By Bryan Redemske
In 1997, marking the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s major league debut — and therefore the breaking of the color barrier — teams wore sleeve patches to mark the occasion. President Clinton participated in a nice ceremony honoring Robinson’s legacy, and all was well.
Since then, things have progressively gotten bigger and bigger, making me wonder how much longer it will be before every team requires its players wear only Robinson’s No. 42 on April 15, and whether the numbers 4 and 2 will also be the only ones allowed in that day’s boxscores. True, Robinson’s debut had a large impact both historically for baseball and socially for the nation. But couldn’t one say the same thing about, say, Babe Ruth’s legacy? Would there have been a stage for Robinson to grace if not for Ruth? And why did it take 50 years to honor Robinson across the game if April 15 was so important?
There’s a far-reaching — and likely heated — discussion that could be set off at this point, but let’s steer clear of that for now. It’s time to count the 42s. Be prepared — there were lots of them. According to this story (which also includes the full list of players on each team), nine teams had a full compliment of 42s — the Angels, Athletics, Rangers, Rays, Mets, Nationals, Cardinals, Pirates and Dodgers. All of the others had at least one representative, and all 42s were NNOB.
Some 42s of note:
• Ken Griffey Jr., who started the wearing of the 42 a year ago, obviously followed it up. Dusty Baker also wore it, but understandably didn’t venture out of the Wrigley Field visitors dugout too much.
• New York Governor David Paterson, who’s legally blind, threw out the first pitch at Shea Stadium. Insert your own inappropriate joke here. Oh, and he’s wearing a Cool Base jersey, too.
• Several teams — Phillies, Marlins, Braves, Brewers, Orioles, and Giants — only had one representative.
• The Mariners have only four players listed, but had more than that in uniform.
• Other than the number itself, Derrek Lee doesn’t look too strange. The Cubs were NNOB in 2005 and 2006.
• Jimmy Rollins was the only Phillie with a 42, but got the double-number treatment.
• David Ortiz had a successful night on two fronts: No. 42, and he got a hit! But like most of the 42ers, his helmet number didn’t match his jersey number. Note also, the Indians wore their blue alts at home. They started doing that again last season. And check out Garko’s nameplate. Who set up that radial arch, David Paterson?
• The Blue Jays’ jerseys actually look good without a name on the back. OK, not really good, but substantially better. They chose a busy font and color scheme, and losing a good portion of it cleans things up. Nice(ish). Also in Baltimore, the Orioles’ Adam Jones had his very own T-shirt giveaway night. The problem? He was wearing No. 42, not his usual No. 10. Thanks to Dan Sliwinski for the tip.
• While the Dodgers obviously all wore No. 42, Chaka Khan, sadly, did not. Plenty of good seats still available, by the way, if you’re out driving around and thinking about a ballgame. Interesting note: The Dodgers played the Pirates in one of three games that featured two full teams of 42s. The others were Angels/Rangers and Mets/Nationals.
Uni Watch News Ticker: Paul here. First and foremost, major thanks to Bryan for handling today’s main entry (a task he assumed on just a few hours’ notice), which allowed me to take care of some other urgent business last night. Much obliged, Bry. ”¦ Now then: As we’ve discussed a few times, Michigan will become an Adidas school this fall but is still technically a Nike school for now. But Seth Gladstein notes that several of the players in Saturday’s spring football scrimmage wore Adidas cleats with Nike socks. ”¦ A few days ago I mentioned the Expos’ retired numbers banner, which currently hangs in the Bell Centre. Here’s a really good photo of it (along with Andre Dawson and Gary Carter in Habs jerseys), courtesy of Costa Galanis. ”¦ The question of wearing a jacket while running the bases is addressed, somewhat inconclusively, in the last entry on this Q&A page (with thanks to Don Montgomery). ”¦ Mark Fightmaster reports that the Cincy Bearcats are wearing some awesome striped stirrups. ”¦ Obama of Dreams lives! That’s Ben Kozyak, posing with singer John Legend on Monday. ”¦ Here’s a Philly incident I hadn’t been aware of: Mike Schmidt once referred to the locals as “beyond help” and Veterans Stadium as a “mob scene, uncontrollable.” In his next game after those comments were published, Schmidt came out wearing a “disguise,” consisting of a wig and shades, which reportedly prompted a standing O from the boo-birds (nice find by Andrew Hoenig). ”¦ John Wright sent me this photo of Dave Brown. Is that a uni number below his left hand? If so, it clearly isn’t No. 22. I’ve never seen numbers on the Seahawks’ pants before. Can anyone shed any light on this? ”¦ Sigh. ”¦ At first glance, this story isn’t uni-related — until you get to the sixth graf. … Looks like we’ve got our first case of Cool Base-induced mismatched grays (great spot by Bryan). ”¦ Check this out: Dan Marino had a numbered towel and a hand-warmer pouch during his days at Pitt (with thanks to Doug Keklak). ”¦ Also from Doug: John Russell (current Pirates manager, former MLB catcher) had a “Jo. Russell” NOB back in his Texas Rangers days. ”¦ Awesome old sneaker ad here (with thanks to Matt Mitchell). ”¦ Attention NYC-area readers: Big literary event tomorrow evening, as Mets by the Numbers author/webmaster Jon Springer will be reading at Word Books, and he’ll be joined by Spike Vrusho, author of the newly published Benchclearing: Baseball’s Greatest Fights and Riots. Most of you know Springer by now (if not, get acquainted with his web site here and his book here); as for Vrusho, he’s the former editor of the brilliant 1990s baseball-centric zine Murtaugh, which featured, among other things, Tony Millionaire’s “Batty” comic (including the fondly remembered do-it-yourself installment) and such masterpieces of poetic verse as “Ode to Marge Schott” and “Dallas Green Is a Douche.” In other words, we’re talking two serious heavyweights of baseball literature here. First pitch is at 7:30pm.
Looks like it might be a “12” on DB’s pants. Could it be yet another “12th Man” promotion?
Another story I read about the guy you died at Shea said that the police think he was trying to slide down the bannister railing on a non-working escalator.
If that number is a “10”, it could also be some sort of 10th anniversary nod. That is assuming the picture was in 1986 (looks like it could be, given the Jets uniforms).
All of yesterday’s 42s reaffirms how much I dislike NNOB. The absence of a name makes the number look too small, and dammit, I like to be able to identify the players without a program.
The Dave Brown Seattle Seahawk patch is their from their 10th anniversiery….
here’s a link for a (not much) better look
link
I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?
Hawkins gives up No. 21 for No. 22
This would have been nice to see in the ticker…I know it is Yankees news…
link
Are we sure that wasnt the blind govener that fell when he lost his way? Now about the 1st pitch….did some one tell him which way to throw or did he pitch to first base??
[quote comment=”252995″]Hawkins gives up No. 21 for No. 22
This would have been nice to see in the ticker…I know it is Yankees news…
link
So are the Yankees going to retire 21 in honor of Paul O’Neill?
Dusty Baker did venture out of the Wrigley dugout a few times. Did you see his 42? No, of course not. He was wearing a jacket the entire night. What’s the point of paying tribute to Jackie if you’re going to cover it up all night? Maybe it just makes Dusty feel better. Or maybe it’s for the cash from auctioning off the jersey.
i posted this late yesterday:
[quote comment=”252916″]i just heard it announced that NINE teams all wore 42 (so all had NNOB) and you also had the giants and yanks with NNOB…did i miss anyone?
that means at least 11 teams wore NNOB on 4/15/08
plus you had numerous teams with players wearing 42 (and hence, NNOB)
memo to gene, bud, don and the owners: DID YOU SEE HOW GOOD THAT LOOKED???[/quote]
after seeing all the highlights on SC and other sports networks this am, i not only reiterate those thoughts
the NNOB’s LOOKED WONDERFUL
i know it’s beyond wishful thinking to have them return to all teams on a full-time basis, but it sure was great yesterday
…now having EVERY player wear 42…i could do without that next year, but one (or maybe 2) players chosen by their teams every year, well that’s great and i hope it remains
/good to see rachel @ shea last night
John Russell’s “JO RUSSELL” jersey was no doubt necessary because of the presence of pitcher Jeff Russell on the Rangers’ roster. So did Jeff’s jersey read “JE RUSSELL”?
I was please that the NY Times article on the selling (out) of the Boston marathon did not include the name of the sponsor.
Now , if we get other stories to do the same when referring to sports arenas. What teams plays in M & T Stadium? Rogers Stadium? Wachovia Center? Plus Financial Field?
[quote comment=”252997″][quote comment=”252995″]Hawkins gives up No. 21 for No. 22
This would have been nice to see in the ticker…I know it is Yankees news…
link
So are the Yankees going to retire 21 in honor of Paul O’Neill?[/quote]
I certainly dont think so…it seems that this is a move out of FAN protest and nastiness…so it seems the front office hand nothing to with it. I think 51 should go on the wall before 21!
[quote comment=”253001″]i posted this late yesterday:
[quote comment=”252916″]i just heard it announced that NINE teams all wore 42 (so all had NNOB) and you also had the giants and yanks with NNOB…did i miss anyone?
that means at least 11 teams wore NNOB on 4/15/08
plus you had numerous teams with players wearing 42 (and hence, NNOB)
memo to gene, bud, don and the owners: DID YOU SEE HOW GOOD THAT LOOKED???[/quote]
after seeing all the highlights on SC and other sports networks this am, i not only reiterate those thoughts
the NNOB’s LOOKED WONDERFUL
i know it’s beyond wishful thinking to have them return to all teams on a full-time basis, but it sure was great yesterday
…now having EVERY player wear 42…i could do without that next year, but one (or maybe 2) players chosen by their teams every year, well that’s great and i hope it remains
/good to see rachel @ shea last night[/quote]
I’m mostly in agreement with you Phil.
