators, I imagine, with “Sentators” script across the front.

      • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

        Ooops, hit “submit” too soon. Last graf was supposed to be deleted cuz remembered the Phillies had full lettering.

    • teenchy | April 16, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

      You don’t like the drop-shadow Nats unis of the mid-50s? They’ve got heart!

  • scott | April 16, 2011 at 9:21 am |

    So only Boston wore softball tops during the annual Jackie Robinson celebration? What a good look around the rest of the games played last night.

  • Dan in Houston | April 16, 2011 at 10:01 am |

    Overheard a discussion in a bar asking about the Robinson tribute.Woman asked her husband, “If everyone can wear the same number, and it doesn’t impact the game, what’s the purpose of having the number in the first place?”

    The husband didn’t have an answer other than “tradition”. Thoughts?

    • LI Phil | April 16, 2011 at 10:27 am |

      technically, a #OB isn’t necessary at all — a player’s number has no impact on the game, other than to identify the player to the opposition or an umpire (and to the crowd)

      and “tradition” is an interesting thing, since modern baseball (1900 and on) started with no teams having numbers

      marcus okkonen, probably the foremost expert on baseball uniforms of the 20th century, has this to say:

      The first attempt to identify individual players with numbers affixed to their uniforms occurred with the Cleveland club in 1916. In this early experiment, the numbers were attached to the sleeve, not the back. For reasons unknown, the idea faded away and was not seen again (except briefly by the Cardinals in 1923) until 1929 when the New York Yankees (possibly inspired by earlier trials in the Minor Leagues) boldly took the field with large numbers on their backs, an idea that initially did not escape ridicule. Since teams and batting orders were relatively stable and not likely to change (especially the infamous “murderers row”), the first number sets reflected their position in the batting order – hence, Ruth #3, Gehrig #4, etc. Obviously, if the numbering system were to presevere, this system was eventually incompatible with roster changes in ensuing seasons. In any case, the new system met approval by the fans and this time it was here to stay. By 1932, all major league teams were “numbered”. In 1952, the Brooklyn Dodgers repeated the numbers on the FRONT of their home jersey and many other teams soon copied this idea. The sixties saw numbers appearing on the sleeves and by the seventies, even the trousers could not escape number identification by some clubs.

    • The Ghost of Ross Gload | April 16, 2011 at 10:28 am |

      IIRC, numbers were first placed on baseball jerseys to encourage people to buy programs.

      Cold hard cash is the greatest tradition of them all.

    • RS Rogers | April 16, 2011 at 11:28 am |

      In most team sports, numbers are helpful to the referees in identifying players and assessing/awarding penalties. The structure and rules of baseball make that unnecessary. As long as an ump can tell the players apart by team, that’s all the info he needs to make all but a handful of very rare calls. About the only time an ump needs to tell two members of the same team apart is when baserunners get bunched up together on the basepath.

      In baseball, uni numbers are there for the fans to identify players. If that’s sufficient utility for players to wear numbers, then everybody-wears-42 is self-evidently a terrible idea that should never, ever happen during a game. Alternately, if everybody-wears-42 is harmless in even one game, then all uni numbers are pointless in all games. The woman has the right of it.

    • Graf Zeppelin | April 16, 2011 at 11:31 am |

      I think it might also have had something to do with being able to identify players from a distance. Whether this was meant to be for fans, broadcasters, or both, I don’t know.

  • Jim | April 16, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    Bleacher Report is a complete piece of garbage period. What lazy crap to post list after list with no real journalistic or editorial content.

    Serious blogging is given a bad name by such tripe.

    Thanks to Uniwatch for rising above that kind of garbage.

  • Brad | April 16, 2011 at 10:26 am |

    Phil, with all due respect, Bleacher Report? Come on, your smarter than that. Why did you even dignify the list with your response in today’s posting?

    That’s exactly what they want to happen, a reaction, whether it be positive or negative. The best (or worst depending on point of view) reaction is absolutely NO REACTION. Nothing drives media batty more than having ZERO REACTION. I know because I was “forced” by news directors and editors in the past to go on-air with a “story” even if it was simply (qualified) opinion, just to get reaction. I hated doing it, felt cheap, but that’s the world of eyeballs and ratings, and sites like Bleacher Report have pathetically contributed to the dumbing down of coverage of (sports) events in our lives.

