TVIXX

MLB Changes 2015

Recommended Posts

I can't help but think how much better each of these would look if they weren't stirrups. Obviously, those who wear the same color sick underneath look best.

I disagree. The traditional aesthetic for baseball, developed over more than 100 years, is for players to wear stirrups. Absent that history, I might agree with you. However, it looks better to me when players follow that tradition and wear stirrups.

So you'd rather pick tradition over what actually looks good?

It's one and the same, as the tradition created the aesthetic. A properly-worn baseball uniform needs a bit of colour below the pant leg, and a bit of white at the bottom of the sock.

There can still be variation in terms of exactly where the pant leg comes to (anywhere between below the knee and above the Achilles tendon), in terms of how high the stirrups are pulled, and in terms of how much solid sock is shown above the stirrup portion. Variation in those things doesn't spoil the "uniform" aspect of the uniform, as we see in the photos below, first of the famous Nettles-Brett fight in the 1977 playoffs, next of the Dodgers' longtime infield.

AvIoOlQCIAAkLMc.jpg

511cdfSsXZL__SL500_AA300__display_image.

But players should not be free-styling on the socks. There should be one stirrup sock that all players must wear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See that looks ridiculous to me, like there is just way too much white showing in those examples. I like the full sock look personally, and don't mind stirrups if they are low cut and show only just above the ankle. But those going all the way to mid calf is rediculous and goes away from what stirrups were originally designed for, which is to look like a sock but to not be a full sock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer stirrups, but as long as players are showing some color below the belt and ditching the pajama look, they can wear garbage bags in team colors on their feet for all I care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think how much better each of these would look if they weren't stirrups. Obviously, those who wear the same color sick underneath look best.

I disagree. The traditional aesthetic for baseball, developed over more than 100 years, is for players to wear stirrups. Absent that history, I might agree with you. However, it looks better to me when players follow that tradition and wear stirrups.

So you'd rather pick tradition over what actually looks good?

It's one and the same, as the tradition created the aesthetic. A properly-worn baseball uniform needs a bit of colour below the pant leg, and a bit of white at the bottom of the sock.

Exactly. Baseball players have been showing some amount of white (or yellow in the case of the Athletics) for over 100 years. That is why stirrups are (1) the correct type of sock for baseball and (2) the better looking option.

That said, if the option is solid socks and high pants or the pajama look, it is a no brainer . . . solid socks all the way. The pajamas look horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer stirrups...

Except when the players show white socks, amirite?!

*slow clap*

Well played. Well played indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of all these different striping patterns showing up on socks. Especially when guys from one team have different striping patterns in the same season. They just seem like stripes for the sake of stripes since most of them don't match with anything else on the uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFSS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer stirrups...

Except when the players show white socks, amirite?!

*slow clap*

Well played. Well played indeed.

Indeed.

Seriously, though, Chicago should move to stirrups only because it's slightly silly how many players don't wear the distinctive garments the team is named for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but think how much better each of these would look if they weren't stirrups. Obviously, those who wear the same color sick underneath look best.

I disagree. The traditional aesthetic for baseball, developed over more than 100 years, is for players to wear stirrups. Absent that history, I might agree with you. However, it looks better to me when players follow that tradition and wear stirrups.

So you'd rather pick tradition over what actually looks good?

It's one and the same, as the tradition created the aesthetic. A properly-worn baseball uniform needs a bit of colour below the pant leg, and a bit of white at the bottom of the sock.

There can still be variation in terms of exactly where the pant leg comes to (anywhere between below the knee and above the Achilles tendon), in terms of how high the stirrups are pulled, and in terms of how much solid sock is shown above the stirrup portion. Variation in those things doesn't spoil the "uniform" aspect of the uniform, as we see in the photos below, first of the famous Nettles-Brett fight in the 1977 playoffs, next of the Dodgers' longtime infield.

AvIoOlQCIAAkLMc.jpg

511cdfSsXZL__SL500_AA300__display_image.

But players should not be free-styling on the socks. There should be one stirrup sock that all players must wear.

See that looks ridiculous to me, like there is just way too much white showing in those examples. I like the full sock look personally, and don't mind stirrups if they are low cut and show only just above the ankle. But those going all the way to mid calf is rediculous and goes away from what stirrups were originally designed for, which is to look like a sock but to not be a full sock

cincinnati_reds_big_red_machine_1976_ws_

So, the 1970s and early 1980s Reds had it right, after all. :D Oddly enough, I recall the Reds getting some ridicule (I don't remember if it was from the media or from people I hung with) for their low-cut stirrups during that high-cut era. In the later 80s, they allowed players to raise them up to the standard of the day.

