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

Tim E.'s MLB, Template Style, Part the Second

MLB 3D Splash

By Phil Hecken

Last weekend, I brought you Tim E. O’Brien and his fantastic MLB 3D template and a dozen or so MLB concepts. You can see those and more at

Today, we’re back with the second batch.

As with last weekend, I like most of these, and I’ll share my favorites (and maybe a *hate*) after you’ve seen what follows. Tim continues down a pretty traditional path for these concepts, which is nice, since baseball is probably the most traditional of the major sports. Of course, he does throw in a few wild and crazy ideas too, which is fine when we’re discussing theory. Whether or not they’d actually look good on the field is another matter.

Tim nicely sticks to my one “request” when making these — stirrups or socks, please. I know there are a few of you out there who say, “yeah, but they’ll never wear stirrups (or socks) so why even bother?” Well, because many times, ok ALL times, the uniform looks better with socks or stirrups, so at the very least we can envision what a uniform might look like if it were actually worn properly. Maybe that’s wishful thinking, but hey — that’s the primary consideration for these tweaks. After that, Tim was free to create at will.

So with that, here’s Timmah:


MLB ‘3D’ II: This Time It’s For Keeps
By Tim E. O’Brien

So, where did I leave off? Oh right, I was just tweaking some teams to test out my new MLB uni template (an updated version of which can be downloaded here).

Well, I sort of randomly selected 12 teams last week, so today, I decided to try my hand at the rest of the league. Just like last week, none of these are complete rebrands (although some of them probably should be) but I just didn’t have the time to scorch the earth.

So what did I learn during this time ’round?

Unlike The Jeff, I do believe in Home and Road uni distinctions, especially when it comes to wordmarks. Home unis should have the team name and Roadies should have the city/state/area name (although I don’t always follow my own rules).

Also, I – apparently – love softball tops. Now, not everyone agrees with me, but these are my concepts.

And while I like softball tops, I’m not a big fan of having them – or really any uni – going with only a left chest logo and maybe a uni number (but once again, I go against this on occasion).

And who says you can’t have the occasional monochrome?

OK, enough telling you what you’re about to see and more showing you what you’re about to see.

. . . . .

Athletics: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – The yellow, the green, the white cleats, not too much of a departure from the norm here but a few changes for the A’s.

Braves: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – Keep the regular home and road mostly the same (exception: sleeve patches) but bring back the 70s throwbacks as permanent alternates, ’cause those are clean.

Cardinals: Home, Alternate, Road – Bring back the victory blues, throw on some sleeve patches, and you’ve got yourself a stew goin’.

Diamondbacks: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – Here’s a big departure. So when the Diamondbacks first came out, they had a quintessentially 90s take on desert colors. Since those were hideous and going to a red and black uniform is as bland as oat bran, I came up with a new color scheme that’s a little more desert and a little more serpent. Also, the home unis don’t say Dbacks because I’ve always felt that was a bit too close to D-bags.

Dodgers: Home, Road, Road Alt – The powder blue throwbacks have been a rousing success this season, so why not add a powder blue alternate?

Giants: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – First, I changed the Giants’ logo from radially back to vertically arched and I added an orange home and a black road alternate.

Mariners: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – I think the Mariners need more work than I had time to give them. So, based on a good idea by Phil, I gave the Poseidons some sea-foam teal monochrome alternates. The trident-ed one would be proud.

Marlins: Home, Road, Road Alt – The Marlins will be in Miami soon and – just like The Jeff – I have come up with an appropriate hat logo and new wordmark. While I added a bit of orange, I kept black hats and stirrups to connect the new with the old.

Mets: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – No black. ‘Nuff said, right? Sorta. I kept the pinstripes ‘throwback’ as the main home and the main road is an almost charcoal brown color per a request by Phil. And I gave the Metropolitans a road alternate that’s a more traditional color with a two tone hat.

Orioles: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – Combo of old and new. I brought back the 70s cap (and logo) and striping while using modern logos on the unis. the road alternate is a tip o’ the cap to some Oriole history. I considered an all orange alternate, but that’s a bit much – is it not?

Phillies: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – If the Phils are gunna keep that fauxback on as a home alternate, why not create a road counterpart? So I did.

Pirates: Home, Road, Road Alt, Sunday Home, Sunday Road, Throwback One, Throwback Two – Pittsburgh has great uni history. The home, road and road alt are all basically the modern set. The ‘Sundays’ are an homage to my favorite ball player of all time, Roberto Clemente. The throwbacks? How could you not relive that beauty?

(And yes, Clemente did die 15 years before I was born, but I still love the guy.)

Rangers: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – I hate drop-shadow. And while this, technically, isn’t drop-shadow, I got rid of it because it’s too close for comfort. Looking back to the mid 80s, I saw some style that would go nicely with the simplified modern type.

Red Sox: Home, Road – The home uni is almost unchanged but if you’re going to have a road uniform that features plain blue letters, why half ass it? I don’t, so I went back to the old school block lettering. Killer stirrups.

Rockies: Home, Home Alt, Road – The Rockies’ unis are fine but I have always thought that their visually busy font was a little too hard to see so I simplified it. I resisted the urge to continue the road pinstripe, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t try it out.

Royals: Home, Home Alt, Road, Road Alt – The Royals should wear Royal, not Powder.

Tigers: Home, Road – Added an orange outline on the chest logo at home and put the tiger logo on the road sleeve. Other than that, you cant perfect perfection.

Yankees: Home, Road, Road Alt – I know, blasphemy, right? You’re not supposed to change the Yanks but the home uni hasn’t changed since the 30s and the road hasn’t changed since the 70s so instead of tweaking those, I added a road softball top. Come on, it’s not the worst thing in the world, is it?

. . . . .

Well, those are my MLB tweaks using the new MLB ‘3D’ template. Feel free to download and create your own ideas, I’d love to see what people come up with.

But – for now – those are my ideas.


Great job, again, Tim. Really great concepts. OK, so there are too many alts (but for concepting sake, that’s fine — I just don’t think there should be any that many in the game. As far as my own personal faves, it’s funny, but I loved the powder Cards (a uniform I didn’t particularly like when they wore it originally — it’s amazing how good powder can look when it’s rendered with buttons and belts, instead of pullovers and sansabelts); I liked the Hank Aaron-era Bravos, the O’s fauxback, the Bucs alt (but I’d prefer monochrome gold to mix & match), the A’s gold top (although that doesn’t look too much different from their current new alt), the new Marlins roadie, and of course, the Mets pins with dropshadow removed. Couple clubs were great but I’d tweak the color a notch (like the Mets — should be a much deeper royal). Overall, really really solid work.

What didn’t I like? Sorry buddy, but I can’t say I’m a fan of the D-Backs home alt — there should be another MLB team to use green, but Arizona just doesn’t feel like that team; the Orioles home alt — but that’s not because of the jersey — you need to go with the classic stirrups with that getup; and, I hate to say this — the Mets charcoal roads — but not because of the execution — I think the blue needs to be a deeper royal and unfortunately, the font doesn’t show up well enough against that background (but I don’t want an outline or dropshadow, so I don’t know how to fix it). Nevertheless, thanks for turning my suggestion into a concept … I think we can make that work.

OK, folks — another huge hand for Tim E. Let him know what you think!


colorize thisColorize This!

Occasionally, I will be featuring wonderful, high-quality black and white photographs that are just begging to be colorized.

A rare Saturday appearance for this favorite, and it’s a bit small today. Why today, you may ask? Because, barring some unforeseen uni development that kills tomorrow’s lede, I’ll be featuring colorizer-extraordinaire Gary Chanko, who’ll give us an amazing tutorial on this wonderful art. So today, I’ll run this weekend’s “Colorize This!”