    Once I saw Bleacher Report and Worst Uniform List, I simply scrolled past to read the rest of today’s post. You may feel “better” after your rant, but you can’t get that time spent reacting to something so worthless back in your life.

  • Kirby Priika | April 16, 2011 at 10:33 am |

    As some have said, the thing with bleacher report is any moron can sign in and write an article, which is probably fun for people who want to be pretend to be sports journalists I guess, but also means that roughly 90% of the articles posted on that site aren’t worth reading.

    That said, the whole “leave the critiques to us at uni watch” thing seems kind of pompous and laughable. I mean, seriously?

  • Brad | April 16, 2011 at 10:34 am |

    Sorry, make that “you’re” in the first sentence.

  • Graham Jaunts | April 16, 2011 at 10:50 am |

    You’re both wrong about the Red Sox green uniforms – those were worn during the season, in a game against the Yankees, to honor the recently deceased Red Auerbach.

    I’m not really a fan of critiquing another blog in that “Fire Joe Morgan”-style line-by-line analysis. It just comes across as downright mean. That probably wasn’t your intention but that’s how it reads. I’d hate if other blogs started tearing apart our DIY or uni-tweaks (which I enjoy!).

    • LI Phil | April 16, 2011 at 10:58 am |

      ah yes…you’re entirely correct — i remembered schilling wearing that jersey during spring training…but totally forgot he was also the SP in the 2007 “auerbach” tribute game

      /mea culpa — will update the main article to reflect

    • Graham Jaunts | April 16, 2011 at 11:01 am |

      Actually I looked up the Red Auerbach day game and Schilling didn’t pitch in it, so that picture must be from a spring training game. I was wrong on that. But regardless, they did wear the green jerseys twice in a game – once for Red Auerbach and once for Earth Day.

      • LI Phil | April 16, 2011 at 11:05 am |

        actually schilling did pitch that game (still, my bad & nice catch) — interesting that it was also earth day

        • Chris from Carver | April 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

          That game/jersey also featured the Virginia Tech tribute on the sleeves.

        • Corey | April 16, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

          I take that back, it got rained out

        • Chris from Carver | April 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

          That game wasn’t Earth Day, it was April 20, Earth Day is the 22nd. Coincidentally, Nixon died on Earth Day, which was established during his presidency. I was at that game and remember one of the people sitting in front of me wearing the new 50Fifty, which was still somewhat of a novelty then.

  • Jim Vilk | April 16, 2011 at 11:09 am |

    “Anyone else think all jerseys should be NNOB all the time?”


    • pushbutton | April 16, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      It really is clean and sharp. And on a philosophical level, it’s “all for the team”. No individual stars here, only the team name, all that good pollyannish stuff. NNOB might be my favorite part of Jackie Robinson Day.

    • Mark in Shiga | April 16, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

      Yes, no question!

      When you have names on the back, particularly when you use a big font, things get cluttered and so stuff like triple layers and piping end up contributing to clutter more than they help the overall look.

      Check out the <a href="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04nQdcU69y6wQ/610x.jpg"three-layer numbers on the Tigers' backs. See how spiffy that looks? Put a name on top of that and it looks really clunky.

      The Mets first used drop shadows in 1999 (’98?) during a NNOB year. They looked fine. Then they put the names on the back, and the scales were tipped back. Three layers + shadows + names just don’t mix. One or two of those elements, at most.

      Weren’t names originally added for television viewers? Back in the 1960s, it helped to identify players as the ability to display info like player names at the bottom of the screen wasn’t what it is today; now we’ve got all the superimposed graphics we can handle. I’d love to see all player names removed from the backs, with the numbers made about an inch bigger. Check out the <a href="1950 Phillies — you can read that even from today’s skyscraper upper decks!

    • Mike D | April 17, 2011 at 3:39 am |

      The jerseys look much better with NNOB. It’s clean and simple.

