BBM Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I was watching the Dodgers the other night, and quite frankly I liked them better when they had names on the back of their jerseys, but then again maybe that's because I don't know LA's roster too well. Anyway, I know the Yankees do it (which, it would just seem wrong if they did put names on the back) and the Cubbies and Red Sox do it at home, but I believe LA is the only other team that has no names on the home or road unis. I don't mind it on the home jerseys, but I think the Dodgers road ones should have names. Also, as an aside: why, on the Dressed to the Nines do they not have alternate jerseys listed, just home and away? And is there a database that lists alts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Personally, I don't like them on the home uniforms. Prefer an uncluttered uniform, and when you're watching the home team you don't really need them.Don't mind them on the road uniforms, though. There they have a purpose. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inatimate Object Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I agree that the names should at least be on the away jerseys, except for the Yankees because everyone knows who the Yankees are. The old school teams seem to think that if they don't have names it is some sort of throwback, however this move is offset by the Cubs rediculous third jerseys but what else would you expect from such a laughable organization. I also love how they don't put their names on the blue jersey when they are playing at home but they do on the road, even though it is the exact same jersey, how rediculous. The Reds, Phillies, Tigers, and Cardinals are all really old teams who have names and they look fine. Perhaps the Royals should take the names off of their jerseys, I wouldn't want anyone knowing if I played for them. All in all, I say Yay to names on the back except for the Yankees who should never do it, and I dont even like the Yankees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hormone Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I like names. It gives you the "pro" effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBoyer Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I don't so much miss the names on back of the Dodgers' jerseys, but the numbers look so small. I think that's what makes them look awkward - there should be a name up there, but it's almost as if they took them off as an afterthought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griffin128 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I was watching the Dodgers the other night, and quite frankly I liked them better when they had names on the back of their jerseys, but then again maybe that's because I don't know LA's roster too well. Anyway, I know the Yankees do it (which, it would just seem wrong if they did put names on the back) and the Cubbies and Red Sox do it at home, but I believe LA is the only other team that has no names on the home or road unis. I don't mind it on the home jerseys, but I think the Dodgers road ones should have names. Also, as an aside: why, on the Dressed to the Nines do they not have alternate jerseys listed, just home and away? And is there a database that lists alts? The Giants also don't have names on their home uni's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly soulfan04 Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 i like the names on the back for the road jerseys but not the home. when u play at home everyone knows u by your number. when your on the road everyone may not know who is who, therefore names should be put on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perfect Zero Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Every time this is brought up, a war starts and UN peacekeepers have to come in a clean up the mess.There should be a leaguewide rule, either have them or ban them. If you have one on your roads, but not one on your homes, it is the most retarded, un-uniform thing you can have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 Every time this is brought up, a war starts and UN peacekeepers have to come in a clean up the mess.There should be a leaguewide rule, either have them or ban them. If you have one on your roads, but not one on your homes, it is the most retarded, un-uniform thing you can have. I totally disagree. Baseball is all about "un"-uniformity; when it comes to stadiums, unis, type of surface, etc. I don't have a problem with teams being different about how they approach it, and I can understand why home unis use it and not roads-- because home fans know the players, you don't need to re-emphasize it. I just think it doesn't look great on the Dodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I hate when teams mess with it. At least the Yankees have never ever had them, and probably never will. It's stupid how the Cubs and Dodgers keep waffling on it. Oh, it's only the homes, oh, it's only the roads, oh hey now they're gone completely. That's uncalled for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 One thing going in the favor of the NYY's and the SFG's in regards to homes being sans surnames: number font. Both teams use the big blocky numerals that make it easier to see (and thus emplasize) the number. (If the Braves ever went sans surnames, they could pull it off--but I think they need to go back to vertically arched surnames for real!) I've never cared for the Cubs' numeral font, and the Dodgers--makes their homes look really plain with smallish #s that are hard to read by themselves from a distance.(Oh--and if I was a Royal, i'd petition to have my name removed too...)GO PIRATES!!!(As if they any damn better...) *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Every time this is brought up, a war starts and UN peacekeepers have to come in a clean up the mess.There should be a leaguewide rule, either have them or ban them. If you have one on your roads, but not one on your homes, it is the most retarded, un-uniform thing you can have. Unless they require teams with no names to give out free scorecards. That would fix a lot.Thank God the Dodgers are putting the names back on next year. With so many rookies on the field, it's impossible to tell who the heck is on the team anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Yes to names on back of both home and road jerseys. And, if you're stupid enough to use pinstripes, you MUST sew the letters on individually...none of this plain plate on a PS jersey crap...Also, isn't it about time SOMEBODY made the Yankee$ follow the rules on uniforms? They're the ONLY AL team w/o names on the roads, and the ONLY team in MLB w/ no Majestic logo on the sleeves and pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 YAY theres no reason not to have names on the jersey even for the Yankees. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats7 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Yes to names on back of both home and road jerseys. And, if you're stupid enough to use pinstripes, you MUST sew the letters on individually...none of this plain plate on a PS jersey crap...Also, isn't it about time SOMEBODY made the Yankee$ follow the rules on uniforms? They're the ONLY AL team w/o names on the roads, and the ONLY team in MLB w/ no Majestic logo on the sleeves and pants. As a Yankee fan, all I can say is THANK GOD FOR THAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patsox Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The red sox' font is so distinctive you can tell its them from behind too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronChefShark Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 no names on the back of the home jerseys is fine, simply because most fans at home should know who is playing for thier team without needing a name on the back of the jersey.all road uniforms should have names on the back of them, even the yankees. US state flag concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapshot Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The red sox' font is so distinctive you can tell its them from behind too. It is now.Back in the 70s, the Angels used the exact number font. I'm pretty sure they went nameless for much of the 70s as well, and sharing the same color scheme, it was probably not out of the question to confuse the two teams if you only saw them from behind. Back-to-Back Fatal Forty Champion 2015 & 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronChefShark Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 The red sox' font is so distinctive you can tell its them from behind too. It is now.Back in the 70s, the Angels used the exact number font. I'm pretty sure they went nameless for much of the 70s as well, and sharing the same color scheme, it was probably not out of the question to confuse the two teams if you only saw them from behind. the Giants also used that font in the early to mid 70's when they had the orange lettering/numbers outlined in black US state flag concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no97 Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I hate when teams mess with it. At least the Yankees have never ever had them, and probably never will. It's stupid how the Cubs and Dodgers keep waffling on it. Oh, it's only the homes, oh, it's only the roads, oh hey now they're gone completely. That's uncalled for. I don't know the Dodgers history, but the Cubs are pretty straight-forward. It is as follows:Home:1876-1991: No Names1992-2004: Names2005-Present: No NamesRoad:1876-1979: No Names1980-Present: NamesHard to see how that's waffling...Moose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.