We won’t be hearing from Gary today, but he’ll be front and center tomorrow. The other half of the “G&G Boys” will be well represented, as usual. Up first however, is Bruce Utzig, who has a colorization request:

Hello Phil,

I would like to offer this photo of my dad to be colorized by the excellent people of the site.

About 3 months ago, my aunt came across this picture of my dad while cleaning out some boxes from my grandparents estate. According to the family time line this would have been taken in Bend, Oregon (not that it matters since the picture is inside). My dad would have been age 12 for this photo. I spoke with him about this uniform and he believes it was grey flannel with royal blue lettering. Everything else is subject to interpretation as he doesn’t have that many details.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Bruce Utzig

Great photo, Bruce. Hopefully one of our colorizers will take you up on that request.


Next up is a second-time participant, Andy, from the Dick Allen HOF, with a new colorization:


Thanks for including me in your most recent “Colorize This!” post.

I completed another one this week of my favorite subject.

Dick Allen Hall of Fame

Thanks Andy.


And finally, before we get to the heavy hitter, we have Chris Bisbee, a frequent contributor, who offers not a colorization, per se, but a twist on it:


Here’s a link to a great story in the London Daily Mail. Very cool color photos from the Depression.

Chris Bisbee

Nice! Great pics Chris


And the moment you’ve all been waiting for…George Chilvers checks in with a few beauties:

First one was sent to me early in the week:

An early one for next week, Phil :)

Original is here

Everton 1960.


Beaut, as always. Then came this, indicating a bit of a theme:

Another Everton group

Original is here

Everton 1905-06


Tremendous. And, finally, the kicker, with a bit of history attached:

Hi Phil

Back to “the Sport of Kings” – literally – as this is Herbert Jones, wearing the British royal racing colours, the colours now worn by jockeys on HM The Queen’s horses.

Herbert was royal jockey in the early part of the 20th century, and won the Epsom Derby for King Edward VII in 1909 in Minoru.

In the 1913 Derby he was the rider of the horse of King George V, Anmer, when a suffragette Emily Davison leapt out from the crowd and under the horse. She was killed, and tragically Jones said ever afterwards he was haunted by her face. Although it was a long time later he himself committed suicide in 1951.

Not very cheery I know, but a bit of British social history after the large number of comments last week about naming of baseball/football teams.

Original to be found here.

Herbert Jones.

Best wishes


Thanks, George. Fantastic job as always.


That’s it for today, but be sure to check back tomorrow when I’ll feature Gary giving us all a tutorial of how to colorize — it’s great both for beginners and for those who’ve been doing it for a while — you’ll definitely learn some new tricks!

As for suggestions for next time? You’re on your own, but there’s a tremendous photo of the 1918 Cubs (or a single Cub, I should say) that will follow in another section — that would make for a great colorization. And of course, there is the request from Bruce Utzig (above). Happy colorizing.


Benchies HeaderBenchies

by Rick Pearson


Good to have a profession that makes people want to chat…

5-21-11 d-life

And, as always, the full size.


all sport uni tweaksUni Tweaks

We have another new set of tweaks today.

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

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

And so, lets begin:


We start with Johnny Bruno, who touches the untouchable…and also has some thoughts on the Nets:

Hey Phil,

I’ve sent multiple tweaks and I have a few more for you.

First off the untouchable uniform, the New York Yankees. Not so much of a tweak but a throwback concept. The home jersey is a throwback to the 1912 uni and the road is a tribute to the 1927 murderers row team. I also made a few new logos with multiple color variations.

I’ve also made a concept for when the Nets move to Brooklyn. The inspiration came from multiple places, an iconic team that used to play in Brooklyn, and the New Jersey Americans from the ABA. The new uniform is inspired by both the Dodgers uniform and the old Americans uniform. The primary logo is an altered version of this Brooklyn Dodgers alternate logo. The new alternate is a new version of the old Americans logo. I also designed a new floor as well. As are all my other tweaks, these are all made with MS Paint.

Thanks Again,

Johnny Bruno


Next up is Paul Lee, who has a “rebuttal” that is about 17 words longer than his usual amount…


Note: This is not a rebuttal to Mr. Tim E. O’Brien’s tweaks””who prefer his NOBs sans outline :)

Paul Lee


And last up today is Kenny Sorrentino, with a Bills redux:

Hey Phil,

As we all know, the Buffalo Bills are changing their unis for the 2011-2012 season. Greatest idea since bringing up Jim Kelly. If they can get either Cam Newton or Patrick Peterson to wear these unis, they might get far. The font looks a little like the Patriots’, but the 4 evens it out. (On the Toronto Series helmet, it is a maple leaf over a “T” if you can’t tell)

Kenny Sorrentino

Thanks everyone. Back tomorrow with more.


Cubs vs. Red SoxBack to Beantown, 93 Years Later…

This evening, the Chicago Cubs are back for their second game in Boston since 1918, when the two clubs met in the World Series; while there is some revisionist history speculation that the Cubs may have thrown the series, we’ll probably never know for sure. All we do know is that the Sawks won that series, four games to two.

Due to the complexities of interplague, even though regular season play between the leagues has been occurring since 1997, the Red Sox have never hosted the Cubs. That ended last night. But today, the two teams will be sporting throwback uniforms designed to resemble those worn during each team’s respective 1918 season.

The Cubs had a very interesting chest logo, while their counterparts from Boston had NO wordmark on their home uniform (the roadies had this script). It’s a shame the teams weren’t swapping home and roads, as the Sox roads looked like this. The Cubs homes in ’18 were also more colorful. In black and white they looked like this, and probably would have looked like this in living color. But alas, tis not to be.

Instead, the Cubs will be fauxbacking to this, this and this, which should be an interesting look. Your 1918 World Champion Red Sox will be sporting a very plain white uni, with the only real color coming from the the red stripe on their socks.

I haven’t seen a single preview of either team’s uniform, but I assume they won’t be too difficult to replicate. Update: Here’s a preview of tonight’s unis. Now, if Majestic is making them, and they are, they better damn well tailor them so the players cannot wear pajama pants. I doubt any of them would, since the Sox would likely look like milkmen (thanks for the reference, Ricko). Anyway, I guess we’ll know soon enough how the respective teams look. Since it’s a Fox regional game, that means most of the country, unless you’re in the Chicago or Boston market, probably will only get highlights of the game. Still, looking forward to how they pull it off.


al_vs_nl_logoParting Shots

With apologies to Mercutio, “An Interplague on both your leagues.” Bah.

It’s that time of year again…that time when the almighty dollar rips apart the baseball season and forces interleague baseball upon us all. What started out in 1997 as kind of fun experiment has morphed into a complete disaster, replete with bizarre forced pairings (and forced rivalries that never existed), and basically thrown a full scale “STOP” into the baseball season. Yeah, occasionally we’ll get a “decent” matchup (such as the Cubs and Red Sox), but who doesn’t love the Royals/Padres matchup or the Blue Jays/D-Backs pairings? NO ONE. Not even the “fans” apparently. But MLB insists it’s a great idea.

I won’t even get into the inequities of the interplague schedule, but at least in 1997 when this started, every team in your division played one series against a team in the “reciprocal” division (i.e. AL west played NL west, etc.). But because the number of teams is uneven (16 in the NL and 14 in the AL), there’s always two NL teams playing each other, no matter what the rest of the leagues are doing. And teams don’t even play a representative schedule any more — the Phillies might play four AL opponents with a combined winning percentage of .545 (for example), while the Nationals might play four other clubs with a winning percentage of .420. Not that the Nats will be winning the division or wild card, but that’s wholly unfair to the Phillies.