If you wear pinstripes NNOB is definitely the way to go and if you don’t it should be done on a case by case basis. Royals, Jays, Giants…NNOB. (and others would be included but I don’t want to go through all 30 teams and their 5 [on average] different uniform combos).
New York Governor David Paterson, who’s legally blind, threw out the first pitch at Shea Stadium. Insert your own inappropriate joke here.
Was that really necessary Bryan? It’s almost like you’re hoping people make fun of his disability. Geeze……
Stay classy…….
[quote comment=”252996″]Are we sure that wasnt the blind govener that fell when he lost his way? Now about the 1st pitch….did some one tell him which way to throw or did he pitch to first base??[/quote]
first of all he’s LEGALLY blind, not completely blind, he is governor and he learned pitching technique on the dodgeball court
[quote comment=”253007″][quote comment=”252996″]Are we sure that wasnt the blind govener that fell when he lost his way? Now about the 1st pitch….did some one tell him which way to throw or did he pitch to first base??[/quote]
first of all he’s LEGALLY blind, not completely blind, he is governor and he learned pitching technique on the dodgeball court[/quote]
HA HA….sorry I didnt have my dictionary handy.
NNOB looking good or bad is very much a matter of opinion (personally, I hate it).
As for asking “why did some teams only have one person, don’t they care?” or whatever – that just seems stupid to me – obviously, some people/teams think the best honor is for the whole team to wear it, and others think it should be the player’s choice, and other’s think only one player should wear it. None of those options is wrong, and none of them mean that players/teams care any more/less.
One last side note: Jim Thome was supposed to wear #42, but was suspended for the game. So, while he’ll go down in history as wearing it, he actually didn’t.
[quote comment=”252990″]Another story I read about the guy you died at Shea said that the police think he was trying to slide down the bannister railing on a non-working escalator.[/quote]
Yeah, I read that too and I really want to say that I read it in an ESPN.com article which is weird since the one linked here doesn’t say that.
[quote comment=”252994″]I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
Maybe they thought fans would get confused. Maybe they thought a whole team of 42s was kind of silly. Anyway, here’s a story on Adam Jones getting notice he was tapped to wear 42. link
Am I the only wondering why, if on April 15th it’s okay for ENTIRE teams to wear the same number (42 in this case), it matters at all that players wear different numbers every other game of the year? I mean, why bother? From now on if a player wants a number that a teammate already has, why not just wear it anyway? It just goes to show you how little it really matters.
interesting story link, where the Ohio State coaching staff bumped a wide receiver from #4 to #82 as a punishment for poor behavior.
[quote comment=”252994″]I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
So you don’t want Kotsay to wear the number…..because of his race? Interesting.
Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42? –link
[quote comment=”252993″]The Dave Brown Seattle Seahawk patch is their from their 10th anniversiery….
here’s a link for a (not much) better look
link
link shows a picture of Largent making a catch with the same patched pants – it’s in B&W, but you can see the ten clearly.
[quote comment=”253012″]Am I the only wondering why, if on April 15th it’s okay for ENTIRE teams to wear the same number (42 in this case), it matters at all that players wear different numbers every other game of the year? I mean, why bother? From now on if a player wants a number that a teammate already has, why not just wear it anyway? It just goes to show you how little it really matters.[/quote]
If you wonders why it matters you should have watched the Mets game last night. Every time there was a pinch hitter or someone warming up in the pen it was a crap shoot on whether Gary Cohen would know who it was (obviously I’m talking about the Nationals players).
He and Hernandez were joking for the last 4 innings about how they couldn’t figure out the other players. They even had trouble picking out link (who plays for the Mets) since it was his first game in a year and a half.
If you had the names on the jersey it wouldn’t have been that big of a deal, but there would still be times that you only see the front of a player.
That being said, for one game out of the year, I salute MLB and every team who participated in the remembrance of Jackie Robinson (whether they did a full team of 42’s or highlighted one player wearing it).
Ode to Marge Schott is great and disturbing.
[quote comment=”253012″]Am I the only wondering why, if on April 15th it’s okay for ENTIRE teams to wear the same number (42 in this case), it matters at all that players wear different numbers every other game of the year? I mean, why bother? From now on if a player wants a number that a teammate already has, why not just wear it anyway? It just goes to show you how little it really matters.[/quote]
The Brewers said that only one player was going to be allowed to wear 42, and it was a lottery-type pick between Rickie Weeks, Prince Fielder (who won) and Bill Hall. I think it’s a team-by-team basis, and it’s not just the players who can make the decision.
The Jackie Robinson tributes this year have kind of diluted the whole thing. It’s nearly up to Sean Taylor ridiculousness.
I thought it was a great stunt last year to call attention to a legend and a landmark moment in history. But if it’s universally retired, then it should not be worn on any kind of regular basis.
The first pitch in tonight’s Yankees-Red Sox game will be thrown by astronaut Dr. Garrett Reisman. There’s one problem. He’s in space.
Dr. Reisman is on the International Space Station until June. The pitch will be shown on the Jumbotron in Yankee Stadium. Let’s see how long Chad Moeller waits for the pitch to cross the plate. Hopefully J.D. Drew will swing from the dugout to make the moment complete.
link
Whether it should be retired or not, I am so pleased to see LaTroy Hawkins finally surrender 21. It would be one thing if an established superstar (like Sammy Sosa in his prime) wore 21 after Paulie, but LaTroy Hawkins? Who? Come on, don’t soil a legacy like that.
[quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?
[quote comment=”253003″]I was please that the NY Times article on the selling (out) of the Boston marathon did not include the name of the sponsor.
Now , if we get other stories to do the same when referring to sports arenas. What teams plays in M & T Stadium? Rogers Stadium? Wachovia Center? Plus Financial Field?[/quote]
That’s nonsense. I’m against stadium naming rights as much as the next guy and would much rather the stadia and arenas have more traditional names however, it is a fact of life in this, the 21st century. Companies that shell out the money to get their name on a stadium or arena have a right to have it referred to as such properly in the media.
The Boston Marathon is different because it’s an event. In Nascar circles, the Pepsi 400 is still referred to as the Firecracker 400 but for the most part, the races are referred to by their corporate names.
Same with some of the bowl games. The Rose Bowl is “presented by” a corporate sponsor, but most media describe still as the Rose Bowl. However, the bowl games with the corporate sponsorship in the title are described as such.
As for the venue issue, what would the standard be if you were not going to use the corporate moniker? Would you simply call it “Insert Team Name Here” Stadium/Park/Field/Arena? Would you revert to n prior name (Civic Arena, The Spectrum, Comiskey Park, etc)? Like it or not, the corporate naming rights help with consistency.
I think in Denver there was a group of writers that refused to Invesco by it’s name and instead still referred to as Mile High or the New Mile High.
[quote comment=”253026″][quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?[/quote]
Not to speak for anyone else, but I don’t think there is anyone with a problem of a white guy sporting the #42, it’s more a disappointment in black players that opted NOT to.
Just proves my theory that this does very little to promote what Jackie Robinson really did. It’s a hollow effort by MLB at best.
looks like the pope is breaking out some link uniforms
The Astros’ Jason Bourn wore 42 last night.
Nice to see the Dodger fans arriving late as usual
Oh, and Jose Valverde was wearing an Astros WS05 long-sleeve shirt in the bullpen last night. It’s probably what caused him to blow the save…that and the home plate ump totally missing the tag on what was the winning run.
For what it’s worth, I always thought the 42 tribute would be at its coolest if each starting second baseman wore Jackie’s number at Jackie’s position.
However, David Ortiz looked good in his 42. Reminds me of Mo Vaughn.
[quote comment=”253012″]Am I the only wondering why, if on April 15th it’s okay for ENTIRE teams to wear the same number (42 in this case), it matters at all that players wear different numbers every other game of the year? I mean, why bother? From now on if a player wants a number that a teammate already has, why not just wear it anyway? It just goes to show you how little it really matters.[/quote]
That’s a great point. It’s not like in basketball where the refs refer to the player by their number, or football where the officials use numbers to help them determine eligible receivers. Players could all wear the same number, or have numbers like 20,000 or 1/8 (see Gaedel, Eddie) and it wouldn’t matter one bit. Teams like the Yankees may need to go this route once they’ve retired all the regular numbers.
[quote comment=”253029″]
Just proves my theory that this does very little to promote what Jackie Robinson really did. It’s a hollow effort by MLB at best.[/quote]
Of course it’s a hollow effort. Wearing a different number for one day doesn’t change anything. Of course, I’m also of the opinion that pretty much any sort of memorial effort (patches, ceremonies, etc) is a hollow effort.
[quote comment=”253036″] Teams like the Yankees may need to go this route once they’ve retired all the regular numbers.[/quote]
There are 100 regular numbers. I don’t see them running out any time soon. And even if they did, I’d think three digit numbers would be better than duplicating numbers. For one day, maybe people can deal, but there would be lots of confusion if numbers were duplicated on a regular basis.
[quote comment=”253031″]The Astros’ Jason Bourn wore 42 last night.[/quote]
Michael Bourn, James. But it’s good to hear that he was getting in the spirit of things.
Anyways, count me in as supporting the theory that the Seahawk leg number was a 10th anniversary patch.
[quote comment=”253015″][quote comment=”252994″]I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
So you don’t want Kotsay to wear the number…..because of his race? Interesting.[/quote]
And people accused me of politics yesterday. NO, i was mearly saying ONE man, who happens to be white on the Braves, a southern team, was the ONLY one to wear the number…what, no one else could find it in there size? IT is a little bit of a slap in the face…DIDNT pitching coach Roger McDowell wear that number with the Mets? WHY NOT LAST NIGHT???????????????????????
