Advantage: Tampa

I’m studying abroad in China, and have grown fond of watching the one sports channel available (one of the state-run CCTV channels). Anyway, I was watching a women’s indoor volleyball match between China and Brazil, and noticed something odd: Brazil’s women’s national volleyball team has *first name* NOB for all their players. See “Jacqueline” on the back of Jacqueline Carvalho in the pic linked below:

link

I also saw a “Joyce”, but didn’t get a good pic.

Compare the number placement on the Astros jerseys relative to the horizontal striping to the picture of the Berkman jersey in the Jersey Joe ad at the top of this page. Its not even close.

link

Now compare them both to this shot of Juaquin Andujar from Steve’s Baseball Photography Pages…

link

Does anyone ever go back to, you know, look at pictures when putting together these TBTC uniforms?

I love those Astros uniforms. I cannot stand the partial star, shooting star, or whatever they want to call it. THAT is how the Astros should look. Although, I prefer the orange cap in place of the blue one.

[quote comment=”276551″]“I love those Astros uniforms.”[quote]

You do realize that they were the WRONG uniforms, right? Throwbacks? Try “throw-ups”.

IIRC, the ‘Stros wore the rainbow-shouldered jerseys (white at home, “Alamo Gray, a/k/a cream away) in ’89 and ’90 IIRC with a navy blue stripe down the outside of the pants and the shirt as well. So everything that they wore last night was as wrong as wrong could get.

About the only thing they got right was leaving the uni number off the pants (last worn in ’79).

link

Were these throwbacks to a particular year or just a generic ’80s night’?

The Indianapolis Indians extremely disappointed me last night with an off the wall “military night.”

link

usually I am proud of them because they only have the white, gray and black jerseys and thats it all year long with no other alt jerseys.

[quote comment=”276552″]Also notice how both teams were wearing white? I know it’s not as big a deal in baseball, but c’mon, would it have been that much harder for the Astros to make a throwback away uni? It’s almost as bad as when both teams in a ballgame go to their colored alternates. The Rays throwbacks are pretty sweet though.[/quote]

The Astros wore white (or cream, in the case of the rainbow sleeve uniforms) on the road from 1975-93, even with the pants. There were a few teams that wore white pants on the road with colored tops in the 1970s and 80s.

What really got butchered was the rainbow top itself. Uniform makers have been using the wrong “Astros” font for throwbacks and jerseys sold in the store for years. The link is the font that was on the rainbow sleeves toward link. The font link was a link.

Furthermore, there wasn’t nearly as much white space at the top of the rainbow jersey. And that’s important because the numbers last night link. Back in the day, link weren’t in link — that’s where the name went.

[quote comment=”276548″]I used to think these throwback games were fun and kind of cool. I also thought there was a long term positive when some teams realized they looked better back in the day. ( See, New York Football Giants) But now, so many teams make such a half-assed attempt at it, that they end up looking clownish. maybe it’s time to chuck the whole thing.[/quote]

Was going to post the same thing. Either do it right or don’t do it all. Lame-asses.

[quote comment=”276557″]The Indianapolis Indians extremely disappointed me last night with an off the wall “military night.”

link

usually I am proud of them because they only have the white, gray and black jerseys and thats it all year long with no other alt jerseys.[/quote]

I agree, glad I did not go to Victory Feild for that one, I would have been upset.
Also, I can’t find pics, but the cheerleaders/tshirt girls wer dressed in bad 80’s stylings as well.

When both teams do a throw back isn’t it the responsibility of the home team to get and setup the uniforms.

I thought Paul did a story about that.

[quote comment=”276564″][quote comment=”276562″][quote comment=”276556″]Tampa’s throwbacks might be better executed, but am I the only one who finds it somewhat unstable when a team wears a throwback that is not part of their franchise history?

And as for this issue of the home team providing the throwbacks for both teams: why is that? Wouldn’t it be better if each team did their own for quality control purposes?[/quote]
What more can you expect from a franchise which has had 3 name changes since it’s illconceived conception. Tampa has no franchise history. So why did they participate in this charade? Could it have been, say it ain’t so, for merchandising? Heavens to Mergatroid.[/quote]

Where do you get three name changes? It has either been the “Devil Rays” or “Rays”. That’s not a major thing as most people just called them the Rays anyways. The uniform has changed a few times. I dont think anyone would complain about the loss of the purple.[/quote]
Yeah, its not like they’re the LA/California/Anaheim/LA Angels of Anaheim. In fact, it was their opponent last night that has had the identity crisis over the years, with a name change and multiple color schemes.

God, we bitch about throwbacks a lot.

