Mets wear stirrups with throwback unis

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

The Mets wore 1989 throwbacks against the Padres on Friday. While I don't like the racing stripe or the pullover jersey from that set, I love the fact that the players wore their stirrups correctly! I don't know if all of them did it; but several did. And it looked splendid.

That, dear kiddies, is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks.

The stirrups (not just socks; but stirrups) really make a baseball uniform. Despite the unattractive elements in the Mets' uniforms (the pullover jersey, and the gaudy racing stripe), the Mets looked beautiful. Indeed, even a uniform worn in a baggy fashion looks alright if it's paired with stirrups.

Major League Baseball needs a rule on this -- and also NFL-style enforcement.

[raysfan24]

I really wish stirrups would come back in style. I always loved them.

[BBTV]

The Mets wore 1989 throwbacks against the Padres on Friday. While I don't like the racing stripe or the pullover jersey from that set, I love the fact that the players wore their stirrups correctly! I don't know if all of them did it; but several did. And it looked splendid.

That, dear kiddies, is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks.

The stirrups (not just socks; but stirrups) really make a baseball uniform. Despite the unattractive elements in the Mets' uniforms (the pullover jersey, and the gaudy racing stripe), the Mets looked beautiful. Indeed, even a uniform worn in a baggy fashion looks alright if it's paired with stirrups.

Major League Baseball needs a rule on this -- and also NFL-style enforcement.

This doesn't make even a bit of sense to me. You should amend your post to read:

"That, dear kiddies, is how a ballplayer wore his pants and socks in the '70s and '80s."

For the majority of the history of the sport (way longer than stirrups were worn high up like that), they were worn low, so as to mimic colored socks. If there was internet message boards for this stuff back in 1980, people would be posting pictures of players wearing what look like high-socks and saying "dear kiddies, that is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks."

I grew up in the '80s, so the high-stirrup is what I'm accustomed to - but by no means do I think that's how it's supposed to be. It was only like that because of the whims of fashion. The solid sock look of today (at least on the players who don't wear pajama pants) is more true to the original look of a baseball uniform. I don't understand why you pick one short era relatively late in the game's history and arbitrarily decide that's how a uniform is supposed to look.

History would beg to differ.

[goforbroke]

^ what he said +1

And to take it a step further... Baggy pants were long a tradition of baseball for 100 years until the 70s when they suddenly got tight. I'm not saying I like the baggy look today because it can look very sloppy. But as far as people saying tight pants is how its supposed to look is way off!

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

That, dear kiddies, is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks.

The stirrups (not just socks; but stirrups) really make a baseball uniform. Despite the unattractive elements in the Mets' uniforms (the pullover jersey, and the gaudy racing stripe), the Mets looked beautiful. Indeed, even a uniform worn in a baggy fashion looks alright if it's paired with stirrups.

Major League Baseball needs a rule on this -- and also NFL-style enforcement.

This doesn't make even a bit of sense to me. You should amend your post to read:

"That, dear kiddies, is how a ballplayer wore his pants and socks in the '70s and '80s."

For the majority of the history of the sport (way longer than stirrups were worn high up like that), they were worn low, so as to mimic colored socks. If there was internet message boards for this stuff back in 1980, people would be posting pictures of players wearing what look like high-socks and saying "dear kiddies, that is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks."

I grew up in the '80s, so the high-stirrup is what I'm accustomed to - but by no means do I think that's how it's supposed to be. It was only like that because of the whims of fashion. The solid sock look of today (at least on the players who don't wear pajama pants) is more true to the original look of a baseball uniform. I don't understand why you pick one short era relatively late in the game's history and arbitrarily decide that's how a uniform is supposed to look.

History would beg to differ.

Stirrups have been worn for most of baseball's history. It's true they were worn lower before the 70s; but they were there.

Here's the Babe, from the 1920s:

Mel Ott, from the 1930s:

Ted Williams, from the 1930s

Ted from the 1940s

Ted, Yogi, and Mickey, from the 1950s

Henry Aaron, from the 1950s

Players did start wearing the stirrups bit longer in the 1970s and 80s...

...(except for the Reds)...

...but, even then, not all players wore them like that. Here is Steve Garvey:

Indeed, there was variation even within a team:

The point is that stirrups -- whether worn high or low -- have been a standard part of the baseball uniforms for many decades.

[Ted Cunningham]

For the majority of the history of the sport (way longer than stirrups were worn high up like that), they were worn low, so as to mimic colored socks. If there was internet message boards for this stuff back in 1980, people would be posting pictures of players wearing what look like high-socks and saying "dear kiddies, that is how a ballplayer wears his pants and socks."

