MLB Must ACT -- White Sox / Twins

[PackerBadger]

I just have a problem with blue vs blue.

I'm looking at you Cubs vs. Brewers

Normally I would agree, except the Brewers road alts really are that much better than their greys.

Navy blue and royal blue are not the same blue. (And I've had only one cup of coffee today!)

[TheOldRoman]

*lol* Thanks. I thought that up all by myself. See!!! I'm a college graduate and can think. I like the idea too. It's why we're here, because we aren't sports dictators, but we really want to be!

O NOES! U'Z SMARTER CUZ U WENT 2 COLLAGE!!1!

But since you are going to throw out that "I don't have anything intelligent to say" argument, so did I. One of the best public schools in the nation, in fact. The difference is I didn't make up some ridiculous hyperbole to describe someone who I disagreed with, so I must not be as smart as you. Kthnxbye!

[illwauk]

I just have a problem with blue vs blue.

I'm looking at you Cubs vs. Brewers

Normally I would agree, except the Brewers road alts really are that much better than their greys.

Navy blue and royal blue are not the same blue. (And I've had only one cup of coffee today!)

FWIW, I think royal contrasts with navy better than black does.

Of course, the whole similar alternates thing wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if 95% of the teams didn't have to be some form of blue, red or black.

[_RH_]

I'm not really a big baseball fan, so maybe this isn't uncommon, but I noticed that the Royals and Athletics both wore alternates today, resulting in a weird color combination:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2010_07_18_oakmlb_kcamlb_1&mode=gameday

[loogodude90]

I dont find that color combination (light blue and green) to be that odd, and it actually think its refreshing to see a game where almosr right off the bat you can tell which team is which without having to squint or wait til you can read the jerseys.

What I DO find odd, is that the A's are wearing Alternates with "Athletics" on the road - I could have sworn that they had a road green alternate that said "Oakland". Maybe they ditched that once they brought out the black jerseys? OR maybe Im thinking of Cleveland.

[Punch]

Just wanted to start right off the bat by saying that this is my first post of hopefully many to come .

Anyway.....

The White Sox/Twins have a storied history of black v. navy games. According to my Twins UniTracking Spreadsheet, they have already used this combo twice this year out of 9 games. This doesn't seem like a lot, but 2 of 9 is already 2 too many games of black v. navy.

However, isn't it odd that when the Twins choose to wear their navy unis, Chicago still goes with the black? It's like Chicago is color-blind and/or they lost their road grays.

Closing argument:

THE CITY OF CHICAGO NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO BLACK UNIS EVERYDAY, OR ELSE WE WILL SEE THESE TYPES OF GAMES FOR YEARS TO COME.

[AkSaber]

With tomorrow being a Monday home game, the Mariners are going to wear their dark navy jersey. I wonder if the White Sox will be forced to wear their gray jersey.

[NYYNYR]

I'm glad my very simple opening salvo has started a decent thread (and i'm a newbie in these parts). Some of you obviously have wondered silently the same things I have. Others, I can see, are angry, implying I'm a dictator and need to "calm down," (which I love coming on a site that caters to dorks like me who care about sports logos/ uniform aesthetics). In response to the last post, MLB/ umps /someone should (IMHO) make it clear that the Sox (who sustained a crushing come-from-behind, bottom-of-the-ninth defeat to the rival Twins, while sporting the black, last night) at the very least cannot use it against another club wishing to use black (Toronto/ Baltimore/ Oakland --- all terrible uniforms, too) or dark navy (Rays, Red Sox Friday home alt, Mariners, Twins, Indians).

Again, that's just my opinion, but I think it's logical at the very least. I'm fine with alt vs. alt if the White Sox are playing against the Rays in powder / columbia blue, either of the Royals' alts (royal and powder), either of Texas's alts (whatever shade of blue that is or red), Red Sox's alt. red, LA's red, Oakland's green (although it would be kindy muddy looking because the green is a rather dark hunter...) etc. Doesn't that just look better to the naked eye? No?