A – They’re supposed to be an homage, not a down-to-the-angstrom copy. If you want to be completely period-specific, Derrek Lee wouldn’t have been playing in the Cubs’ 1948 game and Koskue Fukodome would have been just out of an internment camp.

B – The Rays (and other teams) have done nights before where they wore uniforms that were out of their franchise timeline (the Rays have worn Tampa Smokers unis and Tampa Tarpons, both historic Tampa minor league teams, while others have worn Negro League togs). So what?

C – AFAIK, Tampa Bay’s team has been the Devil Rays and Rays. There was some debate at startup (I have the newspapers around here somewhere) as to whether they’d be Devil Rays or Manta Rays, but that doesn’t count as a name change per se).

D – As someone who covered the Senior League, they nailed the Pelicans’ uniforms. I mean nailed them. Batting helmets and everything (even though they are CoolFlos). That means nothing to anybody, maybe the 500 people who remember that team.

E – They’re not going to consult with you before they do these things, so it may be best if you just not take it as a personal affront when a team doesn’t get every bit of striping absolutely perfect when they do a throwback night.

Well, didnt the Astros wear orange hats during that era? As far as the rainbow jerseys; I do know that when they were first intro’d, the number on the back was inside a big circle. they changed it later so the numbers went over the stripe. I seem to remember the numeral went on the front pants leg, too, just below the waistband.

Black shoes for Houston is another inconsistency.

If anyone is interested, lids.com has limited qualtities of those Pelicans caps in stock. Looks like they have a dozen in each size.

They also have the throwback caps that the Padres, Indians and Mariners wore

[quote comment=”276576″][quote comment=”276567″][quote comment=”276564″][quote comment=”276562″][quote comment=”276556″]Tampa’s throwbacks might be better executed, but am I the only one who finds it somewhat unstable when a team wears a throwback that is not part of their franchise history?

And as for this issue of the home team providing the throwbacks for both teams: why is that? Wouldn’t it be better if each team did their own for quality control purposes?[/quote]
What more can you expect from a franchise which has had 3 name changes since it’s illconceived conception. Tampa has no franchise history. So why did they participate in this charade? Could it have been, say it ain’t so, for merchandising? Heavens to Mergatroid.[/quote]

Where do you get three name changes? It has either been the “Devil Rays” or “Rays”. That’s not a major thing as most people just called them the Rays anyways. The uniform has changed a few times. I dont think anyone would complain about the loss of the purple.[/quote]
Yeah, its not like they’re the LA/California/Anaheim/LA Angels of Anaheim. In fact, it was their opponent last night that has had the identity crisis over the years, with a name change and multiple color schemes.[/quote]
00

Yes, the (Devil) Rays are 11 years old. However, the Tampa St. Pete area has a LONG baseball tradition of over 80 years from spring training, to minor leagues, to semi-pro baseball. The last few years, the Rays have done a good job of honoring that history. Last year they wore St. Pete Saints throwbacks against the (Brooklyn) Dodgers in throwbacks and before that they wore Tampa Tarpons throwbacks against the Atlanta Braves. I’m not sure what they’ve done before that but I like the effort of how a team with such a young history can put on a pretty unique throwback night.[/quote]

They have done several Tamp Tarpons and St. Pete Saints games before. Those are the two they usually do. In fact when they dropped the Devil out of the name, many people suspected that they would change their names to the Tarpons.

Maria.
Shorts.

Tuxedo?
link

[quote comment=”276580″]check out my website here:
link
its not quite done so bear with me. by the way, i liked the rainbow shoulder version of the Houston jersey more, though rainbows in any capacity on a sports uniform are terrible (with the exception of the heat throwbacks here: link
Free piece of advice: don’t ever do that again. Put your personal web address in the URI box, and your name will link to said website. If we notice your name is a link to something, we will assume you are advertising something, and we may or may not follow the link. If you pimp your blog one more time like what you did, you will feel the wrath of “Hockey Blog in Canada” Teebz who will surely rip you to shreds.
Oh and by the way, don’t design a hockey uniform identity for the Pittsburgh Pirates. PENGUINS. Robert Ullman thanks you.

link

An article about he equipment people for the seahawks

Giants @ Royals; throwback city. Pics to follow.

