Monday Morning Uni Watch

Screen shot 2011-05-15 at 11.05.12 PM.png

MLB held its annual Civil Rights promotion over the weekend in Atlanta. The Phils and Braves wore Negro Leagues throwbacks on Saturday (Phil provided coverage of those uniforms in yesterday’s post), and then the Civil Rights Game took place yesterday, with the Braves and Phils wearing 1974 throwbacks as a salute to Hank Aaron and his 715th home run. Lots of uni-notable bits here, so let’s take a look:

• The Phillies’ actual ’74 jerseys were zipper-fronts with vertically arched NOBs, but the throwbacks were button-fronts with radially arched NOBs. Pfeh.

• The white trim on the Phils’ piping was way too thick. Double-pfeh.

• Yet another Phillies glitch: It looks like their cap logo was too big. Triple-pfeh.

• All of the caps had the Civil Rights Game wordmark on the side — except for Braves closer Craig Kimbrel, whose cap had the New Era logo. (My thanks to reader Sam Graves for the close-up screen shot.)

• Speaking of logo creep, both teams had graphics on the centers of their sleeves — the feather for the Braves and piping for the Phils — so the Majestic logo was off-center on both teams’ sleeves.

• The Civil Rights Game patch on the rear collar caused some unfortunate fabric buckling.

Meanwhile, as the Phils and Braves were saluting a movement devoted to non-violent protest, the Brewers and Pirates thought it would be a good day to play dress-up soldier, if only on their cap brims. Great timing, guys — maybe next year you can give away plastic toys on Earth Day!

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-05-16 at 12.54.17 AM.png

So much fun, it’s almost like Giuliani never happened: Last night I met up with my friend Alan for a few beers at one of NYC’s best and most decrepit bars, the very wonderful Reynold’s. The teevee was showing women’s college bowling, of all things, which was of great interest to both Alan and myself, but we kept getting interrupted by this Asian woman who was scurrying around the bar trying to sell bootleg DVDs (basic Hollywood fare, mostly) out of a plastic bag. We waved her away twice, but then she came back a third time, at which point the following scene unfolded:

Alan [putting his arm around Asian woman’s shoulders]: Look, I’m sorry, but you have to realize — we’re not buying any of these.

Asian woman: Oh, I know what you want! You want hoochie-coochie, right?

Alan [his interest now piqued]: Yeah, you got any of that in there?

Asian woman [reaching deeper into bag and producing a pile of porno DVDs]: Here — hoochie-coochie. Fuckee-suckee, number one!

Alan [examining DVDs]: I don’t know — these look more like number three.

Asian woman: No, no — number one! Fuckee-suckee number one! Ten dollar!

Me: Wait, how much?

Asian woman: Ten dollar!

Me: The problem is, this same stuff is exactly 10 dollars cheaper than that on the internet.

Asian woman: No, no — this better! This have EVERYTHING!

Alan: The other problem is that I don’t own a DVD player.

Me: And neither do I.

Asian woman [stuffing porno DVDs back in bag]: Ohhhhhh. Never mind.

While this was an immensely entertaining interlude, it seriously diverted my attention from the bowling. Fortunately, when I came home a few hours later, I found an e-mail from reader Greg Trandel, who’d been watching the same telecast (presumably without the distraction of a pornography peddler). He pointed out something I hadn’t noticed — take a look.

See those numbers pinned to the bowlers’ jerseys? I’ll let Greg explain what they’re for:

There are only five different numbers: 16, 27, 38, 49, and 50. And those numbers aren’t conventional uniform numbers to identify the players — after watching for a little while, I realized that the numbers specify the frames in which each bowler will roll.

This bowling competition is a team contest, with five bowlers on each team rolling in each of two frames. One bowler rolls in the 1st and 6th frames, another in the 2nd and 7th, etc. So that’s what the numbers signify.

Interesting! I never knew that.

This isn’t the first time that my life has been complicated by the combination of women’s bowling and smut, incidentally. The first time I was ever in a titty bar, the teevee at the bar was showing the latest LPBT tournament (that’s the Ladies Pro Bowlers Tour, don’tcha know, now sadly defunct). This presented me with a tricky choice: Did I want to look at naked girls or bowling girls? Naked girls or bowling girls? Not such an easy choice when you like bowling as much as I do! I remember thinking, “If only they had naked bowling girls.”

Of course, that was before I learned about the greatest movie ever made.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-05-16 at 7.10.44 AM.png

About the last guy you expected to see pictured here: Newt Gingrich announced his Presidential candidacy the other day. Whatever you think of his politics, he brings an interesting visual element to the race: He is, by any objective measure, fat.

I don’t bring this up to demean Gingrich. Instead, I’m wondering if we’re on the threshold of a new aesthetic standard — or at least the end of the old standard — for politicians. Although we’ve had a few Presidents who were mildly overweight (Clinton, LBJ, Hoover), we haven’t had a truly fat chief executive since William Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt a century ago, back when being fat was still viewed by some as a sign of wealth and power.

Back when Teddy Kennedy was considering Presidential runs in 1984 and 1988, people discussing his prospects always — always — mentioned that he’d “need to lose 20 pounds first.” Nobody’s saying that about Gingrich, and nobody was saying it about the similarly robust Haley Barbour when he was recently considering a White House candidacy (he eventually decided not to run). Meanwhile, many Republicans are urging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to run — and he’s the fattest one of them all.

The Christie case is particularly interesting, because his opponent in the 2009 New Jersey gubernatorial race — then-Gov. Jon Corzine — at one point ran a campaign ad that said Christie “threw his weight around” to get out of a traffic ticket. The spot was widely perceived — and panned — as a cheap shot at Christie’s waistline, and Corzone later apologized for it.

All of which suggests that we may be entering a new age in American political aesthetics, an age in which fat candidates — and fat Presidents — are acceptable. Is this because we’re becoming more tolerant? Is it because the nation is getting fatter and we want candidates who look like us? Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing? Discuss.

The next frontier: a bald President. We’ve elected only one of those in the past century — and he was a war hero.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-05-15 at 11.51.05 AM.png

A singular tribute: With Harmon Killebrew now in hospice care, the Twins have announced that they’ll be saluting him by wearing their throwback alts for their remaining 2011 home games. It’s a touching move, and I think it’s also the first gesture of its kind. Has any team ever done anything like this before? If so, I can’t think of a comparable example.

I interviewed Killebrew on the phone several times in 2008, as part of my reporting for an ESPN column on whether the MLB logo was based on a photo of him (Killebrew thought it was; logo designer Jerry Dior said it wasn’t). He was a real gentleman — an absolute pleasure to talk to. I’ll be thinking of him and his family in the days to come.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2011-05-14 at 11.04.39 AM.png

Tweety Bird: Several readers have asked where they can get a Twitter Cardinals T-shirt like the one Shaun Kennedy was wearing at the recent Uni Watch party in St. Louis. Shaun actually addressed this question himself in Friday’s comments — for details, look here.

Research project: Reader Alex Martin is trying to compile an NBA uniform database — basically, “Dressed to the Nines” for basketball — and he’s looking for feedback. Here’s what he’s done for the Hawks. If you see any errors, or if you have suggestions, contact him here.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: I just scored this really cool 1940s letterhead catalog on eBay. ”¦ The Senators’ new third jersey crest — not the whole jersey, just the crest — has been leaked (with thanks to Jeff Czuba). ”¦ Here’s the full slate of this year’s flag-desecration caps, and boy do they look like shite. ”¦ Is Rutgers going BFBS? “I came across that shot on the Rutgers message board,” says Stephen Dahl. “Apparently it will be used for some game this season.” ”¦ EPL news from Patrick Runge, who writes: ” How can you screw up a white shirt with blue and red trim? Your Honor, I offer Exhibit A.” ”¦ Kirsten found an interesting site that features simple but engaging timelines, including one devoted to baseball. ”¦ Next-to-last graf on this page indicates that former Packers lineman Gilbert Brown has exquisite taste in colors (with thanks to the Rev. Nørb). ”¦ Here’s a good video of Wizards owner Ted Leonsis discussing the team’s new uniforms (with thanks to William Yurasko). ”¦ If you want your prison sentence based on your favorite player’s uni number, it’s better if you’re a fan of, say, Billy Matin, not Larry Bird (with thanks to Scott Davis). ”¦ This old NASA photo is amazing, but didn’t anyone over there know the proper rules of flag orientation? (Great find by Parick Baude.) ”¦ Are you a Bulls and Blackhawks fan? Then here’s the T-shirt for you (nice find by Ryan Lindy). ”¦ Speaking of the Bulls, the 10th graf of this story mentions that when they were romancing Dwyane Wade last summer, they had a Bulls jersey made up as part of their presentation to him. “I would love to know what happened to that jersey!” says Brett Crane. ”¦ Manny Acta was wearing a red undershirt the other night. “Makes me feel like it’s the ’90s again,” says Pete S. ”¦ “I’m a Pittsburgh native and huge Steelers fan,” says Phil Johnson, “but this is just plain disturbing.” ”¦ Michael Brethauer was at his local comics shop and came across a soccer publication full of uni drawings. ”¦ Niche-marketing news from Dave (who didn’t give his last name): “Several NC State alumni (including former basketball players Engin Atsur and Will Roach) started Tradition Scarves back during football season. It started with only the NC State design, but the scarves were so popular that they decided to expand. They recently added Indiana and Appalachian State, and I think more designs are to come.” ”¦ Yet another unusual Rockies undershirt, this time being worn by Jhoulys Chacin. “The left shoulder has the logo of Root Sports — the same company that broadcasts the Rockies in Denver, and I believe is a minority owner of the club,” says Ryan Boone. ”¦ Daren Landers scanned a page from this year’s Reds yearbook with two uni-noteworthy items: First, Johnny Bench wore No. 53 during 1966 spring training. And second, Bench had green catching gear for the Reds’ first St. Paddy’s Day game in 1978. ”¦ Also from Daren: Lots going on in this shot of Brandon Phillips — one sleeve, Under Armour logo creep, and a hint of a Velcro patch on the jersey placket. ”¦ Even on the elevator, your lifestyle sucks. Zachary Charles took that shot at the San Francisco branch of DouchebagTown. ”¦ Trevor Williams, continuing has heretofore fruitless search for the answer to the Broncos’ horsey mystery, has come up with a few additional tidbits from the team’s history. Did you know that the Broncs changed their shade of orange in 1978? Or that the new ’78 uniforms, when they were eventually delivered, didn’t fit? ”¦ Webmaster John Ekdahl attended the TPC, where he noted Dustin Johnson and Martin Laird wearing near-identical Adidas outfits on Thursday and Friday, respectively. Also: “Under Amour was nearly invisible here last year, but this year there were a ton of guys in full UA sponsorship (shirt, hat, pants, belt buckle). Looks like UA has made a major investment in golf.” ”¦ Latest MLBer to double up on the lifestyle: Carl Crawford (screen shot by Eric Hill). ”¦ Did you see Chad Bengal’s latest uniform? ”¦ The ongoing Ohio State kerfuffle has lead the school to stop awarding the gold pants charms (with thanks to Gary Brackle). ”¦ Still more flag desecration, this time by the Syracuse Chiefs in Saturday’s “Armed Forces Celebration” game. “At least one Chiefs player will want to wear these again: Michael Aubrey, who hit four home runs during Saturday’s game,” says Ed McCorduck). ”¦ “I’m a Syracuse man,” says Max Weintraub, “but I have to admit, the new Johns Hopkins lacrosse helmets look pretty cool.” ”¦ Cam Newton turned 16 the other day (or 12, or 27, or whatever he is), but why did his birthday cake have the outdated NFL logo? (Good spot by Gavin Robey.) ”¦ According to this Pat Forde column on college hoops, UNC and Michigan State will mark Veteran’s Day by playing each other on an aircraft carrier in San Diego. No word on whether fans will get a free Battleship set and a cap gun to boot (with thanks to Jim Vilk). ”¦ Matt Powers spotted this Cooperstown Collection cap at a shop but has no idea what team it was for. Me neither. Anyone..? ”¦