[quote]Players could all wear the same number, or have numbers like 20,000 or 1/8 (see Gaedel, Eddie) and it wouldn’t matter one bit.[/quote]
Or 7/8 like Leela.
link
Personally I think they should let 42 stay retired. Wasn’t the point that nobody in the league would wear it again? Also, I’d rather they celebrated this on major anniversaries of it rather than every year. It isn’t one of my major pet peeves (long pants, catcher goalie masks, etc), but I think it sort of ruins the seriousness or solemness of what they are trying to do.
[quote comment=”253038″][quote comment=”253029″]
Just proves my theory that this does very little to promote what Jackie Robinson really did. It’s a hollow effort by MLB at best.[/quote]
Of course it’s a hollow effort. Wearing a different number for one day doesn’t change anything. Of course, I’m also of the opinion that pretty much any sort of memorial effort (patches, ceremonies, etc) is a hollow effort.[/quote]
I didn’t consider last year ‘hollow’, the tributes and hoopla allowed me to have a great and meaningful conversation with my (then) 8 year old daughter about why Jackie Robinson was important and what he did and why it extended beyond baseball.
But doing similar events and stunts make it hollow.
Maybe if they formed some sort of Jackie Robinson society and those limited players wore 42 in honor of JR on the one day. Maybe that would be nice and acceptable, but the total randomness of who wears 42, and how many can wear 42 really turns it into a circus. And that’s not what Jackie Robinson should be to MLB or society.
Gilbert Arenas’ quest to wear all 20 different colorways of his GilIIZero shoes has come to an end, under link.
[quote comment=”253026″][quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?[/quote]
Agreed. Everyone likes saying that MLB and players are missing the point by everyone wearing 42. I think those questioning the point are missing the point. (If that makes sense). After last year, I’m more aware of Jackie Robinson than I ever was, and the same goes for a lot of people. Yes it is a bit over the top, but so was the idea of a black man in baseball. No, Babe Ruth is not on par with Jackie Robinson, you could say they both did the same for baseball, but Jackie was an inspiration to an entire race (and no the fat, hot dog eating race does not count).
[quote comment=”253039″][quote comment=”253036″] Teams like the Yankees may need to go this route once they’ve retired all the regular numbers.[/quote]
There are 100 regular numbers. I don’t see them running out any time soon. And even if they did, I’d think three digit numbers would be better than duplicating numbers. For one day, maybe people can deal, but there would be lots of confusion if numbers were duplicated on a regular basis.[/quote]
It feels like they’re getting there, though. Counting the roster and coaches, that’s 33 numbers. Once Rivera retires, 42’s off the table, and adding that to the team’s retired numbers, that’ll be 16 more. That leaves 51 unused, unretired numbers, assuming they’re willing to assign 0. If they give out 00 as a separate number, that’s 52. They’ll likely be safe for quite a while, but given enough time and a liberal retirement policy, they’ll be out of them eventually.
It’d be interesting, though, once they get down to that last 33 numbers. They’d have to basically lock in the number to the roster spot, and every time someone gets replaced, that number would have to be given to the new player. I think the more likely situation, before they go to three digits, is to simply stop retiring numbers, and after that they might apply for lettering the coaching staff: M for manager, 1B for the 1B coach, BN for bench coach, etc.
[quote comment=”253041″][quote comment=”253015″][quote comment=”252994″]I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
So you don’t want Kotsay to wear the number…..because of his race? Interesting.[/quote]
And people accused me of politics yesterday. NO, i was mearly saying ONE man, who happens to be white on the Braves, a southern team, was the ONLY one to wear the number…what, no one else could find it in there size? IT is a little bit of a slap in the face…DIDNT pitching coach Roger McDowell wear that number with the Mets? WHY NOT LAST NIGHT???????????????????????[/quote]
I’m going to attempt to respond to the Roger McDowell comment.
Yes; he wore 42 with the Mets.
No; he didn’t wear it last night.
Now you are questioning his character because he didn’t go with the mass opinion of the rest of baseball in wearing 42 for one game. If nothing else, this is exactly what Jackie Robinson would not have wanted. His legacy is the fact that you can go against mass opinions (Racism, at the time) and still be in the right.
For the teams that chose to wear 42 yesterday; you did a great job.
For the players who chose to wear 42 yesterday; you did a great job.
For the players that chose to wear their regular numbers; you did a great job.
The fact that we are even discussing this the day after if testament to the fact that the memorial works. WE ARE REMEMBERING THE LEGACY OF JACKIE ROBINSON. That is what this day and tribute were designed to do.
Now back to your regularly scheduled uni-parade.
If they want to let the whole Dodgers team wear #42, that would be one thing. But having 2 teams play each other and every player wear it is ridiculous. Maybe they should have all the second basemen in the league wear it, that’d be a neat tribute and wouldn’t be so over the top.
Minor League Promo Jersey for Mike Vick
[quote comment=”253042″][quote]Players could all wear the same number, or have numbers like 20,000 or 1/8 (see Gaedel, Eddie) and it wouldn’t matter one bit.[/quote]
Or 7/8 like Leela.
link
Love the single strip of eye-black… and love Futurama!!!
[quote comment=”253054″]Minor League Promo Jersey for Mike Vick[/quote]
Get over it. Does anybody else think this is insulting? I thought the Mike Vick dog chew toy was a funny idea but openly mocking a guy that is in jail (and has been for a few months) just seems a little dumb. Minor league teams usually come up with cool ideas… this one I find insulting to everyone involved.
The fact that they are having a jersey auction to give to a worthwhile cause is great. But aren’t we beating a dead horse with this Mike Vick shit by now?
[quote comment=”253040″][quote comment=”253031″]The Astros’ Jason Bourn wore 42 last night.[/quote]
Michael Bourn, James. But it’s good to hear that he was getting in the spirit of things.[/quote]
D’oh! Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet…plus the morons on the other side of my wall are talking about Matt Damon…
On the topic of wearing 42, I think MLB should allow teams to issue the number. With the number of African-Americans in MLB being so low, maybe the prospect of wearing #42 might draw more into the game. Plus it will keep entire teams from wearing the number…which should be limited to only the Dodgers and the Mets…and if the Dodgers wear the number as a whole, they should ALL be made to wear Jackie Robinson-esq uniforms from his 1947 debut. Maybe even have the Mets wear the same type uniform but only in Mets Blue and Orange…
Now something completely different: Watched Paul’s Ebbett’s clip on Page 2. I was happy to see him holding a Tampa Smokers jersey. I’m in the process of saving up to but one of those as my “smoking jersey” and I’ve wanted to see what it actually looks like…not just a picture.
Jimmy Rollins was the only Phillie with a 42, but got the double-number treatment.
Doesn’t he always have a double number? (#11)
Hey Chaka, how frikkin’ cold was it in LA last night? Must have gotten all the way down to 60.
[quote comment=”253043″]Personally I think they should let 42 stay retired. Wasn’t the point that nobody in the league would wear it again? Also, I’d rather they celebrated this on major anniversaries of it rather than every year. It isn’t one of my major pet peeves (long pants, catcher goalie masks, etc), but I think it sort of ruins the seriousness or solemness of what they are trying to do.[/quote]
Very smart post. Like I’ve said before, every park has his number and name beside their respective retired numbers of that club. Wasn’t that the tribute for all of baseball? With the grounds crews as artistic as they are these days, do tributes in the field of play itself.
I guess my point is where do you draw the line. For instance, Roberto Clemente is damn near sainthood here in the burgh. His number is retired and with good reason (and I’m not a big fan of teams that go hogwild on retiring numbers, I say less is more, I take Pitt’s approach with football and basketball over say, a Celtics or Yankees).
I wouldn’t want to see a day were the number was unretired and all the Pirates wore it because that would diminish the honor of the retired number in the first place. (Was it the Colts that unretired numbers when they moved to Indy, citing those players played in Baltimore?)
MLB did a really neat thing, original thing with the league-wide retirement. They should have left it at that.
As a former catcher, and one that preferred the Bob Boone/Carton Fisk half-helmet to boot, I too, HATE the hockey masks. I don’t care if they’re lighter. It’s looks stupid, like the five-year-old at a sporting goods store putting on equipment from five different sports.
[quote comment=”253052″][quote comment=”253041″][quote comment=”253015″][quote comment=”252994″]I am wondering, why are there some teams with only 1 rep wearing 42? I think that is a little slap in the face…persaonlly speaking Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
So you don’t want Kotsay to wear the number…..because of his race? Interesting.[/quote]
And people accused me of politics yesterday. NO, i was mearly saying ONE man, who happens to be white on the Braves, a southern team, was the ONLY one to wear the number…what, no one else could find it in there size? IT is a little bit of a slap in the face…DIDNT pitching coach Roger McDowell wear that number with the Mets? WHY NOT LAST NIGHT???????????????????????[/quote]
I’m going to attempt to respond to the Roger McDowell comment.
Yes; he wore 42 with the Mets.
No; he didn’t wear it last night.
Now you are questioning his character because he didn’t go with the mass opinion of the rest of baseball in wearing 42 for one game. If nothing else, this is exactly what Jackie Robinson would not have wanted. His legacy is the fact that you can go against mass opinions (Racism, at the time) and still be in the right.
For the teams that chose to wear 42 yesterday; you did a great job.
For the players who chose to wear 42 yesterday; you did a great job.
For the players that chose to wear their regular numbers; you did a great job.
The fact that we are even discussing this the day after if testament to the fact that the memorial works. WE ARE REMEMBERING THE LEGACY OF JACKIE ROBINSON. That is what this day and tribute were designed to do.
