Unpopular Opinions

[Hat Boy]

11 hours ago, Ark said:

 

I don't like stirrup worn like that, they are the best like this

 

 

Canseco is wearing two-in-ones

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ark]

Hey you're right, I just edited it to avoid confusion 

[FinsUp1214]

I'm a big fan of the low cut stirrup, also.

 

 

It left a lot of room for stripes if you wanted them, didn't look nearly as tacky as the ugly high cut stirrups from the 80's-90's, and just has that classic, essential golden-age baseball look to it. DiMaggio, Musial, Williams, Greenberg...all those guys wore it. If I had my way, that look would be mandatory.

 

 

[kroywen]

I suppose this thread just turned into further evidence that everyone has their own opinion about how/if stirrups should be worn.  

 

That picture of the Cardinals from @FinsUp1214 shows how perfect those low-cut stirrups are. The striping possibilities are incredible and endless. I wish we could go back to the days of striped socks/stirrups that would become highly identifiable with a team:

 

 

 

 

[FinsUp1214]

1 hour ago, kroywen said:

I suppose this thread just turned into further evidence that everyone has their own opinion about how/if stirrups should be worn.  

 

That picture of the Cardinals from @FinsUp1214 shows how perfect those low-cut stirrups are. The striping possibilities are incredible and endless. I wish we could go back to the days of striped socks/stirrups that would become highly identifiable with a team:

 

 

 

 

 

That's part of why I'm a big advocate for socks being mandatory; as a uniform enthusiast, the designs of socks add something to a baseball uniform and gives it extra life. Those examples you used are perfect for what I mean (and some of the best socks in baseball history, among others). Each were intentionally designed to be part of the uniform and not a mere accessory; they were every bit as integral and essential to the team's identity as their caps were. Like the socks on a football uniform, it just completes and compliments everything in ways the uniform wouldn't be without them.

 

Sometimes the socks even make the difference for a uniform. Case in point (IMO), the current Cardinals. A good-but-sorta-plain uniform when worn with long pants, but when a player busts out those gorgeous striped stirrups? All of a sudden, the sorta-plainness of the jersey has something of great substance to compliment it. It gains a spark. It looks complete and the sorta-plainness even looks complimentary itself to the stripes. Nothing's "missing" anymore. 

 

Or maybe in the cases on solid color socks/stirrups, that extra block of color on the bottom provides great balance and makes a great uniform even better. Big block of color coming from the cap, white or grey on the jersey and pants, big block of color on the socks. It's a great symmetrical and balanced look that certainly benefits even already-great looks like the Yankees, Tigers, Dodgers, etc.

 

Long pants don't look terrible in my opinion, and they certainly don't ruin a uniform. But baseball uniforms really lost something - indeed, a very valuable design element - when socks/stirrups became less of a thing.

[kroywen]

17 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

That's part of why I'm a big advocate for socks being mandatory; as a uniform enthusiast, the designs of socks add something to a baseball uniform and gives it extra life. Those examples you used are perfect for what I mean (and some of the best socks in baseball history, among others). Each were intentionally designed to be part of the uniform and not a mere accessory; they were every bit as integral and essential to the team's identity as their caps were. Like the socks on a football uniform, it just completes and compliments everything in ways the uniform wouldn't be without them.

 

Sometimes the socks even make the difference for a uniform. Case in point (IMO), the current Cardinals. A good-but-sorta-plain uniform when worn with long pants, but when a player busts out those gorgeous striped stirrups? All of a sudden, the sorta-plainness of the jersey has something of great substance to compliment it. It gains a spark. It looks complete and the sorta-plainness even looks complimentary itself to the stripes. Nothing's "missing" anymore. 

 

Or maybe in the cases on solid color socks/stirrups, that extra block of color on the bottom provides great balance and makes a great uniform even better. Big block of color coming from the cap, white or grey on the jersey and pants, big block of color on the socks. It's a great symmetrical and balanced look that certainly benefits even already-great looks like the Yankees, Tigers, Dodgers, etc.

 

Long pants don't look terrible in my opinion, and they certainly don't ruin a uniform. But baseball uniforms really lost something - indeed, a very valuable design element - when socks/stirrups became less of a thing.

I couldn't agree more. And FWIW, baseball uniforms are meant to be worn with high socks, and always were up until the 90s. Socks provide color balance to a uniform that long pants fail to do.