Royals:
link

Giants:
link

[quote comment=”276581″][quote comment=”276580″]check out my website here:
link
its not quite done so bear with me.[/quote]
Free piece of advice: don’t ever do that again. Put your personal web address in the URI box, and your name will link to said website. If we notice your name is a link to something, we will assume you are advertising something, and we may or may not follow the link. If you pimp your blog one more time like what you did, you will feel the wrath of “Hockey Blog in Canada” Teebz who will surely rip you to shreds.
Oh and by the way, don’t design a hockey uniform identity for the Pittsburgh Pirates. PENGUINS. Robert Ullman thanks you.[/quote]

Since I was being villified (kidding, Mike!), I’ll repeat what I said about this site a long time ago.

1. The site is incomplete. You haven’t even made any changes since the last time you posted it. There are 30 NHL teams, not 20.

2. It’s incomplete in terms of what you’ve already done. You have Ottawa listed, but give no rankings whatsoever. Try finishing one team before starting another critique of a team.

3. All of your pictures are linked to other sites. Just grab the picture, and host it on your own. Photobucket is a good resource. Or Flikr. Otherwise, you’ve stolen someone else’s work. And if I’m NHLuniforms.com, I’d be down right furious right about now.

4. You call the “Vancouver” wordmark on the jersey “unique”. Since Nashville was the first team to debut their uniforms with the workmark on them, that would make Vancouver very un-unique. In fact, we’d call that a copycat. I’ll even push this one further in that Nashville did it last season before any of this Reebok redesigns even took place. Remember the baby puke alternates? Check right underneath the neckline.

5. You can call your site “the definitive authority on NHL uniforms” if you like, but all you do is offer your opinion. That would be like Paul stating that UniWatch blog is the “gospel of all uniforms”. Since NHLuniforms.com offers every single uniform worn by every single team since the start of the NHL, I’d look at changing your tagline.

6. Your knowledge of the history of the game is slightly off as well. Here’s a quick rundown of stuff I just saw by scrolling through.

– The Montreal Canadiens have made several changes to their jerseys over the course of 90 years.
– The Rangers, in fact, have several logos they could have chosen, most notably Lady Liberty.
– San Jose’s number on the shoulder is not “unique” either. Buffalo did it the season before. If it is unique, Tampa Bay, Buffalo, and the New York Islanders wouldn’t be using it.
– The Los Angeles Kings had their wordmark on the hem in previous years with the CCM design, meaning it was done before. And how is the Kings’ uniforms from the year before a “catastrophe” when they look entirely similar?
– You commented nothing on the moving of the captain’s letter to the right side of the jersey on Detroit’s new uniforms. I guess that didn’t matter.
– The Toronto Maple Leafs did not wear Toronto Marlies throwbacks. The Leafs wore those style of jerseys in the 1960s.
– The Flyers haven’t worn the same thing throughout history. The orange road jerseys of the old days were replaced by the black home jersey. The orange jersey has been an alternate for a few seasons now.

There is more, but I think this will help to improve your site considerably. Noting that you haven’t made any improvements since the last time you posted your link, I would assume you’d take this constructive criticism to heart before posting the link again.

Oh, and stop trying to drive traffic to your site by posting the link. Link it to your name.

Please don’t ban me from the site, but I’ve always liked the Astros rainbow jerseys! It’s better than anything they’ve put on since.

[quote comment=”276593″]Please don’t ban me from the site, but I’ve always liked the Astros rainbow jerseys! It’s better than anything they’ve put on since.[/quote]

I don’t think the problem is with the actual design of the uni, certain people like certain things. The fact why a lot of people (like myself) did not like yesterdays throw backs for the ‘Stros, is because of the inaccuracy of them. Go all the way, or at least wear a throw back helmet for goodness sakes.

[quote comment=”276588″][quote comment=”276587″]Royals:
link

Aren’t thos Monarchs throwbacks?[/quote]

Could those jerseys be any larger? He looks like a 6 year old in dad’s clothes.

[quote comment=”276596″]I understand the Royals are representing the KC Monarchs. But who is ‘RC’ in the Giants unis?[/quote]

Never mind, I found my own answer on SF’s website. Brooklyn Royal Giants.

ok im sorry to impose. didnt actually know the online etiquette. ill try to remember to correct my mistakes, and thanks for the critiques. what i mean by unique on the canucks unis is that it is certainly much more visible on the vancouver jerseys than on nashville’s. also, for the most part (with the exception of the white alternate jersey) the changes on the Habs sweaters have been minimal and the overall look has remained the same. As for the links, i had been told in the past by someone else that using pictures from another website and putting them directly onto my site is more offensive, and that pasting links into my writing is a better way. by the way, when i say unique i mean that it isnt widely used and is only present on a few uniforms. i havent really been working on my site because ive been busy, but i guess thats no excuse for posting my work incomplete. thanks for the constructive criticism, and ill try to improve hockeysweaters.