  • Gusto44 | April 16, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    Regarding the proposed new Winnipeg Jets logo from Dave, I read somewhere the nickname Jets won’t be used if/when Phoenix relocates.

    Don’t know why, because Jets would make all the sense in the world. Hopefully, the new nickname/logo will be decent.

    • JRD | April 16, 2011 at 11:53 am |

      You know it won’t be.

      It will be some over-done minor league logo or something that is waaaaay too busy to be on the front of a jersey.

      I just hope it isn’t something like Swamp Rats, River Frogs, Eskimo Pies or something like that.

      • JRD | April 16, 2011 at 11:53 am |

        I hope they prove me wrong.

    • Silver Creek Doug | April 16, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

      I wouldn’t be surprised if they just took over the minor league Manitoba Moose name and logo.

    • Teebz | April 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm |

      The reason it will not be named “Winnipeg Jets” is because the team would lose any and all credibility with businesses outside the city. The True North Sports and Entertainment Group is committed to hockey in Manitoba, not Winnipeg.

      I have it on good authority that the team will be the “Manitoba __________”.

  • Tenz | April 16, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    I’d have taken Bleacher Report to task for not specifying that the White Sox shorts uniforms were worn only once. I hated the shorts but otherwise loved the uniform. The way it updated an early 20th century look (especially the monochrome navy road uniforms and “Chicago” lettering) makes it one of my all-time favorite uniforms. I’d certainly have left out the shorts and would have ditched the collars (another early 20th century touch) and probably tucked in the jerseys… Sorry, I’m suddenly doing a uniform tweak here, but to me, THAT would be a classic uniform.

    • LI Phil | April 16, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

      great idea for a tweak — if you can mock that up, submit it

      /also, im positive the shorts weren’t a one-time only wearing, like the saturday night specials…i think they may have been worn up to 4 times that season (checked with bill henderson’s guide, which says they were worn “a few times”)

    • traxel | April 16, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

      That 76-81 White Sox uni http://www.globalarray.net/user/cardboardstars/basedigest0719813322.jpg is one of my all time favs. EXCEPT for the shorts, just like you say. However, my only tweak would be to have the collar go all the way around the back. But that would be for that uni worn back then. I’d obviously ditch the collar today, but still like its uniqueness. Also, I like the untucked look. But the jersey has to be worn fairly tight so it doesn’t flop around. And can’t be too long…..or short. The socks were great too. I DO like stirrups, but for that uniform, those white socks with navy stripes (different just about every year) were perfect. The pants were all the same length, just below the knee, I LOVE THIS UNIFORM!!!

      • pushbutton | April 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

        I loved those too. I recall my Dad, though,(Cubs fan) remarking that they looked “like a prison team” in that road uni.

  • johnj | April 16, 2011 at 11:55 am |

    Good post today sir,

    Had an article in the back of my mind for the past few days that I wanted to bring before the weekend crowd. I’m not sure if any of you have seen this yet:


    Steigerwald comes across as one of the biggest douches in the world (in my opinion). Not only bringing a sense of blame to the victim but also tearing down many, many fans (and I’m guessing most UniWatchers).

    So, whats your guys take? Is there a time when we’re supposed to stop wearing our team’s jerseys?

    …or is this guy an out of touch asshole?

    • Patrick_in_MI | April 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

      That article was linked in the comments here on Monday, I think. Yup, guy is a total douchewad and probably shouldn’t be allowed to be published again. I suppose he also blames women when they get raped too. The article actually started out OK, like he was going to take to task the perps for beating the crap out of someone (victim actually had part of his skull removed!). But then he descends into the sublime pool of crap that poses for his neolithic brainwaves.

    • Joe Barrie | April 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

      I agree with Steigerwald. Why the average fan would want to spend all that money on “authentic” uniform parts is beyond me, especially in this economy. A cap might suffice, I suppose.

      TV has encouraged fans to think that their reactions matter. Note the business of standing up and applauding when there are two strikes on a batter. Note the standing ovations, with clapping done above head-level, and shown on TV. Fox is a major offender in this regard, but they behave as though they think their audience is largely composed of morons anyway.