Even as a Mets fan, I’m completely sick of seeing the Yankees six more times every season — especially when this is the same amount of games the Mets play against the NL Central in any given season. How fair is that? There’s probably a half-dozen more reasons I hate interplague and I’ve already said enough. But enough is enough. Time to either end this experiment entirely, or come up with a better system of allotting who plays who, and reduce the number of interleague games all teams play.


Yes, I am calling the 1961 Twins script Minnesota’s equivalent of a black Mets jersey. — Scott Rogers

156 comments to Tim E.’s MLB, Template Style, Part the Second

  • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 7:26 am |

    I still like most of my concepts better. :)

    /nice work though

  • Colm H | May 21, 2011 at 7:36 am |

    Really like the Brooklyn Americans idea. Really looking forward to what the Flyin’ Prokhorovs do with the name/logo/uniforms when they move

  • The Other Chris | May 21, 2011 at 8:06 am |

    Scott Rogers is wrong. Terribly terribly wrong.

    • TC Mark | May 21, 2011 at 10:14 am |

      I’m not even sure what he means. Does he think this is black and red? If not then what is there to “not like”?! Its a classic and has been revived the past two years with great success. To each his own…but c’mon!

      • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 10:20 am |

        I’m assuming his thinking is that that particular script was a bad idea, in the same way that some people think the Mets with black is a bad idea.

  • wollen1 | May 21, 2011 at 8:55 am |

    Great job MLB. You have this really cool throwback game featuring two of your anchor franchises and because of your shortsighted blackout policy, most of the nation can’t see it, even if they’re willing to pay for the privilege. I was looking forward to watching this game all week until I found out it was a FOX game. Now I’m mad.

    Screw you Selig.

    • Craig D | May 21, 2011 at 9:10 am |

      Now if the Cubs just changed their name to “Yankees” for the weekend, all three games woul be nationally televised.

      • FormerDirtDart | May 21, 2011 at 11:43 am |

        I’m in Jacksonville, FL, and I had the Cubs-Red Sox game on MLB Network last night instead of the Mets-Yankees.
        Though, that may have been because SNY is offered by Comcast on their Premium HD package here.

  • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 8:57 am |

    I know that, in the real world, some would scream it shows preference for Arizona State over U of Arizona, but I’d like to see one of our talented Tweakers tackle the Diamondbacks in Maroon and Vegas Gold.

    Those are not the actual colors of a diamondback rattler, of course, but they sure point in that general direction far more than anything the team has ever worn, or are now wearing.

    Plus, nobody in MLB wears maroon. Or burgundy, for that matter. Yeah, yeah, the Phillies one-time throwbacks from the Civil Rights game. I’m talking about as the regular predominant color.

    • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 9:01 am |

      Maroon & Gold? Hmm….

      Nah, I’ve traumatized everyone enough. Someone else will have to do that one.

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 9:12 am |

      For those who thought the Padres’ road Sands were an interesting change of pace, it might a place to resurrect such a thing, huh.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:19 am |

      While we’re at it lets change that A logo to somthing more like this:

      • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 11:35 am |

        I assume you mean like a snake wrapped around the A? That could be interesting.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:43 am |

          Now that’s a gold star idea.

          And where the hell/how the hell do you live that being here – consistently – at the ‘open’ is fun, preferred or whatever?

          I was the feature and I didn’t wake up till 8 central.

        • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 11:55 am |

          I work nights. I get home from work around 7am eastern and have a few hours to kill before I sleep most of the day. Basically, your morning is my evening, since time is relative & all that.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 12:02 pm |


  • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 9:06 am |

    I love some of the small things Tim E. did today.

    A couple examples…
    The Rangers deciding whether they’re a royal team or a red team.
    The cheddar hat visor both home and road for the A’s.

    It isn’t always huge changes that make a big difference.

  • Gary | May 21, 2011 at 9:20 am |

    Orioles Road Alternate?

    I thought we were seeing a preview of the Yankees new Road uni’s – after they change their name to the Zeros. This stuff happens when you lose to the Mets at Home.

  • James | May 21, 2011 at 9:25 am |

    LOVE the Sunday uniforms for the Pirates.

    • Jim Vilk | May 21, 2011 at 10:35 am |

      Every day should be Sunday.

      Won’t be able to read the whole piece until later, but from what I saw, I’m impressed. Loved the Braves alt and the Orioles home, in particular.

      Looking forward to seeing the rest later!

  • Coleman | May 21, 2011 at 9:30 am |

    Outstanding work yet again Tim E. Growing up going to Pirates games I’ll always have a soft spot for them, and I love that you tried so many combinations.

    My big “wow” moment, though, was that Orioles Road uni…

    I can’t put my finger on exactly what makes me love it, but I know I’m loving the grey uni with the retro white panel hat.

    Awesome stuff. Now, on to the rest of today’s entry…

  • Jeremiah | May 21, 2011 at 9:42 am |

    I really enjoyed Tim’s tweaks. I think the Diamond backs presents an interesting idea. I don’t know if it would work, but it’s definitely bold. I like it for that alone. I love that he brought back the O’s white paneled hat. Those were great. Like Phil, I think the Cards powders look great rendered with buttons and belts. My only real disagreement is with the Royals. They just look good in powder to me. In fact, they should go with a full uni in that color.

    I didn’t get to comment last time, but I like his tweak of my Angels. I like what they wear now. I would just like to see some more blue in the uni. My all-time fave Angels uni is from ’93-’96.

  • Rob H | May 21, 2011 at 9:49 am |

    Looks like a decent amount of the country will get Cubs-Red Sox after all.

  • jim greenfield | May 21, 2011 at 9:54 am |

    Another great job Tim! IMO the script lettering is too steeply angled on many. I think the flatter Cardinals would be a better standard. Too many stripeless socks! Only a few should be solid; the Redlegs (I don’t like the ‘negative’ look of their roads-leave em red), White Sox, Red Sox (going by the name), Yankees, and a couple more N.L.;3 or 4 in each league is enough solids. I know the Red Sox stripes are classic, they could be used elsewhere. I hope the new comish has the sense to make you the uni czar and mandatory to go high cuffed (although I think mid calf is a better look maybe it’s uncomfortable).

  • Cort | May 21, 2011 at 10:25 am |

    I like a lot of the concepts, too. And I agree with Ricko: small changes sometimes make an enormous difference. One suggestion: the Cardnials used to have a logo that featured a redbird in batting stance. That may be a better shoulder patch than the singe bird on bat, which looks pretty repetitive.

    The Orioles black uniforms look a whole lot like the original Orioles uniforms, circa 1899. The look pretty great.

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      That would be this one.
      1956, the year of no Birds on Bat…

      • pushbutton | May 21, 2011 at 11:24 am |

        Yeah, there was one bird too many there. And I hate redundant shoulder patches, especially the Giants and the Dodgers. I kind of liked the Tigers patch, though.

        I loved hell out of those Diamondbacks unis. My god those would be distinctive.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:35 am |

          “I hate redundant shoulder patches”

          Understandable, I’m not a big fan either, but I only had so much to work from this week whilst tweaking but in an ideal world sleeve patches would be like my non-70s Braves and my A’s, namely something fun or related to the city on the Home and then something related to the team name on the Road.

  • mmwatkin | May 21, 2011 at 10:25 am |

    Very nice work. I am loving the 3D template.

    I just can’t get on board with the monochrome look in baseball. I prefer the softball top look.