235 comments to Monday Morning Uni Watch

  • Marc M. | May 16, 2011 at 7:34 am |

    The Phils-Braves game yesterday also featured uniforms that did not fit a single Phillies player correctly, as every single one was too baggy, ugh! I mean at least one size too big, horrible.

    • Jim Hayden | May 16, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      Does anybody else have an issue with the stitching on New Era’s throwback “white front” caps? Back in the day, the Orioles/Expos/Braves etc. caps had a colorless nylon thread that was invisible against the white (or yellow for the Brewers/Padres) background, but now they use the same color thread as the rest of the cap – so there’s this tacky stitch-line 1/4″ into the white panels which looks like crap.

      • corndog | May 16, 2011 at 9:24 am |

        Yep, my New Era throwback Blue Jays cap has the same thing. I hate that they make them like that.

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 10:50 am |

          the first thing they did to mess up the logos was that stupid raised rubber under the thread. so the originals also wouldn’t have had that, and that is a much more noticeable feature to bitch about. and while i am at it, they wouldn’t have had that new era flag on the side, would have been made of a wool, and would not have had a “high block structured crowns”. but yeah, the thread wasn’t white.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

          my god, it’s like ross is staring into my soul

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

          i was pretty happy that was the first good photo i found. other acceptables would have been brother lo

    • Brinke | May 16, 2011 at 11:21 am |

      Let me tell you, I love love love love that Braves style.

      Love it.

      Did I mention I love it?

      They oughta pull those out a couple times s year easy.

      • moose | May 16, 2011 at 11:23 am |

        the lower case a is the best part of that lid, i love it too.

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:48 am |

          Personally, I hate all caps with the white front panel, except the Expos pinwheel style. Mostly don’t like lowercase cap logos either.

          But the rest of that Braves uni is so awesome, especially the sleeves, that the cap is made awesome by secondhand exposure.

          And yes, the thread thing is evil. If you’re gonna do white front panels, do it right. Anything you set out to do as a patriotic gesture, don’t half-ass it. Laziness and mailing it in is not a tribute to America.

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 11:59 am |

          i am a fan of the lower case a because i don’t like caps, so i am obviously drawn to this and the angels halo, but i can see whey you don’t like it.

          as for the white panels, yes the ‘spos were far and away the best, but i like all the white/yellow panel caps as opposed to say off coloured brims in most cases, but that is all personal taste. that being said i wouldn’t want to see a trend of it, but a team or two, the orioles, or bluejays for instance could bring that back and look good.

          there are so many things wrong with new era caps the white thread seems *meh* on the list.

    • possum | May 16, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

      A bit late on this, but I watched most of the game on TV and noticed some things:

      -The New Era logo was not just Craig Kimbrel, it appeared to be anyone not starting. When Jason Heyward entered the game as a defensive sub (uh, what?) in the 9th he had the New Era logo. There were guys in the Philly dugout that had the same discrepancy. I’m not sure who they were cause you know, Philly sucks.

      -Brian McCann’s flap-less period-accurate batting helmet looked marvelous.

      -In a strange mix of the previous two bullet points, Carlos Ruiz looked even more ridiculous than Halladay in his normal gear.

      -I’m surprised Paul didn’t mention Roy Halladay’s red raglan that he had on over his maroon swooshified standard issue undershirt (which I guess makes the red one a middleshirt). It doesn’t take a fashion conscience or obsessive person to know that looks like shit before you leave your locker.

      -We’ve been married almost a year, and she certainly knew about it going into our marriage, but my wife does not care about the colors of undershirts, stirrups, swooshes or zippered vs button fronts. She knows Philly sucks though, so I guess I’m keeping her.

  • JustaFan | May 16, 2011 at 7:37 am |

    The ‘cooperstown collection’ cap isnt a cooperstown cap…it is actually the alternate cap for the Bradenton Mauraders, the Single A team for the Pittsburgh Pirates in the Gulf Coast League.

    • Joe D | May 16, 2011 at 8:44 am |

      Florida State League

  • union jack | May 16, 2011 at 7:46 am |

    Rutgers went BFBS for one home game, 2 or 3 years back. Just uni, not helmet. Got beat pretty bad and haven’t worn them since.
    BTW, the consensus among the alumni crowd — hated them!

    • johnj | May 16, 2011 at 10:40 am |

      Just texted a friend on the team, asked if he knew about this. His reply:

      “They showed us that at a team meeting last year before the season and said if we win we can wear that…. That worked out well….”

      So looks like this is a little dated, probably not gonna happen.

      • Kub | May 16, 2011 at 11:19 am |

        also looks like the helmet is Matte Black. That may be the new touch

    • johnj | May 16, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

      An ominous text he sent a little later:

      “You have to see some of the crazy sh*t Nike brought by this year…”

  • TheZinger | May 16, 2011 at 7:50 am |

    “I’m a Syracuse man,” says Max Weintraub, “but I have to admit, the new Syracuse lacrosse helmets look pretty cool.”

    Those are actually Hopkins’ helmets.

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 8:40 am |

      [Slaps forehead.] Thanks. Now fixed.

  • breezy | May 16, 2011 at 7:51 am |

    The Marauders play at the Pirates Spring Training facility and have been around only a couple of years:

  • Mike Hersh | May 16, 2011 at 7:53 am |

    Great bar story.

    Thumbs up to the Twins for honoring Killebrew. MLB should just come out and say the logo is him.

    Update to the Art Herring Brooklyn Dodgers satin uniform. The pants actually belonged to “Red” Corriden, not John as was previously thought. “Red” coached the Dodgers from 1941-46. I can now say I’m 100% positive that it was from 1945.

    • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 8:36 am |

      MLB should just come out and say the logo is [Killebrew].

      When he passes, MLB should announce that it will redesign the logo to depict Killebrew, and then unveil a completely unchanged logo.

      Or point out that the number 3 appears on the batter’s back just below the frame of the logo, and has been there all along.

    • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 8:42 am |

      “MLB should just come out and say the logo is him.”


      problem is, if you’re going to credit Jerry Dior for the logo (which I believe they finally have), Jerry himself has said the image is NOT killer

      unless & until you get a statement from Dior saying the model is harmon, then MLB can’t just accord him that honor

      • Bill | May 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm |

        I always thought it was Pete Rose, not Harmon.

  • scott | May 16, 2011 at 8:00 am |

    is it a coincidence that the ramped up anti-americanism started once OBL was put to rest?

    • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 8:29 am |

      Ramped-up anti-Americanism? Since there is today, and has been, zero anti-Americanism from Paul, this is an obviously invalid statement. Thanks to the rules of common division necessary to calculate percentages, zero cannot be an increase over another real number. What a maroon!

      If one wants to see anti-Americanism, how about the Pirates and Brewers wearing a camouflage pattern that is not worn by any branch of the U.S. military, but is worn by the ICBM crews of China’s communist People’s Liberation Army, by Pakistan’s terrorist-supporting Special Services Group, and by the Iranian and Syrian armed forces? It was also the camo of choice for Osama bin Laden. How does wearing OBL’s personal camo, much less the camo of China’s strategic missile crews, or Pakistan’s special forces, or the Syrian and Iranian armies, express support for American troops? How is objecting to the Pirates and Brewers wearing the camo pattern of terrorists and communists “anti-American”?

