Gear up for the 2020 MLB Season with new gear from Nike

‘Big crowd, huh?’ ‘Yup, full house.’

Screen shot 2011-05-18 at 4.15.53 PM.png

Got a weird one for you today, gang. It’s the story of a photo that offers more — and less — than meets the eye.

Let’s start by visiting this page, which has a story about Jim Leyland and his feelings on interleague play. As you can see, the video link in the middle of the page has an image taken from a Yanks/Mets interleague game at Shea. For the first half of Wednesday, however, there was a different image in there. Here’s a screen shot of how the page originally looked.

As you can see, the original image on the page was a shot of David Wright and A-Rod. Reader Chris Bruno was reading that story and happened to take a closer look at the photo. And then closer still. Take a look at what he discovered.

Wow. At least four different elements in the photo are repeated:

• The guy in the light blue cap (denoted by the green arrows).

• The guy in the Yankees road jersey (orange arrows).

• The guy bending over in the blue shirt (magenta arrows).

• The four people in the front row (red ovals).

“It was the guy in the Yankees jersey that tipped me off,” says Chris. “I was looking at the photo and thinking, ‘Man, how many Yankees fans are at this Mets game?’ So I’m like, there’s a Yankees jersey, there’s a Yankees jersey — wait.” The more he looked, the more repetitions he found.

Chris assumed — and so did I, initially — that the photo had been Photoshopped, presumably to avoid showing any empty seats. But as I soon realized, that didn’t make much sense, because Subway Series games are always sellouts. How could there be any empty seats?

I wanted to find the original photo, but there was no credit for it on the page. So I searched all the obvious wire service databases — AP, Getty, US Presswire, etc. — but came up empty. I also had the nagging feeling that maybe this wasn’t a wire photo anyway. It is, frankly, a crummy image, not the sort of thing a wire service would put out. I thought maybe it was a video still, but the video it linked to didn’t include any footage of Wright and A-Rod. Puzzling.

Thinking I might be on the cusp of a big story, I contacted and asked for comment. They got back to me within about 45 minutes.

As I suspected, the image is not a wire photo. It’s a video still from the Mets/Yanks game that took place on May 21, 2010. It was the top of the 4th, and Robinson Cano had just hit a double. Here’s how it looked for real — no empty seats, as you can see. (I took that screen shot from the archived video on MLB.TV; if you have an MLB.TV subscription, you can go check the video and see for yourself.)

So if there was no attempt to digitally fill the seats, why was the image manipulated?

Answer: It wasn’t — at least not by a human being.

Here’s the short version, as it was explained to me (with the proviso that I’m not nearly tech-literate enough to assess the specifics): It’s not entirely clear why this video still was selected to appear on the page. In any case, the aspect ratio of the original video footage — i.e., its height-to-width ratio — was different than the window for the media player on the page. So MLB’s web page software automatically adjusted the image to the proper proportions to fit on the page. During that process, the image somehow got warped, with various portions of the image forming a repeating pattern, and that’s what Chris Bruno spotted. The MLB techies had never seen anything like it, or so I was told, and they couldn’t figure out how it happened. In any event, they swapped in the new image and that was the end of that.

It was stressed to me that would never alter or manipulate an image, either to change the perception of the crowd size or for any other reason. I’m sure some of you are saying, “Yeah, sure,” but I double-checked with someone I know and trust, who told me, “In no way would we manipulate any photos, because the producers who are responsible for selecting and cropping them before adding them to stories or panels don’t have the Photoshop skills to do that. We have an interface that requires minimal HTML or Photoshop skills, so the vast majority of the photos put on the site are simply cropped to the right size and added. I don’t think half the producers even bother to sharpen them. No great conspiracy here.”

As for Chris Bruno, who spotted the inconsistencies in the image, the folks at were seriously impressed by his observational skills. “Maybe he should send us a résumé,” a spokesman told me. So Chris, if you’re looking for a career change, here’s your chance.

+ + + + +

ESPN reminder: In case you missed it yesterday, my latest ESPN column, about Summer Anne Burton’s excellent Every Hall of Famer blog, is available here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: I snagged this nice Durene tee on eBay yesterday. ”¦ What is this? Believe it or not, it’s a primitive batting helmet, at least according to this auction listing, one of several interesting auction items that Bruce Menard recently spotted. Among the others: an amazing 1930 Boston Braves jersey (“First time I’ve seen color close-ups of the real, non-replica tricentennial 1630 patch,” says Bruce), and a Dodgers kimono from the team’s 1956 tour of Japan. ”¦ Gordon Blau has created a logo and blog to protest the NFL lockout. ”¦ Who knew the Giants used to have a checkerboard end zone design? That’s from the 1956 NFL championship game, Giants vs. Bears (nice find by Mark Weinstein). ”¦ Bobby Hoekstra reports that Edinson Volquez and Johnny Cueto have been wearing black skullcaps under their Reds hats this season. “Last year they wore red ones,” he says. ”¦ The Long Island Lizards — that’s an MLL team — have Kevin and Chris Unterstein on their roster, which results in a rather unfortunate NOB (with thanks to John Sheehan). ”¦ This kid’s future looks, uh, bright (as spotted by Jason Hillyer). ”¦ Interesting piece on the history of jersey sponsorship. ”¦ I’ve been a big fan of the band Centro-matic for about a decade now, but I didn’t know that frontman Will Johnson also did some tremendous baseball paintings until Brad Tucker told me yesterday. ”¦ Here’s a great look at the Reds’ old subscript NOB style (big thanks to Ronnie Poore). ”¦ Here’s something you rarely see anymore: a golfer in a necktie (nice find by Jonathon Binet). ”¦ Warren Humphreys was doing some research on Evansville’s sleeved basketball jerseys when he came across something really interesting: a 1965 shot showing the Purple Aces wearing boxing-style robes! Warren says he’s never seen anything like this, and neither have I. Amazing find! ”¦ The Red Sox and Cubs will be wearing 1918 throwbacks tomorrow. Should look something like this. ”¦ Football and butchery — two great tastes that taste great together (big thanks to Mako Mameli). ”¦ What happens if you mix classic sports imagery with the Red Sox? See for yourself (awesome find by Brian Corbett). ”¦ Does anyone know why the Padres had an up-arrow and a 2 printed on the mound last night? (As noted by Scott McMichael.) ”¦ Wait, update! Brendan Hunt has just informed me that the arrow and the numeral were part of a cancer-fighting initiative. … College football news: It had previously been announced that Michigan and Notre Dame would wear throwbacks when facing each other. Now there’s word on what the Michigan jersey will look like, an it’s a doozy (with thanks to Michael McLaughlin).

Nice while it lasted: As you may have heard, the world is ending tomorrow (just in time to give Phil the day off). Thanks for the fun ride!

213 comments to ‘Big crowd, huh?’ ‘Yup, full house.’

  • Josh | May 20, 2011 at 8:49 am |

    For the Padres mound, the Up arrow and 2 are part of the Stand Up 4 Cancer group/program.

  • Josh | May 20, 2011 at 8:50 am |

    ARRRRRGH, I meant Stand Up 2 Cancer…definitely not standing up for cancer. My bad.

    • failos2002 | May 20, 2011 at 11:17 am |

      Well, now the terrorists have won. Thanks, pal.

  • Matthew | May 20, 2011 at 8:57 am |

    Minor fix for the Every Hall of Famer blog. The link text is correct–its URL link is missing the final “R” for Looks like great stuff!

  • Bruce Menard | May 20, 2011 at 8:57 am |

    Paul only linked the picture of that early batting helmet, but here’s the whole auction listing (which is from 2001 btw, so it’s loooong gone)

    1905 Reach Experimental Batting Helmet

    • Bruce Menard | May 20, 2011 at 8:59 am |

      My bad, Paul had the link/listing.
      Time for a coffee.