Now back to your regularly scheduled uni-parade.[/quote]
well said j
well said
[quote comment=”252994″] Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
1) The Braves have no African American starters, and
2) Mark Kotsay plays center field, Jackie Robinson’s position.
[quote comment=”253022″]The first pitch in tonight’s Yankees-Red Sox game will be thrown by astronaut Dr. Garrett Reisman. There’s one problem. He’s in space.
Dr. Reisman is on the International Space Station until June. The pitch will be shown on the Jumbotron in Yankee Stadium. Let’s see how long Chad Moeller waits for the pitch to cross the plate. Hopefully J.D. Drew will swing from the dugout to make the moment complete.
link
Dr. Reisman happens to be the brother-in-law of a longtime friend of mine. She’ll be at the game tonight and has tentatively agreed to write something about the experience.
Gary Carter was just on WFAN radio in NYC, and he said how he’s annoyed that the Expos retired his #8, but the Nationals still issued #8 to Aaron Boone this year……..
[quote comment=”253064″][quote comment=”252994″] Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
1) The Braves have no African American starters, and
2) Mark Kotsay plays center field, Jackie Robinson’s position.[/quote]
Umm … Jackie Robinson played first and second base. Not at the same time, though.
[quote comment=”253064″][quote comment=”252994″] Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
1) The Braves have no African American starters, and
2) Mark Kotsay plays center field, Jackie Robinson’s position.[/quote]
Assuming Baseball Reference is correct, usually a safe assumption, CF was, at absolute best, Jackie Robinson’s 4th position. He played 748 at 2B, 256 at 3B, 197 at 1B, 160 at an unspecified OF position, 2 in LF, and 1 at SS.
[quote comment=”253064″][quote comment=”252994″] Mark Kotsay was the only BRAVE to wear it…and he isnt Afro-American? Do the Braves not have any good sense?[/quote]
1) The Braves have no African American starters, and
2) Mark Kotsay plays center field, Jackie Robinson’s position.[/quote]
Yeah, so Jackie Robinson played 2B but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good argument.
[quote comment=”253067″]Gary Carter was just on WFAN radio in NYC, and he said how he’s annoyed that the Expos retired his #8, but the Nationals still issued #8 to Aaron Boone this year……..[/quote]
Very timely of Carter to chime in 4 years later that the Nationals abandoned all of their Expos heritage in Montreal. (Fortunately the Canadiens went dumpster diving behind Olympic stadium and saved Youppee! and the retired numbers)
Hey Bryan, where did you get those pictures you used today? They were great.
Has anyone ever bought a grey replica MLB jersey? I am looking to get a new Brewers jersey, and I like the grey’s the best of their unis, but in pictures the grey of the replicas looks like a completely different shade of grey than the authentic jerseys. I was just wondering if anyone had ever compared them (from any team), and if the greys are infact different shades of grey?
thanks to anyone that has any info.
[quote comment=”253067″]Gary Carter was just on WFAN radio in NYC, and he said how he’s annoyed that the Expos retired his #8, but the Nationals still issued #8 to Aaron Boone this year……..[/quote]
I wonder with the current rate of exchange of the LOON vs the dollar if his #8 isnt more like a 6 or 6.3 by now…
[quote comment=”253077″][quote comment=”253067″]Gary Carter was just on WFAN radio in NYC, and he said how he’s annoyed that the Expos retired his #8, but the Nationals still issued #8 to Aaron Boone this year……..[/quote]
I wonder with the current rate of exchange of the LOON vs the dollar if his #8 isnt more like a 6 or 6.3 by now…[/quote]
Check your facts – with the current state of the US economy the Canadian dollar and US dollar have been even for some time now, with some periods when the Canadian dollar was higher.
Check a newspaper.. it’d be about 7.9! Not to mention that the CDN $ has been trading at par or higher than the USD for much of the last two or three months.
[quote comment=”253077″][quote comment=”253067″]Gary Carter was just on WFAN radio in NYC, and he said how he’s annoyed that the Expos retired his #8, but the Nationals still issued #8 to Aaron Boone this year……..[/quote]
I wonder with the current rate of exchange of the LOON vs the dollar if his #8 isnt more like a 6 or 6.3 by now…[/quote]
[quote comment=”253059″]Jimmy Rollins was the only Phillie with a 42, but got the double-number treatment.
Doesn’t he always have a double number? (#11)[/quote]
You’re misunderstanding. The Phillies have sleeve numbers. So you see his sleeve 42, and thus presume he had 42 on the back as well. How different is this from teams with regular old front numbers? Not very, but nevertheless, the detail was observed.
Do you like 50’s and 60’s motorsport? Do you need some luggage? Lucky for you, link has a product line that satisfies both of your desires.
New link jersey. What a beaut. *cough, cough*
[quote comment=”253049″][quote comment=”253026″][quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?[/quote]
Agreed. Everyone likes saying that MLB and players are missing the point by everyone wearing 42. I think those questioning the point are missing the point. (If that makes sense). After last year, I’m more aware of Jackie Robinson than I ever was, and the same goes for a lot of people. Yes it is a bit over the top, but so was the idea of a black man in baseball. No, Babe Ruth is not on par with Jackie Robinson, you could say they both did the same for baseball, but Jackie was an inspiration to an entire race (and no the fat, hot dog eating race does not count).[/quote]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.
[quote comment=”253086″]New link jersey. What a beaut. *cough, cough*[/quote]
This is what mash-ups can lead to.
Mark Fightmaster…if he’s got a relative named Chuck or Mick that would officially qualify as the one guy you don’t want to f__k with just on name alone.
[quote comment=”253040″][quote comment=”253031″]The Astros’ Jason Bourn wore 42 last night.[/quote]
Michael Bourn, James. But it’s good to hear that he was getting in the spirit of things.[quote]
The Bourn identity solved!
I apologize if this has come up before, but when going through the Jersey-Joe site I noticed them selling some obama shirts
link
Any idea why they can do so but the other individuals could not? I assume Jersey Joe only sells only licensed materials, so is this a case of a vendor having the right to use the cubs and white sox logos and putting any name or number on the back (like a customized jersey) and using obama and 08 or was their some specific permission from Obama or mlb needed?
Just curious
[quote comment=”253004″][quote comment=”252997″][quote comment=”252995″]Hawkins gives up No. 21 for No. 22
This would have been nice to see in the ticker…I know it is Yankees news…
link
So are the Yankees going to retire 21 in honor of Paul O’Neill?[/quote]
I certainly dont think so…it seems that this is a move out of FAN protest and nastiness…so it seems the front office hand nothing to with it. I think 51 should go on the wall before 21![/quote]
Agreed, but since 51 shouldn’t go, that takes care of 21. As discussed here recently, 2, 6 & 42 (again) will be retired and that’s it.
Bryan was right bring up the possibility that the JR tributes are perhaps being overdone by now. Now, very carefully, to compare why it is being done to a player like Ruth is completely missing the significance of the original event.
This is not about JR the player, but JR the man and the integration of arguably the most significant social entity of the first half of the 20th Century. THAT is what the celebration is (or should be) and the 42 is the most functional “baseball way” to call attention to it.
[quote comment=”253024″]Whether it should be retired or not, I am so pleased to see LaTroy Hawkins finally surrender 21. It would be one thing if an established superstar (like Sammy Sosa in his prime) wore 21 after Paulie, but LaTroy Hawkins? Who? Come on, don’t soil a legacy like that.[/quote]
I am a Mets fan, so maybe I do not get it, but was Paul O’Neill such a great player that his jersey should be retired? We are not talking about Mantle or Dimaggio here.
If you go to Baseball-Reference.com, the players whose stats O’Neills are most similar to are:
Bobby Bonilla (923)
Del Ennis (922)
Fred Lynn (915)
Garret Anderson (909)
Reggie Smith (904)
Bernie Williams (904)
Shawn Green (900)
Ruben Sierra (892)
Moises Alou (891)
George Hendrick (891)
Not exactly a whos who of players who should have their jersey’s retired.
[quote comment=”253033″]Nice to see the Dodger fans arriving late as usual[/quote]
I am so sick of this joke. Dodger fans show to the game – almost 40,000 for a Tuesday night game against the Pirates. I went to the Rangers/Angels game Monday and was part of a crowd of 14,000. Sure Dodger Stadium isn’t packed for BP but every game I’ve been to there is well attended.
[quote comment=”253027″][quote comment=”253003″]I was please that the NY Times article on the selling (out) of the Boston marathon did not include the name of the sponsor.
Now , if we get other stories to do the same when referring to sports arenas. What teams plays in M & T Stadium? Rogers Stadium? Wachovia Center? Plus Financial Field?[/quote]
That’s nonsense. I’m against stadium naming rights as much as the next guy and would much rather the stadia and arenas have more traditional names however, it is a fact of life in this, the 21st century. Companies that shell out the money to get their name on a stadium or arena have a right to have it referred to as such properly in the media.
The Boston Marathon is different because it’s an event. In Nascar circles, the Pepsi 400 is still referred to as the Firecracker 400 but for the most part, the races are referred to by their corporate names.
Same with some of the bowl games. The Rose Bowl is “presented by” a corporate sponsor, but most media describe still as the Rose Bowl. However, the bowl games with the corporate sponsorship in the title are described as such.
As for the venue issue, what would the standard be if you were not going to use the corporate moniker? Would you simply call it “Insert Team Name Here” Stadium/Park/Field/Arena? Would you revert to n prior name (Civic Arena, The Spectrum, Comiskey Park, etc)? Like it or not, the corporate naming rights help with consistency.
I think in Denver there was a group of writers that refused to Invesco by it’s name and instead still referred to as Mile High or the New Mile High.[/quote]
The arena my beloved Blues play in has been renamed twice for corporate entities, I refuse to call it anything but “the Kiel” until i get my check.