Also, while jokingly implied that I was dictatorial in my stance, I don't think I'm way off base asking for LOGIC and CONSISTENCY to be employed when it comes to MLB uniforms.

1. Why, for instance, did the Jays wear that stupid T/J (whatever it is) crap with their away unis yesterday? I actually think if I was gonna keep one Blue Jay uniform, it would be the away. I like the lettering/ numbers on the back and the use of color. But why the ugly T hat with it? Isn't that to be used for the black alternate? Another reason that hat is garbage and stupid and illogical...When the Jays batted yesterday, they used a helmet with the primary logo on it. That makes sense.

Again, one man's "dictatorship" is another man's "comfort." There's comfort in knowing how your organization is going to represent itself. One man's "creativity" (ie... let's play dress-up and not care what uniform concoction we come up with ... and who cares what the opponent is wearing) is another man's "annoyance." It's annoying to see teams look like garbage on the field, to me.

2. Why do the Cardinals use that alt. blue hat with the home uniform? It looks terrible. Again, when they batted, they had only the red home helmet. Doesn't match. Looks ridiculous, illogical. What is wrong with the Cards' home uni? It's near PERFECT. Leave it alone. Trying to be cute with something that works is annoying. Let it be.

3. Why do teams offer you their city at home (Texas Rangers) or their name on the road (Athletics, black Mets uni etc.)? Why? We know it's stupid. We know it looks shoddy. We know this because teams like Baltimore and Milwaukee wised up and gave us city names for road uniforms. And think of it, too, you capitalist fiends. If you switch the jersey up, you have new stuff to market and sell and make money on,right? No?

[Bouj]

Someone on another website keeps a uniform tracker, and here is the results through yesterday:

Home White: 10 games

Road Gray: 10 games

Black Alt: 68 games

That is friggin ridiculous. Not only has it become the defacto road jersey, it is the defacto home jersey too. That is especially bad since the black jersey, while good in moderation, is by far the worst of the three. For branding purposes, it is stupid for the team to allow this to happen. They are trying to sell the fans white and gray jerseys which almost never see the field. The White Sox need to get their act together and limit the use of alts to once or twice a week on set days of the week. I also think MLB needs a strict rule (supported by fines) that only one team can wear alts in any given game. I don't care if the colors are as different as orange and black. One team should be in normal jerseys.

Eeeeeeeeeexactly my point. Amen. How about we get a petition going? That is insane. 77 % of the time you're using a black alternate. Friggin' awful. MLB needs to step in; I agree. I'm not big on "big brother" or making unnecessary rules, but this is getting out of hand. You get to wear the alts 2x a week. That's it. Once on road, once at home (if that applies). But two total. That's it. Or you can' wear it more than 30 times in a season (you pick which 30 you use it). And decide on 3 jerseys, not 4 or 5. Pick you top 3 and go with it. That would make teams think twice about adding an unnecessary black. Why do the Royals need home / away (which are both nice) and a royal blue and a powder blue?

To quote Sgt. Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis."

I saw navy vs. navy once (1998 or so Padres vs. Brewers at County Stadium) and it was awful. This is not as bad, but yeah, it's not fun for those in what used to be known as the cheap seats. I'd rather they just have a rule that if the home team picks an alt, the road team must wear the primary. I know A's/Twins or Reds/Brewers would not be too bad, but so what. Is it that important that teams wear their alts that often? Just a simple rule about alts so know judgments have to be made about black vs. blue or royal vs. navy.

There is a rule. MLB instituted it a couple of years ago. Teams are discouraged from wearing similar-colored alts against each other. Navy/Black and Red/Brick/Orange are considered matches, in addition to the teams that have the same color alts. And home team gets first choice, but teams are notified in advance so they know to bring the necessary jerseys (like HOU, who will take their greys to ATL, ARI, SF, and TEX this season to switch out of the bricks when needed).