    And since I am awful at anything that requires computer skills: if anyone is messing around with the template, could you try out the Tigers road uniform without the white border on the script? I always hated that. Thanks!

  • Cort | May 21, 2011 at 10:28 am |

    Gee, I guess I should have looked at that last link in the Orioles entry before I wrote anything…

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      Back when I was involved with Phil’s piece on Monochrome in MLB, this Orioles “harkback” was one them.
      Put different pants and socks with some of their existing gear (in MS Paint, so not for anything precise, just a general impression of how it might look)…

  • DenverGregg | May 21, 2011 at 10:38 am |

    Love ’em: A’s; Cards; Pirates; Yanks; Tigers roadies.

    Like ’em: Bravos non-70s; Dodgers; Giants; M’s non-teal; Mess; Phils w/o blue caps; Rangers; Rox (would love ’em if he had kept the typeface).

    meh: Fishies; O’s; 666; Royals.

    no thanks: Bravos 70s; M’s teal; D-baags; Phils w/blue caps; Tigers home.

  • Ed | May 21, 2011 at 10:41 am |

    Random question: Does anyone know a source for the Bob Feller memorial patch being worn by the Indians this year, WITHOUT the lettering on it? The patch that is worn on the field doesn’t have the “HOF 1962” lettering; everything on eBay has the lettering.


    I have a jersey that I’m trying to make a bit more “Authentic” (roll eyes at store marketing).


  • James Steever | May 21, 2011 at 11:03 am |

    Tim O’Brien’s technical skills are sick! Unfortunately, his design skills are well just sick… but not in the healthy way. Startling lack of a creativity for a creative type.

  • Jet | May 21, 2011 at 11:03 am |

    Tim’s tweaks are mostly great. On a couple I find myself wishing there was some stripe-age on the stirrups instead of the plain one-color look — Mets, O’s and Mariners are a few that come to mind.

    A few others the overall color balance is a bit off, perhaps from combining elements from different eras. For example, the Phillies road alt is sweet looking, but I find my eyes immediately drawn to those thick white stripes on the stirrups…because there is no white anywhere else on the uni, except for perhaps a thin outline on the “P” on the cap.

    The Diamondbacks colors are certainly intriguing. I wouldn’t mind seeing a uni like that…


  • James Steever | May 21, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    I looked even harder at the Tim O’Brien designs… what’s new or different about these? I don’t understand?

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:16 am |

      I guess they’re not for everyone…

      Many aren’t earth-shatteringly new, i know, but baseball has so much tradition, there’s only so many new things you can ‘reasonably’ do to teams like the Tigers, Yankees and Pirates.

      I go for reasonable and possible uni changes as opposed to extreme overhauls.

      • The Jeff | May 21, 2011 at 11:33 am |

        You know, it’s funny… if you do something drastically different (like some of my concepts) you get blasted… and if you make more subtle changes… you still get blasted.

        You just can’t win.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:37 am |

          Haters gone hate.
          Lovers gone love.
          I don’t even want
          None of the above.

        • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |

          Haha, insert R. Kelly joke here——->_____________

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

          Thank god someone got that

    • LI Phil | May 21, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      these are also a “first look” — there’s nothing saying they can’t be tweaked or remade wholesale

      i’m extremely pleased with Tim’s first efforts (and some of them I’m sure he did with my critical eye, and get off my lawn attitude towards mlb traditions in mind)

      fear not, for i expect that at some point this summer, I will have many more MLB tweaks from tim

      in the meantime, rather than criticizing for criticizing’s sake, offer some suggestions and perhaps he can accommodate your wishes down the road

      great job tim!


      and on that, note, i’m outta here for much of the afternoon

      play nice everyone!

      • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:31 am |

        Phil’s gone. It’s open season.

        also, THANKS PHIL!

        • FormerDirtDart | May 21, 2011 at 11:55 am |

          I think the Mets Road’s would look better if you used a gray similar to the one used for the Giants roads. I seems to be midway between the charcoal and the light gray for the road alts.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

        Is this where we switch seats to screw up the seating chart for the substitute teacher?

        Nah, it’s where we giggle cuz mom and dad think we don’t know where their stash is.

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

          Okay, how many of you with teens or pre-teens at home at this point got up and changed the location of your stash?

          Be honest, now.

  • James Steever | May 21, 2011 at 11:17 am |

    D-Backs baby poop brown and split pea soup green might be the worst color combination in the history of sports. Yikes Tim really? You just made this look classy.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:25 am |

      Jokes on you, I was going for toddler poop brown and vomit green.


      • nick | May 21, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

        so the guys an idiot because he didnt like that ghastly color combination? you sound like paul

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

          That sarcasm was laid on so think, I’m almost upset with myself.


        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

          so thick**

  • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 11:30 am |

    I am lovin’ Johnny Bruno’s Brooklyn American’s.

    Not sold on the name though, I like the Nets too much.

  • Broadway Connie | May 21, 2011 at 11:36 am |

    First off, Phil, way to fulminate on the interplague. The loss of anticipatory mystery for the World Seies is a terrible thing.

    Chilvers is crazy good, even by his standards. That jockey! Who does Wigan have to beat this weekend, George?

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 11:50 am |

      Not to mention that, say, the Twins would play, say, the Red Sox or Orioles more often. Instead of getting the Royals so many times it starts to feel like Spring Training.

    • besty | May 21, 2011 at 10:03 pm |

      If they must continue interleague play they need to put Milwaukee back in the AL (Central) and move Kansas City to the West. Then there would be interleague play every day. Each team in all divisions would play 3 games with each team in two divisions in the other league. 30 interleague games for every team. The rest of the schedule would consist of home and home 3-games series’ with each league team and 18 division games for every team. That is as UNIFORM as you can get it with interleague play. Rotate it the way football does so every team hits every town at least every 3 years.

      • besty | May 21, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

        Even though I have worked up a solution I still believe interleague play is a money grabbing travesty and does take the specialness away from the World Series.

  • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 11:47 am |

    Just as there always will be
    Guy At The End Of The Bar football coaches,
    there always will be
    Guy At The End Of The Bar design critics.

    We know who they are, the ones who snipe and run, as if now that they’ve offered their insightful, spot-on barb we should realize that, golly, I guess there’s no longer need for further discussion.

    They sound something like this: “H&R Block? What the hell, it’s just a damn green square.”

    Never mind that’s a BLOCK, that it’s green like money, and that’s instantly recognizable after being seen only once.

    Generally speaking, I’ve learned I wouldn’t ask the former Guy At The Bar about the NFL Draft nor the latter Guy At The Bar to help me pick out a suit.

  • RedWing in Colorado | May 21, 2011 at 11:50 am |

    Just for fun, if you like those color depression shots, here’s all of ’em (at least all of the ones paid for by the government)

    These photos were taken by the Office of War Information and the Farm Security Administration It was the same project that Dorthea Lange was paid through when she shot the famous “Migrant Mother”. Not uni-related, but the color saturation in most of those shots is TO DIE FOR.

  • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

    Nice to know MLB has at least a couple more options for future Ballpark Patriotism hats, isn’t it…

  • Christopher | May 21, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    Sorry the end of the world thing didn’t happen so you could have a day off, Phil.

    Seriously- good work as always!

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

      Thought that wasn’t til later.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

        Cuz I was trying to get my laundry finishes first.

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

      Shoot, in the TC this is our 9th weekend out of the past 10 with either snow or rain. There’s enough gloom around here that I think some of would see the end of the world as an improvement.

      I mean, near as we can figure, the sun’s already going away nyway.

  • nick | May 21, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

    you didn’t add the orange alternate for the giants, they already have one.

