Ferdinand Cesarano

Speaking of the Nets, these are so wrong that looking at them makes me stabby: Nah, man! Let me get that pollution out of my mind: Ahhh. That's better.

The absolute nature of this pronouncement of mine might be exaggerated eeeever so slightly. But the principle that a minor-league team should look like its parent -- that an organisation should have a unified look -- is a sound one. If there were a few exceptions to this principle here and there, that wouldn't bother me, and might even be charming. But minor-league teams having their own looks seems now to have become the norm, and that's unfortunate. There really ain't that many "special" minor-league identities! What's more, the uniforms are getting farther from the Major League aesthetic standard, at the same time as the nicknames are becoming ever sillier (Fire Frogs, Yard Goats, Rumble Ponies, Baby Cakes). So I guess I am cranky about it because I almost feel humiliated by proxy for these players who have to wear these awful designs and who will have to come to terms with being a Fire Frog or a Baby Cake. When I see a matchup like the one in the video, in which the players look like grown-up professionals, it gives me a feeling of relief. And then I immediately get annoyed as I understand why I felt that relief -- because the contemporary visual standard in the minor leagues is so terrible.

There are many minor-league team names that are highly recognisable, such as the Toledo Mud Hens, the Indianapolis Indians, and the Buffalo Bisons. The Durham Bulls are another. But this doesn't mean that such teams shouldn't look like their parent clubs. When the Buffalo Bisons were affilliated with the White Sox, they had uniforms that looked like the White Sox. When they were affilliated with the Indians, they had uniforms that looked like the Indians. And that is precisely how it should work. Now that the team is an affilliate of the Blue Jays, they ought to look like the Blue Jays. It's good that they have an alt in the style of the Blue Jays' current uniform (albeit with red letters)... ...and that they have done a Jays-themed throwback. But the Jays-style uniform should be their primary design. This in no way compromises the uniqueness of the name "Buffalo Bisons". And this principle applies likewise to all other minor-league teams with unique nicknames and identities, regardless of level. Another good example of beautifully incorporating the parent club's aesthetic is the uniform of the Tidewater Tides from the late 1980s. There again you have a unique name (which the team has ruined by dropping the locality name "Tidewater", but that's another story), paired with the look of the parent club, the Mets. All these examples show that a minor-league team looking like the parent club does not conflict with having a unique name and identity. So I maintain that, if an observer cannot instantly tell the affilliation of a minor-league team by looking at its uniforms, then something is wrong.

I have spent the past few days listening to and watching broadcasts of baseball games from the 1930s through to the 1980s. While I was looking around on YouTube, I came across this, a telecast of an International League game between Syracuse and Columbus from 1992. Beautiful! This is exactly what a minor-league baseball game should look like -- anyone can see at a glance that it's a Blue Jays affiliate against a Yankees affiliate. (The block numbers on the Columbus uniforms don't look as good as varsity numbers would. But the uniform as a whole clearly succeeds in conveying the look of the Yankees.) And this broadcast further demonstrates that the Syracuse Chiefs of that period were the best-dressed minor-league team of all time. A couple of years later, upon the switch to button-downs and belts, they would achieve perfection. I really cannot praise these Syracuse uniforms enough. Not only are they beautiful in their own right, but they also demonstrate an important design principle, namely, the importance of looking like the organisation that you represent. Finally, uniforms such as these allow players to look like professionals, and to present themselves with dignity.

Whitson (another guy whose career Billy Martin tried to destroy) wore no. 38 with the Yankees. But that's great info about his Padres numbers.

Yes, good observation. As a kid who was so into the 1970s A's, I was annoyed that Reggie didn't wear no. 9 on his return to Oakland. It's something how, in three significant cases, New York gave a player a number that superseded his established number and that stayed with him afterwards. In addition to Reggie, there was Rickey Henderson. Rickey had become known for no. 35 with the A's. When he came to the Yankees, that number was being worn by Phil Neikro, so Rickey took no. 24. Surprisingly, when he went back to the A's four years later, he, like Reggie, kept his Yankee number rather than taking back his original A's number. That Yankee number stayed with Rickey for most of his subsequent career. When Keith Hernandez, who had worn no. 37 with the Cardinals, came to the Mets, he couldn't keep that number because it is retired for Casey Stengel; so Hernandez took no. 17. When he left the Mets and joined Cleveland, he kept no. 17. But this didn't always happen with the Yankees. Ken Griffey had worn no. 30 with the Reds; but that number on the Yankees was Willie Randolph's. Griffey wore nos. 6 and 33 with the Yankees, but went back to no. 30 upon leaving the team. Randy Johnson's no. 51 was being used on the Yankees by Bernie Williams, so Johnson took no. 41. But he resumed wearing no. 51 after he left the Yanks. Jack McDowell had worn no 29 with the White Sox, but changed to no. 19 with the Yankees because of Gerald Williams. (!) He got no. 29 back in his subsequent stop. Other notable players with long-established numbers who had to take temporary detours were Frank Robinson (no. 20, but no. 36 with the Dodgers on account of Don Sutton) and Tommy John (no. 25, but no. 35 with the Angels on account of Don Baylor). Honourable mention: Will Ferrell (no. 19, but no. 20 with the Padres on account of the number being retired for Tony Gwynn).