[quote comment=”253092″]I apologize if this has come up before, but when going through the Jersey-Joe site I noticed them selling some obama shirts
link
Any idea why they can do so but the other individuals could not?
[/quote]
The problem was never putting the word “Obama” on a t-shirt, the problem was altering MLB logos without permission. Assuming MLB gets their normal licensing money, there’s no reason there would be any problem with a normal MLB t-shirt or jersey with “Obama” on the back.
[quote comment=”253027″][quote comment=”253003″]I was please that the NY Times article on the selling (out) of the Boston marathon did not include the name of the sponsor.
Now , if we get other stories to do the same when referring to sports arenas. What teams plays in M & T Stadium? Rogers Stadium? Wachovia Center? Plus Financial Field?[/quote]
That’s nonsense. I’m against stadium naming rights as much as the next guy and would much rather the stadia and arenas have more traditional names however, it is a fact of life in this, the 21st century. Companies that shell out the money to get their name on a stadium or arena have a right to have it referred to as such properly in the media.
The Boston Marathon is different because it’s an event. In Nascar circles, the Pepsi 400 is still referred to as the Firecracker 400 but for the most part, the races are referred to by their corporate names.
Same with some of the bowl games. The Rose Bowl is “presented by” a corporate sponsor, but most media describe still as the Rose Bowl. However, the bowl games with the corporate sponsorship in the title are described as such.
As for the venue issue, what would the standard be if you were not going to use the corporate moniker? Would you simply call it “Insert Team Name Here” Stadium/Park/Field/Arena? Would you revert to n prior name (Civic Arena, The Spectrum, Comiskey Park, etc)? Like it or not, the corporate naming rights help with consistency.
I think in Denver there was a group of writers that refused to Invesco by it’s name and instead still referred to as Mile High or the New Mile High.[/quote]
On a similar note (understanding that not everyone likes Nascar), the announcers always talks about the cars being filled up with “Sunoco gasoline” rather than just saying fuel or gas. it is slightly amusing when the announcer says something like “the number 24 just did not have enough Sunoco gas to finish the race” rather than just saying gas.
[quote comment=”252992″]All of yesterday’s 42s reaffirms how much I dislike NNOB. The absence of a name makes the number look too small, and dammit, I like to be able to identify the players without a program.[/quote]
I am not sure exactly how a program would have helped last night with the teams in which every player wore #42. in fact while watching the Yankees Rays game there were a couple of moments of confusion trying to figure out which Rays pitcher was warming up and apparently at the Mets-Nats game some Mets fans booed Johnny Estrada when they thought it was former Met Paul LoDuca
[quote comment=”253096″][quote comment=”253024″]Whether it should be retired or not, I am so pleased to see LaTroy Hawkins finally surrender 21. It would be one thing if an established superstar (like Sammy Sosa in his prime) wore 21 after Paulie, but LaTroy Hawkins? Who? Come on, don’t soil a legacy like that.[/quote]
I am a Mets fan, so maybe I do not get it, but was Paul O’Neill such a great player that his jersey should be retired? We are not talking about Mantle or Dimaggio here.
If you go to Baseball-Reference.com, the players whose stats O’Neills are most similar to are:
Bobby Bonilla (923)
Del Ennis (922)
Fred Lynn (915)
Garret Anderson (909)
Reggie Smith (904)
Bernie Williams (904)
Shawn Green (900)
Ruben Sierra (892)
Moises Alou (891)
George Hendrick (891)
Not exactly a whos who of players who should have their jersey’s retired.[/quote]
Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!
As a middle reliever, LaTroy Hawkins is roughly as distinguished as O’Neill was as a right fielder.
The deification of Paulie is just another case of irrational Yankee fan behavior. (You can have A-Rod; I’ll take Scotty Brosius — Now there’s a gamer!) And now, get ready for many more examples of such on this comment thread.
[quote comment=”253087″][quote comment=”253049″][quote comment=”253026″][quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?[/quote]
Agreed. Everyone likes saying that MLB and players are missing the point by everyone wearing 42. I think those questioning the point are missing the point. (If that makes sense). After last year, I’m more aware of Jackie Robinson than I ever was, and the same goes for a lot of people. Yes it is a bit over the top, but so was the idea of a black man in baseball. No, Babe Ruth is not on par with Jackie Robinson, you could say they both did the same for baseball, but Jackie was an inspiration to an entire race (and no the fat, hot dog eating race does not count).[/quote]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
Sgt. Taggart: Well, sir, technically, this is traffic duty.
Chief Lutz: Technically, you’re a goddamn idiot. Get out of here, Taggart!
At Fenway during the recent Tigers series, a guy in the front row behind the plate had the Tigers version of the Obama shirt on. Two days later during the Yankees series, a girl about three rows back had the Red Sox Obama shirt. (That day I had my own on, too–so obviously a lot of people snatched these up before that site got the ax.) (And those were the only two games I saw on TV, as I’ve been at the other four home games so far this year–so as far as I know, there’s been a different Obama shirt behind the plate every game…)
Other than the Dodgers, I think entire teams wearing #42 is way overkill. You’d think this would be the prime night for the Dodgers to wear Brooklyn throwbacks. One designated, volunteered, or lottery-winning player should represent Jackie Robinson per team. For those complaining that white guys were wearing #42, why is this a race thing? Barely 8% of MLB players are African-American so it will be pretty hard to not have a white guy somewhere wearing #42. I liked how the Giants chose Ray Durham, as the senior player on the team, to represent #42. That is a class way of honoring your senior player and honoring Jackie. As for the Yankees numbering issues, I think it will be cool in a few years to see an entire team wearing numbers that more belong to an offensive lineman or linebacker than a shortstop.
[quote comment=”253002″]John Russell’s “JO RUSSELL” jersey was no doubt necessary because of the presence of pitcher Jeff Russell on the Rangers’ roster. So did Jeff’s jersey read “JE RUSSELL”?[/quote]
Yes it did.
[quote comment=”253090″]Mark Fightmaster…if he’s got a relative named Chuck or Mick that would officially qualify as the one guy you don’t want to f__k with just on name alone.[/quote]
Nope, no Chucks or Micks in the family line … just me …
Juan Grande: The Habs are closer to the all-wacky numbers scheme, having retired nearly 50% of the numbers below 30. People always joke about the sheer volume of ‘training camp numbers’ on their team, as every time a young player gets called up he’s stuck with something in the 70s or 80s, and no one ever really winds up with a low number as a result.
One thing relating to both that above point and Robinson: the Jays really ought to pay tribute to Robinson by wearing 20 instead of 42, as a reminder that the Montreal Royals played a fairly significant part in his career (and a nice reminder to every commentator who phrases the Dodgers debut as “integrating baseball” rather than “integrating major league baseball.”)
Some new pics of pole vaulter Allison Stokke
link
Sometimes you (a team) doesnt retire a jersey based on STATS alone…sometimes your heart (Billy Martin, Elston Howard) or off the field actions have something to do with it…Which is to say why Pete Rose’s 14 isnt hanging in GABP
[quote comment=”253121″]Juan Grande: The Habs are closer to the all-wacky numbers scheme, having retired nearly 50% of the numbers below 30. People always joke about the sheer volume of ‘training camp numbers’ on their team, as every time a young player gets called up he’s stuck with something in the 70s or 80s, and no one ever really winds up with a low number as a result.
One thing relating to both that above point and Robinson: the Jays really ought to pay tribute to Robinson by wearing 20 instead of 42, as a reminder that the Montreal Royals played a fairly significant part in his career (and a nice reminder to every commentator who phrases the Dodgers debut as “integrating baseball” rather than “integrating major league baseball.”)[/quote]
Yeah but in hockey it doesn’t look too bad if your guy is wearing #67 or #89. In baseball, it looks downright silly. A shortstop wearing #78 is hilarious. Other than maybe 3% of the population, who out there knows that Jackie Robinson played for the Montreal Royals? That would open a whole can of worms: Montreal has no team, people would confuse the Montreal Royals with KC, and I’m still thinking that no more than 15% of the US really could care less about Jackie Robinson. It is sad but I think its true.
[quote comment=”253100″][quote comment=”253027″][quote comment=”253003″]I was please that the NY Times article on the selling (out) of the Boston marathon did not include the name of the sponsor.
Now , if we get other stories to do the same when referring to sports arenas. What teams plays in M & T Stadium? Rogers Stadium? Wachovia Center? Plus Financial Field?[/quote]
That’s nonsense. I’m against stadium naming rights as much as the next guy and would much rather the stadia and arenas have more traditional names however, it is a fact of life in this, the 21st century. Companies that shell out the money to get their name on a stadium or arena have a right to have it referred to as such properly in the media.
The Boston Marathon is different because it’s an event. In Nascar circles, the Pepsi 400 is still referred to as the Firecracker 400 but for the most part, the races are referred to by their corporate names.
Same with some of the bowl games. The Rose Bowl is “presented by” a corporate sponsor, but most media describe still as the Rose Bowl. However, the bowl games with the corporate sponsorship in the title are described as such.
As for the venue issue, what would the standard be if you were not going to use the corporate moniker? Would you simply call it “Insert Team Name Here” Stadium/Park/Field/Arena? Would you revert to n prior name (Civic Arena, The Spectrum, Comiskey Park, etc)? Like it or not, the corporate naming rights help with consistency.
I think in Denver there was a group of writers that refused to Invesco by it’s name and instead still referred to as Mile High or the New Mile High.[/quote]
The arena my beloved Blues play in has been renamed twice for corporate entities, I refuse to call it anything but “the Kiel” until i get my check.[/quote]
And that’s fine….many folks still call the Mellon Arena the “Civic Arena”.