  • moose | May 21, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

    sure, backs-jays, and royals-fathers may not be slick, but neither is backs-padres or royals-jays, so what’s your fucking point? obviously the slick match-ups make the interleague, but this crap about match-ups is weak corn liquor. not to mention you live in a market where if you were an ex-pat you could see your team if you wanted. examples: a balto transplant in nyc could adopt the mets s his local, and still see his beloved oreos at a golden stad. but guess what, soooome people live in landlocked hell towns where if they were say a balto native living in say st. louis, they would never get to see their team. let’s face it, the oreos ain’t a sexy match-up with anybody, AL or NL. but there are baltos everywhere, it would be nice if we had the option of seeing are team once a decade. is that so much to ask? so stick your i hate interleague take until you come up with a better reason for hating it.

    that was a well rounded piece, loved it.

    tim E~
    thanks for at least taking the swoosh off the glove. i would have gone further and ditched those cleats because you are not working for nike, but whatever, still an upgrade. yes rick modern cleats are not plain black, but modern players sometimes where black cleats that are more white too, so we will never have something true to everyone anyway. back to tim.i think you did a nice job, but the stripes, and this is the problem with the templates, are they in proportion or not. for instance what you did to the oreos is nice, but how thick are the stripes? 70’s thick(as they appear)? majestic throwback redick thick? or like a “modern” jersey, like say the giants? if i is the later, love it in general if not universal. as for the oreos playing in all black in balto, you know that two week stretch in chitown when things are so hot and humid you can’t move, in balto we call that summer, so that might not work, but nice 1901 shout none the less.

    • moose | May 21, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

      did i say are not our? am i a third grader?

    • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

      As to something like my take on the O’s in black, I never imagine they’d ever wear it. They’d be nuts. For me it’s more like, “What would that old style design look like on a uni of today?” Just a visual exercise, a transmografication of time and space, color and cut. Most times, like a botched throwback with pajama pants and a jersey 14 sizes too big, it’s a practical flop.

      And that usually reveals WHY it wouldn’t work.

      • moose | May 21, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

        fair enough. and that is the way i look at 100% of the tweaks, more of a what if, but i i had to comment on the aO’s.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

      Not to split hairs, but the all black is a Road uni. And it’s hot lots of places during the summer, so your point isn’t lost.

      And what stripes are you referring to in your critique? The pants?

      If so, they should be about this thick: (the actual image, not the drawing and each color should be as thick as the black stripe, making the Sox’s stripe 2/3 the size of the Orioles.)

      NOT this thick:

      • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

          i was just wondering, i mean we can try to articulate, but as you know nothing matches what we were thinking perfectly. or rarely does without a billion re-do’s. so i wanted to say nice job, but a qualified nice job.

          yes, it is hot in the summer, but some places get freaking miserable compared to where you are, that’s all i was saying. you think it gets hot there, and it does, i lived there for the longest, you are right. but saying it is summer everywhere is like comparing a chicago winter to a place that isn’t chicago. just sayin summer ain’t summer my friend like winter ain’t winter.

        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

          oh and stripes are all of them. pants shirt whatever. if they are thick majestic stipes,they are too thick, but i love the nod to the past either way. you rocked the tweeks on this one, do not misunderstand what i said.

    • moose | May 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

      well jork? seems to me you have ani am no calling for a playoff, but the system is broke, and there ain’t no goin back argument non position here. i’m just sayin skip, but i loves me my phil, i want to give him a big wet kiss. doesn’t everyone want to stick their tongue in phils ear and call it heaven, or is it me? i nary met a sexier man, but that is aside the point i guess.

      • moose | May 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

        oh, phil, i just saw you are gone for the afternoon, as am i now, so we can continue our beauty and the beast convo some other time.

        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 6:31 pm |

          you make one comment about phil’s apple-bottom, and you’re poison.

          i am a very good gambler, or my pony took last in the susan. so much for the yearly horse bet, may as well be champ or chimp. stupid Kegasaurus.

  • Trevor | May 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

    So just so I have this straight:
    The Royals aren’t supposed to wear the baby-blues (The iconic baby-blue team) because our name just so happens to be an adjective for a certain shade of blue, meanwhile that crap-team from the other side of the state is allowed to rock our look despite their name being a shade of red? Makes sense…

    I suppose I’ll be called an idiot by the genius who came up with such an awesome rule while not getting any actual reasoning behind it, too. Oh well, I’ll just relax and enjoy the fact that the right team will be wearing baby blue this Sunday.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

      Cardinal is a shade of red the same way fire-truck is. Or piss is a shade of yellow. Or, and “‘m quoting from above here, “baby poop” is a shade of brown.

      Royal is more along the lines of navy, crimson, gold and etc.

      But it’s just my perspective, not the end-all, be-all.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

        Uni colors can be daunting.

        More than once over the years I’ve seen a single catalog offer jerseys, stirrups, etc., in …

        Two colors between the red of the 49ers, Cardinals, Chiefs, etc. and maroon of Texas A&M. And “Cardinal” isn’t the color worn by the St. Louis Cardinals, which further confounds things. It’s the color worn by Stanford.

        Now, where exactly “Crimson” comes in (I’ve seen that listed, too), I can’t nonestly say. Or is it just another name for Cardinal or Burgundy?

        Then there’s Royal, which would seem to be somewhat universal, except “Dodger Blue” is slightly darker.

        And has anyone else noticed that the Twins and Indians, who both wear what we’d probably call “Navy” don’t wear the same color hats? The Indians are lighter. Really noticable when they play each ohter and you can compare shots of the pitchers on the mound in identical lighting.

        • Broadway Connie | May 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

          Crimson lies between Cardinal and Burgundy, but closer to Cardinal. As a general rule, Crimson is more-red and less-maroon than most people seem to think.

          By the way Tim-O (got any uncles who call you Tim-O?), excellent work this week. I was especially swayed by the all-around coolness of the away uniforms.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

          “got any uncles who call you Tim-O?”

          None. But I’m cool with it. I’d prefer that over Tim E. (I hate, HATE being called Timmy).

          Thanks for the complements, glad to see you like my concepts.

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

          Didn’t mean to say didn’t know the color, meant I wasn’t sure exactly where equipment peddlers put it.

  • Casey | May 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

    Just a small correction, Jays are playing the Astros not D-backs

  • Zach Brady | May 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

    It’s cute that you the think the Royals should wear royal blue…. But their name has absolutely nothing to do with the color.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

      I know this. But it also doesn’t have anything to do with royalty either, and I don’t see anybody criticizing the crown.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

        ’tis true, there’s the reference to the livestock component in the name Royals, but…

        If we don’t think that maybe, just maybe, it was chosen because it also included a nod to the Kansas City Monarchs then we are seriously dreaming.

        In which case, it DOES have at least a little something to do with royalty.

        Like no one’s ever thought of that before? Jeez, KC is home to the Negro Leagues Museum. And the Monaarchs were the team Jackie Robinson was playing for when he signed with the Dodgers.

        Seriously, we think the owners of the new KC franchise didn’t know those things in 1969?

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

          Yes, the museum wasn’t there until 1990. I referenced it as part of KC’s connection to Negro League history, not the museum’s presence 40+ years ago. I just meant the tradition of the Monarchs certainly didn’t elude them.

          Similar to “Kings” being a substitute for “Royals” when the NBA came to town.

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

          In fact, I’d bet that, in reality, had we been in the room for the discussion, we’d know the choice of Royals had MUCH more to do with baseball and the Monarachs than it did the livestock show.

          In 1969 they’d probably have got flack for making too much of the Negro Leagues, so the American Royal was a convenient beard.