Staying with the A's, there are two guys who qualify for the right-team-wrong-uniform distinction: So, one guy whose career Billy Martin tried to destroy, and one guy whose career Billy Martin actually succeded in destroying.

Absolutely everyone looks great in that A's uniform, even guys you wouldn't think of as wearing it. Willie McCovey Orlando Cepeda (Note: It's amazing what lighting can do. Those jerseys above are the same colour.)

And I will never understand how someone could not prefer this clean and dignified set to the jumbled mess that that team has worn since 1981. Furthermore, the fact that this look resembles the Browns is not a drawback, especially considering that Brown himself founded the team.

On yesterday's episode of Harry Connick, Jr.'s talk show, the host did a segment in which he read a real news headline, and then did some musical joke while sitting at the piano. One of the headlines was "New Orleans AAA baseball team changes name to 'Baby Cakes'". After that one, Connick (a New Orleans native) basically stopped the bit, and said something to the effect of "No joke for this one; it's just a bad idea".

If you're counting words rather than syllables, nothing is worse than "New York / New Jersey MetroStars", which was technically five words but which felt like six, on account of the fact that the nonexistent word "MetroStars" strikes a normal person as two words. Anyway, this Fond du Lac name is indeed too long.

"Baby Cakes" comes off like some kind of smarmy, creepy, inappropriately sexual name, like "Sweet Cheeks" or "Honey Lambs" (the latter's presence in the lyrics of "Alexander's Ragtime Band" does not redeem it).

Those two teams should be held up as ideals. The uniforms identify the teams with their organisations, and the cap logos are unique to them, but within the aesthetic of the uniform style. It wouldn't be so bad if a few minor league teams here and there had their own separate identities, such as the longstanding Durham Bulls and others of that sort. But the aesthetic universe would be a much better place if 95% of the minor league teams took the approach that Oklahoma City and Grand Junction have taken.

My hope is that these silly excesses will eventually bring about a correction whereby minor league teams start being called "Tigers" or "Pirates" or "Giants" -- you know, like baseball teams -- and start looking like their parent clubs.

At least those guys are all wearing their stirrups and pants correctly. (But the logo is terrible and the name is embarassing.)

Welp, it was nice knowing ya. Please be aware that the S7 is significantly less explody than the Note 7.

I have tried refreshing, to no avail. This problem has existed ever since the latest update. At the time of the update I had a Samsung Galaxy S5; currently I have an S7. I use the Chrome browser.

Will it ever be possible to make edits on the mobile interface? I can reopen a post and type in it; but hitting the "Save" button does nothing.

Ugh. This is painful. Losing the dignified name "Staten Island Yankees" for any of this garbage will be a shame. (I say this not as a fan of baseball or of the Yankees, but as an opponent of stupidity.) Also, in baseball, the Killer Bees are the Pirates of Bonds and Bonilla (and Bell and Berryhill and Belliard and Bream).

However, it is possible to find the version with the motto, also with a round seal. The desk flags for sale have oval seals, some with the motto and some without.

I bought that flag about four years ago. It is not difficult to find the version with the round seal and no motto in the wild. (Incidentally, I have framed and hung this last shot.)

I wouldn't be so sure about that seal question. I have an official full-size 3 x 5 New York City flag on my wall that I bought from the City itself. The seal is round on that flag. Also, I don't mind the seal being on the flag. It's beautiful in full size; but I realise that it is hard to make out in any other size. Still, I like the seal better than that torch concept, which I find a bit garish. But I do agree that best of all would be a simple tricolour. I wish there were an official variant without the seal, the way there is for the flag of Spain. This is a great shot. I would have to concede that this justifies the departure from vexillological guidelines. Though I would be morally remiss if I did not suggest one fanciful improvement to the flag of this place that was for a long time a part of the Soviet Union:

The new logo:

That's true. I was using a colloquialism that, strictly speaking, is not correct. These rules for flags make intuitive sense to many people; that's why they emerged. It's analogous to the rules for chords in Western music, which codify patterns that many people instinctively find pleasant. So when there's a violation of one of these rules, it's only natural that this should run afoul of someone's aesthetic sense. Furthermore, it is silly to claim that adherence to these well-founded vexillological standards would lead to identical flags, as there is room under the rules for infinite variation. Likewise, the tonal conventions of Western music don't result in compositions sounding alike.

The Fraudulent Fondue Forks.