My point is to writers and those in the media. They are held to a higher standard of formality. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think only one guy per team should get to wear 42, and it should be an honor for the person selected, based on the nature of the person who gets to wear it. I thhought it was bullshit last year that Barry Bonds wore Jackie’s number, which certainly did not honor Robinson at all.
When the whole team does it, it just feels like garden variety PC bullshit, which I hate. There are too many things honored anymore, which really distracts from the ones that are important.
[quote comment=”253076″]Has anyone ever bought a grey replica MLB jersey? I am looking to get a new Brewers jersey, and I like the grey’s the best of their unis, but in pictures the grey of the replicas looks like a completely different shade of grey than the authentic jerseys. I was just wondering if anyone had ever compared them (from any team), and if the greys are infact different shades of grey?
thanks to anyone that has any info.[/quote]
The replica jerseys are always wrong in at least five ways; they are designed that way so you’ll buy the authentic ones. They all use the same grey, even though about ten are used throughout the league. The fonts, the stitching the weight, it’s just all wrong.
If you care enough about this jersey purchase to run it through uni-watch, do yourself a favor and buy the authentic, or don’t buy it at all. You’ll wind up resenting the replica, every time you spot another difference between it and a gamer and it will bring you no joy.
[quote comment=”253121″]Juan Grande: The Habs are closer to the all-wacky numbers scheme, having retired nearly 50% of the numbers below 30. People always joke about the sheer volume of ‘training camp numbers’ on their team, as every time a young player gets called up he’s stuck with something in the 70s or 80s, and no one ever really winds up with a low number as a result.
One thing relating to both that above point and Robinson: the Jays really ought to pay tribute to Robinson by wearing 20 instead of 42, as a reminder that the Montreal Royals played a fairly significant part in his career (and a nice reminder to every commentator who phrases the Dodgers debut as “integrating baseball” rather than “integrating major league baseball.”)[/quote]
How does #20 have anything to do with Robinson? Ebbets Field Flannels offers a Montreal Royals jersey with #9 (supposedly for Jackie) link, while link shows Jackie for the Montreal Royals wearing #10. As for #20, I hope you weren’t thinking Frank Robinson while typing Jackie.
OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.
Man I was watching that Mets Nats game last night and I almost had a heart attack looking at 1B as the throw came in…I thought Butch Huskey was back in the big leagues…
that was about as scary as hearing your wife is having twins….and they arent yours!
[quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.
[quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
If you had 15 teams in each league, you’d have to have interleague play every day or two teams off every day, and nobody likes either option.
[quote comment=”253137″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.[/quote]
All the more reason to drop interleague play or at least drop to just one series.
[quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Then each league would have an odd number of teams, and that means that one team in each league is not playing on any given non-interleague night during the season.
[quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.
[quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prince Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
You need even numbers in both leagues.
The majority of the season is not interleague, so in your world of 15 and 15, one team would always have to have an off-day, and off-days can’t be too common in baseball because the season is long enough anyway.
So no, your way just can’t work.
Maybe they should have all the second basemen in the league wear it, that’d be a neat tribute and wouldn’t be so over the top.
Except we are honoring the day Jackie debuted and he was a 1st baseman that day and most of his rookie season.
Huge NHL fan or stalker?
link
[quote comment=”253139″][quote comment=”253137″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.[/quote]
All the more reason to drop interleague play or at least drop to just one series.[/quote]
Your solution would increase interleague play, instead of decreasing it. And if one team was taking off a three or four game series all the time, it would likely be impossible to get in a 162, or 154 game season in before Thanksgiving.
[quote comment=”253139″][quote comment=”253137″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.[/quote]
All the more reason to drop interleague play or at least drop to just one series.[/quote]
What? How does this solve your dilemma?
Yeah, what do think this is, the NFL where interconference (interleague in this case) is worth something?
[quote comment=”253145″][quote comment=”253139″][quote comment=”253137″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.[/quote]
All the more reason to drop interleague play or at least drop to just one series.[/quote]
Your solution would increase interleague play, instead of decreasing it. And if one team was taking off a three or four game series all the time, it would likely be impossible to get in a 162, or 154 game season in before Thanksgiving.[/quote]
As a Dodger fan and a person who has admired Jackie Robinson his whole life, I don’t really have a problem with whole teams wearing his number. After all, it’s only for one game, not 162. For all the noise being made now about how hard it is to discern pitchers in the bullpen or players on the field, it’s just for one game in April, and a month from now, telling players apart on an April 15th, 2008 ballgame won’t matter. Also, having the Dodgers wear Brooklyn throwbacks at home would be kinda tough, as the main change would be the insignia on their hats, unless they again go the route of having the away Brooklyn script put on their home whites, which I think is… link boring.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the Babe’s 3 retired, but the reason I feel retiring 42 thoughout baseball is more justified than retiring 3 is simple. Although there would be no baseball without the herculean efforts of Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson did more than just change baseball, he changed the nation. If he faltered once, the civil rights movement could’ve been set back years, if not decades. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had expressed his gratitude repeatedly to Jackie, Branch Rickey, Don Newcombe and Roy Campenella in the 60s, telling Newcombe “Thanks to you, Jackie and Campy, I was able to do my job easier.” Also, he signed a book for Branch Rickey “To Branch, who made my work that much easier.” Jackie Robinson was a catalyst for all Americans to become recognized as equal in the eyes of the law.
And thanks to the Babe, they had a sport well-regarded on a national level to desegragate.
im surprised (and thankful) that today no one brought up the link
[quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Oh come on!! In 1884, baseball was like a beer league. By 1947, it was the nation’s pastime. This comparison illustrates a lack of understanding of how little had been achieved nearly 80 years after emancipation. Yes, it was just baseball, but the fact that the Dodgers, on their own, decided to make a man of color an equal with all others was huge.
To pooh-pooh it (or Rosa Parks) on a technicality is a very unhealthy cynicism.
[quote comment=”253086″]New link jersey. What a beaut. *cough, cough*[/quote]
As soon as I saw that last night I thought “I hope that makes the ticker”. I had no screenshot but am glad fellow readers are on it. Respect for Colbert’s Jersey Mashup!
I demand that all major league teams retire #5 in honor of Hank Greenberg and that games played on Rosh Hashanah be designated Hank Greenberg Day, and everyone has to wear #5 as well as link under their caps.
[quote comment=”253147″][quote comment=”253139″][quote comment=”253137″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
Because you would have 15 teams in each league and unless you want interleague play for the entire season, you can’t schedule a 15 team league.[/quote]
All the more reason to drop interleague play or at least drop to just one series.[/quote]
What? How does this solve your dilemma?[/quote]
All right, all right, ask a question and get good responses in return. All things considered though, I still think that the AL West has an unfair advantage in their divisional rave and the NL Central gets a bum deal. I’m not a big fan of interleague play because it takes away from your league play. I still think interleague play should be limited to one series, limited to inter-city/state rivals (Mets/Yanks, Indians/Reds). I know that doesn’t cover everyone but the schedule makers can make it work. Three long interleague series are too long. That’s just one man’s opinion.
[quote comment=”253152″][quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Oh come on!! In 1884, baseball was like a beer league. By 1947, it was the nation’s pastime. This comparison illustrates a lack of understanding of how little had been achieved nearly 80 years after emancipation. Yes, it was just baseball, but the fact that the Dodgers, on their own, decided to make a man of color an equal with all others was huge.
To pooh-pooh it (or Rosa Parks) on a technicality is a very unhealthy cynicism.[/quote]
While your comparison of 1884 vs. 1947 has merit as far baseball’s place on the American landscape, it’s not as if baseball was totally integrated in the 19th century. There were very few Fleetwood Walkers.
This is where I feel MLB could do more as far as educating about some of these other pioneers. They could do this without diminshing what Robinson did.
30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions
[quote comment=”253158″]30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions[/quote]
Gee, whatever happened to the thought of dropping two teams from MLB like killing off the Expos and Twins a few years back?
How great is this?
link
Sorry, I don’t know how to do links…
link
[quote comment=”253154″]I demand that all major league teams retire #5 in honor of Hank Greenberg and that games played on Rosh Hashanah be designated Hank Greenberg Day, and everyone has to wear #5 as well as link under their caps.[/quote]
There’s a flaw in your plan. Since there should be no work done during Rosh Hashana MLB should be shut down for those two days to honor Greenberg.
/sarcasm
[quote comment=”253154″]I demand that all major league teams retire #5 in honor of Hank Greenberg and that games played on Rosh Hashanah be designated Hank Greenberg Day, and everyone has to wear #5 as well as link under their caps.[/quote]
Was Greenberg the first Jew admitted to modern major league baseball after a long standing overt “gentlemen’s” agreement to have Jews omitted from participating?
I do understand some concern for over-doing of tributes the JR legacy, I do not understand the devaluing of the legacy displayed here today (or perhaps it is easily explained).
[quote comment=”253160″][quote comment=”253158″]30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions[/quote]
Gee, whatever happened to the thought of dropping two teams from MLB like killing off the Expos and Twins a few years back?[/quote]
How ’bout the Brewers?
[quote comment=”253157″][quote comment=”253152″][quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Oh come on!! In 1884, baseball was like a beer league. By 1947, it was the nation’s pastime. This comparison illustrates a lack of understanding of how little had been achieved nearly 80 years after emancipation. Yes, it was just baseball, but the fact that the Dodgers, on their own, decided to make a man of color an equal with all others was huge.
To pooh-pooh it (or Rosa Parks) on a technicality is a very unhealthy cynicism.[/quote]
While your comparison of 1884 vs. 1947 has merit as far baseball’s place on the American landscape, it’s not as if baseball was totally integrated in the 19th century. There were very few Fleetwood Walkers.