      • Ry Co 40 | May 16, 2011 at 10:40 am |

        oh my goodness, if you ACTUALLY think people watching the game are going to associate that pattern with: OBL’s personal camo, the camo of China’s strategic missile crews, Pakistan’s special forces, or the Syrian and Iranian armies…

        you’ve GOTTA be shitting me. LMAO all day!

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

          Wait, so the validity of our patriotic gestures is based on assuming that the American people are idiots who can’t be bothered with details or facts or anything? “This camo is patriotic, because Americans are stupid,” just doesn’t seem to be a particularly, well, patriotic thing to say!

          I hope it was obvious that I was speaking with a heck of a lot of hyperbole here. Point is that if we’re really going to delve into the minutiae to look for “anti-Americanism,” then things are not going to go well for a lot of supposedly “patriotic” BS, either.

          It’s just a personal bugaboo, but lazy patriotism offends me even more than the absence of patriotism. If you want to play soldier-dress-up to “honor the troops,” well, you’re an idiot, but whatever. I get that you mean well. Just don’t half-ass it. If you’re gonna wear camo, wear the right camo. If you’re gonna wrap yourself in the flag, learn and follow the rules. If you’re going to wear special stars-and-stripes unis or hats or whatever, they had damned well better be the best-looking unis or hats you wear all year. You demonstrate your honor for something by the degree of effort you put in. Lazy effort = little honor.

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

          what rsr is saying is that it is absurd to take paul’s comments on any level as anti-american. so fine, we can play the absurd game, like it is absurd that two teams claiming to honour the military are actually using a camo pattern that not only does the us military not wear any more, but is actually being worn by the enemies of america. so if that is the case, who is really the unamerican? is it absurd? heck yes it is, but it is just as much so to think any of paul’s comments are unamerican, and that’s the point.

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

          oops. sorry scott, you left that to sit for a while so i thought reply, my bad.

        • Ry Co 40 | May 16, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

          ok then, let me rephrase my original comment:

          “oh my goodness, if you ACTUALLY think people watching the game are NOT going to associate that pattern with the US military… you’ve got to be shitting me…”

          there, better?

      • jesse | May 16, 2011 at 6:44 pm |

        Dear dumbshit, the camo pattern OBL is wearing is actually the woodland camo pattern that U.S. servicemembers wore up until approx 2002. OBL is wearing an American made field jacket.

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 9:00 am |

      I mentioned bowling, titty bars, and fat people. What more do you want??

      • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 9:56 am |

        My kind of patriot.

      • Jerry | May 16, 2011 at 9:59 am |

        I find this discussion about “fat” people to be offensive!!!! This all goes back to yesterday’s comments section. Its the last legal form of discrimination left in this country.

        As far as I know, Michigan is the only state where you are not allowed to discriminate against somebody because of body size.

        If I were to drop the “N-word” I would probably (and rightfully) be banned. So why is alright to discriminate against overweight people?

        • SkinnerAU | May 16, 2011 at 10:04 am |

          Oh I dont know because being overweight Majority of the time can be helped? I mean come on, this isnt offensive. It’s a problem in America that makes us the laughing stock of the world, and you want to tolerate it? No dice. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars.

        • Jerry | May 16, 2011 at 10:16 am |

          Some say that being homosexual can be helped, but yet we can’t discriminate against them. Again why is it okay to discriminate against horizonitally challenged people??

        • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 10:28 am |

          How am I discriminating against fat people? I just went out of my way to highlight that they now appear to be Presidential fodder.

        • Craig D | May 16, 2011 at 10:31 am |

          The only cases where it is legal to ‘discriminate’ against fat people are where issues of safety (ex: rollercoasters) are concerned or where image is what is being sold (ex: Hooters Girls). In general an employer of a company can’t discriminate based on weight anymore than color. Doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. It just isn’t legal. And while there are people that claim homosexuality is a choice, that view isn’t widely accepted by the medical community. Being overweight is something that is avoidable in most cases and is based on personal choices. Religion, too, is a choice and that cannot be used to discriminate.

          Having said all that, where did the offensive fat person talk happen? All I saw from Paul was that we are in a new era where overweight people are running for president, and what does that say about our country today? I don’t see anything about Newt being so fat that when he sits around the house…he sits AROUND the house. Just discussing a fat person isnt offensive. Or it shouldn’t be.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 10:34 am |

          “Some say that being homosexual can be helped, but yet we can’t discriminate against them.”


        • Teamo | May 16, 2011 at 10:49 am |

          As a fellow “fat” person (5’10”, 335 lbs), I am not offended by this weighty issue. It’s not easy to deal with, mind you, but, I think we all are taking ourselves a bit to seriously in the attempt to not offend. For Christ’s sake, can’t we laugh at ourselves once and a while? Now, somebody please pass the cake.

        • SkinnerAU | May 16, 2011 at 10:58 am |

          I dont think being a homosexual and being overweight are anything alike. And People say you can help being overweight because you can.

        • SkinnerAU | May 16, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          and im not trying to be mean or insensitive. i just think its time as a nation we put a little value in being fit and not being “o.k.” with being fat.

        • Bernard | May 16, 2011 at 11:18 am |

          Anybody wanna bet this conversation comes to a grinding halt at noon?

        • Brinke | May 16, 2011 at 11:22 am |

          Why do I have a feeling this thread is going to go out of control. Just a hunch.

        • SkinnerAU | May 16, 2011 at 11:26 am |

          Your damn right it will Bernie. As soon as I eat lunch I will be over this whole fat people thing.

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:30 am |

          How am I discriminating against fat people? I just went out of my way to highlight that they now appear to be Presidential fodder.

          Is the “now” part of this really true? For one thing, Newt has been an active, if not necessarily a declared, candidate for president before, and he’s always been a chub. Al Gore wasn’t exactly svelte anymore by the time he won his party’s nomination in 2000, and he actually won the national vote against a much fitter dude. Bill Clinton never lacked for flab, though admittedly he carried it better than most guys his weight. And in 2008, Mike Huckabee was, on paper, the obvious shoo-in for the GOP nomination. Everything Republicans say they want in a nominee, Huck had in spades. I say the reason he flamed out was precisely the fact that he was an ex-fatty who got thin, and nobody likes that guy. Makes the rest of us look bad. You don’t even have to be overweight to kind of resent the Jareds of the world. Huckabee would be president right now if only he’d kept on those pounds.

          Still, since the advent of TV, the huskier candidate rarely wins his party’s nomination, and so far has not won the presidential election. I’ll grant the truth of Paul’s thesis the day an overweight woman takes the oath of office.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

          ” I’ll grant the truth of Paul’s thesis the day an overweight woman takes the oath of office.”

          hillary 2012?

        • Jack | May 16, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

          “What we need is a president, not an athlete,” Gingrich said during a question and answer period after his speech. He added: “Shooting three point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work.”

          What he was criticizing was his body of work as president. He criticized him for being more worried about playing hoop than creating jobs. Right, wrong or indefferent that is what the comment was meant to convey.

          It is amazing how this topics jumped SOOOOOO far.

      • Craig D | May 16, 2011 at 10:22 am |

        Some people won’t be happy until you paint your naked body red, white and blue and sing God Bless America with a dozen sparklers in your ass. Anything short of that is anti-American. (For the record, I profusely apologize in advance for that image you now have seared into your brain.)

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:19 am |

          Some people won’t be happy until you paint your naked body red, white and blue and sing God Bless America with a dozen sparklers in your ass.

          I can’t tell if I should be offended because this is clearly a knock against fat people or because it’s kind of gay.

      • Original Jim | May 16, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

        God Bless America

        • Original Jim | May 16, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

          This statement would have made more sense directly under Paul’s “I mentioned bowling, titty bars, and fat people. What more do you want??” comment.

          /carry on

    • Cort | May 16, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      It’s more socially acceptable to be fat today than it has been since the olden days, when Reubens was making a good living painting chunky naked ladies. Personally, it’s made my life harder: as a bespectacled fat guy, my personal ethos has always been, Stick Up For The Fat Guy. What do you do when the fat guy is Newt Gingrich? I’m hoping he gets some lipo, STAT. Thank goodness Drew Carey and Seth Rogen have both lost weight…

  • apk3000 | May 16, 2011 at 8:12 am |

    That Ottawa Senators shield is a fake. Take a look at the actual “teaser” of the new jersey on icethetics, the font is wrong, the A should be entirely in the black region.

    • Rob S | May 16, 2011 at 8:44 am |
      • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 10:10 am |

        Whew. That was a close call.

        But tell me, please, Sens rooters, Ottawans, whoever, what do you think of the helmeted Roman guy?

        Not that you asked me, but I’ve always thought he was pretty lame. I mean, shouldn’t a Roman Senator wear a toga with red trim and look like either Laurence Olivier or Charles Laughton? OK, for sure there were a few members of the Senate who had military experience, but they didn’t wear the helm-with-horsehair on the way to the legislature. Given the current vogue for angry/menacing figures, I guess it was easier for the Sens founding fathers to make a centurion look tough than it would have been to make a lawmaker look tough, but maybe they could have gone with guy in a toga hitting a plebian over the head with a papyrus scroll or something.

        It’s Monday, dammit.

        • teenchy | May 16, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

          Dunno about you Connie, but I’ve always been good with making a Senator look comical (and chomping a non-PC stogie to boot!).

        • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

          You’re moving in the right direction, teench…

  • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 8:14 am |

    Two corrections:

    Teddy Roosevelt was never fat. At least not at any point prior to retiring from the presidency in 1909. A little respect for our greatest sporting president!

    On the NASA photo, that is proper flag orientation. The union – the blue bit with the stars – should always be on the viewer’s left. Even on the right sleeve of a shirt. The whole thing about reversing the flag on that sleeve to symbolize how the American soldier never retreats was made up by some dipshit Army officer who commanded a desk somewhere in the Pentagon, and applies only to the U.S. Army. It is a violation of – excuse me, an exception to – proper flag etiquette.