  • Juke Early | May 20, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    That computer photo “adjustment” of the NYM v. NYY game, makes one wonder what other things have been changed. Like gaping headwounds from gunshots?

    Good to see how the glorious history of the Boston MLB franchise started early w/a copious lack of creativity – a blank uni waiting for another team to show them how to design it. . ..

  • Rob K. | May 20, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    First, the explanation they gave is believable.

    I’m not one for tinfoil hats, but it’s interesting that all the doubled people appear just enough to cover the SNY bar that’s at the top of the for-real screenshot.

    That’d be one hell of a system to digitally remove bugs and replace them with other parts of a picture. :)

    • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 9:22 am |

      I concur. Definitely looks like the image was altered to eliminate the score bar. Digital interference would look like gibberish, not like cloning in section 112.

    • Paul Lee | May 20, 2011 at 9:22 am |

      I think it was photoshopped to cover the scorebox bar, as well.

    • Kim K | May 20, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      The only part of the MLB explanation that I believe is that they don’t have Photoshop skills.

      The Aspect Ratio is bogus. It is about wiping out the bar at the top of the screen.

      Notice how in addition to the pasting in of fans, that heads of existing fans are clipped and that all the image editing are in the location of the bar.

      This was MLB eliminating SNY logocreep.

  • bigo | May 20, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    Answer: It wasn’t – at least not by a human being.

    I think it was a human crop to remove graphic bar from the picture. It seems the cropping starts were that graphic was on the screen. The give away for me was the Guy in the gray shirt just to the left of A-Rod. He was completely re placed by the guy in the New York jersey, both gray. I guess they might not have wanted a headless man standing there. So they adjusted the image to fill the void.

  • Chris M | May 20, 2011 at 9:03 am |

    It looks like the software was trying to get rid of the SNY scoreboard on the screen (maybe for licensing reasons?) rather than as aspect ratio problem. Good catch though. I’m sure this isn’t the first time it has happened.

    • Paul Lee | May 20, 2011 at 9:23 am |

      +1 for the guy’s aspect ratio explanation, whether or not it was true.

  • JR Francis | May 20, 2011 at 9:04 am |

    I’m calling BS on the image. That REEKS of Photoshop clone tool. If you look at the original, note the score strip with the SNY JUST over their heads. In fact, the diamond shape clips a tiny part of the back of Jeter’s helmet, and in the “fixed” image, that section of his helmet is straight MISSING.

    This is absolutely a Photoshop hack job. They didnt want the SNY score bar, or any score bar at all, since the image was from a past game. Someone with the “minimal Photoshop skills” they mentioned went in, clone tooled it up, got ride of the score banner, and posted it. Us with the eye for detail caught them.

    I’d have had a LOT more respect for them if they just came clean and said, “Oh yeah, we were killing the score strip cause we needed to have an image ready before the game photos were in.

    • Paul Lukas | May 20, 2011 at 9:19 am |

      See my note a few comments down.

      • Ryan | May 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

        Not buying it Paul. There are curved elements in the editing and that hard black line above Wright’s head. That guy can be seen much further on the right of the original photo.

  • Andy | May 20, 2011 at 9:05 am |

    It looks to me like the Yankees/Mets photo was altered to cover up the SNY bar at the top. Look at where it should be in the altered photo, there is a notch is Arod’s helmet and there is a line of mismatched images in the upper right of the photo. The fact that the video re-sized to cause this effect makes no sense to me at all.

  • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 9:11 am |

    i’ll agree with all the sleuths who said the image was altered to cover up the SNY bar


    with all the mets/yanks photos available (and i would think owns or has the rights to a few)…

    why would they choose a poor image of a screen grab from SNY to begin with? im sure photos of wright & a-rod aren’t that uncommon either, so even if they wanted to show the two *stars*…this was the best they could find?

    • Paul Lukas | May 20, 2011 at 9:16 am |

      It has nothing to do with the SNY score bug. MLB has access to the raw video that doesn’t include any of the on-screen graphics. They don’t have to show (or, therefore, obscure) any of that.

      • Paul Lee | May 20, 2011 at 9:26 am |

        Maybe it doesn’t have anything to do with the SNY thingy. Maybe someone got lazy and didn’t go dig up the raw video. Or maybe someone wanted to make pictures to have their nieces and nephews play “spot the difference” :)

      • Andy | May 20, 2011 at 9:28 am |

        I disagree, I think it’s fairly obvious that this image is trying to obscure the SNY bar. I am sure there is access to the raw image at MLB but maybe who ever wanted to use this image did not know of the raw footage or just did not have access to it so they attempted a poor photoshop job. Either way I do not think there is any conspiracy behind this, just an interesting quirk that Chris found.

      • Jack L. | May 20, 2011 at 9:53 am |

        It is obvious that the chop was done to cover the SNY banner, right down to the kid’s elbow OVER A-Rod’s helmet (where the graphic’s second base was).

        It is a poor job of it, too – look in the upper right corner where some of the banner is visible. BTW, the man in the very upper right corner is chopped from the mid-right of the screen (clapping with dark hat).

        Also, do you really believe that the software would AUTOMATICALLY grab part of a picture from the lower left quadrant and put it in the upper left quadrant and also grab part of a picture from the SAME lower left quadrant and put it in the upper right/center? What kind of algorithm is that?

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 10:22 am |

          It is obvious that the chop was done to cover the SNY banner … It is a poor job of it, too — look in the upper right corner where some of the banner is visible.

          This is why I don’t find the counter-theory convincing. It’s the epitome of nonfalsifiable conspiracy “reasoning.” The fact that it covers up the SNY banner is proof that a human tried to cover up the SNY banner. Except that it doesn’t actually cover up the SNY banner, which is proof that a human tried but failed to cover up the SNY banner. Given the extent of the image cloning, it’s safe to say that if the goal had been to remove the SNY banner, the SNY banner would actually have been removed.

          Hanlon’s razor tells us not to look for malice where incompetence can adequately explain a phenomenon. MLB’s explanation offers a plausible explanation for incompetence. As does the idea that a staffer did a lazy quickie clone-tool job to make a wider crop look good. No need to look for villainy then, since we have two perfectly adequate explanations of incompetence to choose from.

      • Kim K | May 20, 2011 at 10:51 am |

        Just because MLB has access to raw footage, doesn’t mean that some schlup working for has access to that footage, and instead rips is straight from like Paul did.

        They tried to take advantage of Paul’s technical ability by blaming the software which apparently when confused will grab a hunk of image (in a coprehensible piece including heads, torsos, and arms) in just such a way to cover up a competing sports station logo.


  • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 9:13 am |

    “… I’ve been a big fan of the band Centro-matic for about a decade now, but I didn’t know that frontman Will Johnson also did some tremendous baseball paintings until Brad Tucker told me yesterday. …”

    SERIOUSLY, Paul, those Will Johnson paintings are amazing (Thanks, Brad). Please consider featuring Will as major interviewee. I’m blown away. Unbelievable.

    PS Any particular centro-matic you you recommend?

    • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 9:14 am |

      That’s “any particular centro-matic TUNE you recommend,” but the surreal version isn’t so bad.

      • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

        Very cool. Thanks.

    • interlockingtc | May 20, 2011 at 10:00 am |

      I agree. Those paintings are out of this world great!