I've read this statement of fact before. Does anyone "in the know" have evidence that can back it up? Just asking, and I'm not from Missouri :-)

There is no rule and not press release either. It does not exist in rule or within the MLB CBA. If MLB stood to the rule, the A's and Pirates would never would have had yellow uniforms. Since the AL and NL were combined, they have even failed to update their rules (see below). This is done just to increase jersey sales or to satisfy a starting pitchers superstition.

I will show you.

Rules of MLB. Official Baseball Rule 1.11 covers uniforms.

1.11

(A)

(1) All players on a team shall wear uniforms identical in color, trim and style, and all players uniforms shall include minimal six-inch numbers on their backs.

(2) Any part of an undershirt exposed to view shall be of a uniform solid color for all players on a team. Any player other than the pitcher may have numbers, letters, insignia attached to the sleeve of the undershirt.

(3)No player whose uniform does not conform to that of his teammates shall be permitted to participate in a game.

A league may provide that:

(1) each team shall wear a distinctive uniform at all times, or

(2) that each team shall have two sets of uniforms, white for home games and a different color for road games.

©

(1) Sleeve lengths may vary for individual players, but the sleeves of each individual player shall be approximately the same length.

(2) No player shall wear ragged, frayed or slit sleeves.

(D) No player shall attach to his uniform tape or other material of a different color from his uniform.

(E) No part of the uniform shall include a pattern that imitates or suggests the shape of a baseball.

(F) Glass buttons and polished metal shall not be used on a uniform

(G) No player shall attach anything to the heel or toe of his shoe other than the ordinary shoe plate or toe plate. Shoes with pointed spikes similar to golf or track shoes shall not be worn.

(H) No part of the uniform shall include patches or designs relating to commercial advertisements.

(I) A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President. If adopted, all uniforms for a team must have the names of its players.

Link to the CBA

You just found the in-writing version of the rule from MLB, in the sentence above. "Distinct uniforms" means no similar-color alts. It then becomes a matter of enforcement or either part 1 or part 2. With alternates introduced, part 1 is implied to be more important that part 2.

I'm not exactly sure what they above rule would have to do with yellow jerseys. Yellow is pretty distinct from other colors.

MLB sent a memo to the teams 2 years ago and "recommended" (like they "recommended" pitchers quit wasting time between pitches or they "recommend" teams not pay above slot for draft picks) that no similar alts should be worn when possible. Paul Lukas first broke the news 2 years ago (am I in the process of lokoking for the link, but the Uni Watch archives are daunting). The Braves and Padres aren't getting fined for it when they ignore the rule (they are the worst offenders). Most of the teams adhere to the "recommendation". In the big scheme of things, MLB isn't cracking down on similar-color alt games because of the superstition factor. They're just asking nicely for the teams to follow the above rules.

[BRice16]

Point of order, that picture above is not from Thursday's game.

Based on the recap on Sportscenter last night, they both wore dark alts on Thursday and Friday.

I find this very interesting because it's been mentioned several times on the Braves telecasts that MLB told them they could not wear their Navy road alt at Florida and at the White Sox in interleage play because they were too close in color to the black home alts that each team has. The broadcasters said that last year it was a "recommendation" but this year there was a letter and it was forbidden.

[NYYNYR]

Point of order, that picture above is not from Thursday's game.

Based on the recap on Sportscenter last night, they both wore dark alts on Thursday and Friday.

I find this very interesting because it's been mentioned several times on the Braves telecasts that MLB told them they could not wear their Navy road alt at Florida and at the White Sox in interleage play because they were too close in color to the black home alts that each team has. The broadcasters said that last year it was a "recommendation" but this year there was a letter and it was forbidden.

Interesting. So, then other examples (such as this) should be forbidden as well. I'm glad the league stepped in. Teams should look "distinct" from one another.

[mydogisgomez]

If uniforms are not going to make teams look distinct from the opposing team, why wear uniforms at all? Black v Black, Black v Navy, etc games are hard to watch. Let the Home team decide and the visitors live with their decision (and wear a contrasting uni). Seems to work in every other sport!

[Gothamite]

I just have a problem with blue vs blue.