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 8:44 am |

      This page lists Teddy’s BMI as over 30 (which = fat):

      Additional info here:

      • The Jeff | May 16, 2011 at 8:58 am |

        BMI is an utterly pointless measurement though. It doesn’t account for different body styles or actual fitness levels.

        I remember a Raiders RB from a few years back who was 5’9 and 180lbs. I’m also 5’9 and 180lbs. For me, it’s overweight. For that player? Yeah, right.

      • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 9:48 am |

        This is a fat man?

        And just look at all the flab TR had on him when he became vice president just a few months before President McKinley was shot. (McKinley is the rail-thin guy on the left, whom you can barely see next to Vice President Lardass there.)

        Sure, the man put on a little weight in the White House. But he was a powerfully built athlete who turned 50 working a desk job. That’s not fat, that’s middle age! ;-)

        • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 10:26 am |

          Theodore Roosevelt was an outdoorsman with excellent stamina — and a fine horseman — but he doesn’t get past the quarter-finals of the Best White House Athlete tournament. Winner is probably Gerald Ford, an excellent all-around athlete and a superb football player. [And not a bad golfer, despite the rep for bouncing balls off spectators.] George HW Bush was a very good college first baseman. JFK was a fine swimmer and Barry Obama was a high school basketball star. Dwight Eisenhower was a much-heralded gridiron phenom when he busted up his knee playing at West Point. If I’m in a bar fight, probably I’d want Abraham Lincoln. Good wrestler, fists of iron.

          Have I mentioned that it’s Monday?

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 10:31 am |

          i believe all the kennedy’s were excellent swimmers

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:10 am |

          Can’t forget Washington, who was a renowned equestrian and ballroom dancer even into his post-presidency, and who is the first president documented to have played baseball. Or anyway, the whatever the ballgame called “base” was in the 1770s.

          If the tournament is each president in his athletic prime, I’m going with Broadway Connie’s list, in roughly that order. But if the tournament is each president at the time he was president, I’m sticking with TR in the lead spot. Probably Lincoln, Obama, second Bush, Washington, Ford rounding out the top five. Age is a real factor here.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 11:17 am |

          i donno, man…i’ve seen barry throw a pitch, and he doesn’t seem all that athletic to me

          now, 43, for all his faults (real and supposed)…

          the man could throw a strike, flak jacket an all…

        • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 11:27 am |

          Just to bring everything full-circle: Gingrich actually CRITICIZED Obama for being athletic:

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 11:41 am |

          reminds me of al campanis on nightline, back in 1987, when he said, “they are outstanding athletes, very God-gifted and wonderful people”

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:42 am |

          i’ve seen barry throw a pitch, and he doesn’t seem all that athletic to me

          I’ve seen Michael Jordan throw a baseball, and he didn’t look all that athletic, either. Second Bush was a cheerleader who took up jogging. BHO led his high school basketball team of poor orphan misfits from the Rez to the state championship, or he was captain of the Harvard Law School hoops team the year they made it to the NIT, or something like that. I forget the details of his awesomeness.

          Anyway, I give 44 the slight edge over 43 purely for youth. When Barry is Dubya’s age, he’ll be falling off Segways too.

        • Mike V | May 16, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

          Gotta respect the Lincoln choice. As they said in Fight Club, tall skinny guys are scrappy.

        • Jim Hayden | May 16, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

          I was just reading a book about the Lincoln assassination – the author postulates that if Booth had of missed, Old Abe would most certainly have kicked his ass. Based on postmortem comments from doctors who examined him, he was built like a modern NBA player (and Booth was a skinny little actor dude).

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 5:23 pm |

          if Booth had of missed, Old Abe would most certainly have kicked his ass

          That is more or less how the very first presidential assassination attempt went down.

        • Jeff P | May 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm |

          Lincoln dabbled with wrestling, and was known to be one of the best wrestlers in the state of Illinois. He wasn’t unbeaten though, Lorenzo Dow Thompson got him in two straight falls in 1832.

          Teddy, as a teen, got rid of asthma by forcing his lungs to submit. By that I mean he worked out, to the point of passing out, until the asthma went away. He was a very powerfully built man, and probably wouldn’t have been out of place on an NFL line. Oh, and he boxed. Not to mention mental toughness and endurance.

          Jackson was amazingly fit, even as he got older. Not a whole lot needs to be said after RS Roger’s link.

          Obama’s pretty athletic, as previously mentioned.

          Ford and Ike were star football players, and lots of the aristocratic presidents pursued aristocratic sports- swimming, tennis, that kind of thing.

          Reagan wasn’t a slump either. Played football and was a lifeguard, which can be, and from all accounts for Reagan was, a pretty demanding job physically.

          In terms of contenders, the only one I can think of is Pawlenty, who plays hockey. I know he still plays pickup: his weekly game made news when he wore a UNH jersey he got as a freebie on a visit to the state (with TIMPAW NOB and the number 12). Probably not playing in a league right now, and probably won’t get much of a chance if he somehow becomes president.

    • Bernard | May 16, 2011 at 9:01 am |

      RS Rogers:

      Is the flag patch on this non-military athletic jersey a violation of, or an exception to, proper flag etiquette?

      • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 9:30 am |

        Both and neither. Since I only wear that as a shirt, never as an athletic jersey, I figure I’m in the clear. The flag on that sleeve will never be rubbed in the mud, or stained with grass, or ripped with cleats, or otherwise desecrated, while I’m wearing it.

        Raises the larger philosophical question: If a non-athlete who is not engaged in any athletic activity wears an athletic jersey, is it still at athletic jersey? Which is to say, for all the chubby middle-aged men in jerseys at the ballpark, are those jerseys any more, or are they just shirts? I say shirts.

        • Bernard | May 16, 2011 at 9:42 am |

          Yes, interesting question. Still, I feel like I’ve read this somewhere…

          “Title IV of the United States Code, Chapter 1, §8:

          (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.”

          Does Team USA baseball qualify as a patriotic organization?

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 9:57 am |

          I’d say yes and no. Yes, in that Team USA certainly is a patriotic organization. No, in that the point here is to protect the flag from physical desecration. A flag on a police or fire uniform is liable to physical desecration, sure, but then again the person wearing that uniform is also risking his own skin to serve his community. (“O beautiful, for patriots proved / In liberating strife / Who more than self their country loved / And mercy more than life.”) Whereas when the flag on an athlete’s jersey is desecrated, it serves no higher purpose than the playing of a child’s game. It is gratuitous.

          Surely we can distinguish between a flag getting burned while the person wearing it rescues children from a blazing building and a flag getting trampled while the person wearing it tries to steal second base.

        • Ry Co 40 | May 16, 2011 at 10:30 am |

          “Which is to say, for all the chubby middle-aged men in jerseys at the ballpark, are those jerseys any more, or are they just shirts? I say shirts.”

          i say costume… nobody’s gonna mistake that “USA” jersey for a shirt. LMAO

        • Bernard | May 16, 2011 at 10:47 am |

          So then, a shirt like this is okay?

          I just want to make sure; I’m certain I’ve read comments here stating that any depiction of an American flag on anything other than a military/fire/police uniform is (or should be) illegal.

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:01 am |

          That shirt is fine, but only if you’re a bowhunter with good aim. If you’re hunting with a rifle, you’re liable to put a bullet through the flag, and it’s never respectful to shoot Old Glory.

        • teenchy | May 16, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

          Well that settles it. This chubby middle-aged man has two M&N Cooperstown jerseys and an EFF jersey (all flannels) from the early ’90s and hasn’t worn any of them since c.2005. Maybe it’s time to put them on eBay.

        • Jeff P | May 16, 2011 at 9:01 pm |

          teenchy, hang ’em on the wall. Get a flat wood hangar, a couple of those 3M stick on wall hooks, and go. Those things are pretty strong too, I’ve hung a gamer hockey jersey and a pair of antique skates off the same one with no issues. Pair jerseys with assorted caps, gloves or other what have you.

          If you have limited space, put two up at a time and rotate.

    • Jim Hayden | May 16, 2011 at 9:08 am |

      Ditto on the flag orientation – the “stars-on-the-left-on-the-right-sleeve” (SOTL?) for the Army only dates to the early 1990s (post Desert Shield/Storm – starting with the Somalia & Haiti ops) and in addition to the “streaming back” thing, they were also not commercially available (i.e. outside of of BX) initially as a security measure (?).

      I remember first seeing surplus Desert BDU’s in a store with the SOTL in 1994 or-so (so much for the “not commercially available”) and thinking the stars were on the wrong side!

    • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 3:47 pm |

      “The whole thing about reversing the flag on that sleeve to symbolize how the American soldier never retreats was made up by some dipshit Army officer…”


  • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 8:16 am |

    “Back when Teddy Kennedy was considering Presidential runs in 1984 and 1988, people discussing his prospects always – always – mentioned that he’d ‘need to lose 20 pounds first.'”


    that’s how much the mary jo kopechne police report weighed?

    • JamesP. | May 16, 2011 at 9:39 am |

      It was just water weight?

      • Bernard | May 16, 2011 at 9:43 am |

        Dammit JamesP., that’s awesome.

  • Juke Early | May 16, 2011 at 8:16 am |

    @Newt Gingrich – The Constitutional Amendment 28th mandates all fat POTUS born after 1941 must sport manly facial hair.* I suggest a Corsair’s Beard. AND stop writing those bad historical novels.

    * No pencil thin mustache allowed

    • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      “…I suggest a Corsair’s Beard…”

      Hmmm… Never thought of Newt as the swashbuckling type, but maybe.

      “…AND stop writing those bad historical novels.”

      Oh, yeah.

  • Mitchell | May 16, 2011 at 8:54 am |

    “Of course, that was before I learned about the greatest movie ever made.”