This is where I feel MLB could do more as far as educating about some of these other pioneers. They could do this without diminshing what Robinson did.[/quote]
Very good point!
[quote comment=”253150″]im surprised (and thankful) that today no one brought up the link[/quote]
Oh man… jokes about mass homicide kill me. Way to go.
[quote comment=”253150″]im surprised (and thankful) that today no one brought up the link[/quote]
Apparently you felt the need to.
Regarding the #42 Jackie tribute, remember this: at least it only lasts one day. No chance of any carryover to today’s games, or team choice to “wear it for the rest of the season” a la Sean Taylor #21 tributes from last NFL season.
[quote comment=”253125″]Sometimes you (a team) doesnt retire a jersey based on STATS alone…sometimes your heart (Billy Martin, Elston Howard) or off the field actions have something to do with it…Which is to say why Pete Rose’s 14 isnt hanging in GABP[/quote]
Wrong. It is because Pete is banned from baseball. If he were reinstated today, number 14 would be officially retired tomorrow. If the Reds didn’t care about Pete because of his off-field bahavior, why does nobody wear number 14? Why is his bat pictured on a 200 square ft sign leading into the park? Why is there a rose garden (roses were chosen on purpose) marking the exact spot hit number 4192 landed?
You mentioned heart….Pete played every game (including all-star games, Ray Fosse) with heart and is honored by club for it.
[quote comment=”253138″][quote comment=”253135″]OK, new subject for today. This has bothered me for years. In 1998, the Brewers switched from the American League to the National League. Currently the American League West has only four teams while the National League Central has six. Now this makes a major impact on division races and wildcards since the other divisions all have five teams. Why hasn’t any of the owners or GMs spoken up about this? Why not realign the Divisions? Put the Brewers back in the AL and move them to the AL West. They’d have a good chance of taking that division and they have a prime DH (Prine Fielder) ready to go.[/quote]
If you had 15 teams in each league, you’d have to have interleague play every day or two teams off every day, and nobody likes either option.[/quote]
Anyone remember when the NFL had 31 teams before the Texans started? And each week was a Bye week for somebody, meaning some poor team had to take Week 1 or Week 17 off? Wonderful things happen when you have an odd number of teams and a “structured” schedule….
[quote comment=”253158″]30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions[/quote]
I thought it was an interesting OPINION there De Fuher…mellow out man…
[quote comment=”253171″][quote comment=”253150″]im surprised (and thankful) that today no one brought up the link[/quote]
Apparently you felt the need to.
Regarding the #42 Jackie tribute, remember this: at least it only lasts one day. No chance of any carryover to today’s games, or team choice to “wear it for the rest of the season” a la Sean Taylor #21 tributes from last NFL season.[/quote]
Again, no comparison. Aside from the ‘skins that wore #21 in the Pro Bowl (an exhibition mind you), we’re essentially talking about a helmet sticker. quite a difference from wearing the same number in a regular season game.
[quote comment=”253174″]I thought it was an interesting OPINION there De Fuher…mellow out man…[/quote]
i didn’t bring the non-uni related subject up, and i didn’t feel like quoting already lengthy post which did, rhoda
[quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Actually it was link in 1879.
[quote comment=”253174″][quote comment=”253158″]30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions[/quote]
I thought it was an interesting OPINION there De Fuher…mellow out man…[/quote]
That’s what Skedder-Watch is for. No problems here, Phil.
[quote comment=”253049″][quote comment=”253026″][quote comment=”253016″]Watching the A’s-White Sox game, for a while it seemed a bit weird to me that the only White Sox player wearing #42 was Jermaine Dye, but none of the white players. Then I think I saw Nick Swisher wearing #42. Any other “White” Sox wearing #42?[/quote]
A link to everybody wearing 42 was above. For the White Sox, it was Dye, Swisher, Thome (who was suspended), Jeff Cox (3B coach), Harold Baines (1B coach) and Ozzie Guillen (Manager)
It seems a bit weird to me that people have a problem with a white person honoring Jackie Robinson. Isn’t the whole point of Jackie Robinson that color no longer mattered in who could play baseball? Why can’t a white person admire that?[/quote]
Agreed. Everyone likes saying that MLB and players are missing the point by everyone wearing 42. I think those questioning the point are missing the point. (If that makes sense). After last year, I’m more aware of Jackie Robinson than I ever was, and the same goes for a lot of people. Yes it is a bit over the top, but so was the idea of a black man in baseball. No, Babe Ruth is not on par with Jackie Robinson, you could say they both did the same for baseball, but Jackie was an inspiration to an entire race (and no the fat, hot dog eating race does not count).[/quote]
Watching the mets game with 4 or 5 guys last night, all big into sports, NONE of them knew about 42 that night and how anyone could wear it etc etc. Even if it brings up jackie robinson and his tributes for 5 seconds, its worth it. I’m sure they didnt do this everywhere but at Shea last night, kevin Burkardt interviewed an older gentleman that lives down near dodgerland( dodgerville?) and how much it meant to him and his friends to see him down there with the pros, and how he would go see robinson after practice at a “blacks only” practice field. In a short time, there won’t be many people that lived through that time era. The more first hand accounts, and stories and acknowledgements we can bring now will make it much better later… sounds dumb, but its true. they must have spent 10 minutes on SNY talking about Jackie Robinson rotunda and such. I understand the “hollow” sentiments, but i think those that feel that way are looking for some grand gesture, and while that may be good, drawing national attention through america’s pasttime, I dont think, can be called hollow. As someone mentioned, it gave them a chance to talk to their child about jackie robinson…. I just don’t see how its hollow.
…And that’s fine….many folks still call the Mellon Arena the “Civic Arena”.
That’s what it was for close to 40 years, and on those rare occasions that I refer to it as more than “the Arena”, I’m much more likely to use “Civic” than “Mellon”.
How do Philly fans refer to the CoreStates/First Union/Wachovia Center? That, of course, is not to be confused with the Spectrum, er, the Wachovia Spectrum, which still stands next door.
My point is to writers and those in the media. They are held to a higher standard of formality. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think it has as much to do with the idea that entities that buy naming rights also buy advertising.
[quote comment=”253166″][quote comment=”253160″][quote comment=”253158″]30 MLB teams…16 & 14 team leagues…
since NONE of this is uni-related, i am reticent to bring up the subject, but…
i have argued (not on here, but elsewhere), that MLB should expand by 2 teams…say what you will about dilution of talent, etc, but that’s not part of this argument…nor is where the new teams would be located nor the realignment problems any new expansion would cause…that’s for another time and prolly another board…
but add two teams, making each league perfectly balanced at 16 teams per
you could have 4-four team divisions in each league, or 2-eight team divisions (what a novel concept)…with the 8 playoff teams coming from the winner of each division (in the 4 division leagues) or 2 division winners and two wild cards per league (in the two-division leagues)…
and dump interplague
done
/i now return you to your regularly scheduled uni-discussions[/quote]
Gee, whatever happened to the thought of dropping two teams from MLB like killing off the Expos and Twins a few years back?[/quote]
How ’bout the Brewers?[/quote]
You get rid of the Florida teams, put the Brewers back in the American League and split each league in half, either east/west or north/south. Top 2 teams from each division make the playoffs. Make alternate jerseys ilegal and make the National league use the DH. Done and done.
The number on the late Dave Brown’s pants is a “10.”
Seattle Seahawks had a logo celebrating either their 10th season or their 10th anniversary (I never remember which one is celebrated by which team.) The logo was a “10” with the Seahawk logo running through the numbers (about 2/3 way down) and the head of the bird was on the zero side of the ten. (Somewhere, I still have some commemerative baseball cards from that season.)
It would be nice if Seattle would try a modern version of the sleeve-hawk style jersey like Dave Brown is wearing.
[quote comment=”253178″][quote comment=”253174″]I thought it was an interesting OPINION there De Fuher…mellow out man…[/quote]
i didn’t bring the non-uni related subject up, and i didn’t feel like quoting already lengthy post which did, rhoda[/quote]
Who is Rhoda? LI Phil?
[quote comment=”253183″]…And that’s fine….many folks still call the Mellon Arena the “Civic Arena”.
That’s what it was for close to 40 years, and on those rare occasions that I refer to it as more than “the Arena”, I’m much more likely to use “Civic” than “Mellon”.
How do Philly fans refer to the CoreStates/First Union/Wachovia Center? That, of course, is not to be confused with the Spectrum, er, the Wachovia Spectrum, which still stands next door.
My point is to writers and those in the media. They are held to a higher standard of formality. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think it has as much to do with the idea that entities that buy naming rights also buy advertising.[/quote]
By criticizing corporate naming rights, they would be in danger of disparaging their own employers in some cases.
As a Royals fan, I wish they would just sell “The K’s” naming rights and put the $$$ toward the club. I love Mr. K, but it’s always been Royals Stadium to me and the beauty is I can call it whatever I’d like.
[quote comment=”253183″]…And that’s fine….many folks still call the Mellon Arena the “Civic Arena”.
That’s what it was for close to 40 years, and on those rare occasions that I refer to it as more than “the Arena”, I’m much more likely to use “Civic” than “Mellon”.
How do Philly fans refer to the CoreStates/First Union/Wachovia Center? That, of course, is not to be confused with the Spectrum, er, the Wachovia Spectrum, which still stands next door.
My point is to writers and those in the media. They are held to a higher standard of formality. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think it has as much to do with the idea that entities that buy naming rights also buy advertising.[/quote]
I would think more folks would refer to it as “The Igloo” more than any Civic/Mellon/Arena name. (I’m disappointed no updates of the Igloo styling are in the new arena plans)
As to the last comment on advertising, I don’t see what the problem with that is. Companies spend the money to earn that right.
