Mets wear stirrups with throwback unis

[DolphinManatee]

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/traditiondemotivator.jpg

(Okay, it is not this extreme, but my point remains.)

Saving that, and posting it in every thread on here.

I hope I get at least a little credit for this.

[Lights Out]

I'm in favor of everyone wearing their socks high, but those high stirrups look uncomfortable somehow.

Agreed. That plus the fact that they're baseball's answer to gray facemasks means they ought to be banned from the diamond forever.

[STL FANATIC]

Not the least bit a fan of stirrups, but I do enjoy the look of a good exposed sock.

I do like contrast on the sock, but there are better ways to do it than by stirrups. Good striping will do the trick.

That said, I don't see much reason to mandate how a player wears their uniform. It's no skin off my teeth if some prefer tight pants, some prefer baggy. Some prefer exposing their socks, some not. Wear them how they choose. I enjoy the personal expression and the occasional modifications in appearance in hopes of busting a slump or such.

But back to the stirrups, they belong in the back of the closet with grey facemasks, only to be pulled out when a team is throwing back to the appropriate era (or in the case of grey facemasks, if it fits the scheme).

[Equinox]

With all due respect shouldn't accept that the game is evolving? Sadly stirrups realistically won't make a come back

[CS85]

Sorry, but...I've always thought stirrups looked stupid.

It's cool that they did this as a treat for some fans, but to say that one look is the definitive garb of a baseball player is kind of boorish.

[ltjets21]

I think stirrups look bad, when the white sock is on top of the black cleat I think it just looks odd. They also aren't very comfortable.

[njmeadowlanders]

Sorry, but...I've always thought stirrups looked stupid.

It's cool that they did this as a treat for some fans, but to say that one look is the definitive garb of a baseball player is kind of boorish.

Unless you're talking about the White Sox in shorts of course.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

(Okay, it is not this extreme, but my point remains.)

I have no "clever" graphic; but the obvious riposte is: just because it's trendy, doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

Very bad ideas are worth nipping in the bud, before they become the new norm. Any trend, no matter how lacking in merit, becomes a kind of orthodoxy once it reaches a certain tipping point. A hard line would have been the right attitude in baseball when stirrups began to disappear, in football when the Broncos introduced silly colour splotches/swooshes into uniforms, and in any number of other instances. (This point is instinctively grasped by the people who are battling against the introduction of football fields of colours other than green. Once it's in, it can easily become a monster.)

I don't see much reason to mandate how a player wears their uniform.

to say that one look is the definitive garb of a baseball player is kind of boorish.

Rules to protect the visual integrity of the baseball uniform would be appropriate. Furthermore, such rules would not eliminate personal style. In soccer, a player is not allowed on the field if he is not wearing his kit properly. Yet a player may still wear short sleeves or long sleeves; and he may wear his shirt tucked or untucked.

The analogy in baseball would be that a player could wear his uniform baggy or tight; could wear a high-crown cap or a low-crown cap; could wear his shirt fully buttoned or with one or two buttons open; could wear a turtleneck undershirt, a tee-shirt undershirt, or no undershirt; could wear the cuff of his pants anywhere between the knee and ankle; and could wear thin or wide stirrups.

But having some standards of dress is entirely reasonable. A player can't go out there without his cap on, or with his jersey untucked; and he shouldn't be allowed to go out there without his stirrups.

[cranium]

I don't care if they wear stirrups or socks as long as they get rid of the pajama pants and show some sock. Clearly it is all a matter of aesthetics.

[Chawls]

Stirrups are the ugliest things ever, thank God they're gone. Solid color socks look better, and you can still have stripes.

Baseball player should stop wearing gloves and helmets because they weren't part of the original uniform!!! And let's go back to wool uniforms, that's the way baseball uniforms SHOULD be made.

High socks look 100x better than stirups.

I personally prefer regular high socks over stirrups. The stirrup is old and doesn't serve a purpose anymore, I see it as just a novelty item.

Agreed with all the sentiments above. So does this make high socks a popular opinion here?

[winghaz]

To me, you have to look at how Mickey Mantle wore his uniform -- stirrups, length of pants, the whole ball of wax. That is the best look in baseball history. Nobody looked better in a baseball uniform than The Mick.