    • Cort | May 20, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

      Houston’s Cactus Records, one of the last great record stores in Texas, has a room where they sell nothing but vinyl (it’s called “The Record Ranch”); they often display music-related art on the walls. About 18 of the Will Johnson originals were up for two or three months. They are completely charming and totally beautiful. Prints were for sale, as were t-shirts (which unfortunately were available only in Pert Cheerleader, Reedy Hipster and Suave Anchorman sizes, another clear example of Fat Guy Bias.) I kept promising myself to go back and buy a print, but I didn’t, which was stupid.

      • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

        “… Prints were for sale, as were t-shirts (which unfortunately were available only in Pert Cheerleader, Reedy Hipster and Suave Anchorman sizes…”

        That’s pretty damn funny. Did you make it up?

        Will Johnson is my new hero.

  • MN | May 20, 2011 at 9:13 am |

    I would think it was a photoshop job if it was a picture from Yankee stadium on a YES website, because those clowns are always telling us they have sellouts when they dont. The fact that it was on the MLB web page makes me think they could be telling the truth.

  • Matt 06 | May 20, 2011 at 9:14 am |

    Re: The Mets picture

    I’d like to know why Wright is staring right at ARod’s junk.

    • JamesP. | May 20, 2011 at 9:18 am |

      He’s trying to see if he can still be called A-Rod after taking PEDs?

    • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

      THANK YOU> I was wondering how this entire post went without one mention of write just straight up ogling A-Rod’s B-Rod.

      Full on penis stare.

      Even today’s post title ‘Big crowd, huh?’ ‘Yup, full house.’ could be construed as a joke about write staring at A-Rod’s junk.

  • JamesP. | May 20, 2011 at 9:17 am |

    I was getting all excited about the Cubs/Red Sox game till I saw it called out that Majestic was the ones making the unis and they were 100% poly. At least they will have cool socks! I just hope this is the game on my local FOX…

    • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 11:08 am |

      Doubt it – it’s Mets/Yankees weekend, which means we’ll have that forced down our throats again. Didn’t they just have a Yanks/Sox weekend? Selig, you’re killing me with interleague and the unbalanced schedule.

      • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 11:14 am |

        OK, I can live with interleague in theory, but without springing for the DirecTV package, I’ll never see the Nats/Orioles, so I could live without it.

      • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 11:21 am |

        actually…(and thankfully) the saturday game is a 7:10 start, that’s a fox late game, you won’t have to watch and sunday is a 1:10 start — so whatever game is on espn, it aint gonna be the mets/yanks

        in the rematch, first week of july, the saturday game is a 4:10 start (so probably fox regional) and the sunday game is “interesting” — yankee schedule has the game as “TBA” while the mets schedule has it listed as a 1:10 start

        so, and this is completely fine with me, no mets/yanks on ESPN SNB this year

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:27 am |

          Red Sox/Cubs is also on Fox on Saturday night and on ESPN Sunday night.

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 11:38 am |

          ESPN is showing the Cubs/Red Sox on Sunday, which would be OK…once in a while.

          Another reason I could do without interleague – the rematch. Just do one series at home one year and one on the road the following year.

          But no matter what, get rid of the unbalanced schedule.

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 11:40 am |

          Well, James, your Fox is showing the Cubs because that’s your market. Anyone not in Chicago or Boston will probably get the Subway Series. The guide on my TV already told me that a few days ago.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |

          I didn’t say the game was going to be on nationwide. I said it’s also on Fox.

          But who knows, maybe it’ll be raining in New York.

          Anyway, I’d also like to see the crosstown matchups all played in one weekend — but in both teams’ parks. So like, Friday and Saturday in Queens and then Sunday in the Bronx. Then next year, Friday and Saturday in the Bronx and Sunday in Queens.

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 1:55 pm |


          And I was actually thinking of something like your scenario, only limited to Saturday and Sunday. One game in each park and be done with it.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 4:35 pm |

          Since we’re talking about something that will obviously never happen, how about going even further into fantasyland?

          Two games, two parks, one day.

          Hell, in Chicago, the teams could finish the first game, hop on a train and be at the other park a half hour later. They don’t even need to transfer.

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

          Since we’re talking about something that will obviously never happen, how about going even further into fantasyland?

          Two games, two parks, one day.


          the schedule-makers didn’t draw it up that way, but the mets and yankees have done that

          twice, in fact (2000 & 2008)

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

          Actually, ’twas thrice.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 5:21 pm |



        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |

          shit…totally forgot about the aught-three game

      • MPowers | May 20, 2011 at 11:40 am |

        Cubs/Sox is the Sunday night game on ESPN.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:49 am |

          Cubs/Sox? That just doesn’t look right when you’re referring to the “other” Sox.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm |



      • Brinke | May 20, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

        And oh BTW, it’s Bay Bridge time here in SF. Not a bad deal.

    • possum | May 20, 2011 at 11:10 am |

      You know how much worse a blank cream jersey will look with that M on the side? I think maybe worse than when it was off-center in Philly/Atlanta’s game last week.

    • Simply Moono | May 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

      “At least they will have cool socks!”

      Tell that to the Braves and Phillies from last Sunday.


      Majestic is to MLB throwback uniforms as Roger No-Goodell is to the NFL. Simple as that.

  • War Damn Eagle | May 20, 2011 at 9:22 am |

    Here’s a pic of the Cubs ’18 roadies that I came across:

    Of course we need Phil and his crew to colorize it, however.

    Shame that they’ll be 100% poly Majestic unis. Would have been cool to see that faux-vintage fabric Under Armour came up with.

  • Bernard | May 20, 2011 at 9:23 am |

    I’m all for throwback games, but that Cubs-Red Sox game looks like it’ll be WAY too old-timey for my taste. I know why, of course, but unis from that era just don’t do it for me.

    • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 9:37 am |

      “… WAY too old-timey for my taste… unis from that era just don’t do it for me.”

      It’s OK, Bernard, we’re all entitled to our opinions and there is some excellent professional counseling help pull you through these dark stages. You will get better.

      • Bernard | May 20, 2011 at 9:56 am |

        Haha, thanks for your concern, Connie. I would just personally rather watch a game that looks more like this.

        • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 10:26 am |

          Not sure I like those faux-satin Dodger blues, but I sure do agree that the Braves unis for that game are about as good as it gets.

    • Shane | May 20, 2011 at 9:51 am |

      Partial agree. I love throwback games, but holy crap were my Sox boring looking back then.

      I’d rather the 1908 uniform with the big red sock on the jersey.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:44 am |

        If only that’s what they’d worn in 1918, huh. ;)

        Considering there rarely even were photographers at regular season games back then, MLB wasn’t exactly “thinking visually” yet.

        But, yeah, most unis of that era sure are nondescript by today’s standards, aren’t they (please note, I didn’t say “all”, I said “most”).

        Always figured that’s why stocking color figured so prominently in team unis, and some nicknames, back then. The colored sock was the least complex way of doing something to make a team look unique. No expensive lettering, no special order hats. But socks, they were easy.

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 11:35 am |

          Minor quibble with Ricko: colored hats weren’t “special order,” at least not after the 1860s. Non-white hats were standard-order items in just about every early sporting-goods catalog I’ve seen, starting with one from circa 1868 that the vintage base ball team I played with used when designing unis.

          But that aside, I think Ricko has the right of it: Baseball unis evolved out of fraternal, militia, and volunteer fire company unis, and distinctiveness was originally achieved mainly with hat color, chest insignia, belt designs, and starting in 1869, sock colors and patterns. To some extent, baseball club unis seem to have been a reaction against volunteer fire company unis, since municipal fire companies developed a very poor reputation in the 1860s and 1870s, and tended to wear Zouave-style uniforms with bright colors and ornate decorations. So a plainer uniform was a way of demonstrating that the local ball club was a higher-class affair than the local fire company.