      I note also the total lack of interest in the Dodgers’ organization to behavior in their ballpark until this sad event occurred.

  • Patrick_in_MI | April 16, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

    I’m thinking the city of Vidalia, Georgia should get a minor league team and use that Onions uni mocked up today. Brilliant!

    • johnj | April 16, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

      my high school team had almost identical unis… we were the chiefs though

      our football unis were almost identical to the KC Chiefs except green black white. Even the logo was identical, only ours was HC for our town’s name

  • Matt E | April 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

    Fantastic time lapse of the Air Canada Centre transitioning from hockey to basketball, if you’re into that kind of thing:


  • John Saiz | April 16, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

    RE: The Jorge Posada resurrection of the late 90’s mock turtleneck:

    Although he’s a coach and not a player, the Dodgers’ Trey Hillman was sporting the old turtleneck on Jackie Robinson day, complete with the red outlined wordmark on the collar.

  • M. Sullivan | April 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

    Phil, don’t get too worked up over BleacherReport. In fact I recommend never reading anything on it. Ever. It seems every list on it is totally and completely useless. On a forum that I’m a part of, you can be banned for posting a link to BleacherReport. It’s simply the worst sports writing (if you can call it that) on the internet.

    • mike 2 | April 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm |


      Its not critique, its not content, its pure page view bait.

  • TD | April 16, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

    By the way, I’m pretty sure those ‘socks’ Jhoulys Chacin wore with the white seam down the back were, in fact, Kobe Bryant-style tights. In fact, I think you can see the outline of a short-sock underneath the black on his plant foot (the line goes over the bunching, so I’d say they’re underneath..)

  • Broadway Connie | April 16, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

    Hey, Phil, in your intro to the demolitiom of that lazy twerp, you mentiom your “hackles.” Made me think. What is a hackle? And why does “raising” one’s hackles indicate one’s irritation?

    I think the best thing SINCE sliced bread is the fitted bedsheet.

    In JFK, after week in England. They really like soccer over there.

    • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

      Well, I might have said SaranWrap.

      But it’s The Pill (which is even better than sliced bread, btw).

      • George Chilvers | April 17, 2011 at 3:33 am |

        Hackles are the little hairs on the neck of dogs etc that raise when they are irritated.

        …..and yes, we do love our football. Even in Henley :)

  • Hotspur99 | April 16, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

    Dude, don’t read the Bleacher Report. It’s gotta be the lamest excuse for sports writing I’ve ever seen. It reads like it was written by an barely literate 8-year-old. It’s an embarrassment. Not worth your time or your column inches.

  • duker | April 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

    The Orioles typically wear their black alts and O’s caps on Fridays. However their Jackie Robinson Day uniforms were their standard roads (as standard as NNOB and number 42 for everyone can be) but they still wore their alternate caps. I’m not sure their alt caps have ever been worn without the black jerseys.

  • Logan Irons | April 16, 2011 at 4:00 pm |

    I am a daily reader of the website but have never posted to the comments section. I recently joined a team of friends playing softball. I was looking to get a set of stirrups to wear. I am only 25 so never really wore stirrups back in my youth baseball days. I had a few questions: first, is there any “stirrups for dummies” cheat sheet that could help guide me? From reading here, I know that some on the site sell and/or make stirrups. How would I get in contact with that person? Last, our pants are gray with black tops with blue writing, so what would look good with that combo? Thanks a ton and I appreciate all of the people who run this website and post comments.

  • PhilKnight | April 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm |

    Since immersing themselves on the sports branding landscape for the last 15 years, Nike has certainly proven to be experts in the business of imposing their will on unknowing Athletic Departments across the country. For ASU, the fixing of what is not broken, in this case the iconic and endearing Sparky mark, and replacing it with a lifeless “trident” cold corporate generic mark again proves that Nike is an unwanted trespasser in the world of sports identity. Given their “respect the past represent the future” credo, these mantras ring ingenuous when you witness the design demolition of the previous ASU Athletic Program. Nike has again proven adept at using their sports branding shortcomings to camouflage a their new “design” executed poorly throughout the program.. The incredible growth of UnderArmour and Adidas/Reebok is not surprising when you bear witness to the extermination of the beloved Sparky and the introduction of Trident, a symbol more synonymous with Neptune and aquatic folklore and not of a Sun Devil! Epic failure by the Nike Organization!

