PDA

View Full Version : A's and Rangers (Senators) Throwback game....



Tony Cloninger
05-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Check this out if you are able to.....the players are wearing the gear pretty much correctly....even the stirrups are high, showing a lot of sock.

It looks like I wish uniforms would still look like.....end the clown pants look..now!

Looking at this is better than dealing with the Reds start.

Spitball
05-04-2008, 08:48 PM
.....end the clown pants look..now!


I'm sure this one will stir some interesting debate, but can we just wait until Manny Ramirez retires, please?
;)

BCubb2003
05-04-2008, 09:08 PM
I know nobody else agrees with me on this, but I always thought the stirrups were kind of weird, like wearing a necktie.

Yachtzee
05-04-2008, 09:40 PM
I know nobody else agrees with me on this, but I always thought the stirrups were kind of weird, like wearing a necktie.

Some of us wear neckties for our job. It's not so bad to look good. Today's players look like they're playing in their jammies.

cincrazy
05-04-2008, 09:47 PM
At this stage, I'd consider the Reds playing a quality baseball game for 9 innings a "throwback game"

pahster
05-05-2008, 11:03 AM
I know nobody else agrees with me on this, but I always thought the stirrups were kind of weird, like wearing a necktie.

I don't like stirrups either. I do like high socks, though. I don't get particularly bent out of shape about uniforms. The pajama pants don't bug me one bit.

Always Red
05-05-2008, 01:10 PM
Love the high socks, and absolutely adore the stirrups- a part of baseball history since about 1910. The height and size of the stirrup opening changed from year to year according to the fashion of the day.

The high socks, along with knickered pants, have been around since the beginning of the game.

I really do not like the pajama look at all; but that's a matter of personal preference, eh?

This is a thing of beauty to my eyes: :beerme:

http://assets.espn.go.com/media/apphoto/afec6944-e3ae-4c62-a545-df9609bd3e60.jpg

cincyinco
05-05-2008, 01:15 PM
Love stirrups. I always wore them when I played ball. Great pic. I miss em.

Always Red
05-05-2008, 01:22 PM
Here's some interesting history (and reasoning) for the development of the sanitary hose. The sanitary hose, which has nearly disappeared from the modern game, is the thin white sock under the colored sock.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0123,lukas,25337,3.html


The tale begins in baseball's early days, when ballplayers wore knickers, which ended just below the knee, and colored stockings, which were sometimes striped or two-tone . But textile dyes weren't colorfast in those days, and players who got spiked in the shin risked blood poisoning if dye from the torn stocking entered the wound. So around 1910, stockings began featuring an open, stirrup-style bottom and were worn over a white undersock (dubbed a "sani" because it provided a sanitary layer of protection), and baseball stirrups were born. Since stirrups were meant to mimic stockings, the foot openings were narrow so that very little of the sani would show, and many teams' stirrups were white toward the bottom so that the lower stirrup would blend with and essentially hide the exposed bit of white sani. This style endured until the 1940s, when the sani started gaining prominence. Stirrup openings grew a bit larger, exposing more of the undersock, and the white-bottomed stirrup designs that had minimized the sani's presence fell out of favor (eight of the 16 big league teams wore them in 1937, but only three in 1944 and none by 1949). Suddenly the white sani wasn't something to hideórendered functionally irrelevant by the advent of colorfast dyes, it had become a purely graphic element, providing contrast against the colored stirrup. As stirrup openings slowly increased over the next quarter-century, exposing larger crescents of white, the stirrup/sani pairing evolved from a practical necessity into one of baseball's unique visual signatures.

Chip R
05-05-2008, 01:30 PM
The high socks, along with knickered pants, have been around since the beginning of the game.


Actually, they haven't. Knickered pants started to be worn in the mid 1860s. Before that, ball players wore long pants like cricket players. So you could say that the players who wear their pants long are really the old-school players.

