A's and Rangers Throwbacks

[BallWonk]

Do you think the majority of Washington fans prefer the team be named the Senators with the old logo and colors?

Probably, yes. "The fans" also preferred the name "Devil Rays" back when they were voting on that team name; basically every other fan-voting exercise I've ever seen has picked the absolute worst name on the list. People are stupid, and nobody has ever lost money (or an election) underestimating the taste and intelligence of the American public. Except the XFL. (Kidding! Mostly.)

To be slightly more serious, you have to remember that the average hardcore baseball fan in Washington either comes from somewhere else and still doesn't regard the Nats as his primary team, or he grew up in post-baseball Washington and regards the departed expansion Senators with extreme nostalgia. I mean, seriously, almost every middle-aged native Washingtonian I know claims to have been at the last Senators game in '71 and either unfurled the "Short Sucks" banner or rushed the field. Nostalgia might be the single most banal human emotion. I like to wallow in the dimly remembered past as much as the next guy -- I get nostalgic for the Bicentennial -- but nostalgia is probably the stupidest reason for making any decision. A return to the "Senators" name and the mediocre uniforms of yesteryear would undoubtedly be popular among a large cohort of Washington baseball fans, but it would be popular because of nostalgia. It is, therefore, a terrible idea.

Don't get me wrong; I bought me one of those mediocre Rangers Senators throwbacks from JerseyJoe. Fine for fans, fine for throwbacks, but a terrible idea for the team itself no matter how many middle-aged white guys from the suburbs pretend to have been Senators fans when they were kids.

(People in Washington also care a lot more about the politics of DC voting rights now than they did in the 1960s, so it would also be stupid to risk the political fallout of choosing the Senators name. The costs of pissing off disenfranchised resident Washingtonians with the Senators name would far outweigh the slight increase in nostalgic happy-feeling among middle-aged suburban Senators fans.)

[Gothamite]

-- whoops, double. --

[Gothamite]

I keep hearing that "we-don't-have-Senators" arguments, but it still rings awfully hollow.

How better to keep the issue in the national spotlight? Seems as though they're missing a golden opportunity. And excluding the name out of hand seems like they've given up the fight to get representation in the Senate.

Can't you just see it? A banner at the ballpark that reads "WASHINGTON NEEDS SENATORS ON CAPITAL HILL, TOO" or something. Use the bully pulpit of the pitcher's mound instead of whinging and moaning and banning the name out of spite.

[frozenguy]

I keep hearing that "we-don't-have-Senators" arguments, but it still rings awfully hollow.

How better to keep the issue in the national spotlight? Seems as though they're missing a golden opportunity. And excluding the name out of hand seems like they've given up the fight to get representation in the Senate.

Can't you just see it? A banner at the ballpark that reads "WASHINGTON NEEDS SENATORS ON CAPITAL HILL, TOO" or something. Use the bully pulpit of the pitcher's mound instead of whinging and moaning and banning the name out of spite.

As somebody who live in DC, I can tell you firsthand that people here are fine with the name Nationals. We are just excited to finally have a nice stadium

[BallWonk]

I keep hearing that "we-don't-have-Senators" arguments, but it still rings awfully hollow.

How better to keep the issue in the national spotlight? Seems as though they're missing a golden opportunity. And excluding the name out of hand seems like they've given up the fight to get representation in the Senate.

Can't you just see it? A banner at the ballpark that reads "WASHINGTON NEEDS SENATORS ON CAPITAL HILL, TOO" or something. Use the bully pulpit of the pitcher's mound instead of whinging and moaning and banning the name out of spite.

First off, the District government already tried to put up a simple banner with the city's motto of "Taxation Without Representation" at the ballpark, and the team ownership nixed the proposal. So, yeah, your idea might be terrific in theory. But, as Homer Simpson would remind us, in theory, communism works. In theory, team owners welcome politically controversial displays about their team name at the ballpark, while in reality, they work hard to prevent such things from happening.

But the real point here is not whether you can make a more rational argument for the Senators name than voting-rights activists, including the mayor and the majority of the District Council, make against the name. The point is that you'd have to try to make that argument if you adopted the name, and that means engaging in a hot-button political controversy, and that is a no-win scenario for any business. It's like the old story of the gravestone that reads, "Here lies the body of Mike O'Day, who died defending his right of way. His right was sure, his will was strong, but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong."

This would be a case where you lose by joining the argument, no matter how much you think you could win the argument on the merits. In five years' time, maybe you could get most DC residents to say, "yeah, come to think of it, that makes sense," but in the meantime you'd have alienated a generation of District opinion leaders, and that is something a new franchise cannot afford to do. Strictly as a business decision, you'd have to be suicidally crazy even to consider adopting the Senators name for this club in this city at this time.

