front side baseball numbers

[BallWonk]

Agreed - it's the little touch that elevates the Dodger jersey to greatness.

Personally, I don't like the front numbers on uniforms that feature the cap logo - the Rockies alts and White Sox spring to mind. It looks somehow unbalanced to me.

You've hit it with the word "balance". Generally, it's a good idea to incorporate numbers on the front of the jersey, in that doing so makes it slightly easier for fans to identify the players. But you've got to balance that consideration against the aesthetic balance that the numbers either create or disrupt on the front of the jersey. The only left-breast-logo jersey I've ever seen that had numbers anywhere else on the jersey front and didn't look to me like complete crap was the old burgundy-era Phillies unis. And that may only be bias on account of being a huge Mike Schmidt fan back around 1981. Every other such right-chest logo uniform with numbers is either unbalanced or balanced in a way that makes the player's number visually equivalent to his team's logo.

Otherwise, I generally find that I like how the asymmetry of the numbers balances jersey scripts that angle up and to the right, and I don't like how the asymmetry throws off the balance of horizontal jersey scripts or scripts that arc or curve but return to the same horizontal baseline.

[apeman33]

Hormone, what don't you understand? The Dodgers were the FIRST, ORIGINAL, INITIAL team to wear front numbers in baseball. I don't know how much more traditional they could be. They can do as they please. They, after all, wrote the freakin' book! Everyone else just copied the idea. Are you going to rag on the Yankees for having red in their logo?

No, I just feel that the red is out of place with the rest of the uniform. The Pirates used red as a trim on the Pirate's bandanna and now look what they will be wearing on Friday nights. Like I said, sometimes tradition looks like a lazy way to avoid upgrading. That's just the way I feel. I feel that way about Dodger red numbers, ND's helmets, and gray facemasks. As far as the Yanks, yes, red is in their logo, but where do you see it on the uniform? Wouldn't it look odd if they trotted out with red numbers on their chest?...but by everyone's logic, if the originally did it in 1950, that makes it ok then.

I'm OK with the Dodgers' front number being red. It's their thing; let 'em do it.

What bothers me is when a team puts a front number on and then thinks is HAS to be a different color just because the Dodgers' is. Prime example: Cleveland's uniforms in the early to mid-80's. Every other lettering or numbering element of the uniform was navy trimmed in red. But then for no real reason, the number on the front was red with no trim. That bugged the hell out of me. It just didn't work. Either a navy number or no number would have been better.

I also think there was a time when the Orioles had the wordmark in black on the home uniform but the number on the front was orange. Again, that bugged me.

Another thing that kinda bugs me is when a team has a front number on one set of uniforms but not the other(s). Like the Cubs: no front numbers at home or on the alt. blues but a front number on the grays. Why? And the Rangers are also guilty of this, IIRC: front number at home and on the home alt but not on the road (or has that changed?).

Ape.

[SmoothieX]

The Twins road jerseys stretch things a bit, but I prefer front numbers on all jerseys, even those with just logos on the left chest.

I totally agree. Numberless looks OK on some teams, but I think a lot of jerseys just look empty without them.

Boston, Toronto, Padres, Mariners, etc.

[BallWonk]

What bothers me is when a team puts a front number on and then thinks is HAS to be a different color just because the Dodgers' is. Prime example: Cleveland's uniforms in the early to mid-80's. Every other lettering or numbering element of the uniform was navy trimmed in red. But then for no real reason, the number on the front was red with no trim. That bugged the hell out of me. It just didn't work. Either a navy number or no number would have been better.

I also think there was a time when the Orioles had the wordmark in black on the home uniform but the number on the front was orange. Again, that bugged me.

Another thing that kinda bugs me is when a team has a front number on one set of uniforms but not the other(s). Like the Cubs: no front numbers at home or on the alt. blues but a front number on the grays. Why? And the Rangers are also guilty of this, IIRC: front number at home and on the home alt but not on the road (or has that changed?).

The problem is that too often, when the front number and the jersey script are the same color, the team/city name and the number end up getting washed out in a sort of vaguely 7-shaped block of color. A contrast color number can help to make both the team/city name more prominent and the number more easily readable. Unfortunately, most teams don't think very hard about how to accomplish this, so they wind up making the number more prominent than the team name, or making the number hard to read. Black "Orioles" with orange numbers was a prime offender. Not only did it look too much like a Dodgers ripoff, it made the number the first thing you noticed about the front of the jersey. Orange "Orioles" script with a black number solves the problem.

As to some uniforms with and some without numbers, personally I don't see the problem. Many teams have long had different standards for home and away player identification, based on one of two perfectly reasonable theories: (1) We should give our fans at home all the help we can to identify our players, and to heck with the other team's fans when we go on the road; or (2) Our fans at home know who our players are, but those dopes in the other 29 cities need all the help they can get telling our guys one from the other. Either one is a perfectly defensible way to go, especially considering teams that might have different jersey scripts or logos/initials from road to home that look better with or without front numbers. The problem is when an alt jersey adds inconsistency within the home or road sets. But that's just the natural result of adopting alt uniforms in the first place, and one of many reasons why about 95 percent of all alt uniforms are crap.

