Coming soon: The Ballad of Rupert Mills

This is Rupert Mills, New Jersey born and Notre Dame educated. A four-sport letterman -- hence the basketball uniform -- and the last man to play in the short-lived Federal League (1914-15), he was the only Garden Stater on the Newark Peps. Mills made news in 1916 when, after the league had folded, he refused to be reassigned and, putting his Notre Dame law degree to work, insisted on being paid his $3,000 salary. It made for an interesting scenario in which he was the last -- and only -- player in the Federal League in 1916.

I post this because on this day 83 years ago, Mills passed away at 36, a hero for saving a friend's life, but losing his in the process. I had intended to prepare a full story about him to post today, but I've hit a snag in my research (involving unreturned phone calls), so it's not ready yet. I didn't want this anniversary to pass, so consider this a placeholder and a preview.

Braves history, give or take 90 years

Similar to the issue I have with the Newark Bears' "incorporation" date, I'm a little bit against the patch on the new alternate jerseys the Braves unveiled this week.

The Braves, of course, were established in 1876 (when the National League formed) in Boston. They were known as the Red Stockings, Beaneaters, Doves and Rustlers until 1912, when they adopted the Braves moniker and stuck with it save for a five-year shift to Bees from 1936-40. They moved to Milwaukee in 1953 and stayed for 13 seasons, all as the Braves. Then, in 1966, they relocated to Atlanta, and it's that year that these uniforms are meant to commemorate.

My problem with the patch is that it says 1876 and "Atlanta Braves." But, of course, the team wasn't in Atlanta in 1876. That pairing just isn't accurate to me. (And the 1966 unis had a much different shoulder patch, but that's another issue.) I suppose a solution would be pairing 1876 and "Braves Baseball" or simply "Braves," but the team just didn't see it that way.

Los Angelinos

Brilliant! The Angels announced last week that they will in fact feature their original uniforms as part of their "Flashback Fridays" this season. And, as the release mentions, they will have the halo on the caps.

Stair-way to threadom: The most decorated ballplayer in history

Last week at Uni Watch, a reader speculated that Joe Smith -- if that's his real name -- had worn 33 distinct uniforms in his NBA career, which now includes a record-tying 12 franchises for which he's played. Paul Lukas declared those 33 different styles to be an NBA record and then wondered who might hold the same distinction in other leagues. I took that as a challenge.

Paul speculated that Mike Morgan, the pitcher who shares the MLB record with 12 teams in his career, or Kenny Lofton, who donned 11 clubs' colors, might be baseball's most uniformly decorated player. Not counting batting practice/Spring Training or minor league uniforms, I found 33 different uniforms worn by Lofton (including one documented throwback design) in 17 seasons and 39 by Morgan in his 22 years. (In his three seasons with the Diamondbacks, 2000-02, Morgan wore at least eight different designs. There was the 2000 home/road uniform, the new home/road unis in 2001-02 and various alternates and variations, like "Arizona" in purple, black and gray and the "A" in sleeved, sleeveless and black. I think that franchise has had more jersey designs in 14 seasons than the Yankees and Red Sox have had, combined, in their existence.) But neither Morgan nor Lofton top MLB's list.

Matt Stairs blows them both out of the water. Since breaking in with the Expos in 1992, Stairs has equaled Morgan's record by playing for 12 clubs and is trying to make his 13th this spring in Nationals camp [Update: It occurred to me while shoveling New Jersey's latest snowfall that Stairs started his career with the Expos/Nationals franchise, so he wouldn't set a record with his 13th club if he makes the team this spring, but he would still add to his uniform total.] With several uniform design changes, the proliferation of alternate jerseys and the rise in throwback nights, his clubs have sported 46 different jerseys -- and there are probably a few (or several) throwbacks that we don't know about. I'm comfortable giving Stairs the title.