 

A baseball uniform generally looks best when the color of the cap matches the socks, and when the jersey and pants are either white or gray. The color balance of color-white-white-color is perfect. Even with alts, socks provide a much needed color balance, sandwiching the white (or gray) pants in between two blocks of color.

 

Combine that with the unflattering bagginess and sloppiness that is so common with long pants nowadays (the proverbial 'pajama pants'), and uniforms really did lose a lot when long pants became commonplace.

[daniel75]

3 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I'm a big fan of the low cut stirrup, also.

 

 

It left a lot of room for stripes if you wanted them, didn't look nearly as tacky as the ugly high cut stirrups from the 80's-90's, and just has that classic, essential golden-age baseball look to it. DiMaggio, Musial, Williams, Greenberg...all those guys wore it. If I had my way, that look would be mandatory.

 

 

It's funny, they all look old.

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, kroywen said:

baseball uniforms are meant to be worn with high socks

I agree with this on every team but the Yankees. They're the only team that shouldn't wear high socks. Soriano and A-Rod the only Yankees of recent vintage I can think of who did, and something about it looked off. 

[kroywen]

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

I agree with this on every team but the Yankees. They're the only team that shouldn't wear high socks. Soriano and A-Rod the only Yankees of recent vintage I can think of who did, and something about it looked off. 

The Yankees, up until the late 2000s, had very few players who wore high socks (much to my dismay). Then, around 2009 or so, they became much more common in the Bronx again - guys like Damon, Gardner, Robertson, Granderson, occasionally Swisher. 

 

I will say that long pants with pinstripes do tend to look better than long 'snow white' pants, but I absolutely love the look of the Yankees' uniform with high socks. 

 

[Bmac]

My unpopular opinion? I love high top baseball cleats.

 

But, I will only accept the long socks look. I'm in the camp that feels baseball socks should always be visible.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 hours ago, kroywen said:

The Yankees, up until the late 2000s, had very few players who wore high socks (much to my dismay). Then, around 2009 or so, they became much more common in the Bronx again - guys like Damon, Gardner, Robertson, Granderson, occasionally Swisher. 

 

I will say that long pants with pinstripes do tend to look better than long 'snow white' pants, but I absolutely love the look of the Yankees' uniform with high socks. 

 

 

I always thought El Duque looked so cool:

 

 

[kroywen]

10 hours ago, Bmac said:

My unpopular opinion? I love high top baseball cleats.

 

But, I will only accept the long socks look. I'm in the camp that feels baseball socks should always be visible.

Not sure high top cleats and high socks would really go together well, though. Not sure any player has ever really combined the two - I think almost every player who wore high cuff cleats also worse relatively low cut pants.

[Hat Boy]

1 hour ago, kroywen said:

Not sure high top cleats and high socks would really go together well, though. Not sure any player has ever really combined the two - I think almost every player who wore high cuff cleats also worse relatively low cut pants.

This may be as close as you get.  Buckner had bad ankles, so the high tops provided some extra support.

 

[Rj0498]

I guess I am part of the very small camp of people who prefer the long "pajama" pants

[hawk36]

46 minutes ago, Rj0498 said:

I guess I am part of the very small camp of people who prefer the long "pajama" pants

I instinctively root against any player wearing the pajama pants. 

[Rj0498]

2 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I instinctively root against any player wearing the pajama pants. 

Imo I just think the baggy pants look cool but, tucking the pants legs into the socks looks cool too.

[Ray Lankford]

I always liked the way Vlad tucked his pant legs into his shoes:

 

[Ben in LA]

In relation to the Cubs, I like it when World Series winners wear gold-trimmed uniforms when they raise their pennants.  Having a jersey that's worn less than three times a season (and often once) is cool with me.  I honestly wouldn't mind seeing something similar in the other leagues.

 

Even as a Dodgers fan I have to admit those Giants jerseys were nice, especially this one.

[FinsUp1214]

This jersey cut doesn't bother me at all:

 

 

...because I don't see it as being that far off from this cut:

 

 

 

[RichO]

3 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

This jersey cut doesn't bother me at all:

 

 

...because I don't see it as being that far off from this cut:

 

 

 

 

And Wilt's over here wondering why that Nike cut is so baggy.

.