    That page was blocked for me, but based on the URL I think IT’s gonna come git me…

  • timmy b | May 16, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    I exchanged a couple of emails with Alex Martin recently, and while I am not much of a hoops fan these days, I support his mission 1,000%. Alan is a pleasant guy and so far, he has done a tremendous job. It is extremely vital to the cause of historical basketball uniforms. It is desprately needed.

    Best of luck, Alan!!

  • BSmile | May 16, 2011 at 9:13 am |

    “I don’t know – these look more like number three.”

    My first LOL moment of the day.

  • WFY | May 16, 2011 at 9:51 am |

    The Nats had a Killebrew #3 jersey in the dugout yesterday, since he started his career in D.C.

      • Rob S | May 16, 2011 at 10:03 am |

        Wow. I hadn’t been paying attention and didn’t realize Pudge Rodriguez was on the Nats.

    • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 10:04 am |

      Hopefully Ricko doesn’t notice me raising this question, but should the Nats retire numbers to honor great players in Washington baseball history? #3 for Killer, #33 for Hondo, #20 for Gibson, and, I don’t know, maybe #24 for Big Train?

      • scott | May 16, 2011 at 10:10 am |

        No, but the Nats should have maintained the retired numbers from the franchise’s days in Montreal.

        • Brinke | May 16, 2011 at 11:25 am |


      • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 10:36 am |

        The retiring of numbers isn’t based on geography, nor is it a civic honor. It’s organizational, honoring players who played for that team, who once wore the franchise’s uniform.

        Should the Browns retire Bob Waterfield’s number? I mean, he did win an NFL championship for the city of Cleveland.

        I can’t imagine why anyone would think they should.

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 10:57 am |

          So Ricko, you stand opposed to any team other than the Dodgers retiring #42, right?

          Retiring a number isn’t “based on” anything. There are no rules to follow, or to violate. It’s simply an honor accorded to a person. Customarily, it’s an honor extended by a franchise to players who played for that franchise. But exceptions to the customary practice exist (see again #42, or Angels #26.) If a team wants to extend that honor to any person for any reason, it’s perfectly free to do so.

        • moose | May 16, 2011 at 11:20 am |

          killer was more of a twin in my mind, but he did play 5 or 6 years in washington maybe, that’s a tough one, but i am inclined to say no. but josh gibson, why not? actually, hell yes. hondo? no, he isn’t even a HOF’er. but walter johnson and goose gosslin, why not? you look at this too literally ricko. what is wrong with a city honouring past stars? who does it hurt? where is the harm? it makes as much, if not more sense then a city paying homage to a player that never played there. you going to build a walter johnson statue in minneapolis or washington? so a great pitcher like walter johnson has to go unrecognized because a franchise moved? that is ridiculous.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 11:33 am |

          I was going to mention the exception regarding 42 (and 99) but didn’t really think it would be necessary. Seemed like it was obvious, especially at a site like this.

          I never said there were rules. I said, “Based on”. That isn’t saying there’s a rule. I apologize for not saying “Traditionally” it’s based on (that, too, I thought was obvious). Rarely, though, has it meant “anyone who has ever played the sport in this town.”

          And I erred when I said “wore the uniform.” Was intended more as a figure of speech. Should have known better. That said, I’m pretty sure Gene Autry was part of the Angels franchise.

          Sometimes this site is a real pain the ass. So literal. You have use a hundred words to pefectly presise, or if you make a general statment, you have to pro-actively note any possible exception someone could offer with a self-satisifed “Ah-HA”, as if one exception disproves the point.

          Like the old joke about accountants.
          “What color is that cow?”
          “Black and white…on this side.”

        • Gusto44 | May 16, 2011 at 11:54 am |

          This issue falls under the Tradition For Tradition Sake category, which also applies to uniforms. Washington should make some kind of acknowledgment about Killer, but the reality is, he only had two standout seasons as a Senator playing full time. The other seasons were of limited action, so the fans of Minnesota have something like 90% of the memories of this great player. Conversely, the fans in Minnesota would be foolish to even think about building a statue of Walter Jonson.

          While it can get confusing at times, the simple fact remains that any memories of teams are inevitably strongest where those events occurred. Location, location, location. Bob Waterfield was a great player, but the memory of the Cleveland Browns have completely obliterated the old Cleveland Rams. The old Philadelphia A’s had legendary players, like Lefty Grove, but the Oakland A’s were smart enough to realize it would be foolish to retire those numbers. Again, the connection to the community is key.

          So while the management of a sports franchise can believe nothing changes if they relocate, like a regular business, it will always be different. Teams will never be MacDonalds, each has a unique identity and bond with their individual communities.

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 11:55 am |

          Ricko, you jump on people based on very strict, literalist definitions all the time. Yellow, anybody? Turnabout’s a bitch. And your whole thesis on the franchise/team/city issue in general is based on asserting complex codes of unwritten rules. It seemed clear from your context that when you said “based on,” you really meant that there were rules that ought to be followed. If not, then why make assertions about what it’s “based on” at all, especially when that assertion fails to accord with several of the best-known examples of retired numbers in baseball?

          Plus, you know, we’re just joshing around here anyway. I actually mostly agree with you!

      • WFY | May 16, 2011 at 11:22 am |

        I think retiring #33 for Frank Howard is a slam dunk. #3 — Killebrew only had 2 full seasons in Washington, so no. His name is on the DC Spots Hall of Fame banner (formally, Ring of Stars at RFK) and on the Ring of Honor in Nationals Park that honors Hall of Famers from the Senators, Grays and two guys who never played in DC with a funny looking “m” next to their name.

        Walter Johnson largely played before numbers were common, though when he managed he wore one. I thought he wore #25 and #28 at different times.

        Some Nats fans want #20 retired for Frank Robinson, who managed here for 2 seasons. I’m torn on it, but ultimately come down on the side of no. I think given Robinson, a sub .500 manager in D.C., the honor would create an Yvon Labre type situation like the Capitals have when it comes to numbers being retired. A case can be made for putting him and Ted Williams in the Ring of Honor I suppose.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 11:42 am |

          A Ring of Honor in a municipally owned stadium/ball park is a different animal altogher. That’s civic, a community remembrance. Sentimentally and typically (if I may be so subjective as to include such things), the retirement of jersey numbers is about a specific team/organization honoring one of its own.

          NOTE: By “animal”, I didn’t mean an actual animal. (Thought I’d better make that clear).

        • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

          Agreed that Killebrew’s tenure in Washington is probably too short for a retired number. I would like to see #33 retired for Hondo and #20 for Gibson. Not because they played for the Nats, but because nobody else wearing those numbers will ever equal the esteem Washington fans have for Hondo and Gibson, and nobody should try. That’s what the retirement of a number is about, to me. (That’s actually less true of Gibson, who is increasingly known and honored in Washington, but not necessarily by number. But if you speak of #33, it’s assumed that you mean Frank Howard. That’s the point at which a number should be considered for retirement in my book.)

          Now to the tough question: Should the Nats retire #s 1, 3, 16, and 26 in honor of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt?

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

          I’ll just say my personal position is that a retired number should be for someone connected to the specific team/franchise, not just the community. They ought to have either played for the specific organization or otherwise been enough a part of it to be included as a sort of “honorary player.” (Seahawks #12, for example)

          I don’t believe the fact that Killebrew played for another team that once played in Washington is grounds to make him an “honorary member” of the Nationals to extent his number should be retired by them.

          So to speak. Figuratively. Subjectively. Typically. Not a rule. Also note exception for the special cirucmstances of #42.

          (Must finance through GMAC. All rebates to dealer. On approved credit. Interest rate based on $17.48 per/$1,000 financed. Lease offer two-years, 24K miles with $2,746 down, plus tax, title, license, dealer fees and first month’s payment. See dealer for details. Offer ends 5/31/11).

        • Broadway Connie | May 16, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

          There are way too many retired numbers. Way too many.

          I believe that the decision to retire any number should be removed from local authorities (much less franchise owners) and invested in a Council of Elders who will impose upon nominators an onerous burden of proof, the minimal discharge of which is that the nominee has already been elected to the Hall of Fame of his or her particular sport. That’s minimal. The Council will only ratify number-bearers whose performances were A) of long duration; and B) truly epic/heroic. [Achilles, yes; Hector, yes; Paris, no; Ajax, on the bubble]

          The founding membership of the Council will consist of: your correspondent; RP Marshall; a great-grandchild of either Josh Gibson or Maurice Richard; and any contributor of five hundred dollars or more to the Broadway Coalition for Excellence.

        • StLMarty | May 16, 2011 at 10:43 pm |

          Don’t just stop retiring numbers. Unretire the retired ones.
          Hang the name and number in the rafters, but don’t take it out of circulation.
          I’m not a fan of making something like a jersey number so sacred.
          Wide receivers almost ran out of choices.

  • ronnie poore | May 16, 2011 at 9:59 am |

    extra points for to the Braves for the throwback batting helmets yesterday.

    • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 10:17 am |

      all of which were negated by the pajama pants

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 10:43 am |

      We do know that by 1974 the movement toward ribbon-stirrups was in high gear, right? So there wasn’t a whole mess of contrasting team color showing from the calf down with those unis in their original form.

      Plenty of white sani, yes, but not much burgundy or royal.

      (And a lotta people were grumbling about how horrible it looked).

  • scott | May 16, 2011 at 10:09 am |

    Didn’t the Reds alter the cut of their uniforms one season when Deion Sanders was playing for them? It seems he wanted to pay tribute to the Negro Leagues players. That’s similar, though not identical, to what the Twins will be doing this season.

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 10:49 am |

      I think it was just Sanders who altered the cut of his uni, not a team thing.