The retro replicas included are basically because I happened upon them while looking for other photos, though the Padres' 1984 and 1978 designs worn last year were easy to remember. If Stairs makes the Nationals, he'll have four jerseys to add to his list, because in addition to home and road tops, Washington has red and blue alternates as well. That would bring his known total to an even 50.

So here's the breakdown. Settle in for a trip down (or up?) the sartorial Stair-way.

Expos (1992-93): Home and road.

Red Sox (1995): Home (unable to find Stairs in the road uni).

A's (1996-2000): Home, road, black alternate, green alternate.

Cubs (2001): Home, road, alternate.

Brewers (2002): Home, alternate (unable to find a road shot).

Pirates (2003): Road. Could not find photos of Stairs sporting the home white, black alternate or, sadly, the 1903 throwbacks (hey! Kenny Lofton! Plus, that 2004 date is wrong, because Boston and Pittsburgh did not play that year) worn against the Red Sox. [Update 2/23/11: Stairs was on the DL for that Pirates-Red Sox series, so it's unlikely he wore the throwback uniform.]

Royals (2004-06): They changed their uniforms during Stairs' Kansas City tenure, so we have 2004-05 home, 2004-05 road, 2006 home, 2006 road, blue alternate, black alternate and the Kansas City Monarchs throwbacks.

Rangers (2006): Home, home vest alternate, blue alternate, road vest. Couldn't score a shot of him in the sleeved road jersey.

Tigers (2006): Home, road.

Blue Jays (2007-08): Home, 2007 road, 2008 road, light blue alternate, black alternate. It's unclear if Stairs, a Canadian, ever wore the Jays' red Canada Day alternates, because the club was on the road for the holiday both years. If they did, then add another jersey to Stairs' total.

Phillies (2008-09): Home, road, alternate.

Padres (2010): Home, road, blue alternate, camo alternate, 1984 throwback, 1978 throwback.

And the bonus: Team Canada in red and white from the World Baseball Classic.

Flashbacks about to become more common in southern California

The Angels announced on Friday that they'll feature "Flashback Fridays" as part of their 50th anniversary this season. To kick it off, they'll wear reproductions of their 1989-92 uniform (with the 50th anniversary patch added) on April 8, April 22 and May 6.


The press release trumpets it as the "late 1980s" design, and while the lettering and cap design remained pretty much the same from 1972-92, the button-down version only came around in '89, but it's not a big deal. My first reaction was to wonder why they chose that particular jersey, but after reading through the release, which only mentions those three dates out of 13 Friday home games, it seems that the other 10 games will feature different designs. I don't know why they didn't mention that in the initial release, though. I'm also curious as to whether they'll go in reverse chronological order, or just unveil them randomly.

It's possible they're simply starting with the uniform they wore for nearly half of their existence (buttons aside), the one we picture on the likes of Nolan Ryan, Reggie Jackson and Wally Joyner. If it's reverse chronological, then it means they'll be skipping the 1997-2000 design we all remember Mo Vaughn wearing and the mid-'90s Tim Salmon design. As ugly as it was, it would be amusing to see those blue-sleeved faux vests resurrected.

They'll almost certainly include their initial 1961 design, perhaps for the final Flashback Fridays of the season. That one isn't too far off from what they currently wear (since the road jerseys won't come into play), with the awesome exception of the cap and its white halo. That's a replica I wouldn't mind having.

But I'm hoping they bring back the e.e. cummings lowercase design from the early '70s. Unfortunately, in a surprising happenstance in a division with only three other opponents, the Angels won't host the Rangers on a Friday night, which would've given them a perfect opportunity to have Ryan throw out the first pitch.

But would he wear the throwback jersey from his Angels days? Is it taboo for a team owner to wear an opponent's jersey, even if he once played for that team, if it's not the result of a lost bet? Twice in 2009, Ryan donned the Mets' blue and orange, once for a Sports Illustrated photo shoot and again for a reunion at Citi Field of the 1969 championship team. He was the Rangers' president at that time, but not yet a part owner of the team. And the Rangers weren't there for the game at Citi Field. I don't know why I just spent a paragraph on that, since it's not likely to come up. The Angels might have him throw out a first pitch when the Rangers are in town, but it won't be a Flashback Friday, so the jersey issue won't come up. But now it has me wondering if a team owner has ever worn the jersey of another team in a non-wager situation. I doubt it.