[JQK]

I hate stirrups...

There. I said it.

[Windstorm]

Personally I don't think players should be forced to wear an outdated and unnecessary piece of equipment just because some people like how it looks... uniforms in every sport evolve over time.

[Sport]

Stirrups are an outdated relic that serve no purpose that can't be better accomplished by solid color socks. There's no reason to require every player to wear them. Even when they'd give them to us in Little League I was like "what is the point of these?".

Plus, having that extra "bump" of fabric underneath your foot was uncomfortable, and I wore my pants down to my shoes anyways. That's how Barry Larkin wore his pants and damnitt I was going to look the same.

[omnivore]

Yeah don't really get the overzealous love for stirrups.

[Gehrig27]

I love stirrups as much as the next baseball traditionalist...the perfect stirrup look is when worn low; like Ubaldo on the previous page - that little sliver of white helps to break up the blending of sock and cleat. Having said that, I thought the Mets looked terrible. They all wore their pants way too high and made the larger opening of the stirrup quite an eyesore. Since this was a throwback to the 80's you would think the players would have had even the slightest idea of how stirrups were worn back then. It would have been far more era-appropriate had they worn them like this:

[oldschoolvikings]

BBTV is absolutely right about there being no real purpose to stirrups,,, I still like them from a personal standpoint, but can't really defend them beyond that.

However, I despise the full length pants look,,, and I don't really care to defend it. I just hate it (to the point where I'd basically consider you a bad person if you told me you prefer a baseball uniforms that way )

With all due respect shouldn't accept that the game is evolving? Sadly stirrups realistically won't make a come back

Don't count on it. In my high 40 years on the planet EVERYTHING comes back.

[PhantomDreamer]

I love stirrups as much as the next baseball traditionalist...the perfect stirrup look is when worn low; like Ubaldo on the previous page - that little sliver of white helps to break up the blending of sock and cleat. Having said that, I thought the Mets looked terrible. They all wore their pants way too high and made the larger opening of the stirrup quite an eyesore. Since this was a throwback to the 80's you would think the players would have had even the slightest idea of how stirrups were worn back then. It would have been far more era-appropriate had they worn them like this:

The thing is, Majestic cannot make decent uniforms. The pants were too short and too baggy. The jerseys were too loose, the armholes were too low. I love eighties uniforms but Majestic produced "throwback" uniform games are nearly always a mess.

[wonderbread]

I love stirrups as much as the next baseball traditionalist...the perfect stirrup look is when worn low; like Ubaldo on the previous page - that little sliver of white helps to break up the blending of sock and cleat. Having said that, I thought the Mets looked terrible. They all wore their pants way too high and made the larger opening of the stirrup quite an eyesore. Since this was a throwback to the 80's you would think the players would have had even the slightest idea of how stirrups were worn back then. It would have been far more era-appropriate had they worn them like this:

The thing is, Majestic cannot make decent uniforms. The pants were too short and too baggy. The jerseys were too loose, the armholes were too low. I love eighties uniforms but Majestic produced "throwback" uniform games are nearly always a mess.

Majestic can make tight uniforms , they choose not to because the players prefer to be looser. That's what matters now what some jerkoff that wants every 80s style no matter how bad to return

[wonderbread]

I love stirrups as much as the next baseball traditionalist...the perfect stirrup look is when worn low; like Ubaldo on the previous page - that little sliver of white helps to break up the blending of sock and cleat. Having said that, I thought the Mets looked terrible. They all wore their pants way too high and made the larger opening of the stirrup quite an eyesore. Since this was a throwback to the 80's you would think the players would have had even the slightest idea of how stirrups were worn back then. It would have been far more era-appropriate had they worn them like this:

The thing is, Majestic cannot make decent uniforms. The pants were too short and too baggy. The jerseys were too loose, the armholes were too low. I love eighties uniforms but Majestic produced "throwback" uniform games are nearly always a mess.

Majestic can make tight uniforms , they choose not to because the players prefer to be looser. That's what matters now what some jerkoff that wants every 80s style no matter how bad to return