I'm looking at you Cubs vs. Brewers

Normally I would agree, except the Brewers road alts really are that much better than their greys.

Only because the blue alts aren't ashamed of their hometown. That's easily fixed, and the gray jerseys would be superior. Can't stand white text on dark jerseys in baseball.

[Buster]

Christ people, the front office could care less about what jerseys the teams are wearing. It might look displeasing to the eye, but what a ludicrous thread.

Agreed, this is very petty. They look good in black, they're nice jerseys. Unlike the Marlins who have abandoned a unique color for a monochrome look or the Toronto Black Jays, black is the main color in the White Sox color chart...let them use it.

Is blue against black REALLY that much different than white vs. gray? Honestly?

Who cares, they're the hottest team in baseball (won something like 27 out of last 33 games) and we all know how superstitious baseball teams and players are.

Why get in an uproar over something so irrelevant?

[Ryoma]

1. Why, for instance, did the Jays wear that stupid T/J (whatever it is) crap with their away unis yesterday? I actually think if I was gonna keep one Blue Jay uniform, it would be the away. I like the lettering/ numbers on the back and the use of color. But why the ugly T hat with it? Isn't that to be used for the black alternate? Another reason that hat is garbage and stupid and illogical...When the Jays batted yesterday, they used a helmet with the primary logo on it. That makes sense.

Stupid and illogical = the Blue Jays wearing a green hat (or a blue one, for that matter ). The T hat looks fine.

2. Why do the Cardinals use that alt. blue hat with the home uniform? It looks terrible. Again, when they batted, they had only the red home helmet. Doesn't match. Looks ridiculous, illogical. What is wrong with the Cards' home uni? It's near PERFECT. Leave it alone. Trying to be cute with something that works is annoying. Let it be.

It's their Sunday alternate hat, and there's historical precedence for wearing a navy blue hat with a red bill, most notably during the 1940s when they won multiple World Series. It's a nice change of pace for the Cardinals, and while I wouldn't like to see it every day it's still a nice hat and it looks fine.

3. Why do teams offer you their city at home (Texas Rangers) or their name on the road (Athletics, black Mets uni etc.)? Why? We know it's stupid. We know it looks shoddy. We know this because teams like Baltimore and Milwaukee wised up and gave us city names for road uniforms. And think of it, too, you capitalist fiends. If you switch the jersey up, you have new stuff to market and sell and make money on,right? No?

Texas just doesn't make much sense. The A's have a dedicated road jersey. The Mets have a dedicated road jersey. Sometimes teams like wearing their alternate jersey on the road, so they develop road-specific versions of it (the Brewers and Astros come to mind). It doesn't make that much sense, but in my mind it doesn't really detract from the game that much. I think the Cardinals have the best uni set in the majors and they have "Cardinals" on their road jersey, not "St. Louis". Maybe more people are bothered by it, I don't know.

[NYYNYR]

1. Why, for instance, did the Jays wear that stupid T/J (whatever it is) crap with their away unis yesterday? I actually think if I was gonna keep one Blue Jay uniform, it would be the away. I like the lettering/ numbers on the back and the use of color. But why the ugly T hat with it? Isn't that to be used for the black alternate? Another reason that hat is garbage and stupid and illogical...When the Jays batted yesterday, they used a helmet with the primary logo on it. That makes sense.

Stupid and illogical = the Blue Jays wearing a green hat (or a blue one, for that matter ). The T hat looks fine.

2. Why do the Cardinals use that alt. blue hat with the home uniform? It looks terrible. Again, when they batted, they had only the red home helmet. Doesn't match. Looks ridiculous, illogical. What is wrong with the Cards' home uni? It's near PERFECT. Leave it alone. Trying to be cute with something that works is annoying. Let it be.

It's their Sunday alternate hat, and there's historical precedence for wearing a navy blue hat with a red bill, most notably during the 1940s when they won multiple World Series. It's a nice change of pace for the Cardinals, and while I wouldn't like to see it every day it's still a nice hat and it looks fine.