        • Shane | May 20, 2011 at 11:45 am |

          “But, yeah, most unis of that era sure are nondescript by today’s standards, aren’t they (please note, I didn’t say “all”, I said “most”).”

          Generally, yeah.

          (incidentally enough, my coworker thinks they’re cool, but noted that she just wants to see the “pantaloons”..hopefully everyone does go high-cuffed)

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

          Yah, I kinda overstated about the hats, but only to make a point that the socks were a snap. Could probably have found something at a local store if they needed it.

          Plus, socks would be an instant way to tell the teams apart for anyone in the stands, no matter how distant their vantage point. And, since that was all teams really had to worry about, well…that’s all they worried about.

      • J-Dub | May 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

        I’d rather have them playing in the daytime, like they would have in 1918.
        Pre-1940’s throwback uniforms under the lights just doesn’t seem right

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

          Very good point.
          Although, that Boston uni would be blinding on a sunny day, eh?

        • J-Dub | May 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm |

          J-Dub | May 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Reply

          I’d rather have them playing in the daytime, like they would have in 1918.
          Pre-1940′s throwback uniforms under the lights just doesn’t seem right

          Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

          Very good point.
          Although, that Boston uni would be blinding on a sunny day, eh?

          J-Dub | May 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm

          Most definitely.
          But the burning question is…….
          would YOU wear that?

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 7:58 pm |

          You know, I think I would. As long as I had some shades to wear during the day…

          As I said below, the matchup isn’t that great, but individually, the unis are OK.

    • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 11:42 am |

      I’m with Bernard – that uni-matchup doesn’t do it for me.

      • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:54 am |

        would youse two prefer to see Boston in their red jerseys and the Cubs in their blues?

        • Shane | May 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

          Shhhh, they’ll do that tonight, probably. Red Sox almost always wear the reds at home on Fridays, now.

          Ugh. I had the misfortune of seeing a red on black Sox-O’s game a few years ago.

        • Bernard | May 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

          Like I said James, I understand WHY they’re going with those uniforms, I just think they’re aesthetic snoozers.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

          I’m just saying it could be worse.

        • Jim Vilk | May 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

          Red jerseys vs. blue? Hmmm….

          Either that, or I could see this or this vs. this.

          But that’s just personal preference. I understand why they’re going with the 1918 look, and it would still be interesting to see, so I’m not complaining.

  • Jack | May 20, 2011 at 9:23 am |

    The Sox/Cubs throwbacks does nothing for me. The plain white uniforms of the Sox is the main reason. I bet the Yawkey Way store is selling those plain white nondescript jerseys for $200.

  • Gary Alexander | May 20, 2011 at 9:24 am |

    I have to join the list of people calling BS on the picture.
    We may not know the reason why the changes were made, but if the whole story comes out, it was done deliberately and for a reason.

    I’m not mormally a conspiracy nut, but I work on computers all day and have a fair insight into how they work.

    btw, Oswald acted alone, Bin Laden was behind 9-11, and Pres. Obama was born in Hawaii. I am not a conspiracy nut.

  • Gary Alexander | May 20, 2011 at 9:25 am |

    and I need to quit repeating myself. Sorry.

  • Jeffrey Lowery | May 20, 2011 at 9:30 am |

    Really great post today on all accounts. I am glad I wore my Redlegs stirrups today:

  • Dave Elder | May 20, 2011 at 9:32 am |

    I’m an Ohio State alum, but those Michigan uni’s are bad-ass.

    • Craig D | May 20, 2011 at 9:38 am |

      Fellow Buckeye alum here…and yes those are mighty sweet. Behold the power of stripes. They make it possible for Buckeyes to like a UM jersey.

    • The Red Dog | May 20, 2011 at 10:00 am |

      They won’t look anything like that though I imagine.

      They are “based” on that picture, but since they are adidas they will certainly be those women’s tank top cuts they make now – so there is no way they will have the cool sleeves.

      Plus, I can’t imagine the NCAA not requiring a number on the front instead of the M.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:48 am |

        Oh, darn, with sleeves that short there’ll be space for only three stripes.

        Well, I’m sure adidas will do the best they can under the circumstances.

      • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 10:54 am |

        “…I can’t imagine the NCAA not requiring a number on the front instead of the M.”

        From that article:

        Michigan’s jersey, according to a sample provided to the Free Press, will be modeled after the image shown above. A small number also will be added to the upper-left corner of the jersey front, opposite the Adidas logo.

        • Vasav | May 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

          As a Michigan alum, I think that throwback uniforms are stupid, and if they have to be done they should at least throwback to a real Michigan uniform.

          As Paul would say, “Good or Stupid? Stupid.” They may not look bad. But they are still stupid.

        • LarryB | May 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

          I never saw a Michigan uniform like that one. And I have look over a ton of Michigan pictures from the past.

          I do not like any make believe throwback. They are not throwbacks.

      • Simply Moono | May 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

        “… but since they are adidas they will certainly be those women’s tank top cuts they make now — so there is no way they will have the cool sleeves.”


      • RS | May 20, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

        No sleeves + shrinkwrap fit + putting a number, adidas logo, and probably a Big 10 logo all on the chest = quit while you’re behind.

        Also, I REALLY hope they don’t try that “faux stitchery” on the numbers a la the Sabres 3rds. That looks awful.

  • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 9:33 am |

    I’m going to guess I’ll be wrong about this, but in case I’m not, here’s my “I told you so” proof (though I have no intentions of being here to remind you later) …

    I’ve always contended that the world would end as the Cubs clinch a series against the Red Sox. Sure, in my mind, the date would be closer to October/November, but beggars can’t be choosers.

    If the Cubs win Friday and Saturday, that WOULD technically clinch the weekend series, within hours of when the rapture is alleged scheduled.

    Plus, if you need more reason to form a tinfoil ballcap, the date of the last Cubs/Red Sox baseball game? 9/11.

    I’m just saying.

    • Brendan Burke | May 20, 2011 at 10:12 am |

      The Cubs and Red Sox played an interleague series in 2005, so the 9/11 thing is wrong. Unless there was a rainout, but I doubt a makeup game would have been played on a Sunday.

      • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        Holy Cow! Totally forgot about that. Well, if the rapture doesn’t happen tomorrow, then I give you full credit for saving the world.


        • =bg= | May 20, 2011 at 8:21 pm |

          World ends with the Cubs still on the schneid. Glad the G-Men won it last fall before it all hits the fan. Gotta go.

    • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 10:17 am |

      “If the Cubs win Friday and Saturday”


      yeah…and the bronco is brownlue, the mlb logo is killer and today’s splash photo isn’t photoshopped

  • Tris Wykes | May 20, 2011 at 9:46 am |

    This kid may be from Brattleboro, Vt., but he’s riding the style pony nonetheless!

  • Inkracer | May 20, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    Conflicting reports from ESPN.. the bottom line is saying the Thrashers are moving to Winnipeg, the .com is saying it isn’t a done deal…

    • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:37 am |

      Maybe they’ll split the distance (so to speak) and settle in Milwaukee.

    • Teebz | May 20, 2011 at 11:38 am |

      It is not a done deal… yet.

      Reports from the destination say that TNSE have all of the dominoes lined up, and are just waiting for Atlanta Spirit to agree, in principal, to sell the team for the reported $170 million. However, other reports have the relocation fee being the sticking point in that the Atlanta Spirit would like more capital from the deal.

      As it stands right now, Winnipeg is about 75% of the way to having an NHL franchise right now. I expect the announcement sometime next week, but there is no deal as of right now. So no mock-ups of any jersey designs yet, please. ;o)

      • SoCalDrew | May 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

        Wow, the ATL loses a SECOND NHL team?! What city holds the record for departed franchises? I’m thinking Cleveland and L.A. have lost two NFL teams each.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

          Milwaukee and St. Louis come to mind, and a couple of the same teams are involved, and both cities lost a team to Atlanta.