Besides which, your argument is unpersuasive on the merits. If having a team named the Senators would be a boon for efforts to bring democracy to America's capitol city, then we should be able to find a record of just such public-awareness benefits accruing to the city during its past episodes of having a team named the Senators. But in fact, the only previous victory for DC voting rights, the Twenty-Third Amendment, was ratified during the winter of 1960-61, when Washington briefly had no Senators team at all. DC residents struggled for 60 years to gain representation with a team known as the Senators playing in town with no success. But the team left town, and within weeks, DC residents gained a vote in the Electoral College. Then, just days after that victory, a new team called the Senators came to town, and the voting-rights cause has been stalled since. Ergo, having a team called the Senators in town is bad for democracy in DC. QED.

[BBTV]

I'm always surprised to see players wear their stirrups backwards.

I'll bet most of these younger modern-era players never wore stirrups from Little League onward, so I am not surprised to see Hannahan with his backwards.

It's also a little counter-intuitive to have the larger opening in back - not surprising that some players but their feet through the big hole in the stirrups.

Unless you consider the origin of the stirrup, then it makes perfect sense. Now if you want to say that only applies if the openings are both significantly smaller, I'd have to agree with you. I don't understand why the openings ever got to be as big as they were.

[lucky]

Surprised nobody (I think) has mentioned the Red Sox-ish numbers on the Oakland jerseys. That's pretty jarring.

[RickV]

Surprised nobody (I think) has mentioned the Red Sox-ish numbers on the Oakland jerseys. That's pretty jarring.

That is the style that the A's used in those days, they nailed that correctly too. Nice. California Angels used it too, I believe.

[infrared41]

Love it. I wish the A's would immediately adopt something like these. The only problem I have is that I miss seeing any yellow in the hat.

I really liked the hat. Simple and classy.

[oddball]

Surprised nobody (I think) has mentioned the Red Sox-ish numbers on the Oakland jerseys. That's pretty jarring.

That is the style that the A's used in those days, they nailed that correctly too. Nice. California Angels used it too, I believe.

Yes the Angels did. They will be displaying their 1971 uniforms next Thursday vs. the Chicago White Sox and giving away a 1971 cap also. What was cool about Oakland was on Saturday they gave away the caps and on Sunday they gave away replica vest jerseys. That alone should give them the promotion of the year. I don't know if I've ever heard of a team give away a replica vest jersey. It was nice to see both teams wear correct uniforms including stirrups. Those uniforms out did 80% of the uniforms today, and the really nice thing about them, NO NEEDLESS BLACK!

[cubbies06]

Attn: Texas Rangers

This is the Washington Nationals, we are calling in regards of the use of the Nationals logo in your throwback uniform. Please cease and desist using the Washington Nationals logo. If you could so kindly please return the logo back to Washington D.C. and nobody will get hurt.

Sincerely,

The Washington Nationals

[M59]

Do you think the majority of Washington fans prefer the team be named the Senators with the old logo and colors?

Probably, yes. "The fans" also preferred the name "Devil Rays" back when they were voting on that team name; basically every other fan-voting exercise I've ever seen has picked the absolute worst name on the list. People are stupid, and nobody has ever lost money (or an election) underestimating the taste and intelligence of the American public. Except the XFL. (Kidding! Mostly.)

To be slightly more serious, you have to remember that the average hardcore baseball fan in Washington either comes from somewhere else and still doesn't regard the Nats as his primary team, or he grew up in post-baseball Washington and regards the departed expansion Senators with extreme nostalgia. I mean, seriously, almost every middle-aged native Washingtonian I know claims to have been at the last Senators game in '71 and either unfurled the "Short Sucks" banner or rushed the field. Nostalgia might be the single most banal human emotion. I like to wallow in the dimly remembered past as much as the next guy -- I get nostalgic for the Bicentennial -- but nostalgia is probably the stupidest reason for making any decision. A return to the "Senators" name and the mediocre uniforms of yesteryear would undoubtedly be popular among a large cohort of Washington baseball fans, but it would be popular because of nostalgia. It is, therefore, a terrible idea.

Don't get me wrong; I bought me one of those mediocre Rangers Senators throwbacks from JerseyJoe. Fine for fans, fine for throwbacks, but a terrible idea for the team itself no matter how many middle-aged white guys from the suburbs pretend to have been Senators fans when they were kids.

(People in Washington also care a lot more about the politics of DC voting rights now than they did in the 1960s, so it would also be stupid to risk the political fallout of choosing the Senators name. The costs of pissing off disenfranchised resident Washingtonians with the Senators name would far outweigh the slight increase in nostalgic happy-feeling among middle-aged suburban Senators fans.)