[quote comment=”253168″][quote comment=”253157″][quote comment=”253152″][quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Oh come on!! In 1884, baseball was like a beer league. By 1947, it was the nation’s pastime. This comparison illustrates a lack of understanding of how little had been achieved nearly 80 years after emancipation. Yes, it was just baseball, but the fact that the Dodgers, on their own, decided to make a man of color an equal with all others was huge.
To pooh-pooh it (or Rosa Parks) on a technicality is a very unhealthy cynicism.[/quote]
While your comparison of 1884 vs. 1947 has merit as far baseball’s place on the American landscape, it’s not as if baseball was totally integrated in the 19th century. There were very few Fleetwood Walkers.
This is where I feel MLB could do more as far as educating about some of these other pioneers. They could do this without diminishing what Robinson did.[/quote]
Very good point![/quote]
I agree with the point as well. MLB should do more to promote those early African-American players because they were not allowed to play professionally in 1889 when the Associated League and the National League adopted Jim Crow. JR’s being the first person of color–Native American players aside–to play on a MLB roster since 1889 is a great event in the evolution and history of Baseball, but those guys who had to stop playing because of Jim Crow were the guys who founded the Negro League…without that, JR would probably not be remembered as a great baseball player. Oh, and the Dodgers were link.
And as for the comment of “unhealthy cynicism”; I’m sorry you think that way. My comments are not “pooh-pooh[ing]” anything. Your statement that “little had been achieved nearly 80 years after Emancipation” is ignorant; just look at the link.
[quote comment=”253179″][quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Actually it was link in 1879.[/quote]
I stand corrected.
[/quote]
make the National league use the DH. [/quote]
blasphemy!
i think
a) i agree with phil. NNOB’s looked great!
b) i think there is NO reason the home team in baseball should ever have a NOB. it’s the home team for pete’s sake!
c) if they are going to do the 42 tribute every year… maybe the franchises that were actually around when robinson played should go whole team 42’s… and the other teams just have 1 or 2 representatives. or vise-versa. no biggie!
sorry if i repeated any thoughts. been busy today and couldn’t get through all the wonderful comments… and phil’s comments too! lol. kidding.
[quote comment=”253198″]i think
a) i agree with phil. NNOB’s looked great!
b) i think there is NO reason the home team in baseball should ever have a NOB. it’s the home team for pete’s sake!
c) if they are going to do the 42 tribute every year… maybe the franchises that were actually around when robinson played should go whole team 42’s… and the other teams just have 1 or 2 representatives. or vise-versa. no biggie!
sorry if i repeated any thoughts. been busy today and couldn’t get through all the wonderful comments… and phil’s comments too! lol. kidding.[/quote]
What? I think the Tampa Bay Rays wearing #42 is a fine tribute to a man and an event that happened 51 years before the team ever came into existance is a fine idea!
[quote comment=”253191″][quote comment=”253168″][quote comment=”253157″][quote comment=”253152″][quote comment=”253141″][quote comment=”253087″]
The problem with your theory is that JR was not the 1st black guy in baseball, he was the 1st in modern baseball.[/quote]
It’s all about marketing now. Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African-American (man or woman) to refuse to move the back of a public bus, but she’s the one we all know about because of how her story was marketed. Moses Fleetwood Walker was truly the first African-American professional baseball player (1884), but seeing how Jackie was fresher on people’s minds, it was just easier to market him as the 1st African-American in Baseball.[/quote]
Oh come on!! In 1884, baseball was like a beer league. By 1947, it was the nation’s pastime. This comparison illustrates a lack of understanding of how little had been achieved nearly 80 years after emancipation. Yes, it was just baseball, but the fact that the Dodgers, on their own, decided to make a man of color an equal with all others was huge.
To pooh-pooh it (or Rosa Parks) on a technicality is a very unhealthy cynicism.[/quote]
While your comparison of 1884 vs. 1947 has merit as far baseball’s place on the American landscape, it’s not as if baseball was totally integrated in the 19th century. There were very few Fleetwood Walkers.
This is where I feel MLB could do more as far as educating about some of these other pioneers. They could do this without diminishing what Robinson did.[/quote]
Very good point![/quote]
I agree with the point as well. MLB should do more to promote those early African-American players because they were not allowed to play professionally in 1889 when the Associated League and the National League adopted Jim Crow. JR’s being the first person of color–Native American players aside–to play on a MLB roster since 1889 is a great event in the evolution and history of Baseball, but those guys who had to stop playing because of Jim Crow were the guys who founded the Negro League…without that, JR would probably not be remembered as a great baseball player. Oh, and the Dodgers were link.
And as for the comment of “unhealthy cynicism”; I’m sorry you think that way. My comments are not “pooh-pooh[ing]” anything. Your statement that “little had been achieved nearly 80 years after Emancipation” is ignorant; just look at the link.[/quote]
I wonder if people who couldn’t use certain drinking fountains felt all that much had been achieved. Perhaps I should have been clearer. How is: “Not nearly enough in terms of civil rights had achieved”
As for my statement of your unhealthy cynicism, how else would you interpret “It’s all about marketing”? It’s all about marketing? There was no education involved it the tributes? Just above, someone mentioned that they were with several people who had no idea about what was taking place. Where’s the memo from MLB saying, “Let’s make a quick buck on JR”. You said “all about marketing”; I say “unhealthy cynicism”.
We had a malicious injection code comment that knocked this post out of commission for a little bit. It’s been removed, but we lost about 10 comments in the process. Apologies all around.
Everything is good to go now, however.
is anyone watching the spurs game? It looks like matt bonner is wearing NEW BALANCE shoes… does anyone else wear new balance? Also, they had a shot of Carlos Boozer draped in black towels almost completely covered by NBA logos, it was a weird sight.
how come the yankees are wearing the ‘fyoys’ (final year of yankee stadium) patch on their away jerseys?
the mets are wearing their fyos on their home unis, which makes sense…but
why do the yankees need to remind opponents in their own ballparks of the fyoys?
i can see the ASG patch…that’s advertising the game itself…but the fyoys???
anyone?
The Cubs are wearing their alternate solid blue tops with stripped pants. It just does not look right to me. :-(
Here’s something that has always bothered me as a St. Louis Cardinals fan:
The helmet and the cap have different logos.
link
The line on top of the T in the “STL” has straight edges on the helmet logo…
[quote comment=”253289″]Here’s something that has always bothered me as a St. Louis Cardinals fan:
The helmet and the cap have different logos.
link
The line on top of the T in the “STL” has straight edges on the helmet logo…[/quote]
There appears to be an extra curve on the top of the cap’s S that is absent on the helmet.
[quote comment=”253289″]Here’s something that has always bothered me as a St. Louis Cardinals fan:
The helmet and the cap have different logos.
link
The line on top of the T in the “STL” has straight edges on the helmet logo…[/quote]
Oops…forgot the rest of the post
link
The cap has the line across the T in the “STL” with angled edges.
Anyone ever notice this before?
link
I see David Ortiz wearing number 42 from behind and all I think is Mo Vaughn.
[quote comment=”253184″]
You get rid of the Florida teams[/quote]
It doesn’t always have to be the Florida teams to go. Sure they’ve had struggling years, and are fairly new, but every other team has faced that too. Those two titles for the Fish were amazing, and every firesale has produced great prospects in return.
I’d rather see two more teams added to make that balanced 32 team league.
[quote comment=”253287″]The Cubs are wearing their alternate solid blue tops with stripped pants. It just does not look right to me. :-([/quote]
It’s looked not right for nine of the last 10 years, too.
[quote comment=”253312″][quote comment=”253184″]
You get rid of the Florida teams[/quote]
It doesn’t always have to be the Florida teams to go. Sure they’ve had struggling years, and are fairly new, but every other team has faced that too. Those two titles for the Fish were amazing, and every firesale has produced great prospects in return.
I’d rather see two more teams added to make that balanced 32 team league.[/quote]
I’d settle for Tampa moving to Montreal, and then switching leagues with Washington.
[quote comment=”253317″][quote comment=”253312″][quote comment=”253184″]
You get rid of the Florida teams[/quote]
It doesn’t always have to be the Florida teams to go. Sure they’ve had struggling years, and are fairly new, but every other team has faced that too. Those two titles for the Fish were amazing, and every firesale has produced great prospects in return.
I’d rather see two more teams added to make that balanced 32 team league.[/quote]
I’d settle for Tampa moving to Montreal, and then switching leagues with Washington.[/quote]
it was like pulling teeth to allow the move to dc…they’re not gonna move the rays (if ever) to move this soon…
i don’t see any overwhelming support (nor should there be) for expansion, but it certainly makes sense for both owners ($$$ for expansion fees) and players (more roster spots)…it would also provide some sweet symmetry to a poorly balanced league
[quote comment=”253317″][quote comment=”253312″][quote comment=”253184″]
You get rid of the Florida teams[/quote]
It doesn’t always have to be the Florida teams to go. Sure they’ve had struggling years, and are fairly new, but every other team has faced that too. Those two titles for the Fish were amazing, and every firesale has produced great prospects in return.
I’d rather see two more teams added to make that balanced 32 team league.[/quote]
I’d settle for Tampa moving to Montreal, and then switching leagues with Washington.[/quote]
That whole Montreal thing didn’t work out so well last time …
If anybody should get chopped, it’s the Marlins. Less than 10,000 per game is ridiculous.
link
i can’t wait till they get that all cleaned up for the olympics
The Austrian national hockey team’s new unis look much sharper than the old ones.
old:
link
new: (they’ve even got a visor-helmeted eagle mascot!)
link
Ken Griffey Jr. has been wearing number 42 on Jackie Robinson day since he was a Mariner. I have a baseball card at home (away at college) with him sporting the number while wearing Mariner road greys.