      His pants were really wide around the thighs, almost like jodhpurs.
      Like C.C.’s now, but Sanders’ were short, to just below the knee.
      See thumbnail p. 86…

      • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 10:59 am |

        As I recall, it was only the road uni that was altered — the sleeves were shortened (the home unis were sleeveless, of course).

        And yes, at first it was just Deion but eventually the team actually did change the cut of the jerseys for everyone.

        • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 11:03 am |

          … and look at page 85 (thumbnail number — it’s page 61 on the scan of the page). You can see that the third base coach has the shorter sleeve as well.

        • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 11:21 am |

          Apparently the full-team change happened very early in the season. I thought it happened much later.


          I’m done replying to my own posts now.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

          Know what’s nice about those Reds’ unis (notwithstanding anyone’s individual opinion of vests, pins, white hats, red shoes or pins on road grays)?

          No black.

          See, it CAN be done. One-color and white (with typical inclusion of gray on road) IS possible.

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 11:35 am |

      Yes, the sleeves. Sorry. Thought you were talking about the shorter, baggier pants.

      • Jeffrey Lowery | May 16, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

        Sleeves on Redleg like that make me think more of “Big Klu” Ted Kluszewski.

        Ricko, I of course agree that the simple classic look of just red and white is great, and always was. The simple solution to me though is just replace the black with navy in the current sets.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

          Yeah, at least navy’s a color that has been used often, and significantly, throughout the team’s history.

          The black came pretty much out of nowhere.

          Nowhere other than the “Ain’t We Trendy” school of uni design, that is.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

          Wait for it.
          This is where someone says, “I dunno, the hat in the Klu photo looks black to me.”


        • Jeffrey Lowery | May 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

          I really love the navy hat for that era. I am actually thinking about buying some wool flannel and making my own authentic Klu jersey. I just need to figure out how it was sewed.

          Also, I always wonder why black is the trendy color? It seems counterintuitive, like some sort of trendy anti-trendy symbol that has become the establishment. Why black?

      • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

        @Ricko: I’m getting a “Bad Gateway” message on the SI link. Think you can link to it in a different way? Here’s a Chris Creamer rendering of the uniform:


  • Coleman | May 16, 2011 at 10:25 am |

    I’m surprised nobody has mentioned that great Tradition Scarves site. I promptly emailed them and asked when I could order me a WVU one.

    Did anyone else get a feeling that Paul may have a “case of the Mondays” today? ;)

  • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 10:36 am |

    Sorry, neglected to include the link to the two golfers wearing near-identical Adidas outfits at the TPC:

    Now added to the Ticker.

    • John Ekdahl | May 16, 2011 at 11:48 am |

      And here’s a shot from the back. There were a few players who wore the Team Adidas “uniform” in different colors over the course the week.

  • Chuck B | May 16, 2011 at 10:37 am |

    Were the Braves concerned about being PC on Saturday? Wearing the roadies with “Atlanta” on the front instead of “Crackers” was a real cop out in my opinion.
    On Sunday, on top of all the other missteps, the Phillies wore thier current Red helmets! YUCK! They sell out every game and they couldn’t spring for the helmets, Shhheesh!

    • Matt | May 16, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      I’m surprised Paul didn’t mention how the Phillies had the wrong helmets, while the Braves had proper ones.

  • Chris O. | May 16, 2011 at 10:44 am |

    Sorry but if I wanted to be sentenced to jail I would have told the judge that Robert Parish was my favotire player.

  • Kub | May 16, 2011 at 11:23 am |

    A note about the Stars & Stripes caps…. theres only 29 of them on that link. The Blue Jays were missing. Those looking for the Blue Jays hat can find it here:

    Also, anyone else think $37 for a hat is ridiculous?

    • Bob A | May 16, 2011 at 11:39 am |

      I think 10 cents for those things is ridiculous. I’m usually neutral on these but those are just terrible. They look like they should have mesh backs.

    • Hickory33 | May 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

      I’m pretty sure that the Jays only wear those caps on Victoria Day, Cananda Day and Labour Day – which sync up pretty closely to their American counterparts…

  • Scott Little | May 16, 2011 at 11:24 am |

    Paul (and other keglers),

    Bowling in the style the college girls were bowling is called a Baker Match. Justso you know, you know?

  • benjarvi | May 16, 2011 at 11:34 am |

    I wondered about the Twins wearing throwbacks. That’s a super classy move.

  • Cort | May 16, 2011 at 11:35 am |

    The soccer comic book is Roy of the Rovers, which is sort of an English version of Gil Thorp. It was around for 30 or 40 years: it’s fun to watch the artists follow popular trends in uniform design and hairstyles as the story moves from the 50’s to the 90’s. You can buy a Melchester Rovers shirt at the TOFFS website.

  • J. Nguyen | May 16, 2011 at 11:36 am |

    I have to say, as an Asian man (well, not really a man yet since I’m not yet 40), I was thoroughly offended at the Full Metal Jacket re-enactment/conversation on today’s post. Seriously, $10?!!? On Canal street they offer me those for $5!!!

    …I know, lame attempt at humor, but sometimes we just have to laugh even it is at the expense of our own culture, right?

  • benjarvi | May 16, 2011 at 11:38 am |

    I think the new Hamburger SV (a German Soccer team) kit would be a classic, if not for the sponsor logo and the shoulder addidi.

    Here it is

    Eljero Elia (the wunderkid of the Netherlands national team) looks both bored and slightly offended

  • pflava | May 16, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    Excellent move by the Twins! Not only does honoring HK in that way display pure class, but aesthetically we all win now that they will wear their best uniform full-time.

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

      Also that it was player-driven. It was their idea.

      To me, that is one of the really special elements of it.

  • Jeff | May 16, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

    For the last time…Rutgers is not going BFBS!!! Black has been a color in their uniforms for as long as I can remember, growing up in North Jersy in the 80’s. When West Virginia trots out yellow jerseys, do we call it going Yellow for Yellow’s Sake? NO! We might call it an eyesore, but in the end, it’s just an alternate jersey.

    No, don’t get me wrong…there are plenty of examples of BFBS, many of which are horribly wrong (I don’t really Fear the Fork.) But when a team like Rutgers, or Maryland, or the Arizona Cardinals decide to go with a black alternate top, that’s something completely different than the Oakland A’s, or West Virginia basketball, or any other team without a hint of black in their identity adding a black top to their uniforms.

    • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

      So, if Ohio State decides to go with a monochrome black uni this year, it’s not BFBS?

      • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 4:26 pm |

        “So, if Ohio State decides to go with a monochrome black uni this year, it’s not BFBS?”

        No… it’s BFIGBJTFS (Black For I’m Gonna Break Jim Tressel’s Face Sake).

    • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

      Clearly this Jeff is not THE JEFF. It’s BFBS. If you have Black only as a trim color combined with no history of black uniforms AND your a university who says that your colors are scarlet and white, it’s BFBS

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

      Not gonna pretend I know Rutgers uni history.

      How often/regularly has black been used as the color of a uniform garment…and not just a trim color?

    • The Jeff | May 16, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

      Now, while I do think that we tend to toss around the BFBS label a bit too much at times… when your name is the Scarlet Knights, it seems pretty damn stupid to wear a black jersey, even if black is one of your normal trim colors.

    • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm |

      “For the last time…Rutgers is not going BFBS!!!”

      And you’re right, Jeff… except for the fact that Rutgers calls themselves the “SCARLET Knights”, not the “BLACK Knights”

  • Mike V | May 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

    “…and boy do they look like shite.”

    And boy a truer comment has never been written…

    On a different note, I was just skimming through all the comments and about half way down I had to double check the URL. For a second there I thought I was on The Biggest Loser blog.

  • Alan | May 16, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

    I think MLB should step in regards to players uniforms. The whole pajama pants thing is so out of control. At first, guys started wearing them tapered, no stirrups. At least it was a neat look. Now, John Lester looked like he escaped from a sleep over! Throwback games are an insult to fans who saw the originals in action..Majestic spit the bit on the Civil Rights Game. Hideous stuff. Years from now, guys are going to see themselves in old pictures and ask themselves “What was I thinking?”

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

      You bring up something I’ve been meaning to ask for a long time.

      Is it the shoe length pants that everyone hates or the really baggy shoe length pants? Is there a difference?

      Cuz seems to me we almost need a distinction. At least hearabouts.

      For example, I have no real problem with shoe length. In fact, I’m glad for it when it covers high top shit kicker cleats.

      The absurdly baggy stuff? No, that’s just ridiculous.

      That’s why I ask. When someone says the “pajamas” ruined the look of the Civil Rights Game, we probably need to know, in fairness to the commentor, is he ripping the length, the breadth…or both?

      For one thing, might make it easier to know if we agree or disagree with him.

      By definition, you’d think Shoe Length needn’t always mean pajamas. But “pajamas” pretty much always includes Shoe Length.

      Make sense?

      • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 1:27 pm |


        the WORST are the pajama pants worn in the style of jayson werth, which are neither tailored nor do they appear to have elastic on the bottom…that’s just a slovenly look

        next are the tight, tailored pants of say derek jeter, who wears a uni well, but still wears the pants far too long

        given the choice between the two, jeter’s look wins hands down

        but the pants should be shortened and worn the the style of stephen strasburg, which are both tailored and properly bloused

        that is uni perfection

        • pflava | May 16, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

          “but the pants should be shortened and worn the the style of stephen strasburg, which are both tailored and properly bloused”…

          and too tight.

          I’m with you on Werth’s style being the absolute worst, but Strasburg’s pants are a bit too snug to be perfect. Just go up maybe one size, and you’d get something more like this…

          That guy knew how to wear his pants.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

          i don’t think strasburg’s pants are too tight…it’s just that when he’s in full pitching motion, it gives that appearance…

          if you look at him in the look to which nats fans are accustomed, you’ll see they’re no tighter than brock’s

        • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

          As long as there’s some (but not too much) air between the leg and the fabric, it’s OK by me.