3. Why do teams offer you their city at home (Texas Rangers) or their name on the road (Athletics, black Mets uni etc.)? Why? We know it's stupid. We know it looks shoddy. We know this because teams like Baltimore and Milwaukee wised up and gave us city names for road uniforms. And think of it, too, you capitalist fiends. If you switch the jersey up, you have new stuff to market and sell and make money on,right? No?

Texas just doesn't make much sense. The A's have a dedicated road jersey. The Mets have a dedicated road jersey. Sometimes teams like wearing their alternate jersey on the road, so they develop road-specific versions of it (the Brewers and Astros come to mind). It doesn't make that much sense, but in my mind it doesn't really detract from the game that much. I think the Cardinals have the best uni set in the majors and they have "Cardinals" on their road jersey, not "St. Louis". Maybe more people are bothered by it, I don't know.

Thanks. Go Hawks (BTW) ! They are no NYR (fave team), but I've always liked them second.

Now that that's out of the way, I wanted to ask you:

You have no problem with the BLUE Jays (forgetting them wearing a black uniform / black hat etc.) wearing a "T" alternate hat in the field and then the primary logo when they come to bat? Same with the Cards? If there is historical precedent for doing things (and you have a long, storied tradition like the Cards), I get that. My bad there. That's my mistake for not knowing. For others, it just looks silly.

I can deal with the team name on the away or the city on the home. It's not that big of a deal. However, if you're the Mets, right, and you have a black New York and a black Mets jersey...why would you ever wear the black Mets one on the road? That is your home alternate? Like, at some point, logic starts breaking down, and you're basically espousing what the guy about 2 posts before uttered: Who gives a flying O(&&(&%)?

If you're the Mets, and you decide to dump one of your black jerseys (the mets have at least 4-5 jerseys if you count Los Mets), whyyyyyyyyyyyyy would you dump the black NY one? You have a white home, a vintage white with pinstripes (which should be your true home) and a white Los Mets jersey. Isn't that enough variety (if your fans need variety...i personally don't) for your home choices? Now, you throw in the black home alt. Why? If you're gonna dump one, dump the black Mets one. Do you need to have 4 (four) options about what to wear at home? That's where I can't figure this stuff out.

I think the Mets might even have a Los Mets striped and a pure white Los Mets.

]

and yet you need another black option for home? Why?

ban this:

[NYYNYR]

speaking of the Mets, (i'm a yanks fan BTW) they deserve a thread unto themselves.

even as a Yanks fan, I admit that this was one of the best looks in MLB.

The Mets would look sooooooo much better by simple using their solid blue hat on the road:

You can't tell me that isn't a sweet road set? And soooooooooooooooo simple to do.

easily beats:

and

[paynomind]

Its been said a thousand times, but I fall on the side of: One team in white, the other in their primary color is fine for all the rest fo sports, so i believe its fine for baseball. Grays are traditional, but silly.

[SteveR]

If there is a sport that can withstand clashing jersey colors, it's baseball.

There are only four places on the field where members of the team on offense can be.

The aesthetics don't get in the way of being able to see who's doing what.

[IceCap]

1. Why, for instance, did the Jays wear that stupid T/J (whatever it is) crap with their away unis yesterday? I actually think if I was gonna keep one Blue Jay uniform, it would be the away. I like the lettering/ numbers on the back and the use of color. But why the ugly T hat with it? Isn't that to be used for the black alternate? Another reason that hat is garbage and stupid and illogical...When the Jays batted yesterday, they used a helmet with the primary logo on it. That makes sense.

Stupid and illogical = the Blue Jays wearing a green hat (or a blue one, for that matter ). The T hat looks fine.

Please explain why the Blue Jays wearing a blue hat would be stupid and illogical.

The T hat is pointless. The Jays have always, with the exception of one season (2003), had caps that feature the head of a blue jay in some manner. It's even carried over with the recent scheme, which was a huge departure from the franchise's norm. The T hats not only go against the grain when it comes to tradition, but they just look bad. The font used for the T is horrible. It reminds me of toothpaste that's been squeezed out of the tube.