Michael Emody, you’ve won the Comment of the Day!

[quote comment=”276593″]Please don’t ban me from the site, but I’ve always liked the Astros rainbow jerseys! It’s better than anything they’ve put on since.[/quote]

I hope I don’t get banned too, but I agree. I’m sure it’s because I grew up in the 70’s and thought something new and different was cool rather than simply gratuitous and stupid, but I think those old rainbow unis were iconic in a way. I think that is so much the problem with many new uniforms and logos, there’s nothing that’s iconic about them. They just look like a new branding campaign that’s never intended to last anything more than a few years. This applies in every sport, and it’s what makes me appreciate classic styles so much.

I love the idea of the throwbacks. I know it’s driven by merchandising, but I like the idea. Like a lot of others though, I hate the execution. Not so much the small details, but I hate the fit of the uniforms. Looking at the shots of the Tampa-Houston game, with the huge, oversized cut and extended sleeves of the jerseys, and the pajama pants….man they can make an appealing design (imho) look terrible. This is the same double-knit fabric that’s been around for years. The point is it stretches in two directions….so you don’t have to wear it 4 sizes too big to move in it. And the crazy thing?…most guys are wearing skin tight undershirts, but they have these things that look like trash bags on over them .

I know my HotRod magazine-subscribing father would hate me for poking even a little bit fun at this…and I know its in bad taste, but I think “NHRA DRIVER KALITTA KILLED IN FUNNY CAR CRASH” is sort of an odd way to headline a news article, don’t you?

To add my vote to the discussion today:

I’d like to see Houston re-adopt that H-set-in-star look again. Very clever design, I’ve always thought.

[quote comment=”276601″]thanks for the constructive criticism, and ill try to improve hockeysweaters.[/quote]

No worries, Mr. Cruncher. Just want to see your site improve. It’s not the worst I’ve seen, but there’s some room for improvement. Keep at it, man, and you’ll be ok!

As for the photos, yeah… just put a disclaimer on. That way, if someone says “hey, that’s my site you linked to”, you can give them credit indirectly. :o)

imo go (back) on record as having loved those stros bows…but…

the way they ruined them (or the rays did, or whomever, doesn’t really matter anymore)…and the HORRIFIC look they have when made into pajamas…makes me rethink those thoughts…

since the throwback craze is now becoming ridiculous, they really oughta impose some minimum standard…either wear them (as much as practical — ie…imo guess the 48 braves didn’t have helmets, so it would be hard to ‘recreate’ a helmet that didn’t exist) the way they wore them back then…or don’t wear them at all…and please get them correct…is it REALLY that difficult???

if you’re wearing a 70-80’s throwback, you better be sporting skintight sansabelt and rocking high stirrups…or…

just stick to your 2000’s pajamas

k? thanks

link

The pelican on those sleeve patches looks like the bird on a jar of Vlasic pickles.

In regards to throwbacks…I wish the Padres/Tigers would have done it this weekend. Would have made it look like 1984 all over again. Sadly, San Diego wore their camo jerseys today which just looks ridiculous.

Detroit (away) 1984 link

San Diego (home) 1984 link

Patrick, they’re saving that for Friday night when the mariners are in town. However, they won’t have the “SAN DIEGO” above the “Padres” name.

[quote comment=”276571″]Well, didnt the Astros wear orange hats during that era? As far as the rainbow jerseys; I do know that when they were first intro’d, the number on the back was inside a big circle. they changed it later so the numbers went over the stripe. I seem to remember the numeral went on the front pants leg, too, just below the waistband.[/quote]

Looks like they were going for the 80’s look rather than the 70’s look.

link look

link look

I took these photos from hdtv on Saturday June 21.
Nixon of the NY Mets at bat, with his surgically altered NewEra 5950 cap in his back pocket!
Certainly a current year 5950 on field cap, with the front buckram cut out. Just like many of us have been doing for years!

link

link

and of course the surgery procedure itself:

link

[quote comment=”276559″][quote comment=”276552″]Also notice how both teams were wearing white? I know it’s not as big a deal in baseball, but c’mon, would it have been that much harder for the Astros to make a throwback away uni? It’s almost as bad as when both teams in a ballgame go to their colored alternates. The Rays throwbacks are pretty sweet though.[/quote]

The Astros wore white (or cream, in the case of the rainbow sleeve uniforms) on the road from 1975-93, even with the pants. There were a few teams that wore white pants on the road with colored tops in the 1970s and 80s.

What really got butchered was the rainbow top itself. Uniform makers have been using the wrong “Astros” font for throwbacks and jerseys sold in the store for years. The link is the font that was on the rainbow sleeves toward link. The font link was a link.