          I say that because at the time most baseball people, and fans, figured it was an obvious spin on Monarchs. Was only later they realized, “Oh, there’s a livestock show, too?”

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 3:29 pm |


          At MentalFloss the history of the Royals’ nickname quotes the winner of the name-the-team contest. His entry went on and on about the American Royal and Kansas City’s postion as “the nation’s leading stocker”, finishing by saying, “Royalty stands for the best–that’s another reason.” The Mental Floss writer then concludes with this note, “Coincidentally, Kansas City’s Negro League team was nicknamed the Monarchs.”

          Yeah, that was a pure coincidence, alright.

          In other words, the guy wrote the best rationale for a nickname that wouldn’t get the team shit for remembering arguably the most famous team in Kansas City baseball history, which happened to be a Negro League team (keep in my mind, Martin Luther King was killed April 4, 1968, roughly a year before the Royals’ initial Opening Day).

          Pretty sure Satchel Paige never pitched at the Horse Show, either.

  • Jay Boyle | May 21, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

    On the Atlanta Braves home and road uniforms, I would rather have either the “Tomahawk A” on both the home and road uniforms instead of the “A” on the home and “B” on the road. Better yet, if they could, they could bring back the Cheering Indian with mohawk and feather like they wore in Milwaukee from 1957-65 and in Atlanta from 1966-71. However, the Braves’ organization would rather go with the “Tomahawk A”.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 3:34 pm |

      Yeah, you might notta been here for last Sunday, let’s not go back to the ‘native as a logo’ argument.

  • andrew seagraves | May 21, 2011 at 3:40 pm |


    Love the designs, even the Black Orioles Throwback – diggin’ the hooped stirrups.

    One that didn’t sit too well with me was the Diamondbacks Road jersey – just reminds me of burlap. Just feels like it would chafe in my mind (and yes I know it wouldn’t but the visual and the mental are just doing this unnatural dance that makes me wince a little)

    Other than that, a lot of fun concepts!

  • Steve | May 21, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

    Can we cut down on these “Part 1, Part 2, Part 3” posts from weekend to weekend? It seems like every Saturday and Sunday post the last few months is either the start or end of a two or three part entry. Rarely do any of them interest me enough to “look forward to next weekend’s post,” and some of them just seem more drawn out than they need to be.

    For example…today’s main post could have been run at the same time as the first one last week. How? Eliminate the “I’m making changes just to make changes” versions. Seriously…a orange stroke around the “D” on the Tigers uniform…no changes at all to the Yankees…adding hiked up pants/stirrups combo to existing uniform sets…

    Do “tweaks” like this really need to be included in the post? They seem pointless. But then again, it looks like some readers actually get excited by them…so that is just my opinion.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm |

      The only reason this was a two-parter was because I didn’t have enough time to do all these tweaks before my deadline last week when we wanted to release the ‘3D’ template to the UniWatch public.

      And if you find some tweaks tedious, nit-picky or unnecessary that’s perfectly acceptable. For this project I specifically wanted to showcase ALL the teams in MLB in the new template to show off its versitility.

      But it should be noted that Phil does A LOT (a metric shitton) of work to organize two posts every weekend that used to not be here – while simultaneously maintaining a job and going back to school.

      So, it’s not like these multi-parters are bumping better/more uni-related goodness, they are what Phil and contributors like The Jeff, Viker, Ricko, myself and many others are able to work up to keep these weekend posts chock full of goodness (or at least attempted goodness).
      I hope none of that came of as snarky, mean spirited or anything because your comment is 100% valid and I tried to reply to it as sincerely as I could.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |

        ’tis true. Before Phil became the Bench Coach weekends usually consisted of one photo (often only marginally uni-or history related) and at the most, three or four grafs of copy.

        Beyond that, it was hit & miss whether there was anything to talk about. And, quite often, noteworthy (or at least interesting) developments got postponed to Monday or later.

        Before Phil, UW was all but “Closed on Weekends”. And you can’t fault Paul for that. Nobody wants a seven-day a week job if they don’t have to have one.

        Now, is it all a bit much sometimes? Absolutely, but better than listening to wind blow through here on Saturday and Sunday, to my way of thinking.

        • Steve | May 21, 2011 at 6:21 pm |

          I know, I have read (or skimmed) every entry since day one here at UniWatch. I know weekends used to be just a picture with a small blurb. And I also know a lot of work goes into it all, and I do appreciate it.

          I typically don’t post, and rarely ever read the comments, so I guess it’s not my thing, but…”better than listening to wind blow through here…”? I guess, if sitting around your house on weekends waiting for people to post comments is your idea of a good weekend. Although it probably does, I don’t intend for that to make me sound like an ass. But really, weekends, for most people, are a break from reality. Paul does this M-F for us all and takes a break on the weekend. It’s ok for all of us to take a break from the site on the weekends as well. It’s getting nicer out (at least I can finally say that in Chicago…for the next few days)…don’t worry about sending in a picture of or commenting on a “BFBS softball top”…turn off the computer, do something fun outside…

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

          I don’t know where in Chicago you are, but here in the western suburbs it’s been on and off raining all day and humid as the day is long.

          Ya know, on most days, I’ll take a cursory glance here, maybe post a comment or two, and then – like you – go on about enjoying the day. But I feel obligated on day’s like today to keep an eye on here and on my site (to make sure it doesn’t crash!) since I’m being featured.

          The change of pace to user submission on the weekends is nice.

          …plus it’s laundry day.

        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

          don’t listen to this clown tim, you did a nice job. some people don’t work monday-friday 9-5 so weekends can come at any time, we are free to catch a beautiful day any time we please, we don’t only get out on weekends. but that is beside the point. bottom line, we appreciate apple bottoms effort, and the effort of contributors like yourself(even if we don’t agree with everything). i know i can bust chops, but when someone gives the i don’t mean to be an jerk, but i am going to insult you anyway take, you know they are clowns. “steve” i am sure posts here consistently under another name that he is afraid to use in this circumstance, it’s just his way of being a dishrag. he would never in a million years have the balls to say something like that to your face because they would be fed back to him. bottom line most of the people who comment/don’t comment appreciate the effort. maybe this clown would like to have a hack at it and see how he likes it when people say “you know steve, i don’t mean to be a jerk, but your take is weak.”. that would shut him up, but he is too afraid to put his voice forward, and i am sure he didn’t use a real email here either because he is a coward, and a troll.

        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 7:26 pm |

          one more thing before i run to the airport. let’s assume everything in steve’s i don’t mean to be insulting comment it is true. so he insults reading the post, which he obviously did. he insults the comments, which he obviously read/reads. so what is more pathetic, the people who participate, or the jag who actually takes the time out of his day to insult people for doing the same? it’s kind of sad when you think about it, if he really was above it, that comment wouldn’t exist.

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm |

          Jeez, I agreed with you, saying that sometimes it’s a but much, and you feel the need to take a personal shot at me?

          “…’better than listening to wind blow through here…’? I guess, if sitting around your house on weekends waiting for people to post comments is your idea of a good weekend.”

          You didn’t get that was a figure of speech?

          Give me you email, though, will you? Since you’re evidently the one who decides such things, I want to send you my weekend plans every Wednesday or Thursday. Y’know, so you can let me know if they meet with your approval.

        • moose | May 21, 2011 at 9:07 pm |

          …and he responded after his i’m better then this, so he is obviously monitoring comments too, which means he listens to the same wind he finds so stupid. i may waste my time, but at least i waste my time on something i like. it would be like me buying a ticket to an reo speedwagon concert, and then bitching that it sucks. dishrags like this make me sick. which is exactly why anybody who ever has any contribution here should just ignore cowards like that.

