They say that people get crankier as they get older.
Surely, they don’t mean me.
To be cranky is to be ill-tempered about everything. I’m not ill-tempered about everything.
I mean, look ….
Sure, the Baltimore Orioles are in last place in the AL East. But, it’s not like they’re 0-and-26. (Hi World Champion Boston Red Sox, I see you’ve won 10 games, too. Good for you!)
Last season, it took the O’s until May 10 to get to 10 wins. This is progress, people.
I love the rebuilding Orioles. I really do. Sure, I still don’t know all their names, but I love each and every one of them. Except for one. I don’t know his name but, yeh, I don’t love him.
So, I’m not cranky. Not me. But, I do need to talk to someone about a couple situations regarding baseball jerseys. You seem nice. I’m sure you’ll see my side of things.
I appreciate that baseball jerseys have numbers on them. It wasn’t until 1937 that all the major league teams adopted numbers. Before that, I bet teams would just swap players in and out indiscriminately. Who would know? They were all men, they were all the same color, they all wore caps.
Like these 1903 NY Highlanders. Don’t they all look alike to you?
Some people seemed annoyed when Washington Nationals pitcher Sean Doolittle changed his number from 62 to 63 this season. He even tweeted a preemptive apology, promising to make it up to fans who spent money on jerseys with his old number.
The gesture was nice – and Doolittle, a Virginia baseball alum, is exceedingly polite – but unnecessary.
Just look at other Nats fans who altered their no-longer-a-Nat-now-he’s-a-Phillie Bryce Harper jerseys.
Duct tape and spray paint. That’s all you really need to fix up most anything.
P.S. Dear Washington Nationals, Congratulations on your 11 wins this season, so far. That’s more than 10.
“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.” The Official Rules of Baseball, Rule 3.03 (k)
Baseball loves its rules – there’s nearly 200 pages of them.
And, MLB has a lot to say about uniforms … beyond that uniforms need to be, well, uniform. No numbers smaller than six inches. No glass buttons. No shiny buttons. No images of baseballs or patterns that might suggest a baseball (lest players be confused). No frayed sleeves. No ragged sleeves. No slit sleeves. (Just don’t mess with the sleeves, all right?)
But, names on the back? You may. Or, may not. Yeh, whatever.
Which brings me to the Chicago White Sox.
Because, The Baseball Bloggess is a little fussier about whether names should be on the backs of jerseys (yes, always) and how they should be presented (neatly, people).
Can you see it?
Can you see what the White Sox do?
This abomination of a jersey with the letters just slapped on without neatly cutting out the insides of letters … like A’s and B’s and O’s and, you can see it, too, can’t you?
It makes me nuts.
Are they just cheap? Do you have to hire someone to snip out that piece of fabric inside the letter “O”? What would that take? An hour and a couple X-acto knives?
Plus … check out that “O” again … doesn’t it kind of look like a baseball to you?
“No part of the uniform shall include a pattern that imitates or suggests the shape of a baseball.” Rule 3.03 (g)
So, both tacky and rule breaking.
Apparently, the White Sox do occasionally clip out the insides of their lettering. Occasionally is good enough? Occasionally, Alex Rodriguez did not take steroids. Occasionally, the Orioles win a game. See? I don’t think occasionally is good enough.
Well, thank God, he never played for the White Sox.
Anyway, the Orioles have won their last two games. And, I’m not cranky.
My Reds and Angels are both horrible (and in last place) so I’m a little cranky. I’ll have to be like Monty Python and look on the bright side of life.
I don’t understand the Reds or the Angels … except that it’s early, I guess. They are both under-performing. If those darn Angels would just bring up Matt Thaiss already, the turnaround would be in the bag.
I only get cranky if I am under stress and it’s 4:00 in the afternoon with no nosh in sight. Go O’s!
Two-game win streak … I’m ecstatic! :)
Agree. I would add names on the backs. My beef is this time of year and Sept, there are plenty of minor league players coming up and you are forced to look up the whole roster on line to figure out who that is. I prefer a way to address the player by name than number.
True confession: I do like Players’ Weekend when everyone gets to put whatever name — nickname, etc — on their jersey. And, I love Jackie Robinson day when everyone is 42 and no one can figure out who’s who! :)
I do love the nicknames, too! Usually with your team, you know the nickname…just need a tutorial on the other guys! Figure there must be a story there! Yes a team palooza of 42s!!
Begs the who is on 1st…
My beef, especially with the Twins, is dark-colored numbers on the backs of dark-colored jerseys. Don’t mess with sleeves? Someone should have told Wild Thing in “Major League.” I wouldn’t doubt baseball rules also prohibit a skull-and-crossbones on the glasses.
The rules are freakishly specific about sleeves. I’m thinking MLB would have had a lot of issues with those “Major League” Indians. :)
Totally agree that all jerseys should have names. Take the Yankees for example. Are we supposed to recognize this collection of strikeout kings as if they were Ruth and Gehrig? You perhaps have never tried to watch a Yankees home channel telecast but the play by play guy is appalling so if you turn the audio off you need to see names on the back of the jerseys.
Ha, you made me laugh. I think the Mets went a season or two with no names on the backs of their jerseys. I think maybe the Orioles should do it — they’re moving players up and down so regularly, it would save on jerseys. “Welcome to Baltimore. Here, we just sent #20 down, today you’re #20.”
Hey Bloggess, I LOVE the White Sox black jerseys (I’m a Sox fan). I’ve always liked the “no cut out” letters because it’s unique. I’m not sure they “sometimes” cut out the insides. I need proof. I think they always leave them in for certain letters. I’ll start paying more attention.
Wait-what, proof? You want me to watch your team for you? That’s odd. But, yes, the White Sox do seem to trim the letters properly in their home pinstripes, their road grays, and in the throwbacks they wore yesterday. As for the untrimmed lettering being unique: there are a few other teams that also use the short-cut, including the Twins (in their dark blue unis, but not their red).
The Tigers have strange uniforms. They seem to have some uncut letters too. The weirdest thing about the Tigers uniforms is the insane amount of belt loops on some players pants. It’s not all the players but some of them have about 20 belt loops, especially in their home white pants. I think the Tigers equipment manager gets in trouble when the players pants fall down. LOL!
Regarding the proof I requested, it was a suggestion because of what you wrote:
“Apparently, the White Sox do occasionally clip out the insides of their lettering. Occasionally is good enough?”
So yeah, you made a claim that the Sox equipment managers occasionally clip out and I guess I’m wondering how much you know about this. Have you seen some letters in both formats? I highly doubt it’s a laziness issue with the equipment people. I think it’s a lettering style format for each and every letter.
As for you watching the Sox, that’s cool. Whatever you like. I’m sensing that you haven’t seen much of the Sox since the 1983 ALCS, which by the way was a heartbreak for us South Siders. Sad, sad days in Old Comiskey. LOL!