As a player in the 80s, we would actually cut our team-issued stirrups at the bottom and sew a strip of elastic in at the part that went under the heel, so they would ride up higher. You could also buy white tube socks that had a color strip sewn in down the side, simulating the way stirrups were being worn at the time. I'm sure some of you saw them or wore them. Some players would wear their pants just below the knee and then the stirrups were nothing more than that thin strip. In retrospect, it was kinda silly-looking.

14878115701_04ce0c27d5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer stirrups...

Except when the players show white socks, amirite?!

*slow clap*

Well played. Well played indeed.

Indeed.

Seriously, though, Chicago should move to stirrups only because it's slightly silly how many players don't wear the distinctive garments the team is named for.

I'm fine with some players wearing their pants low and some showing socks. I'd prefer they be uniform, but whatever. Still, I think all teams should be required to designate official socks/stirrups which are required to be worn by all players who wear their pants legs high. Whether it's stirrups, solid color socks, patterned socks which look like stirrups, they should have to choose one design for all players to wear. The A's having six different designs this year is silly.

As for the White Sox, maybe something based off the 1959 World Series stirrups would work. They wore black stirrups in the regular season, but switched to the white ones in the Series. I believe they switched back to black after going down three games to one. There would probably have to be a solid block of black at the top to break between the pinstripes or gray of the pants and the white socks, but I think it could work if you just replaced the red with gray.

4307967318_82336f5b17_b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, those stripes would look great.

But since so many players have gone away from stirrups and sanitaries, there are a ton of White Sox players who don't wear any white socks at all. That's just wrong.

And yes. Socks should be uniform just like the pants and jerseys and caps are uniform. Oakland, pick one. Any one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean these?

al_1959_chicago.gif

White stirrups with white sanitaries looks a little off, but it is acceptable for a team named the WHITE SOX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stay away from the "negative" version the Sox used in 1970 and 1971 (i.e., white stirrups, blue sanitaries).

al_1970_chicago.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if they went to that design, they could just wear one-piece socks instead of stirrups. I think two-piece stirrups/socks would only be necessary if they were predominantly black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn on the White Sox black socks thing. Yeah, they're called the White Sox, but I feel that the best look for a team (besides Boston), is for the hat, undershirt, and socks to match. Perhaps they could wear something similar to this image posted earlier from the Orioles set...

i_zpsdx8sv8rz.jpeg

...but with the orange part of the sock being white. As mentioned earlier, stirrups would not be needed for this look. It could just be a standard sock. This half and half solution would allow a good amount of the sock to be white while still having the upper reaches be a matching black, perhaps with some silver stripes. I think it would be the best way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The half-and-half look that you describe (more or less) was pretty common in the early part of the 20th Century.

al_1911_washington.gifal_1914_cleveland.gif

al_1916_stlouis.gifal_1918_newyork.gif

al_1921_philadelphia.gifal_1923_detroit.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind is that stirrups only came into existence because players needed white sanitary socks for health reasons but didn't want two layers of socks in their shoes. However, since that is the traditional aesthetic, I prefer stirrups to solid socks (even if they are no longer needed for player safety).

From Dressed to the Nines --

The beginning of the 20th century brought about another innovation closely associated with the baseball uniform: stirrup stockings. In baseball’s early days, the dyes used in stockings were not colorfast, so a spike wound could easily get an unhealthy dose of colored dye. Wearing a white stocking underneath the colored hose would help eliminate the problem, but the double thickness of socks meant that a player’s shoe no longer fit properly. The solution, introduced during the first decade of the 20th century, was the colored stirrup stocking. The innovative sock allowed for a protective layer of material around the leg but a single thickness of material in the shoe. Since the white stockings worn underneath the stirrup stockings provided a sanitary layer of protection, they were dubbed “sanitaries.”
During the 1910s and ’20s, players began to pull the stirrup stockings up so that a small arc of the sanitary stockings underneath was visible, both in back and in front. As players continued to pull on the stirrup stockings and the stockings began to stretch, more and more of the sanitary stockings began to show. Eventually, the white arches and colored stirrups were embraced as stocking style. By the 1940s, most big league clubs integrated the stirrup-look into the design of their stockings. Stirrups continued to rise throughout the century, peaking in the 1980s and ‘90s with many players showing nothing but the vertical lines of their colored stockings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realized while watching highlights to the Phillies/Cardinals game that I actually like the Cardinals uni better without the front number. I'm not entirely sure why, as the front number isn't a bad thing at all. I just saw the look of it without it and was struck by the thought, "hey, I think that actually looks better". I dunno, less clutter I guess? A little more clean?...just one of those things you can't put a finger on as to why.

It's very obvious, the script, birds and bat are enough as is, the front number is just overkill since there's already three assets in front.

Though not quite as bad as when the Milwaukee Braves had numbers under the tomahawk.

I'll be honest, I remember 98 when the Cards took the front numbers off, and they looked naked to me, like something that was supposed to be there was inexplicably absent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.