Jump to content

Mets uniform changes


SPORTSDOCTOR

Recommended Posts

I have no problem with people casually using the term "Metropolitans" anymore than, as you say, "Bombers." But I'd never want to see it on a jersey, any more than I'd want to see a jersey with "Pinstripers" across the chest.

Or "Bolts" for a team named "Lightning," for that matter, but we all know now professional league would stoop that low. :P

I agree in principle, but I think the specific case of the Mets doesn't fit the principle. Bolts and Lightning, or Bombers and Yankees, or Halos and Angels, are all examples of completely different nicknames.

But in the case of the Nationals/Nats and Mets/Metropolitans, the alternate nickname is just a logical abbreviation or extension of the regular nickname. It's not an entirely different team name. And while yes, the Mets were never officially the Metropolitans, "Mets is short for Metropolitans" is a bit of folk wisdom as old as the team, and one that has at times been promoted by the team itself. So it's a completely different case from alternate nicknames like the Bombers or Pinstripers (has anyone ever actually called the Yankees the Pinstripers?), and entirely appropriate for playing around with alt jerseys.

Unless, of course, we want to make this an absolute rule, which would require us to condemn the White Sox home jerseys for also containing an abbreviated alternate nickname rather than the team's actual name.

But the more I think about it, the more I think a Metropolitans jersey would have to be in the style of the NY Giants, as far as the lettering goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have no problem with people casually using the term "Metropolitans" anymore than, as you say, "Bombers." But I'd never want to see it on a jersey, any more than I'd want to see a jersey with "Pinstripers" across the chest.

Or "Bolts" for a team named "Lightning," for that matter, but we all know now professional league would stoop that low. :P

I agree in principle, but I think the specific case of the Mets doesn't fit the principle. Bolts and Lightning, or Bombers and Yankees, or Halos and Angels, are all examples of completely different nicknames.

But in the case of the Nationals/Nats and Mets/Metropolitans, the alternate nickname is just a logical abbreviation or extension of the regular nickname. It's not an entirely different team name. And while yes, the Mets were never officially the Metropolitans, "Mets is short for Metropolitans" is a bit of folk wisdom as old as the team, and one that has at times been promoted by the team itself. So it's a completely different case from alternate nicknames like the Bombers or Pinstripers (has anyone ever actually called the Yankees the Pinstripers?), and entirely appropriate for playing around with alt jerseys.

Unless, of course, we want to make this an absolute rule, which would require us to condemn the White Sox home jerseys for also containing an abbreviated alternate nickname rather than the team's actual name.

But the more I think about it, the more I think a Metropolitans jersey would have to be in the style of the NY Giants, as far as the lettering goes.

Yep, "Pinstripers" gets pretty wide use in the media.

And FWIW, the White Sox haven't been the "White Stockings", officially or otherwise, for decades. The Red Sox have never been the "Red Stockings."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, "Pinstripers" gets pretty wide use in the media.

Interesting. I would never have suspected New York's media of being that lame.

And FWIW, the White Sox haven't been the "White Stockings", officially or otherwise, for decades. The Red Sox have never been the "Red Stockings."

Who said anything about "White Stockings"? The White Sox put a big ol' "SOX" on their home jerseys. Sox is to White Sox as Nats is to Nationals, and Nats and Nationals bear the same relationship as Mets and Metropolitans. Therefore if we establish a universal rule against informal secondary nicknames, then the general rule requires us to condemn the White Sox home uniform. If we craft an exception to the general principle that permits the White Sox home jersey, then that exception will also allow both a "Nats" and a "Metropolitans" jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people casually using the term "Metropolitans" anymore than, as you say, "Bombers." But I'd never want to see it on a jersey, any more than I'd want to see a jersey with "Pinstripers" across the chest.

Or "Bolts" for a team named "Lightning," for that matter, but we all know now professional league would stoop that low. :P

I agree in principle, but I think the specific case of the Mets doesn't fit the principle. Bolts and Lightning, or Bombers and Yankees, or Halos and Angels, are all examples of completely different nicknames.

But in the case of the Nationals/Nats and Mets/Metropolitans, the alternate nickname is just a logical abbreviation or extension of the regular nickname. It's not an entirely different team name. And while yes, the Mets were never officially the Metropolitans, "Mets is short for Metropolitans" is a bit of folk wisdom as old as the team, and one that has at times been promoted by the team itself. So it's a completely different case from alternate nicknames like the Bombers or Pinstripers (has anyone ever actually called the Yankees the Pinstripers?), and entirely appropriate for playing around with alt jerseys.