Always Red
05-05-2008, 01:53 PM
Actually, they haven't. Knickered pants started to be worn in the mid 1860s. Before that, ball players wore long pants like cricket players. So you could say that the players who wear their pants long are really the old-school players.

You're right about the long pants, but the cricket players were wearing knickers, not long pants. The Reds were the first team to adopt the knickered cricket-style pants, during the 1868 season:

http://www.19cbaseball.com/equipment-2.html


Evolution of Baseball Equipment (Contiunued)

The Uniform

The Knickerbocker Base Ball Club introduced the first "uniform" on April 24, 1849. The uniforms consisted of long blue woolen trousers, leather belts, white flannel shirts with a full collar and straw hats. At the end of the 1850's, many teams adopted the flannel shirt with the button on shield style, which contained the team's emblem, name or both. The full length "pantaloon" pants were in vogue throughout the 1860s but presented a problem of having players getting their feet caught on the legs of the pants when running. Players used to wrap them tight to their shins and use tape or a small belt to hold them flush. The 1868 Cincinnati Red Stockings became the first team to wear knickers. These "cricket-style" pants were less restrictive, and as a result their stockings or socks were now visible. Their red stockings became their trademark.

I'm having trouble finding how the current fashion of the "pajama style" pants came into vogue. Anyone have a link? I have a hunch that Manny Ramirez was in on the beginning of this, but that's just a hunch.

PS- this seems very much like an offseason thread, but to me, it's much more enjoyable than more whining about the Reds!

BCubb2003
05-05-2008, 02:26 PM
The worst throwback was when the Reds had BRM unis but with black sleeves. That's just wrong.

macro
05-05-2008, 03:58 PM
The worst throwback was when the Reds had BRM unis but with black sleeves. That's just wrong.

I agree 110%. Would it have been too much trouble to bring the red undershirts along on that road trip?

Actually, all the Reds BRM pullover jerseys were butchered by Majestic or whoever made them. The white stripe in the collar was supposed to be just a thin pinstripe, but they always make it way too wide. The V-necks were supposed to be fairly tight against the neck, but they always make them hang WAY down on the player's chest. Also, the Reds used HUGE 4" letters on the back, and the throwbacks always use letters that are way too small. I cringe every time they trot out those 1972-87 throwbacks, because they're never done right. Same goes for most teams' throwbacks, though. It's as if they have no access to old photos to get them right.

:confused:

Oh, and that A's player is wearing his stirrups backwards. :laugh:

macro
05-05-2008, 04:06 PM
I guess I could make my point better with pictures.

Actual Reds jersey:

http://www.crosley-field.com/grob/images/Uniforms/78Klufront.jpg

Majestic "authentic" jersey:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-53989527964283_2000_981540424

Yachtzee
05-05-2008, 05:00 PM
I guess I could make my point better with pictures.

Actual Reds jersey:

http://www.crosley-field.com/grob/images/Uniforms/78Klufront.jpg

Majestic "authentic" jersey:

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/yhst-53989527964283_2000_981540424

The bottom one looks like the old "replica" jerseys they used to sell when I was a kid. I wonder if the numbers are iron-ons instead of sewn on like those old replica jerseys.

BuckeyeRedleg
05-05-2008, 05:01 PM
I still have my old Pete Rose jersey from a giveaway in 1978.

My wife wouldn't let me put it on my three year old, because it smells funny. Perfect condition other than that.

BCubb2003
05-05-2008, 06:28 PM
I still have my old Pete Rose jersey from a giveaway in 1978.

My wife wouldn't let me put it on my three year old, because it smells funny. Perfect condition other than that.

Three-year-olds can be like that.

Tony Cloninger
05-05-2008, 07:35 PM
I have that issue with the Cooperstown baseball caps ...the ones that the bill is bent way more than what you see in the photos. The bill is also not as wide on these replica ones.

How hard is it to see that the bill is like the New Era big bill look but with a smaller bend?

Yachtzee
05-05-2008, 09:55 PM
I have that issue with the Cooperstown baseball caps ...the ones that the bill is bent way more than what you see in the photos. The bill is also not as wide on these replica ones.