          Milwaukee: Brewers and Hawks both moved to St. Louis, Braves to Atlanta

          St. Louis: Browns to Baltimore, Cardinals to Phoenix, Hawks to Atlanta.

        • KevinW | May 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

          San Diego lost the Clippers and the Rockets as well.

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

          Washington DC lost the baseball Senators twice.

          Alternate question: Which city has lost the most teams in all sports?

        • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

          The most professional teams or all teams? If the latter, I’d say New York and Chicago. They’ve attracted (and buried) quite a few pro teams, but have lost many college teams, especially in football, and especially in Division I.

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

          I’d count only professional teams. College teams don’t relocate; they just sometimes disappear according to the whims of collegiate administrations.

          Has any city lost teams in more sports than Baltimore? Baseball, football, and basketball. St. Louis maybe?

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

          The Packers used to play home games in Milwaukee, so you could say that they lost NBA, AL, NL and NFL franchises.

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 4:14 pm |

          Also, could Los Angeles be the city to hold the dubious distinction of losing the most teams from a single league to relocation? The Rams, Raiders and Chargers all once called LA home.

          (OK, the Chargers were in the AFL at the time, but they’re in the NFL now so I’m counting it as a single league.)

  • Kenny Jacobson | May 20, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    The golfer in the necktie is Ryan Moore and neckties have kind of been his “thing” the past couple of years.

    • markw | May 20, 2011 at 11:44 am |

      A necktie with a polo shirt?

  • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:13 am |

    As long as we looking at strange things in photos…

    “Pre-season casual”?

    Pro football preseason games were a little informal in 60’s.
    Here’s Cookie Cilchrist vs. Patriots in ’62.
    Bills are wearing their ’61 jerseys, pants (silver) and socks with their new for ’62 white helmets (sans red standing buffalo, but with the new red stripe).
    Cookie’s got a lot of training tape holding his thigh pads in place, too.
    That must have looked odd. The only red on the uni that night was the helmet stripe.
    Also notice, one Patriot with helmet decal, one without.

    • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:15 am |

      Ooops, Gilchrist.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:30 am |

        And Glenn Bass (far left), looks like his white helmet may have no stripe at all.

  • Brendan Burke | May 20, 2011 at 10:13 am |

    An error in your ESPN column, Paul:

    “This is, to my knowledge, the first time a team has ever memorialized someone via its choice of uniform.”

    This isn’t the first time you left the Red Sox’ green uniforms (memorializing Red Auerbach) out of an ESPN column, though.

    • Paul Lukas | May 20, 2011 at 10:16 am |

      Ah, good point. But what I meant is that it’s the first time it’s been done on an ongoing basis (as opposed to a one-shot).

      • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 10:26 am |

        I wish the Twins would make this permanent by combining the cream pinstripes with their regular, modern home script. They can keep the script red with blue outlines, or go old-school and make it blue with red outlines; either way, it’d be the best possible combination of Twins uni elements.

        • interlockingtc | May 20, 2011 at 10:45 am |

          Uh, no. Mothball the modern script and keep wearing the creams, as is, permanently.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 11:02 am |

          On the homefront the Twins are in the position of having two great-looking unis to choose from.

          The “modern” one looks fabulous in the sunshine (after so many years indoors), and the creams are such as classic.

          Kind of a win-win, no matter if they choose only one or continue to wear both.

          They could, however, dump the navy jerseys at home. Not that they’re horrible, but either version of the mono pins is just so far superior.

          (Leave us don’t discuss the roads)

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 11:13 am |

          love…love,love,looooooooooooooove the new creams

          like, a lot…the new roadies

          still don’t like the 87>present home (and road, but thank god they shitcanned that) set

          agreed you could lose the softball tops, at home and on the road

          if you need to have two unis at home, then you should go back to these beauties introduced 2 years ago

          just my $.02

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:23 am |

          I agree. Two sets of pinstripes is overkill. Drop the cream pins and go with the ones from two years ago, but wear the current road caps with them instead of that red-crown/blue-brim garbage.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 11:28 am |

          Always figured they went with red lettering and numbers in ’87 (had been red on the butt-uglies that preceded them, too, of course) to continue to provide some red in the Metrodome.

          The light in there was very blue, and had they gone with navy as the base letter/number color the players would have looked like the little blue flecks in the “Roquefort dressing” viewing experience the Dome provided.

          That’s why I say, for a couple seasons anyway, let ’em get some sun.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 11:36 am |

          The uni on which this is based…

          …was almost universally disliked by fans, or at last evoked no strong opinion one way or the other (which is even worse because it suggests apathy), even at the time it was being worn.

          It’s attraction now is that it’s “old”, and the opinion now doesn’t change the opinion of it then. To claim it was popular (beyond the hats; hats sell no matter what, especially if team wears only one) is revisionist. To anyone who lived through that era, it represents sucky years of sucky teams, but with some great young players who didn’t come of age (along with the team’s unis) until 1987.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

          No, the new pins in ’87 were loved well before they won the W-S. They were universally applauded because that good young bunch of players finally looked like a Major League team instead of the Vo-Tech team they had previously resembled.

          I’m only telling you the sentiment aroudn here at the time.

          The red hat unis were off-the-rack doubleknits that someone tried to “spruce up” with a red hat…roughly the equivalent of stuffing a big burgundy pocket silk into the pocket of green plaid sportcoat and thinking you did some pretty damn fine job of accessorizing.

          I’m NOT making this up. There was just a general grumbling that the last sansabelts were bad but, “What are you gonna do, that’s what the ultra-cheap Griffths think passes for a Major League uni.”

          Those self-belts were the American Legion-looking unis from the years (particularly the latter half of the ’70s) when every year the Twins seemed to be, as one writer wrote, “Rod Carew and eight guys named Steve: Steve Brye, Steve Braun, Steve Luebber, Steve Comer…”

          If you’re gonna wear a throwback, or throwback-inspired, uni on a consistent basis, at least use the uni of a team that had something going for it. Make it a uni people remember fondly, not one that looks “kinda cool” only to those who never saw the team play and don’t rememeber how bleak those seasons were.

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

          Ricko’s account accords exactly with my memories as a kid. The new unis were a big deal at the time. In school, kids talked about the new unis; there was a huge rage for shirts and hats with the new logos; and my seventh-grade class’ Trapper-Keepers could be divided into two categories: Those with the new Twins script and cap logos scribbled all over them, and those that belonged to girls. Likewise, I can remember adults at a couple of different neighborhood barbecues that summer talking about the new Twins unis. I worked the WCCO booth at the State Fair that August, and “hey, don’t the Twins look great,” was a frequent topic of conversation at the Fair.

          Fed into a general “this could finally be our year” feeling with the new ownership, young players finally hitting their strides, and whatnot. Plus, the new unis were correctly seen as a return to the style of the original unis, but with some obvious flaws corrected.

      • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 11:46 am |

        “to anyone who lived through that era, it represents sucky years of sucky teams, but with some great young players who didn’t come of age (along with the team’s unis) until 1987.”


        which brings up an argument we have on UW from time to time (and on which i have devoted column space, and may do so again)

        i (this is opinion, ok) think those 87 unis sucked — terrible font, pins on the roadies, crappy new cap & logo, etc. — again, just my opinion

        whereas the unis they replaced, were (again, my opinion) great

        i think the crappy unis were universally loved, of course, because you won a world series immediately upon introducing them…and another one 4 years later

        the good unis were panned because of the losing associated with them

        i would venture to say, had the results been the opposite (in other words, swap the losing/winning in the unis) and most people would love the one which were panned and hate the ones which are loved — again, all because of the good that is associated with them — but they’re still shitty uniforms

        look at the mets racing stripes, as a perfect example…that is one of the worst unis in the history of unis, and yet it’s loved by mets fans (and not just because there’s no black)…why? all the winning, including the 86 world series, associated with them

        bad unis, if a team wins in them, will ALWAYS be loved, even if they are otherwise a crappy uni

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |

          Flying Elvis approves this post.