          Because to me, this is the worst look in the history of baseball.

          Yes, much worse than this.

        • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 4:51 pm |

          If you HAVE to wear shoe-length pants, then go with the Chipper Jones-style: (

          Because he doesn’t wear his entire UNIFORM (let alone his pants) in the Manny Wah-mirez style: (

          Chipper wears his pants un-elasticized, but in a tailored manner, so they look more like dress slacks than Pajama Pants (after all, MLB IS a business, too, right?).

          Of course, I prefer pants to be high cuffed in the 1950s manner, but about a size or two smaller.

      • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:38 pm |

        So being okay with Shoe Length but hating overly baggy isn’t an option.
        Everything gets lumped together under “pajamas/bad”.

        Just making sure.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

          go and look at photos 5, 6, 7, 9 & 11

          those are ALL pajamas

          derek jeter isn’t wearing pajamas, but anything that doesn’t have an elastic cuff and just “flaps up” as the player moves?


        • pflava | May 16, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

          Picture number 9 is just…that looks mind-bogglingly awful. Maybe part of it is the throwback itself, and seeing the modern pants with it is what looks strange, but the end result is an aesthetic eyesore.

        • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

          I dunno, Phil. I think the pants that Jeter wears look a hell of a lot like these.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

          Seems to me it began about 10-12 years ago with a movement toward a “warmup pants/cricket” look in MLB, i.e., “Trousers” replacing typically styled baseball pants. That, on the whole, wasn’t awful. Still had a tailored look to it. First guy I think of is Joe Nathan; wears that look pretty well, somewhat similar to Jeter but Nathan’s pants are a bit less tight, and cover his shoetops.

          It’s the extreme, oversize, billowing like mainsails, parachute pants it spawned that lose it for me. Especially when paired with a ludicrously oversize jersey. “How sloppy can I look in uniform” just doesn’t seem like a valid mindset for a highest-level athlete to assume.

          But, as has been stated…Check back in 2021 (for those of you who’ll still be around); some other style probably will have evolved that people will be saying is all wrong and looks like hell.

        • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

          sorry james…was referring to adult pajamas

          if you want to say jeter’s look resembles kids’ pj’s, i won’t argue

          either way, they’re still pajama pants

          and yes, bonds looks rifuckindiculous

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

          There are trousers, and there are zoot suits.

        • JTH | May 16, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

          Phil: Actually, I really don’t have a problem with Jeter’s style. He’s no Strasburg, but he’s also no young Bonds or Manny Being Manny.

          It’s just one of those things that struck me as funny because the jammy pants one of my kids was wearing last night had pretty much the same fit.

          Ricko: trousers or zoot suit?

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

          That’s either one of those padded Sumo wrestler costumes (in powder blue for some reason)…

          or “Zootbaz-chute pants”.

      • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

        Must. Define. Rules!

        I guess I’m in complete agreement with Phil. All shoe-length pants are worse than all knickers, and baggy shoe-length pants are the worst kind of shoe-length pants.

        But for me, what it comes down to is what is a team’s uniform. If stirrups or colored or patterned socks are part of a team’s uniform, then the player should wear his pants so as to display the socks. If not, fine, but then all players should wear shoe-length pants with no visible sock. Either the socks are part of the team’s uniform, or they are not. That players choose whether or not to wear that part of their team’s uniform bugs me exactly as if players started wearing whatever fashion caps they wanted, or no cap at all, on the field. Ultimately, my complaint is not with the players – give 25 young men the choice of what to wear in any setting, and 20 of ’em will dress like clowns, because young men are idiots – but with baseball’s team execs. Upholding the integrity of the team’s uniform should be their job, even up to the point of telling a fantastically wealthy 28-year-old prima donna how long to wear his pants.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

          Not making rules. Just some terminology points, maybe.

          Want to know for sure what bugs some people about some things.

          Don’t want them to be misunderstodd about what they’re saying.

          Seems reasonable enough.

        • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

          (NOT arguing now. Just saying let’s look at what appears to be so.)

          Hasn’t it become painfully obvious by now that the MLB philosphy is to consider trousers as the defined uniform, but say to the player, “If you choose to wear them shorter, we have appropriate team socks” much as they would say, “If you choose to wear a mock turtleneck, we have those.”

          Clearly MLB leaves sock-showing up to the individual, no longer considering socks part of the everyday uniform. No more than long sleeves or short sleeves. Or no sleeves. Or wristbands.

          I mean, there is the rule that pants can’t tuck under the heel. If that isn’t tacit acceptance and approval of shoe length pants, what is. If socks-that-showed were still considered part of the standard uni there would be no reason whatsoever for that rule to exist.

        • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 5:05 pm |

          “…because young men are idiots…”

          I shall now cry in shame… ='(

    • walter | May 16, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

      I know the way I like player uniforms to look, but I’m reluctant to step in and dictate style. Remember Willie Mays, in the ’70s, ripped the players who wore “spaghetti stirrups”. Baseball styles evolve, and in ten years there will be a different thing to criticize.

  • Jacob Sherman | May 16, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

      it’s great how they not only accurately depicted the swoosh, in relief, on the jersey, but on the football as well

      • The Jeff | May 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

        …and if they didn’t, someone would complain about it not being accurate.

      • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

        Is that a statue of the greatest passer in OU intramural touch football history?

        Hard to tell. He almost appears to be wearing shoulder pads.

        The Nike logos are looking good, though.

        (stay with me on this, The Jeff)

    • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

      As a lifelong Sooner fan, I am mildly disgusted by the inclusion of the Nike logo. My disgust comes from the realization that my beloved university has a sugar daddy, and it’s Nike.


      • Simply Moono | May 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

        At least it ain’t Adidas…

  • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

    “This old NASA photo is amazing, but didn’t anyone over there know the proper rules of flag orientation?”

    In space there is no forward. NASA’s a bunch of super nerds, you really think they were gunna face the flag based on Earth’s physics?

    • Geoff | May 16, 2011 at 11:45 pm |

      If this had a Facebook-style like button, I’d be all over it. Kudos, Tim.

  • Pat | May 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

    Used to be more into politics and I definitely lean a little more right then left but I think that a person’s value can’t be attached to the fact that they’re overweight or not. If this were true then women on magazine covers would be the most valuable people on the planet. The reality is that all humans are just as valuable as the person next to them. Although some don’t manifest that reality in their societal impact. Just because someone’s chunky doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of doing a great job as president. Now the reality is that image is huge in politics(no pun intended) and people are more likely to vote for someone who isn’t overweight.

  • Paul | May 16, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

    Not sure if it was mentioned in the comments, but the white piping on yesterday’s throwbacks was thinner than on the jerseys. (See pic 5 of 11 in this gallery).

  • Jeffrey Morgan | May 16, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    I really like the throwbacks that the Braves wore yesterday. However, I didn’t like the fact that 1) the hat had blue eyelets and stitching on the hat, and 2) the “a” logo on the helmets appears to be a bit cockeyed. Also, I wish the Phillie wore retro burgandy-colored batting helmets with the set.

    • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 4:33 pm |


      I’ve noticed that many times, when teams wear throwbacks, they use the current batting helmets. Why not go a bit further and throwback the helmets too? The clubs could keep them around for the next throwback game, or auction them off as “game worn” (if it’s about money).

  • Upgrayedd | May 16, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

    Those Pirates and Brewers caps are hideous, and as an above poster mentioned the camo isn’t even the same design any branch of the US Armed Forces use anymore. I don’t think anyone disputes how ridiculous or silly those caps look, and if Paul were to limit his criticism to just the visually aesthetic aspects of the design he’d have a unanimous pat on the back and collective chuckle from his readers. Yet the potshots at our Armed Forces continue. This time the efforts of our soldiers are described as antithetical to the Civil Rights movement. Paul implicitly suggests the American soldier embodies everything the Civil Rights movement didn’t, namely bloodshed and racial oppression. I thought that HTMFHTMS (Hating the Military For Hating the Military’s Sake) went out after the Vietnam era. Even the mealy-mouthed liberals on networks like MSNBC don’t dare bash the troops anymore, yet Paul’s contempt for them dare not conceal itself.

    • Kek | May 16, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

      I actually thought the Pirates and Brewers caps were kind of cool. Just a little touch, rather than camo used as the entire basis of the hat or jersey, as San Diego does.

    • pflava | May 16, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

      Paul’s contempt for the troops? Where the hell are you getting that?

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

      Even the mealy-mouthed liberals on networks like MSNBC don’t dare bash the troops anymore, yet Paul’s contempt for them dare not conceal itself.

      So true. It tried to conceal itself, but it didn’t dare!!

      Tickets for the clue train are obviously beyond someone’s budget….

    • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

      He’s BACK!

      I hope Bob has more great horses racing picks. How did Shackleford work out Bob? Personally I picked Animal Kingdom to win (based solely on the fact that 16 is my go-to number

      • Kek | May 16, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

        oh geez, serves me right for skimming that comment, I stopped at “caps are hideous” and just offered an opinion on an athletic aesthetic. I thought this was the place for such discussions.

        I apologize for not injecting any social or poltical issues into my comment

    • NE | May 16, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

      im guessing that style of camo sells better then the actual style.

      • -DW | May 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

        Next will be the plastic, mesh-back, truckers caps.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

      I think they were actually honoring duck season.

      ..or was it wabbit season?

      • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 3:01 pm |


        “Shoot whoa…dey might be cwa-wing.”

    • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

      But there was no troop-bashing! Paul contrasted the idea of honoring nonviolence with the idea of honoring the military. Because the military isn’t nonviolent. It’s no slur against the American soldier to point out that his service is different in kind from nonviolence.