    • Jeff P | April 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

      Sparky sucked as a helmet logo. The trident looks much better.

      Sorry, but they got that one right.

  • Oakville Celery Root (alias Endive) | April 16, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

    I like Phil’s review of Bleacher report, he manages to capture/articulates the frustration of reviewing such a throw-away list.

    The Miami fans are in “white-out” mode. The first white-out I remember was the Winnipeg Jets fans. It never seemed to work for them. Can anyone remember a basketball or hockey championship being won, with fans sustaining a white-out? Maybe it’s lack of success can be traced to a white-out can be viewed as a giant symbolic surrender flag?

    • mike 2 | April 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

      Unlikely – at the end of the day, wearing white or wearing black or wearing expensive replica jerseys doesn’t actually affect what happens on the ice.

      But as long as we’re talking about giant symbolic surrender flags…


      A spontaneous gesture that turned into a great tradition.

      • Oakville Endive | April 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

        Great to hear the sound of the old Chicago Stadium crowd, in games like that – it really had an electric, anything could happen, feel to it.

    • Teebz | April 16, 2011 at 5:44 pm |

      The Jets beat the Calgary Flames in the very first white-out at the Winnipeg Arena. They then went on to get man-handled by Gretzky and the Oilers.

      After that, it was all downhill in the white-out.

    • Jeff P | April 16, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

      The pens had a white out throughout the playoffs when they won the cup two years ago. They’ve been doing it since.

      Mighta done it in 2008 too.

      • Oakville Endive | April 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

        Not at home though – in Detroit.

  • chris s | April 16, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

    Mets’ DJ Carrasco wearing some kinda stir-ups, Paul must be a very happy man, even though he just gave up a HR.

  • pushbutton | April 16, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

    The inexplicable inclusion of the 1950 Senators in that list, along with the high school photo of a team with blank uniforms makes me wish some MLB team had the nerve to try a design this austere again!

    • pushbutton | April 16, 2011 at 5:28 pm |

      Hey, that 1928 design just about burned my retinas! Calm down, Senators!

  • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 5:31 pm |

    Twins’ Alexi Cassilla going high cuffed today. Wasn’t sure if he’d done that before.

    I guess he has, though, as far back as the pins on the road.

    • Ricko | April 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |

      (crap; really into inadvertent doublle letters thesedays, I am)

  • jesse | April 16, 2011 at 6:52 pm |

    Would like to do my own Nats jersey. Can anyone throw up some good links/suggestions re: appropriate sizing of numbers, logos, etc. Any other tips would be appreciated.

  • Brady | April 16, 2011 at 8:19 pm |

    Mr. Lukas,

    As a current events topic for my Sport in American Life class, I am going to discuss with my class about the 3-swooshed ASU uniforms and then Pro Combat Prepare for Battle marketing technique.

    Is there anything else related to this that you would suggest I add to the discussion?

    Brady Graham

  • Dan D | April 16, 2011 at 8:23 pm |

    Worst Uniform? Easily the Chicago Cubs’ roadies of the late 1970’s. They were light blue with blue pinstripes and blue letters and numbers. Too much blue!

  • George Chilvers | April 17, 2011 at 3:42 am |
  • Broadway Connie | April 17, 2011 at 6:07 am |

    Thank you, George, for the help with hackles. Was only in plummy Henley for one day. Three in Oxford (not exactly a workingman’s town, either) and then three to finish in London. My two young sons (11 and 10) are completely football mad, and so I brought home the sport pages of a few newspapers from the morning after the ManU/Chelsea encounter. Talk about saturation coverage! The 10 yr old is spending this upcoming week in Amsterdam, at the Ajax Academy, just to let you know how crazy things get in NYC footie culture as well… Cheers.

  • Broadway Connie | April 17, 2011 at 6:14 am |

    PS Love that Wigan 1993 kit you submitted.