  • JJ | May 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |

    Technically, Tim did make a tweat to the Yankees home uniform, by using the same logo for the hat and the jersey. The Yankees jersey logo is a different one from the hat, its a thicker interlocking NY.

  • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm |

    Hello Tim. First off, excellent job on the 3D template looks. This is exactly the kind of high-quality work that makes me want to become a graphic designer =) Couple of suggestions though:

    Dodgers Alt ~ (

    I would go with a white tackle twill script and numbers as on the er-satins for this year’s throwback for contrast reasons.

    Marlins overall ~ (

    With the added orange, the black hats and stirrups look out of place.

    Rangers Home ~ (

    I would make the chronological striping order red-white-blue, especially if you’re gonna have the Rangers wear blue undershirts. The blue stripe on the collar gets lost in the shirt.

    Royals overall ~ (

    I would utilize the gold more; such as using it as the outline for all of the scripts (especially that God-awful white outline on the grey jersey). Royal blue and metallic gold in any sense (Vegas Gold, Old Gold, Wheat Gold, Copper, Champion Gold, etc.) is a very underrated and underused blue/gold scheme.

    Please keep up the good work, Tim =)

  • Iggy Blissful | May 21, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

    I’m not big on shoulder patches either but I would love to see a city flag patch on the Cardinals’ roads. Every color on the flag is part of the uniform already. If you don’t like the whole flag then just add the Fleur-de-lis.

  • Jeffrey Lowery | May 21, 2011 at 7:24 pm |

    Wow, these Cubs and Red Sox uni’s are terrible and half-assed, embarrassing.

    The subtle socks of the Cubs are the only decent thing.

  • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm |

    Throwbacks for the [ubs and Milkmen *ahem* Red Sox look pretty non-descript, as expected. Couple of things:

    -Boston’s socks in the DTT9s rendering looks like it should be a white tube with a big-ass red stripe, but I’m seeing solid-red tubes in the game.

    -Chicago’s socks vary in what they look like in the DTT9s rendering and what they look like in the game. They might be football-style tubes like that they wore in their ’44 throwback game against LA, and if so, then some of the [ubs (Fukudome [sp?] especially) hicked them up WAY too high.

    -The [ubs look to have cadet-collars on their jerseys.

    -Both teams’ jersey numbers are slightly too low on the back.

    -Boston’s hats look like they’ve been Cloroxed.

    -Both teams high-cuffing.

    -Stupid-ass umpire called “Catcher Interference” on the Cubs catcher.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 7:54 pm |

      “They might be football-style tubes…”

      Totally, the ‘white’ above the stripe looks completely different in shade than the ‘white’ bellow the stripe.

      • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 7:59 pm |

        Looks like the upper stripe is a “cream” white, and the oversock insert looks grey.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm |

          I have a comment chock full of photos awaiting moderation…

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm |

          Well, I hope they get freed up, because the Fox affiiate here is covering a big storm (golf ball size hail, etc.) with tornado sightings on the northwest side of the metro area.

          So I’m watching radar. And cars driving in the rain on freeways.

        • wollen1 | May 21, 2011 at 8:33 pm |

          I hope the Sox fans start the ‘1918 clap clap clap clap clap’ chant out of sheer irony.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 8:37 pm |

          According to fox, sleeves didn’t exist in 1918.

          Bang up job guys.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 8:42 pm |

          Also, Reed Johnson took the phrase, “keep your eye on the ball,” a little too literal…

        • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 8:49 pm |

          Unis aside, can anyone tell me why Fox insists on using the NFL on Fox theme for their baseball games? The FUCK??? o_O

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 8:53 pm |

          Yeah, it’s way too intense for baseball.

        • wollen1 | May 21, 2011 at 9:19 pm |

          Thanks for the screen grabs E. O’B. The Sox or Majestic completely f’ed it up. You have a uniform with one, exactly one defining feature and you choose to get lazy. The solid red socks anger me. Boo.

  • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 7:47 pm |

    Red Sox bat boy Chris Kudriff (sp?) was heckled by the umps right before the game saying that he looks like a football referee.

  • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 7:51 pm |

    OK some CUBS / SAWKS photos for ya’ll

    (They’re Screen Grabs so don’t get too erect)

    Back of the Sawks

    Front of the Sawks

    Cubs front with batting helmet

    Some Cubs and Sawks

    Is it just me or does the all white Sawks hat have not all white stitching?

    Darwin Barney wearing the Cubs socks right as opposed to these guys behind him and most of the Cubs

    Cubs front with cap

    Personal Notes:

    If the socks are the only intersting part of your throwback, get them right, RED SOX.

    Most Cubs are wearing their socks waaaay too high.

    And pure halfassed batting helmets guys. Disappointing.

    Also, the guys on Fox are wondering how the Sox are going to sell those caps. Really? Really?!

    And Youkilis looks like a fool.

    • Mark in Shiga | May 21, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

      Tim, thanks for all the screengrabs; they really illustrate what a terrible job Majestic did.

      I thought the 1918 Cubs road uniforms had a red tint, not dull gray. And Baseball Almanac says that the socks should be red, white, and blue (think WWI jingoism/patriotism), not gray and blue.

      And they positioned the numbers halfway down the guys’ backs as if they had been planning to put names above them and then forgot. A smaller-framed guy will see his jersey number tucked halfway into his pants while there’s an ocean of white space above it.

      And the default number font they’re using (the Mets’ throwbacks had it too) just looks too dull. What’s wrong with the regular Cubs and Red Sox fonts, which are iconic and timeless?

      The other ’40s throwbacks look much better than this. And is it my imagination or has Z been pitching for all of the Cubs last three throwback-uniform games?

      • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

        The numbers don’t bother me – the 1918 players didn’t wear them at all but yeah, too low.

        The shade of gray doesn’t even bother me, it might be right – I’ve no idea.

        What makes me sad is the lack of attention to the sock detail by majestic (I would assume) AND the players. Only Barney is wearing the Cubs socks right, and damn does he look good (although his pants could be cuffed a *bit* higher).

        And yes, Big Z is the one man throwback rotation.

        • Mark in Shiga | May 21, 2011 at 9:41 pm |

          Tim, did you get a picture of Aceves on the mound? If you’ve got one, I want to try shopping it to show where the numbers should be positioned. Jed Lowrie is another big offender, number-position-wise.

          Majestic did a fine job getting their stupid little logo on the sleeves despite Boston’s jerseys having no writing on them at all (does this mean that the home team is Team Majestic?), and I’m just now noticing, with the close-up on Z during a conference at the mound, that Selig managed to get his stupid MLB logo on the Cubs’ caps. I’m just going to pretend that this is an oblique tribute to Harmon Killebrew, because no other explanation makes any sense.

        • Mark in Shiga | May 21, 2011 at 11:00 pm |

          Tim, I’m soinding like an ingrate here but that angle is going to be really hard to do. (Seeing that photo in your initial post is what gave me the idea.)

          At another point during the game there was a shot of a Red Sox runner at first with the backs of Carlos Pena and Bob Dernier also visible; that would be a perfect shot.

          I just noticed that new Red Sox acquisition Morales actually has somewhat good positioning on his number, as opposed to Elsbury, Pedroia, and most of the rest of the players on both teams. I wonder if he’s a Uni Watcher and went out of his way to request it beforehand. Then again, that would mean that Majestic isn’t just sloppy with the positioning, but is actually planing to do it badly.