      Whether the Civil Rights Game is primarily, or even at all, dedicated to celebrating nonviolence is another question, one I think Paul is completely wrong about. But the contrast between nonviolence and the military is a true thing, not a slur.

    • NinerEd | May 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

      The woodland camo pattern on the cap bill is still worn by the Navy, most notably Seabees and Masters-At-Arms (security forces), while in the field – it’s referred to in the Navy as the CUU (Camouflage Utility Uniform). As everyone knows, it was worn by all of the services before the Marines started the digital camo revolution. (There’s a digital woodland version under development for the Navy, but it will be a couple of years before it reaches the fleet.)

      • StLMarty | May 16, 2011 at 10:51 pm |

        Ward Cleaver was a Seabee.

  • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

    Okay Phil, I want to get your stance on the whole “patriotic” & “support the troops” uniform/symbolism issue.

    I agree with you (in part), that playing soldier dress up is a pitiful attempt to honor our troops. I also agree with you that turning the flag into a uniform is as bad, if not worse (which could lead me to my ongoing hatred of pro sports changing things just to sell more merchandise, but I’ll spare everyone that soapbox).

    I think were I differ with you, is that I think there are to show your patriotism or honor our troops in a way that can be acceptable.

    For instance, The use of an American Flag sticker or patch, or the armed forces academies uniform adornments, etc.

    Where do you stand Paul? Is it absolute absence of any/all red, white & blue/stars & stripes/camo, or is there some things out there that pass the muster with you?

    • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm |


    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

      My position on this stuff, including my proposed alternate solution, has been stated many times. You can read it here:

      • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

        Paul, thanks for the link. Consider me officially educated on your stance.

    • LI Phil | May 16, 2011 at 5:07 pm |

      “Okay Phil, I want to get your stance on the whole “patriotic” & “support the troops” uniform/symbolism issue.”


      um, sorry, was away from the boards for a while

      did you still want my stance, or did you want paul’s (which you got)?

  • Brinke | May 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

    Repeat after me.

    This blog is about uni’s.
    This blog is about uni’s.
    This blog is about uni’s.
    This blog is about uni’s………………..

    • Kek | May 16, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

      Uni’s what?

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |

      Well, seeing as we’ve off our Tangendental Medication today, how ’bout this?

      TV Show cancelled by their networks (“Friday Night Lights” among them, but that’s not exactly a surpise, is it)…

      ‘Better With You’
      ‘Brothers & Sisters’
      ‘Detroit 1-8-7’
      ‘Mr. Sunshine’
      ‘My Generation’
      ‘No Ordinary Family’
      ‘Off the Map’

      ‘America’s Next Great Restaurant’
      ‘The Cape’
      ‘The Event’
      ‘Friday Night Lights’
      ‘Law & Order: LA’
      ‘The Paul Reiser Show’
      ‘Perfect Couples’
      ‘School Pride’

      ‘Breaking In’
      ‘The Chicago Code’
      ‘Human Target’
      ‘Lie to Me’
      ‘Lone Star’
      ‘Running Wilde’
      ‘Traffic Light’

      ‘The Defenders’
      ‘Mad Love’
      ‘$#*! My Dad Says’

      THE CW
      ‘Life Unexpected’

      • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

        Wait! Wait!

        I can make that list relevant to today’s lead!!!

        ‘Mike & Molly’ survived.

      • Shane | May 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm |

        Good, the Paul Reiser Show was just a cheap ripoff of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

        And when Larry David’s on your show saying it’s a ripoff of his show..not a good thing. Sad.

      • StLMarty | May 16, 2011 at 10:55 pm |

        Glad to see that TV Land didn’t cancel The Andy Griffith Show.

  • Keith S | May 16, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

    After taking time to digest today’s entry, I think I’ve successfully managed to link Paul’s inclusion of Newt’s weight to the overall theme of UW:

    The way a politician looks is essentially his/her uniform.

    There, now I can move on without the fear that my favorite site is being infiltrated with anything political.

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

      Check — that was indeed the rationale.

      • Shawn | May 17, 2011 at 9:46 pm |

        “The way a politician looks is essentially his/her uniform” … is the “rationale” for including Gingrich?

        C’mon man … really? This site is pretty much a daily read for me, but I do hope the “uniforms” of politicians will be left out in the future.

    • RS Rogers | May 16, 2011 at 5:52 pm |

      The way a politician looks is essentially his/her uniform.

      Back in 2007, I did half an hour of web browsing and dragged all the candidates’ campaign logos into a couple of documents to compare. At the time, McCain and Obama had far and away the best logos. I had figured Obama for the Democratic nomination anyway. On the GOP side, I really thought it was going to be a Huckabee/Romney race. When McCain took an early, commanding lead in the GOP nomination process, despite at the time being outvoted by Romney in terms of actual votes cast, it made me wonder: was this effective design at work?

      McCain’s consistent iconography spoke to attributes that GOP voters tend to value, but that McCain himself didn’t actually possess particularly moreso than either Huckabee or Romney. It was also more thoughtful and less stridently partisan, rather than Romney’s logo, which seemed to say, “I’m a super-ultra-Republican and, hey, here’s an eagle!” Which fit with McCain’s strategy of racking up wins in big, winner-take-all states, particularly those in which the GOP ballot was open to people not already registered as a Republican, while Romney and Huckabee won smaller states with registered-Republicans-only primaries.

      (Interesting political-science counterfactual: If the parties had swapped the rules they used to award state delegates, winner-take-all versus proportional, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton would have won their respective nominations in 2008.)

      Anyway, point is that it got me wondering about how powerful a candidate’s “uniform” really is as an electoral tool.

  • Jake C | May 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm |

    not sure if anyone has said this yet, the last item in the ticker isn’t a Cooperstown cap, but actually a Bradenton Marauders, the Pirates single- A affiliate.

    • -DW | May 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm |

      Posted at 7:37 am this morning.

      I would buy one of those if they made a pillbox style.

  • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 5:32 pm |

    Does that logo remind anyone of anything…

  • Tim E. O'B | May 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

    Also, I was editing my MLB 3D Template yesterday based on some of the comments so if you want to work with the updated version (which is better organized, sans-mitt-swoosh and now has the option of white cleats)

    there’s the link.

    • moose | May 16, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

      and for some reason that comment below wasn’t posted here, so once again, in my horchata, good idea.

  • Phil | May 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm |

    I shit you not, my friend used to own that Bowling Bimbo porno and has become a running joke between us. Apparently there are three full games of bowling in it before any sexual activity commences, and that is with a janitor who happened to enter the girl’s locker room who were showering after that intense bowling action (because all bowling alleys have showers). While he loves bowling, you know, it’s a porno. Have sex already.

    • Paul Lukas | May 16, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

      Apparently there are three full games of bowling in it before any sexual activity commences…

      That is not correct.

      • moose | May 16, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

        he has the director’s cut/extended scenes/commentary version on the dvd. now you are hating on blue tooth? or is it ray? ray! now you are hating on blue ray? such a hater.

        • Phil | May 17, 2011 at 11:38 am |

          Classic big box VHS. I sent him the link to the blog. If he still has it, I just might send a copy to you Mr. Lukas.

  • moose | May 16, 2011 at 6:19 pm |


    i would do the shoes too, but compromise is the american way. os excellent teo’b, you deserve the credit, not the swoosh.

  • Pit | May 16, 2011 at 6:38 pm |

    When are the Phillies going to get it together and get the correct batting helmets to go with these throwbacks? Not to mention the spikes and base layer clothing. It just makes the whole package look “off” without the proper coordination.

    • Shane | May 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

      That was the most disturbing thing for me. How hard is it to get maroon undershirts and everything?

      Though, I didn’t notice the NOB lettering was off. I flipped over to the game, saw the buttons, yelled at the TV, grabbed my Okkonen book and went on a long-ass twitter rant. No pictures of the backs of the jerseys in said book (aside from one picture of Ted Kluzsewski with a misspelled NOB).

  • benjarvi | May 16, 2011 at 9:35 pm |

    So after giving it yet more thought, I’ve concocted a hack-job redesign of the Cleveland Indians, with tongue only ever so slightly in cheek:

    • Ricko | May 16, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

      “Dang it, Elwood, them fellers from Cleveland got them some good lookin’ baseball suits.”

      Actually, was thinking over the weekend that with Ohio’s aviation history, “Cleveland Aces” might be decent alternative. Those fans in left field could swap their headdresses for goggles and tight khaki flight helmets. Y’know, so they wouldn’t look stupid.

      Now, upon seeing your uni notion, and considering that Feller was rightly called the “ace of his generation,” it makes “Aces” even a little better.

    • Simply Moono | May 17, 2011 at 12:37 am |

      The Caucasian Fellers?

  • Patrick_in_MI | May 16, 2011 at 10:16 pm |

    Paul, on your next trip to Ohio you should stop by this place:

  • Jim | May 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm |

    Has anyone had success ordering one of those Cardinals Twitter T-shirts? My emails to the Hotmail address listed on the Google Docs document are being returned with a “mailbox unavailable” error.

  • Ricky Cardenas | May 16, 2011 at 11:25 pm |

    I believe the cap that Matt Powers spotted belongs to the Bradenton Marauders. Link attached

  • Ricko | May 17, 2011 at 12:12 am |

    Mariners released Martin Bradley.

    Man, if ever there was a guy you’d think would have been a “gamer”.

    • LI Phil | May 17, 2011 at 12:16 am |


      • JTH | May 17, 2011 at 7:33 am |

        Martin? He so crazy!

  • StLMarty | May 17, 2011 at 12:33 am |

    Testing. One. Two.

  • Gregory Koch | May 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

    I don’t think you could write a column on the uniforms worn by naked bowling girls.