Unless, of course, we want to make this an absolute rule, which would require us to condemn the White Sox home jerseys for also containing an abbreviated alternate nickname rather than the team's actual name.

But the more I think about it, the more I think a Metropolitans jersey would have to be in the style of the NY Giants, as far as the lettering goes.

Yep, "Pinstripers" gets pretty wide use in the media.

And FWIW, the White Sox haven't been the "White Stockings", officially or otherwise, for decades. The Red Sox have never been the "Red Stockings."

Erm, they call them the "Pinstripes" sometimes but I've never seen/heard them ever called the "Pinstripers"....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dig secondary (or are they tertiary?) baseball nicknames: . . . Carmines . . .

Who are the Carmines?

Either Reds or Red Sox. There was a famous over wrought article written about one of the Red Sox World Series in which the writer referred to them as 'Carmine hosed warriors'. So it might come from that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurm.

I cannot accept your grammatical premise, Wonk. "Sox" is an abbreviation of the team name, and "A's" is a contraction of the team's proper name. That is distinct and separate from an informal nickname not acknowledged by the club.

One could make your argument about "Nats", much as I dislike it. Or "Jays." Both are shortened version of the team's official name. But "Metropolitans" is right up there with "Amazin's" or "True Blue Brew Crew", fine for handwritten signs at the ballpark but best not put on a uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, they call them the "Pinstripes" sometimes but I've never seen/heard them ever called the "Pinstripers"....

"Yankees Magazine is packed with features, facts, action photos and stats on your favorite Pinstripers."

And that's the team itself.

Here's an example of several of these nicknames seeing use in one article:

"The pundits at the Marist Poll found that 51 percent of New Yorkers follow baseball, so they dropped politics for a while to look at something even more controversial -- the Mets and Yankees and their zealous fans.

They found that 53 percent root for the Pinstripers and a little more than 33 percent for the Mets -- and that 62 percent of households with kids prefer the Bronx Bombers while just 28 percent follow the Amazin's." (NY Post)

And "Pinstripers" is no lamer than "Pale Hose," "Crimson Hose" or "Redbirds." They're all kinda goofy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people casually using the term "Metropolitans" anymore than, as you say, "Bombers." But I'd never want to see it on a jersey, any more than I'd want to see a jersey with "Pinstripers" across the chest.

Or "Bolts" for a team named "Lightning," for that matter, but we all know now professional league would stoop that low. :P

I agree in principle, but I think the specific case of the Mets doesn't fit the principle. Bolts and Lightning, or Bombers and Yankees, or Halos and Angels, are all examples of completely different nicknames.

But in the case of the Nationals/Nats and Mets/Metropolitans, the alternate nickname is just a logical abbreviation or extension of the regular nickname. It's not an entirely different team name. And while yes, the Mets were never officially the Metropolitans, "Mets is short for Metropolitans" is a bit of folk wisdom as old as the team, and one that has at times been promoted by the team itself. So it's a completely different case from alternate nicknames like the Bombers or Pinstripers (has anyone ever actually called the Yankees the Pinstripers?), and entirely appropriate for playing around with alt jerseys.

Unless, of course, we want to make this an absolute rule, which would require us to condemn the White Sox home jerseys for also containing an abbreviated alternate nickname rather than the team's actual name.

But the more I think about it, the more I think a Metropolitans jersey would have to be in the style of the NY Giants, as far as the lettering goes.

Metropolitans doesn't work because no one in New York calls them the Metropolitans other than Steve Somers. It's entirely the wrong nickname. Everybody calls them the Amazin's and Mets fans actually embrace that name. I wouldn't mind seeing an Amazin's alt jersey (although I'm not itching for one).

However, the simple reason why Metropolitans is nothing like Bolts, Nats or other nicknames is that it is longer than the real name. Nicknames are appropriate because they are short and catchy. Metropolitans is neither. Using Metropolitans is like calling the D-backs the DiamondBack Rattlesnakes or the Dodgers the Trolley Dodgers. Elongation is not the goal for uniforms.

On the topic of the Mets altering their unis, maybe they should just go back to 1 home and 1 road. Not necessarily because they shouldn't have alternates, but because they have so muddled their identity at this point that they should simplify, let the air clear, and add a 3rd jersey 5 years down the road when they can decide what direction they want to go in. Essentially, the Mets' jerseys need a recovery period from the black debacle.