        • Mark in Shiga | May 22, 2011 at 9:48 am |

          Took a shot at Photoshopping Aceves’ number 1 back into position:

        • Mark in Shiga | May 22, 2011 at 9:49 am |

          Oops — that should of course be Aceves’ number 91, not 1.

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

        Also, going by this anyway, the socks were blue with the light-colored stirrup typical of the era, and one wide, light-colored stripe. Not a light-colored sock with a blue stripe.

        And, yeah, the roads do look to be sort cream-tan-sand…something or the other.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

      Tonight’s Cub/Sawks game SHOULD look like this vs. this. What a pitiful attempt.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 10:23 pm |

        What Tim E. said, yes.

        Evidently I was mining at “Dressed” while he was working with his template.

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm |

          “Great minds…,” right Ricko?

        • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

          Yes, our finely honed ability to recognize what a sock looks like.

          It’s a rare talent.

          Well, rare at Majestic apparently.

          (This game has been so goofy that I’m sure the players will never wan to wear those unis again.)

          I’m confused about something else. Do the Cubs’ sleeves not match? Did the 1918 uni use Navy? Those certainly are navy numbers…but the 1918 team didn’t have numbers, so…

        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 10:37 pm |

          Everything that isn’t the pants, jersey or socks is the cubs and red sox go-to gear. It looks like pure crap. The Dodgers out classed this 3rd rate affair twice already this season.


        • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 10:46 pm |

          “The Dodgers out classed this 3rd rate affair twice already this season.”

          That’ll end the next time around, because the Dodgers’ next pair of er-satins will be made by Majestic. I guess out-classing throwback teams 2-4 is better than 0-6.

      • Ricko | May 21, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

        Why the heck is the top of the Cubs socks cream-colored? It’s a one-piece sock, not much doubt about that, and top to bottom it’s cream, blue, gray.


        • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 10:35 pm |

          they’re different colors fur sure but it just looks like different materials that the screen shots accentuate. But whomever outfitted these teams did a crap job ESPECIALLY on the socks (although the cubs stripes are correct, just no-one’s wearing them right)

        • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

          -Hats by New Era.
          -Jerseys and pants by Majestic.
          -Socks by Twin City Knitting.
          -Apathy by Bud Selig.

    • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

      Tony Campana is wearing his socks right but has his cop on in a ridiculous fashion.


      Cap Which the fox guys are making fun of him for:

  • Beats in Buffalo | May 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm |

    Kind of off topic but I’ve been following the Thrashers to Winnipeg saga for the past couple days and I can’t help but think of the irony of it all and I’m really curious to see some of the commenters thoughts particularly those in the Winnipeg region.

    It seems so ironic to me that you have hockey fans in Winnipeg simultaneously cheering for the arrival of a team being ripped from a city while feeling entitled to a team because they had the Jets ripped away from them under similar circumstances.

    I think Canada needs more teams, but in my opinion we should be talking about the Coyotes who are bleeding money moving to Hamilton or Kitchner with Balsillie at the helm to take advantage of the greater Toronto area. Of course I can say that know with the Sabres future looking very secure, but I’d like to hear a fan/resident perspective on why Winnipeg and their long term viability.

    • wollen1 | May 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm |

      I for one am fully in favor of Canada getting a couple more teams. Though I’ve never been to Winnipeg, I doubt that they’ll have a problem supporting a team. The reason that the Jets were taken from them in the first place was the ridiculous notion that hockey just had to be played at a major league level in all the largest U.S. markets for the NHL to be on par with the NFL and the NBA in the American psyche.

      When the Jets were taken from Winnipeg, it broke the city’s collective heart. I recently went to a Coyotes game and saw more than twenty people there in Jets jerseys. When I talked to a couple of them, they said they were just trying to convince Coyote management to move the team back. I found it quite striking.

      I think the Coyotes will stay in Glendale due to the very favo(u)rable rent situation, but I hope that the Atlanta franchise makes the move. I would also like to see another team in a weak U.S. market move to Hamilton. Canadians love hockey with all their hearts. They should have a couple more NHL franchises.

      • Teebz | May 22, 2011 at 1:15 am |

        Being a Winnipegger, I can tell you that you’re wrong: the reason the Jets left is because no one locally wanted to own the team when the dollar was a 61 cents to the American dollar. Now? Yeah, it makes a little more sense for the dollars and cents.

        The Coyotes are not bleeding money since the City of Glendale continues to cover their losses. Will they move? Most likely. But since the NHL owns them and Glendale covering their losses, there’s absolutely no rush in moving that franchise. The Thrashers are bleeding $25 million per season, and the owners want out ASAP. The easiest way to do that? Sell to anyone.

        Do we feel entitled? Not at all, and it’s insulting to imply that. Do we feel that we deserve a team? Yes. We never had a chance to save our team because it was sold off much in the same way that Atlanta is being sold off. The difference, though, is that we wanted Phoenix. However, we’re not going to turn down the Thrashers.

  • pflava | May 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

    Getting here way late, but I wanted to say that Tim did a nice job with the MLB tweaks. I really liked some, and wasn’t crazy about a few, but he absolutely nailed the Rangers. That is outstanding!

  • Tim E. O'B | May 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

    CNN’S John King was the first to touch Big Papi’s 300th HR.

  • Teamo | May 21, 2011 at 9:27 pm |

    The design of Tim’s I disliked the most was the sight of Steven Strasburg donning Yankee pinstripes! As a Nats fan and season ticket holder, it gave me the willies.

    Seriously though, loved the Cardinals baby blues. Wish they’d make a comeback as road unis, not as alternates the way the Jays and Royals were them.

    All and all a good effort. Loved the O’s and the return of the cartoon bird in the white field. However, not a fan of the “O’s” alternate. Have hated that logo since it debuted.

  • Simply Moono | May 21, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

    Looking at the [ubs vs. Sawks game, I stand by my statement that Majestic is to throwback uniforms as Roger No-Goodell is to the NFL.

  • Dave Johnson | May 21, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

    Put the elephant standing on the baseball sleeve patch back on the A’s road uniforms! Bring back the road cap! GO A’S!

  • Jim Vilk | May 22, 2011 at 12:25 am |

    OK, finally got to see all of Tim’s stuff.

    Three words for that Diamondbacks idea. “I’d. Wear. That.”

    Great job!

    • Simply Moono | May 22, 2011 at 1:27 am |

      Of course you would. LOLZ X)

  • Foster | May 22, 2011 at 9:35 am |

    About the Royals and the debate of powder blue versus royal blue. Most fans want the powder blue back full time, at least they won games back when they wore them. Unfortunately the count of “most fans” only ranges in the 100s because they haven’t had a winning season in quite some time.

  • agentstaobao | May 23, 2011 at 12:47 am |

    The numbers don’t bother me — the 1918 players didn’t wear them at all but yeah, too low.

    The shade of gray doesn’t even bother me, it might be right — I’ve no idea.

    What makes me sad is the lack of attention to the sock detail by majestic (I would assume) AND the players. Only Barney is wearing the Cubs socks right, and damn does he look good (although his pants could be cuffed a *bit* higher).How to group/team buying online shopping best in China taobao?agents taobao supply agent purchase english russian service.таобао на русском,купить на таобао,посредник taobao

  • metimoteo | May 24, 2011 at 9:35 pm |

    I think you ought to leave the Royals alone. Powder blue, the old not the new, represents everything that was great about the franchise. The Royals should wear the powder blues exclusively on the road, but ditch the powder blue caps. Those are terrible. Since the Royals will host the 2012 MLB All-Star Game, they should mark the year by returning to the powder blues full time. KC will also be a competitive franchise again, and I hope the organization’s success comes in the powder blues.