How hard is it to see that the bill is like the New Era big bill look but with a smaller bend?

I remember when throwback caps first came out. I got a Houston Colt .45s cap that really was a throwback, leather band, bill and crown looked just like the card from that era. Same thing with a Reds cap from that era. I think at that time, throwback caps might have been made in limited runs with the focus on historical accuracy. Once MLB started taking control of the production of these caps through their "Cooperstown Collection," the caps seemed to have a more mass-produced look. I first noticed it with a 1900s era Cubs cap that looked more like something today's players would wear, wide flat "gangsta" bill and a high crown, than something from that era, low crown and more of a short, crescent-shaped bill.

Tony Cloninger
05-05-2008, 11:25 PM
Figures i get in on this when it's past the cool and obscure stage of the trend. :D

gm
05-05-2008, 11:44 PM
stirrup openings slowly increased over the next quarter-century, exposing larger crescents of white, the stirrup/sani pairing evolved from a practical necessity into one of baseball's unique visual signatures.

In Ball Four Bouton revealed that some players had their stirrups "altered" to show more white (These were called "high-cuts"...so they could look "long and cool instead of dumpy and hot") Bouton speculated that Frank Robinson may have been the originator of this fashion statement

macro
05-06-2008, 12:02 AM
In Ball Four Bouton revealed that some players had their stirrups "altered" to show more white (These were called "high-cuts"...so they could look "long and cool instead of dumpy and hot") Bouton speculated that Frank Robinson may have been the originator of this fashion statement

We used to cut the bottom seam of our stirrups and have a piece of elastic sewn into the bottom, to make them ride up higher. I'm sure some of you did the same? By the time I graduated high school in the 80s, they were nothing more than a thin stripe down the sides of the sanitary.

Always Red
05-06-2008, 07:02 AM
In Ball Four Bouton revealed that some players had their stirrups "altered" to show more white (These were called "high-cuts"...so they could look "long and cool instead of dumpy and hot") Bouton speculated that Frank Robinson may have been the originator of this fashion statement

You can *almost* see, near Frank's left ankle, where the stirrup was cut and elongated...

http://www.morphizm.com/images/frankrob.jpg

Does anyone know who started the pajama pants craze??

BuckeyeRedleg
05-06-2008, 08:23 AM
Does anyone know who started the pajama pants craze??

The first ones I can remember were Bagwell and Bonds (Bagwell first, I think).

macro
05-06-2008, 09:17 AM
Does anyone know who started the pajama pants craze??

It was George Hendrick of the Cardinals in the 1980s. I can't find a picture, but check out the next-to-the-last paragraph on this page:

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/pants.htm

BuckeyeRedleg
05-06-2008, 09:42 AM
It was George Hendrick of the Cardinals in the 1980s. I can't find a picture, but check out the next-to-the-last paragraph on this page:

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/pants.htm

Ahh, yes George Hendrick. You could see 1 inch of his stirrup (if that). Then, Andre Dawson followed if I recall correctly.

Always Red
05-06-2008, 10:12 AM
It was George Hendrick of the Cardinals in the 1980s. I can't find a picture, but check out the next-to-the-last paragraph on this page:

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/pants.htm

Good pick-up! :thumbup:

Yachtzee
05-06-2008, 11:39 AM
It was George Hendrick of the Cardinals in the 1980s. I can't find a picture, but check out the next-to-the-last paragraph on this page:

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/pants.htm

Ah, that's two strikes against Hendrick, the first being his breaking up of Mario Soto's no hitter. Boo, George Hendrick, Boo.

gm
05-06-2008, 08:02 PM
By the time I graduated high school in the 80s, they were nothing more than a thin stripe down the sides of the sanitary.

Then by '90 the sanitary socks had a painted stripe on them...I remember you could see the yellow underneath the green stripe on Canseco's socks in the WS

Worst. Socks. Ever.