[BadSeed84]

The Phillies look fine without front numbers, then again we do have it on the one sleeve.

[BBTV]

The sleeve numbers are crap. Historical tie-in be damned, a patch would work much better.

Then again the whole uniform pretty much sucks hemorrhoid-laden ass.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Some teams just look better with front numbers. The Cardinals were already mentioned. They went without front numbers in 1982 and 1998, and it didn't look too good.

The Mets are another team that need front numbers. They lacked them in the first two seasons (1962-1963), and those shots just don't look right.

But, how about having different style numbers on the home unis from the road unis? The Mets had this going from 1962 through 1978, when they had their still-current block numbers at home, but the "full-block" varsity numbers (like the Yankees have) on the road.

(By the way, the Red Sox also had two different number styles during the 80s -- their own Red Sox font at home; varsity block on the road. But, of course, the Red Sox don't have front numbers, so they don't qualify for this thread.)

[BBTV]

That's just stupid in the Mets' case. The Red Sox I can understand, because their road was just plain as can be, but the Mets was just a gray version of the home so the inconsistency is inexcusable.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Here's another front-number anomaly.

In 1972, the A's introduced the uniform set that they are most famous for, which they wore through the end of the decade. However, for 1972 alone, the jersey had a front number -- and it was in a font different from the back! They had a block font on the back, while the front featured the font that is best known as the Montreal Expos' number font:

[karby65]

Some teams just look better with front numbers. The Cardinals were already mentioned. They went without front numbers in 1982 and 1998, and it didn't look too good.

The Mets are another team that need front numbers. They lacked them in the first two seasons (1962-1963), and those shots just don't look right.

But, how about having different style numbers on the home unis from the road unis? The Mets had this going from 1962 through 1978, when they had their still-current block numbers at home, but the "full-block" varsity numbers (like the Yankees have) on the road.

(By the way, the Red Sox also had two different number styles during the 80s -- their own Red Sox font at home; varsity block on the road. But, of course, the Red Sox don't have front numbers, so they don't qualify for this thread.)

if you use updated mets photos, i'd agree with you on theri home uniforms that they need a number. but in the roads, the number muddles the uni. if a team has arched lettering of any font, they should not have front #s. plus, they need to at least deemphasize the black, which is another topic. they looked perfect in game 6 and 7 of the lcs, in unis and play.

[Gothamite]

I think you'll find that is actually "arced," not "arched."

Arched would be this:

...which I think does look better with the front numbers.

There's a big difference between the two. I think arcs look goofy with numbers, but the strong vertical line of an arch is accentuated by having a number on one side.

[OB33]

Then again the whole uniform pretty much sucks hemorrhoid-laden ass.

Don't even get me started on hemorrhoids, I had those once. I drank a whole thing of Preparation H and it didn't fix anything!

That's a joke, just in case you didn't know

[Grish]

If I am correct the red numbers from the Dodgers are the result of red being introduced to their logo + the uniform tailor did not have enough blue numbers to complete the set so he went with red.

Any way you look at it the Dodgers Uni's are tied to unique fact of the red digits on the front. It is their signature.

[M59]

Hormone, what don't you understand? The Dodgers were the FIRST, ORIGINAL, INITIAL team to wear front numbers in baseball. I don't know how much more traditional they could be. They can do as they please. They, after all, wrote the freakin' book! Everyone else just copied the idea. Are you going to rag on the Yankees for having red in their logo?

No, I just feel that the red is out of place with the rest of the uniform. The Pirates used red as a trim on the Pirate's bandanna and now look what they will be wearing on Friday nights. Like I said, sometimes tradition looks like a lazy way to avoid upgrading. That's just the way I feel. I feel that way about Dodger red numbers, ND's helmets, and gray facemasks. As far as the Yanks, yes, red is in their logo, but where do you see it on the uniform? Wouldn't it look odd if they trotted out with red numbers on their chest?...but by everyone's logic, if the originally did it in 1950, that makes it ok then.

I'm OK with the Dodgers' front number being red. It's their thing; let 'em do it.

What bothers me is when a team puts a front number on and then thinks is HAS to be a different color just because the Dodgers' is. Prime example: Cleveland's uniforms in the early to mid-80's. Every other lettering or numbering element of the uniform was navy trimmed in red. But then for no real reason, the number on the front was red with no trim. That bugged the hell out of me. It just didn't work. Either a navy number or no number would have been better.

I also think there was a time when the Orioles had the wordmark in black on the home uniform but the number on the front was orange. Again, that bugged me.

Another thing that kinda bugs me is when a team has a front number on one set of uniforms but not the other(s). Like the Cubs: no front numbers at home or on the alt. blues but a front number on the grays. Why? And the Rangers are also guilty of this, IIRC: front number at home and on the home alt but not on the road (or has that changed?).

Ape.

Texas may be an even bigger offender now, with numbers on the road alternate vest, but not on the road jersey.

[Gothamite]

If I am correct the red numbers from the Dodgers are the result of red being introduced to their logo + the uniform tailor did not have enough blue numbers to complete the set so he went with red.

That's a new one - where did you hear that?

Doesn't sound right to me. Is it true that the Dodgers added the "home run" to their logo in 1952? I know they were using that wordmark in the 1940s.