I grew up in the '80s, so the high-stirrup is what I'm accustomed to - but by no means do I think that's how it's supposed to be. It was only like that because of the whims of fashion. The solid sock look of today (at least on the players who don't wear pajama pants) is more true to the original look of a baseball uniform. I don't understand why you pick one short era relatively late in the game's history and arbitrarily decide that's how a uniform is supposed to look.

History would beg to differ.

All of this. I feel like this is partly a Paul Lukas influence thing insomuch as he is such a proponent of stirrups that any kind will do. I understand I may not be capturing his feelings entirely (he may prefer one way of wearing them to another), but that's how I read him: any stirrup is a good stirrup. Then those that participate in discussions on his site read it the same way and feel that any stirrups are good stirrups. However, just look at those pictures. The high stirrup reveals far too much white from the sanitary sock when everything else on that uniform is based in grey. Plus, I don't understand why people think that two little lines of color down the majority of the sides of the calf is better (or even looks good) than a full-on sock that's both all color and gives ample room for any striping.

I feel this better describes what BBTV is talking about as far as what stirrups and pants looked like long before the 80s:

[BBTV]

The point is that stirrups -- whether worn high or low -- have been a standard part of the baseball uniforms for many decades.

But it is fact that they were designed to be low, and to mimic solid socks. The majority of pictures that you posted depict this. They were simply a result of poor technology, which has since been improved. If they had better dyes back in the day, you'd have never ever seen a stirrup. There is absolutely no function to it in this day and age, so you're asking to wear them "just because".

"Just because" is never a good reason to do anything. If it's an aesthetic thing and a team wants to design their uniform and mandate them because they like the look, then hey - so be it. But to call for a mandate for no reason is silly.

[shaydre1019]

The point is that stirrups -- whether worn high or low -- have been a standard part of the baseball uniforms for many decades.

But it is fact that they were designed to be low, and to mimic solid socks. The majority of pictures that you posted depict this. They were simply a result of poor technology, which has since been improved. If they had better dyes back in the day, you'd have never ever seen a stirrup. There is absolutely no function to it in this day and age, so you're asking to wear them "just because".

"Just because" is never a good reason to do anything. If it's an aesthetic thing and a team wants to design their uniform and mandate them because they like the look, then hey - so be it. But to call for a mandate for no reason is silly.

This. I think low stirrups look pretty cool, but they were created because long socks weren't doable. An they were not even baseball specific.

[Lights Out]

Stirrups are the ugliest things ever, thank God they're gone. Solid color socks look better, and you can still have stripes.

[knnhrvy16]

The problem I have with long solid socks is that when paired with black cleats, they look muddled and dull (long black socks are the only ones that I think look good, as unlike other colors, they obviously work with black cleats). The stirrup at least provided some contrast between the sock and the cleat, much like the white bottoms of socks in the NFL does. Of course, this is merely a personal preference for me and not something I'd call a "rule". Although admittedly if I had my way, every team would wear stirrups

[jake22]

Very nice Mets, very nice indeed.

[JackieMoon]

Baggy pants and stirrups/socks should be mandatory in baseball. Leake still rocks em!

[BadSeed84]

"Just because" is never a good reason to do anything. If it's an aesthetic thing and a team wants to design their uniform and mandate them because they like the look, then hey - so be it. But to call for a mandate for no reason is silly.

Tell that to the number of nhl teams with lace up collars.

[LEWJ]

Yum.

Love this for a multitude of reasons.

Though I hate the cream set, the red accessories remind me so much of the 90s teams, I think it looks great.

Andd, I think this picture shows stirrups look great even with tighter fitting britches. Also, very low openings on those stirrups, still look great!

[The_Admiral]

Sweet Phillies uniform.

Solid socks are much better. I'm in favor of everyone wearing their socks high, but those high stirrups look uncomfortable somehow.

[BBTV]

"Just because" is never a good reason to do anything. If it's an aesthetic thing and a team wants to design their uniform and mandate them because they like the look, then hey - so be it. But to call for a mandate for no reason is silly.

Tell that to the number of nhl teams with lace up collars.

Apples and oranges. The lace-up collar at least serves a functional purpose (though it looks silly the way rbk implemented it with the Edge template.)

I think they're dumb, but it's more akin to a baseball team choosing a zipper instead of buttons, or a pullover instead of buttons.

[MidnightSun]

Baseball player should stop wearing gloves and helmets because they weren't part of the original uniform!!! And let's go back to wool uniforms, that's the way baseball uniforms SHOULD be made.

High socks look 100x better than stirups.

[sportstar1212]

I personally prefer regular high socks over stirrups. The stirrup is old and doesn't serve a purpose anymore, I see it as just a novelty item.

[DolphinManatee]

(Okay, it is not this extreme, but my point remains.)

[zpqmaowl]

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/traditiondemotivator.jpg

(Okay, it is not this extreme, but my point remains.)

Saving that, and posting it in every thread on here.