Furthermore, there wasn’t nearly as much white space at the top of the rainbow jersey. And that’s important because the numbers last night link. Back in the day, link weren’t in link — that’s where the name went.[/quote]

GREY PANTS

I am not a big fan of grey pants with dark uniform tops. I believe it looks dingy.

I’d much rather prefer white pants on the road with dark tops, or even dark pants to match, and save the grey for grey tops.

[quote comment=”276582″]re: Astros. With Rainbow body, white rainbow striped pants both home and road. Always. Period. When vertical rainbow sleeve stripe jerseys were added for the road, THEN roads were gray but only with that plain body jersey and with a solid navy stripe on the matching gray pants legs. Later they added home version of that, in a light cream they called “alamo cream” or something.

First year of rainbow body (with the number on white disc), they did wear black shoes, at least during the early part of the season. Doesn’t make what they wore Saturday look right, though, cuz black shoes with that uni are virtually forgotten…so they looked ridiculous.

But let’s be clear: Rainbow body was worn only with white rainbow striped pants both home and road for entire run of that jersey, even when they returned to navy hats with it.

Now on to the Rays…am I the only one who thinks those Pelicans suits are better than what they wear now…or have ever worn, for that matter? I mean, nobody in MLB wears maroon/burgundy and gold. Although I do know why the Rays’d never go to that combination. Having spent the better part of three winter in South Florida recently, I’m guessing pro teams down there don’t like to do anything that would indicate a preference among Florida, Florida State and U of Miami (esp. the first two).[/quote]

TOTALLY AGREE that the St. Pete throwbacks are better than ANYTHING the Rays have ever worn as a regular uniform. Why not the same uni with different colors?

It amazes me the crappy unis worn in every sport at every level when their are OBVIOUSLY better uniforms to be easily had.

The true test of ANY UNFORM is whether or not it is the best it can be, given the logos, colors, traditions and at certain levels, within a budget.

The crap that passes for current unis are insanely weak and benefit no one, not even the marketing departments, much less the fans.

[quote comment=”276628″][quote comment=”276569″]God, we bitch about throwbacks a lot.

A – They’re supposed to be an homage, not a down-to-the-angstrom copy. If you want to be completely period-specific, Derrek Lee wouldn’t have been playing in the Cubs’ 1948 game and Koskue Fukodome would have been just out of an internment camp.[/quote]

DITTO !!![/quote]

Exactly. The point is to pay tribute to an old team or players from an old team, not necessarily to recreate the uniforms down to the seam stitching. Button-front jerseys, for example, are simply safer than zipper-front jerseys. There is no excuse for letting a big-league player take the field in an inferior uniform, and if that means wearing a button-front throwback instead of a zipper-front throwback, or a belt instead of elastic waist, then so be it.

As far as superficial elements can be gotten right, they should be gotten right. But baseball teams aren’t actually in the business of doing fashion and textiles research. We ask too much when we demand more than passing a casual fan’s look-and-feel test for any throwback. More accurate is generally better, but there is such a thing as close enough. The most important test here is, “Does the uniform as a whole communicate the right history to the casual fan?” If a throwback passes that test — and the Astros’ uniforms this weekend certainly did — then we’re well past the point where it’s reasonable to say that any inaccuracies render a throwback not worth doing.

Besides, sometimes the inaccurate throwbacks are fine on their own. The Nats wore “1943 Homestead Grays” uniforms last year that in no way resembled anything the Grays ever actually wore in any year. And yet that “throwback” might have been the most beautiful uniform ever worn in the history of baseball. They looked like the Grays in the general look-and-feel sense, but the details of the uniform were better. The “A” in “Grays” lined up properly with the placket piping. All the piping was of uniform width. The numbers were in that Wild West style of the ’70s White Sox, a perfect match for the “Grays” script. The fabric was a rich cream. The pants had contrast-panel belt loops and pocket flaps. All slight differences from an actual Grays uniform, but every one of them an improvement on the original.

As someone who suffered through two seasons of little league wearing rainbow-stripe Astros jerseys, I also prefer the Astros throwbacks from this weekend to the real thing. (Definition of cruelty: Dressing pre-teen boys in rainbow shirts to play a ballgame.) It got the spirit of the thing right while reducing some of the garish awfulness of the originals, and I guarantee that no more than a few thousand people in the country could recognize any difference.

Which is all by way of wishing that we would phrase critiques of throwbacks more in terms of praise for the uniforms that do a better job than in terms of condemnation of the uniforms that do a worse job.