        • pflava | May 20, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

          It’s the winning that warps the perception of a team’s uniforms for their fans. Heck, in a way I’d almost say the fans are in the worst position to judge – they are too closely emotionally tied. I realize a poll here would probably be about evenly split on the Twins, but as an unbiased observer looking at the cream throwbacks and red script 80’s makeovers side-by-side, to me the creams win easily. The 87’s were always pretty mediocre, as has been just about every look the TC’s have trotted out since dumping the 60’s beauties. This is just one of those cases where a team got it completely right out of the gate.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

          See my comment above, from 12:18 (was supposed to be here)

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

          “This is just one of those cases where a team got it completely right out of the gate”



          and totally agreed with this sentiment as well:


          “I’d almost say the fans are in the worst position to judge — they are too closely emotionally tied.”

          exactly — winning cures all shitty uni woes

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

          I’m telling you, the minute the Twins unveiled those pins in ’87 the unis they were loved. Was like, “Damn, those look good!” The fact they won wearing them just made it better. I recall even some of the players saying they felt they’d finally got “major league” uniforms.

          Now, if you lived here in the Twin Cities in ’87 and want to debate that, we’ll debate it. Otherwise, take my word for it.

          (I noticed simply because isn’t often you realize that suddenly everyone seems to be noticing unis as much as you do. You look around and think, “Well, THIS is unusual.” And it kinda sticks in your mind. And your memory.)

        • pflava | May 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

          I completely believe you. And they were a definite upgrade over what they replaced.

          “The fact they won wearing them just made it better” – and Twins fans became forever biased. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s bad to love a uniform you associate with winning, but it does tend to cloud judgement when you’re trying to base things solely on aesthetics.

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm |


          i’m not saying those unis weren’t universally loved…

          what i am saying is that IMHO they aren’t good…not your opinion, not twins’ fans opinions, my opinion

          but the fact that you immediately started winning in them also cemented them as “great” in the fans minds

          now, kenn is of the mind that this is great — the unis are for the fans OF THE TEAM and beyond non-fan critique

          and in 99.8% of the cases, that’s likely true

          not so on UW

          i happen to think those are shitty unis…and yes, maybe they replaced poly double-knit pullovers and sansabelts — OF COURSE any new uni would be preferred

          im saying that, in my opinion, the uni (design wise) that they replaced was far superior to the new one in ’87

          had those old unis been buttondowns with belts, you may have thought more highly of them

          pretty much anything in pullover poly/knit with sansabelt is gonna look crappy

          throwing out all that i just said, i still think the unis you started in were the best set ever

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

          Another +1 to Ricko. My own fascination with sports unis at all began with the unveiling of those Twins uniforms. They were a really big deal, and they were a big deal from the get-go, when it was assumed that the Twins were another couple of years away from really contending. (Which they actually kind of were; the 1987 Twins sort of fluked into the postseason, and remain one of the worst teams ever to win the World Series. Even at the parade the week after, the atmosphere was kind of “really?” mixed with “heck yeah!”)

          Anyway, the preference for the new script over the old is not mindless love for the crappy gear a team wore to its first championship. It’s the perfectly reasonable preference for good design over bad design. The previous unis were some of the all-time crappy unis in baseball history, and the old “Twins” script was one of the objectively worst-designed bits of lettering ever to appear on a baseball uniform. Sub-amateurish in the way none of the letters worked with any of the others. There was no consistent baseline, line thicknesses were all over the place, vertical elements weren’t even close to parallel, terminating strokes sat on random angles, and so forth. You expect better letting in a fourth-grade cursive class. Compared to what had gone before, the 1987 set represented a return to franchise tradition: Home pins, navy cap, an improved update of the home script. The road pins were also a return to an older franchise tradition, and were popular among Twins fans at the time, months before the Twins looked like they might actually win a pennant.

        • pflava | May 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

          Those really do look like shit.

          Although I’d agree with Phil that if they weren’t pullover/sansabelts, they’d be a WHOLE lot better.

          But this…

          was never a good look.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

          So do I. And the current set is a lot closer to the ’61 look than the Sears & Roebuck doubleknits of the red hat era.

          As I said, I like either of current Twins pins. If they were to choose only, I’d be happy either way. Just don’t make us look at the barrel-botom of what was, quite, often an otherwise ntriguing era in unis…the ’70s and ’80s.

        • pflava | May 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

          ” Sub-amateurish in the way none of the letters worked with any of the others. There was no consistent baseline, line thicknesses were all over the place, vertical elements weren’t even close to parallel, terminating strokes sat on random angles, and so forth.”

          See, I think that’s what gives it charm. I love that it’s imperfect.

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

          as long as we’re going to be doing +1’s then i have to say +1 to patrick

          and scotty, buddy, i thought you LIKED the old school unis with their quirks and foibles and “thicknesses were all over the place, vertical elements weren’t even close to parallel, terminating strokes sat on random angles” and such?

          just like with killer and the mlb logo yesterday, you guys are really taking this as a shot against the twinks and minnie and such

          it’s purely MY opinion and mine alone on whether or not the 87 uni was good…and i just honestly never liked the script, the road pins or the cap

          just MHO

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 1:52 pm |

          And I’m just reminding us all that (as I’ve done many times myself) it’s easy to look at a vintage uni from another town and think, “That was great-looking,” but the fact is that in the market where it was worn, it may not exactly be a favorite that anyone wants to see again.

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

          Phill, I do like old-school designs and I do like design that shows a human touch. But imperfect doesn’t mean bad. The old Twins script is indefensibly bad. Not as a matter of subjective, I-don’t-like-purple-or-road-pinstripes taste, but as a matter of objective standards of design quality. It’s bad lettering. Ask around at your local stationer’s shops to find the cheapest, fly-by-nightest, only-hire-in-an-emergencyest wedding-invitation calligrapher in town, and ask them to design a jersey script for you. It’ll be imperfect, too, but it will be better than the 1961 Twins script. Heck, most amateur calligraphers would produce a better script than what the Twins wore in 1961.

          And yes, I do actually like the original Twins script. It’s charming in its way — that way being as a reminder that Griffith was too big a cheapskate to pay for a decent jersey script — and it’s a slice of history. But it’s still bad. It’s like a garish fashion jersey: It may be quirky and fun, but it doesn’t belong on the field of play. Yes, I am calling the 1961 Twins script Minnesota’s equivalent of a black Mets jersey.

        • Geeman | May 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

          Loved the tri-color helmet, though when they switched to the red helmet it went pretty well with the powder blue road uniforms (and I don’t like powder blue road uniforms).

          The current cream uniforms are very good. Wouldn’t they look just as good if they were true white?

        • Geeman | May 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

          I like the unis from two years ago AND the cream pins. And to make it more confusing, I like the navy jersey too.

        • pflava | May 20, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

          Scott, are you saying these are both garish, and equally so?

          I’m having a hard time processing that. Am I misunderstanding you?

        • RS Rogers | May 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

          Scott, are you saying these are both garish, and equally so?