Keep it simple. Go back to 1996. Just remove the white outline from the pinstripe jerseys. (For some reason, that extra white outline really bothered me).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurm.

I cannot accept your grammatical premise, Wonk. "Sox" is an abbreviation of the team name, and "A's" is a contraction of the team's proper name. That is distinct and separate from an informal nickname not acknowledged by the club.

One could make your argument about "Nats", much as I dislike it. Or "Jays." Both are shortened version of the team's official name. But "Metropolitans" is right up there with "Amazin's" or "True Blue Brew Crew", fine for handwritten signs at the ballpark but best not put on a uniform.

Do keep in mind that the narrower the discussion gets, the more serious our discussion of it seems to sound, but everything I write on the subject should be understood to be bracketed by a giant smiley-face emoticon or two.

That said, your argument amounts to, "Sox is OK because the team formally acknowledges it." Which is fine, and I agree with you, but the moment the Mets put "Metropolitans" on a jersey, it would also be formally acknowledged by the team, and therefore would qualify for the exception you carve for the White Sox. Which is to say, the exception you use to allow the Sox home jersey is a tautology.

And while you're right that Pinstripers is no lamer than Crimson Hose, that's because Crimson Hose is also extraordinarily lame. Pale Hose I mostly hear used in a derogatory sense, and Redbirds is completely awesome, not lame at all.

Also, since we already have the equivalent of Metropolitans from several other teams -- A's, Sox, D-Backs, Jays, pre-2008 Rays -- we have a continuum against which to judge a potential Metropolitans alt. And on that scale, Metropolitans would place high, up there with the A's or the Sox, much superior to the D-Backs or Jays. Probably better than a putative Nats alt as well. I would probably buy a Metropolitans jersey.

Of course, the Mets will probably never do any such thing, which we could take as evidence that reality takes your side of the argument. To which I say, to heck with reality! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Metropolitans" is much too large to legibly fit on a jersey, but I'm 100% in favor of more people calling them the Metropolitans often so as to hush some of the "durrrrr what's a met" thing, and because "Metropolitans" is a pretty neat nickname. I dig secondary (or are they tertiary?) baseball nicknames: Metropolitans, Bombers, Carmines, North Siders, South Siders, Halos, White Elephants, Bums, Gents, Phightins, Redbirds, Crew, Tribe, and any others I've missed. It adds another level of jargon.

Yeah, I like them too. I think that "Redlegs" (Reds) is the only one that's been used officially, and even then they dropped it after the Communist Red Scare died off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, your argument amounts to, "Sox is OK because the team formally acknowledges it." Which is fine, and I agree with you, but the moment the Mets put "Metropolitans" on a jersey, it would also be formally acknowledged by the team, and therefore would qualify for the exception you carve for the White Sox. Which is to say, the exception you use to allow the Sox home jersey is a tautology.

Discussions like these make me think it would be fun to have someone keep score of debates here, but someone (probably me) would invariably ruin the fun. Like, we can have one dedicated thread where we hold Rhetorical Fight Club or something. I think this has potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with people casually using the term "Metropolitans" anymore than, as you say, "Bombers." But I'd never want to see it on a jersey, any more than I'd want to see a jersey with "Pinstripers" across the chest.

Or "Bolts" for a team named "Lightning," for that matter, but we all know now professional league would stoop that low. :P

I agree in principle, but I think the specific case of the Mets doesn't fit the principle. Bolts and Lightning, or Bombers and Yankees, or Halos and Angels, are all examples of completely different nicknames.

But in the case of the Nationals/Nats and Mets/Metropolitans, the alternate nickname is just a logical abbreviation or extension of the regular nickname. It's not an entirely different team name. And while yes, the Mets were never officially the Metropolitans, "Mets is short for Metropolitans" is a bit of folk wisdom as old as the team, and one that has at times been promoted by the team itself. So it's a completely different case from alternate nicknames like the Bombers or Pinstripers (has anyone ever actually called the Yankees the Pinstripers?), and entirely appropriate for playing around with alt jerseys.

Unless, of course, we want to make this an absolute rule, which would require us to condemn the White Sox home jerseys for also containing an abbreviated alternate nickname rather than the team's actual name.

But the more I think about it, the more I think a Metropolitans jersey would have to be in the style of the NY Giants, as far as the lettering goes.

Metropolitans doesn't work because no one in New York calls them the Metropolitans other than Steve Somers. It's entirely the wrong nickname. Everybody calls them the Amazin's and Mets fans actually embrace that name. I wouldn't mind seeing an Amazin's alt jersey (although I'm not itching for one).