Like nearly everything else in the Peoples Republic of DC, the issue split on racial fault lines. The old white guys who remembered Senators I and II wanted Senators III. The black guys who held what power there is to hold in DC were lining up behind the Grays name. Nationals was the inoffensive compromise. Oddly enough, it's the name I thought the team should have had (not that anyone involved cared what I thought).

[BallWonk]

Like nearly everything else in the Peoples Republic of DC, the issue split on racial fault lines. The old white guys who remembered Senators I and II wanted Senators III. The black guys who held what power there is to hold in DC were lining up behind the Grays name. Nationals was the inoffensive compromise. Oddly enough, it's the name I thought the team should have had (not that anyone involved cared what I thought).

Agreed. I actually preferred a Negro Leagues nod like Grays or Potomacs, but I was happy with Nationals. The thing is, the white guys who pretend to have been Senators fans were going to come out for the team whatever it was called. DC's black middle class, which will be the decisive factor in whether the Nats become a midsize-market team or a big-market team, was always going to be much more sensitive to any political implications with the name. So if the people who want "Senators" don't actually care either way, but the people who don't want "Senators" do care, then adopting the "Senators" name would be a foolish thing to do.

Back to the throwbacks, I sure wish throwbacks were more readily available for sale. I'm thrilled to get a good deal on a Rangers Senators throwback jersey, but there have been a ton of throwbacks I'd have loved to have a chance to purchase. Such as pretty much every Grays throwback either the Bucs or the Nats have ever worn.

[Gothamite]

If having a team named the Senators would be a boon for efforts to bring democracy to America's capitol city, then we should be able to find a record of just such public-awareness benefits accruing to the city during its past episodes of having a team named the Senators. But in fact, the only previous victory for DC voting rights, the Twenty-Third Amendment, was ratified during the winter of 1960-61, when Washington briefly had no Senators team at all.

I thought you said that awareness of this issue is relatively new one in DC? The District wasn't terribly politically conscious on this issue before, so it's no surprise that they weren't able to capitalize on it.

Ergo, having a team called the Senators in town is bad for democracy in DC. QED.

Yeah, but as Homer Simpson also says, "When will people learn? Democracy doesn't work!"

[BallWonk]

If having a team named the Senators would be a boon for efforts to bring democracy to America's capitol city, then we should be able to find a record of just such public-awareness benefits accruing to the city during its past episodes of having a team named the Senators. But in fact, the only previous victory for DC voting rights, the Twenty-Third Amendment, was ratified during the winter of 1960-61, when Washington briefly had no Senators team at all.

I thought you said that awareness of this issue is relatively new one in DC? The District wasn't terribly politically conscious on this issue before, so it's no surprise that they weren't able to capitalize on it.

All in good fun, but in fact this issue has never been not a big deal in DC, at least not since the early 20th century. It's just that it's a lot more of a "touchy" issue now. I mean, you don't amend the Constitution to solve problems nobody cares about, so obviously this was a pretty hot issue in the winter of 1960-61, when the Twenty-Third Amendment was ratified in what was, at the time, a record-setting ratification process. Between the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and the race violence late in the decade and the leadup to the Bicentennial in 1976, that period was the previous high-water mark for interest and activism in DC voting rights. It's come around again, but the particularities of the strength of the issue today don't mean that it wasn't an issue before.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Throwing back to a previous city's look (in baseball where it's so obvious) is silly UNLESS it fits a special occasion. For instance, it was cool a few years back when the Orioles worse St. Louis Browns uniforms in St. Louis.

Well, I would disagree completely with that. No matter the occasion, a team's taking on the look of its previous incarnation is always a great teaching opportunity. Indeed, it is thanks to promotions like this, in baseball and in the NBA, that there are kiddies currently walking around who now know that the Rangers were once the Washington Senators, that the LA Clippers were once the Buffalo Braves, that the Sixers were the Syracuse Nats, etc. This is surely a good thing.

Furthermore, I'd say that it is doubly important to keep this sort of historical awareness alive in a world where the very idea of the historical continuity of franchises is in danger of becoming a thing of the past, a world where we'll soon have a whole generation which does not even know that the Baltimore Ravens used to be the Cleveland Browns.

Thanks to reality-bending legal manoeuvres, we have that absurd Browns/Ravens situation, where a single continuous historical entity is redefined such that the "franchise" didn't move, only the "organisation" did. Oy. (And, of course, like most bad ideas, this concept has caught on, having been repeated in the case of the San Jose Earthquakes / Houston Dynamo; and it is likely to rear its ugly head again as the Sonics leave Seattle.)

So, for the sake of the little kid who first heard the words "Cincinnati Royals" when the Sacramento Kings broke out those unis, I say: bring on these promotions!