          Not at all. It’s not about being garish; it’s about being well or poorly designed. The old Twins script is poorly designed. It is of such poor quality that it doesn’t belong on any professional’s jersey, save for the occasional throwback day. But I totally understand why a fan would feel some love for that script and wear it his own self, because I am such a fan and I do wear a 1961-style Twins jersey from time to time. But as with black Mets fashion jerseys, just because a fan might find it charming it its own peculiar way, that doesn’t mean that the team should wear it on the field. They shouldn’t.

        • interlockingtc | May 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm |

          Scott, as always, you can analyze the hell out of what is “wrong” with that original Twins script, and your opinion is certainly appreciated, and you express yourself eloquently, but you sound as if you are speaking from on high with this and, frankly, it’s a little off putting.

          There is nothing “poorly designed” about that script. It’s a bloody cursive script that says Twins–unmistakably Twins. I’ve seen the illustration where you break it down with lines and angles, etc., and still, I am not moved. Dislike the script. Hate it, even. But I love the design. Love it. It is not flawed in my eyes. It is wonderful.

          You, personally, maintain certain standards of what constitutes design perfection. I appreciate that. But your proclamations annoy me.

        • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 7:57 pm |

          well said, jim…well said

  • Chris Bruno | May 20, 2011 at 10:25 am |

    That’s a great way to start my day, Thanks Paul!

    • Chris Bruno | May 20, 2011 at 10:51 am |

      I don’t think I can move up to NYC for a job (already looked at openings) but someone suggested I get hooked up with All-Star weekend tickets or merch for my find if it helps solve the problem from happening again. HA, at least it made for a good story!

  • Perry | May 20, 2011 at 10:48 am |

    Re: the Evansville boxing robes, pretty sure they were still wearing those as late as ca. 1974 or so, when I saw them play at Ohio State.

  • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 11:00 am |

    In light of all the recent speculation, it might not be such a great idea to commemorate the 1918 World Series.

  • allthewayray | May 20, 2011 at 11:38 am |

    I want a CUnterstein jersey too.

  • Coleman | May 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    That Packers poster is just downright amazing. I need one, and I need it now.

    • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

      Looks like it’s a program, not a poster.

      The thing that strikes me as odd is that it’s a program that depicts the visitors butchering the home team (and their arch-rivals — note the “brisket of bear” in the display case).

      So why was a Packers-centric program being sold at a Rams home game?

      • Coleman | May 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

        Very good point, I still want it though!

        • Broadway Connie | May 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm |


      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

        Yes, there actually was a time when games were approached with a certain good humor.

        If your team won, you didn’t have to worry about a fan from the other team keying your car or beating the living shit out of you in the parking lot afterward to regain his self-esteem after the horrific, life-altering, masculinity-challenging experience of his team losing.

        People were so stupid back then they thought it was just a game. Talk about simple-minded, huh.

        (Not aimed at you, Jimbo, just that progrmm reminded me how much things have changed, how much “earnestness” and posturing is now required, even on a game program cover. And, obviously, that the “Pro Combat” attitude is a far more appropriate mindest than that represented by some lameass cartoon.)

        • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

          the thing is that I’ve seen programs from that era and I can’t recall any implying that the visitors are coming to town to carve up the home team.

          Although maybe they were just acknowledging the reality of the situation since it appears that the Rams pretty much sucked that year.

      • Leatherhead | May 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

        Interesting the misconception about the Indian/Acme packing companies. They were actually canners ( hence Packers) not like Packerland Meat Packing of Green Bay today.

        In fact some years ago PETA protested here in Wisconsin ( Green Bay ) the heritage of that nickname, Had they done some homework they should’nt have wasted the time.


  • Jet | May 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |

    That arrow and number 2 on the Padres mound is pointing to two blondes in the second row. I’m sure that’s what it’s referring to… ;)


  • Stephen King | May 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

    The Michigan jersey prototypes are causing panic in the Michigan blogosphere right now. Lots of objections. As a Michigan fan I am not a fan of it either; frankly, Michigan doesn’t need to wear “throwbacks.”

    It wouldn’t surprise me if this were a deliberate leak to test the response of the fanbase. AD Dave Brandon “suggested” that the Michigan-Ohio State game might be moved in the new Big Ten schedule and the resulting furor from both sides nicely set it back at the right time of year. Many fans believe Brandon did that on purpose to assess fan reaction, or perhaps because he knew the reaction and wanted to pressure the Big Ten execs. This would fit right in to that pattern–if the design is rejected by fans, there might be big changes.

    • Vasav | May 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

      As an M alum, I’m with you, Stephen. Every football game is already special since there are so few per season, and Michigan-Notre Dame is special anyway. So there’s no need for throwback football uniforms at all.

      But if you’re going to throwback, it should at least resemble a uniform that Michigan Football wore in the past – with block M’s on the shoulders like in the 1960s. Otherwise it’s just an alternate. This is Adidas going “Pro Combat” on Michigan football. Dave Brandon should be prepared for a barrage of angry emails.

      • Stephen King | May 20, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

        Previous rumors suggested that the block M sleeves from the 60s would be the uniform. That is one of the reasons why I question whether this is the real deal. Michigan has winged helmets and sharp colors, but their home uniforms have been as consistent as Penn State’s over the decades. Images of Tom Harmon from the 1930s feature essentially the same uniform Michigan wears now. Why mess with it?

        I don’t mind fauxbacks and Pro Combat uniforms in principle, but sometimes things get messed with that shouldn’t be messed with. Michigan’s rivalries with Notre Dame and Ohio State not only feature great historical programs and (in the past) great football games, but great, classic uniform combinations as well. Until OSU started messing with things.

        The more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

  • Phil in Joplin (new witty name coming soon!) | May 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

    Project Neon is picking up steam. It was featured on Gizmodo today ( and it is on the front page of Kickstarter right now, as the project of the day.

  • Christopher | May 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

    I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that its a not a Photoshop job. I’ve worked in design, video, web, all sorts of similar things.

    Here’s what I assume: is a huge company with tons of employees. I guarantee you that often the left had doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Happens all the time.

    Just because its their policy not to edit photos, that doesn’t mean someone- behind their bosses back- didn’t do so to meet a tight deadline.

    I totally believe that representitive’s comment that their policy is to not edit photos. But policies are often broken.

    You never know… maybe someone in charge of getting that photo screwed up and had to quickly PhotoShop it for some reason or be in trouble.

    I’ve seen it happen all the time. Its not a conspiracy, its just reality that no single person at knows what every other single person has done.

  • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

    Paul, you buried the lede, why is Wright ogling A-Rod’s unit?

    • Simply Moono | May 20, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

      Because A-Rod’s not in the hole?

  • StLMarty | May 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

    “…which results in a rather unfortunate NOB.”

    Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?

    • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

      “Everybody in town, from what I hear.”


      • JTH | May 20, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

        Wow. A Porky’s reference two days in a row (last night’s “The Office”).

    • Simply Moono | May 20, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

      ““…which results in a rather unfortunate NOB.”

      Has anyone seen Mike Hunt?”

      Have YOU seen Myke HAWKE?


  • Jeffrey Lowery | May 20, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    I am trying to convince my friend, who plays in the Texas Rangers system, to start wearing stirrups and get others to follow after I showed him the stirrups I got. He already goes high cuffed so it might not be that hard.

  • Jeffrey Lowery | May 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

    Macho Man Randy Savage died. Sad and weird. Even sad and weirder is the “Tragic Sports Deaths” slideshow in this article:

    • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

      Speaking of athletic aesthetics … let’s all have a Slim Jim in his honor today, OK?

      • Craig D | May 20, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

        Oh yeaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

      I wonder if he’ll buried above ground in a mausoleum, or below ground. How do you think they’ll prepare his final resting place?

  • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    I wouldn’t be surprised if that photo in question was a photoshop job done by a lone gunman (mouseman?) because it’s covering exactly where the SNY scoreboard is.

    Some jabroney probably cropped the picture and realized he couldn’t crop the image without the banner AND with all of A-Rod’s head.

    I think’s story could be true, but as someone who traffics in photoshop, I lean toward the conspiracy.

    But seriously, if it was just done to get rid of the banner, who really cares. They just should fess up if it’s true.

    • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

      I agree with Tim E., totally. Maybe the overly complex hooey explanation goes to the fact that people just don’t seem to understand the whole “letterbox/full screen” concept, no matter how many times it’s explained to them.

      One more, people, if you make it taller, it gets wider, too. And vice versa. If you make it narrower, it gets shorter.

      Now, this may be an incredibly dumb question, but in the time someone spent farting around in PhotoShop couldn’t they just have found another shot to use?

      I mean, seriously, was that particular image so critical to the story?

    • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 8:45 pm |

      I’m not saying Paul doesn’t understand Letterbox.

      I meant the guy he talked to almost sounds like he felt the need for some CG explanation, as if, “Well the general public doesn’t get it, so I’ll talk about something we have, and attribute it to that…so I dont’ have to go through it all again.”

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 8:59 pm |

        Or the guy didn’t wanna say, “Duh…I dunno.”

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

        “We have this recognition program that automatically isolates good looking woman in the crowd, captures the image and loads it to my personal…oh, wait, never mind. Let’s start over.

        “When we have a crowd shot…”

        Sorry, I was listening to a client fling bullshit around like confetti today so I’m suspicious of everyone. :)

  • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    Will someone please read this article and tell me about it?
    I started to read a couple times and kept getting distracted…

    • JimWa | May 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

      Guys with big arms attract womens’ attention … that’s as far as I could get.

  • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

    I just took today’s “original” image and doctored it in PS CS5 to look like the “cropped/error” image.

    That looks awfully close and since the mustachioed man above Write is the only person taken from the right of Wright, I think this is undoubtedly a PS job.

    • Frankie | May 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

      Just because it CAN be done in PS doesn’t mean that it WAS. Just my two cents…

      • Tim E. O'B | May 20, 2011 at 6:30 pm |

        100% true. But all the evidence points to a PS job, especially the location of the mustachioed man before and after the ‘error’.

  • David T. | May 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

    On Tony Kornheiser’s radio show today, Thomas Boswell talked about Harmon Killebrew and said he was similar in temperament and circumstance to Brooks Robinson–a nice, quiet guy who played before giant player contracts, had money troubles and ultimately filed bankruptcy. He said Robinson’s sporting goods store, mentioned on UW several times, failed because Robinson would often just give away uniforms and equipment to youth baseball teams who couldn’t pay their bills. I wonder what the O’s paid him for the orange duds.

  • Chuck | May 20, 2011 at 4:19 pm |

    Just wondering if the San Jose Sharks are going to wear those hideous black jerseys tonight!

    • Teebz | May 20, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

      Most likely. They’ve been wearing them all playoffs long.

  • Greg S | May 20, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

    No way that’s not a photoshop job. I agree with the commenter about MLB’s right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. I’m sure Paul’s source is telling the truth as far as he knows. If the system is so easy to upload photos, that means that there’s probably some intern doing it most of the time. We all know how that goes…

  • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

    for those keeping score at home…or watching on MLB network

    cubs in gray uniforms, sawks with red softball tops

    • Matthew Robins | May 20, 2011 at 8:02 pm |
      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

        Okay, of that logo we might be entitled to ask, “Who are the ‘Ubs’?”

        Perfect re-creation of the Red Sox lettering, though.

  • mets are so cool | May 20, 2011 at 8:39 pm |

    Blah, blah, blah mets mets mets, hipster paul can’t write about anything else

    • LI Phil | May 20, 2011 at 9:23 pm |

      no, nothing

      he probably should call this blog “mets watch”


      try not to troll around here too long, you might catch a mets disease

    • Paul Lukas | May 20, 2011 at 9:45 pm |

      Probably the first (and last) time the Mets and “hipster” have been used in the same sentence.

    • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:09 pm |

      Mets still paying Bobby Bonilla reminded of that old joke about the definition of an “ABA Million”:

      $10,000 a year for 100 years.

  • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm |

    Oh, darn. This incarnation of the Arizona Rattlers doesn’t have those cool copper helmets. They’re now black (oh, THERE’s a surprise).

    New Orleans Voodoo is in the purple and red unis we all know and love, though.

    What? Nobody’s watching Arena Football on NFL Network?
    Might have to hold us for a while.

    • Gusto44 | May 20, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

      I’ll say this for the Arena League, they do have a colorful history of uniforms. This website would have plenty of fodder if it ever did a AFL retrospective.

      Kind of like the purple and red combination for the uniqueness factor. Interesting trivia question, the defunct San Antonio Force remains the only AFL to be shutout in a game. Hard to believe, that team must have had Beavis and Butthead as QB.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 9:52 pm |

        God, I’d love to have that shutout on dvd.
        Gotta be a hoot.
        Like watching a stream of semis go by when salamanders are migrating across an interstate, only not quite so grisly.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:01 pm |

        When I win the Powerball, I’m bringin’ Arena Ball back to town.

        The “Minnesota Slammers!” (y’know, cuz of the sideboards n’all), with a lighthing bolt as the top of the exclamation point on the wordmark. “Minnesota Slam!” would be better, some might say, but I hate the proliferation of singluar names.

        Arena Ball is SO much fun in person. We know about indoor lacrosse, right? Imagine football in that same amount of space. You just don’t get a sense of the confined space on TV.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

        New Orleans QB is wearing neon yellow Nikes. Look a little odd with the purple and red unis.

        • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:27 pm |

          Ooops, not the QB. One of the wideouts.

        • Gusto44 | May 20, 2011 at 10:31 pm |

          The old Minnesota Fighting Pike had a pretty good uniform, with a huge Pike on a gold helmet, and LSU type stripes on the jersey.

          I do recall the Tampa Bay Storm making a uniform change in the late 90s trailing at halftime, switching back to the Zubaz uniforms, and coming back for the win.

          Wrapping up for the night, I remember the troubled Art Schlicter at QB for the Cincinnati Rockers. He was somewhat paunchy, not the agile player he was at Ohio State.

  • Anthony | May 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm |

    Anyone else disappointed in the red sox for wearing the red alts. I mean it’s the first time since 1918 that the cubs are at Fenway and the sox wear alternate jerseys? I know both clubs are wearing throwbacks tomorrow night but still…home whites vs. road grays would be nice. Just sayin.

  • Justin Groenert | May 20, 2011 at 9:41 pm |

    In reply to the University of Evansville post today, the Purple Aces originally wore different colored robes. See the fourth paragraph of this 1965 SI article about the Purple Aces:

    • Paul Lukas | May 20, 2011 at 9:47 pm |

      Love how the article refers to them as “bench capes”!

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

        Oh, wow. There’s a term I’d completely forgotten.

      • Ricko | May 20, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

        That and “sideline capes”.

  • Anthony | May 20, 2011 at 9:48 pm |

    Just realized LI Phil already pointed out the red sox gaff. My bad.

  • Patrick_in_MI | May 20, 2011 at 10:29 pm |

    Speaking of throwbacks, are the Pirates & Tigers going retro tomorrow? I only ask since there is NO local TV thanks to MLB’s Exclusivity deal. Gee, another Yankees or Red Sox weekend.

  • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 1:13 am |

    Angels wore their LA Angels (sans the “of Anaheim”) throwback uniforms tonight. I need to get one of those halo-topped caps…