However, the simple reason why Metropolitans is nothing like Bolts, Nats or other nicknames is that it is longer than the real name. Nicknames are appropriate because they are short and catchy. Metropolitans is neither. Using Metropolitans is like calling the D-backs the DiamondBack Rattlesnakes or the Dodgers the Trolley Dodgers. Elongation is not the goal for uniforms.

On the topic of the Mets altering their unis, maybe they should just go back to 1 home and 1 road. Not necessarily because they shouldn't have alternates, but because they have so muddled their identity at this point that they should simplify, let the air clear, and add a 3rd jersey 5 years down the road when they can decide what direction they want to go in. Essentially, the Mets' jerseys need a recovery period from the black debacle.

Keep it simple. Go back to 1996. Just remove the white outline from the pinstripe jerseys. (For some reason, that extra white outline really bothered me).

I beg to differ..."Mets" is derived from either "Metro" or "Metropolitan". The name "Metropolitans" pays homage to the old Metropolitans Baseball Club of New York from the later 1800's. The name "Mets" didn't get pulled out of thin air. It wasn't created as a brand new word without an origin. Its obviously derived from Metro or Metropolitan. So I don't see how its "entirely the wrong nickname".

But I think this point has been beaten to a pulp already. I personally would like to see the Mets fix their current identity before they attempt to screw up any sort of Metropolitan alt jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Metropolitans" is much too large to legibly fit on a jersey, but I'm 100% in favor of more people calling them the Metropolitans often so as to hush some of the "durrrrr what's a met" thing, and because "Metropolitans" is a pretty neat nickname. I dig secondary (or are they tertiary?) baseball nicknames: Metropolitans, Bombers, Carmines, North Siders, South Siders, Halos, White Elephants, Bums, Gents, Phightins, Redbirds, Crew, Tribe, and any others I've missed. It adds another level of jargon.

Yeah, I like them too. I think that "Redlegs" (Reds) is the only one that's been used officially, and even then they dropped it after the Communist Red Scare died off.

Who the heck are the 'Gents'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for some clarification.

From 1962 through the 1979 season, the 'Mets' official corporate moniker was; The New York Metropolitan Baseball Club Inc.

That changed when Doubleday (who should have bought out Wilpon) and Freddie skill sets bought the club.

"Mets" was indeed a derivative of the corporate name.

Thus New York Metropolitans is indeed appropriate - though not sure how it might look on a uniform top.

Lastly, for now, Fred Wilpon over the last 20 years, with everything from the uniforms, to the stadium, to the players, to the marketing and branding of the franchise, to the players, to management...has systematically destroyed the very soul of this once proud franchise that USED to have a flavor and an identity all their own.

The Mets flavor, their brand, has been sullied completely, and I doubt, particularly now playing in a shrine to another club no longer in the borough of Brooklyn, that they'll ever get anywhere close to where they once were - as the true New York National League Baseball Franchise that so many millions of Mets fans grew to love over the years.

I was one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, your argument amounts to, "Sox is OK because the team formally acknowledges it." Which is fine, and I agree with you, but the moment the Mets put "Metropolitans" on a jersey, it would also be formally acknowledged by the team, and therefore would qualify for the exception you carve for the White Sox. Which is to say, the exception you use to allow the Sox home jersey is a tautology.

Discussions like these make me think it would be fun to have someone keep score of debates here, but someone (probably me) would invariably ruin the fun. Like, we can have one dedicated thread where we hold Rhetorical Fight Club or something. I think this has potential.

No, no, NO.

The first rule of Rhetorical Fight Club is: you do not talk about Rhetorical Fight Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, your argument amounts to, "Sox is OK because the team formally acknowledges it." Which is fine, and I agree with you, but the moment the Mets put "Metropolitans" on a jersey, it would also be formally acknowledged by the team, and therefore would qualify for the exception you carve for the White Sox. Which is to say, the exception you use to allow the Sox home jersey is a tautology.

Discussions like these make me think it would be fun to have someone keep score of debates here, but someone (probably me) would invariably ruin the fun. Like, we can have one dedicated thread where we hold Rhetorical Fight Club or something. I think this has potential.

No, no, NO.

The first rule of Rhetorical Fight Club is: you do not talk about Rhetorical Fight Club.

"In death everyone has a name....his name is Chris Creamer....His name is Chris Creamer...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.