(Incidentally, know who else has a 50th anniversary this year? The Texas Rangers, because they were the expansion Senators in 1961. But that's not an anniversary they plan on celebrating, apparently.)

The Mets' 50th anniversary is next season (as is the Astros' -- here's hoping for some Colt .45s throwbacks, a wish on another shooting star, some tequila sunrise action and a return to what I've just decided to call Biggio blue).

Though the Mets don't have too many variations in their uniform design over the years, I hope they'll do something similar. Start with the 1993-94 swoosh design (if only for one night), bring back the racing stripes from '86 for three or four home games, whip up a blue pullover to go with those '80s striped pants, then sport the two-button pullover worn from '78-82, and wrap it up with the simple, basic, no-black-to-be-seen and numberless front of the 1962 originals.

Or, you know, just ditch the black for the entire season. That's an anniversary celebration right there.

Shouldn't the original be good enough?

This is a random post just to see if the automatic Twitter update feature I set up works. [Two-minute update: It sure did, faster than my Google Reader, in fact.] I didn't want to simply do a basic post that says nothing but "testing," so I flipped through some photos and decided on this gripe.

Check out the photos below. I hate this -- why would you want your team's hat in another team's colors? Shouldn't an original hat be good enough? This is just lame.

I saw this Phillies cap in A's colors at Notre Dame over Labor Day weekend.

And this Yankees cap, also in A's colors (I know the green and gold is pretty cool, but come on) was spotted at the train station in New Jersey, just a few days before I saw that Phillies cap. The guy is wearing a Yankees BP jersey and "NY" cap in Oakland colors on a night the A's were playing at Yankee Stadium. So I assume he was going to the game. That's idiotic.

Why would you want your team's hat in another team's colors? Shouldn't an original hat be good enough?

Photo Friday: Pure baseball

No. 44 takes a pitch

With the college season opening this weekend, I chose several photos I took in 1994. They're of baseball games at Trenton State College (now the College of New Jersey) and Brookdale Community College. This was still early in my SLR ownership, so I was psyched to take the zoom lens out to the fields, especially since I could pretty much stand anywhere along the fence at these venues. I have no idea who any of the players are, but that's the point for today -- this is junior college ball, guys playing mostly for the love of the game. With the exception of the metal bats, it's about as pure as baseball can get these days. With a few exceptions, these players have no professional aspirations, there are no stage parents complaining about playing time, ESPN and most newspapers aren't coming around looking for stories. They're just out there to play.

With the season beginning, Baseball America's preview content included a look ahead to the end of the season, which will feature the College World Series in its last year at renowned Rosenblatt Stadium. I never got there, and I won't this year, which is a shame. I don't know what the new ballpark will offer compared to Rosenblatt and whether the regular attendees of the annual tournament are looking forward to an updated, modern venue or if they'll be lamenting the old ballyard's loss. But I know it won't be the same to tune in each June to watch the college championship from TD Ameritrade Park Omaha -- which is among the top five worst sports venue names in America and may be at the top of the list. A shame.

But back to more positive thoughts. Two things in particular I love in this gallery: the dandelions on the Brookdale infield in the shots of the pitchers, and Brookdale's classic-looking uniforms, which you can see in the image above: the blue lettering and red numbers on the jersey taken from the Dodgers' clean uniform design, and the helmet (and cap) "B" logo borrowed from the Red Sox.

And yeah, the music choice may be a bit cliched, and it won't be the last time I use a version of that song, but it just fit the photos for this one. It's an instrumental piece recognizable from the start, no words to worry about. And though you may not know the players -- no words, no names -- you know the game immediately upon seeing the images. It's just baseball.

Photo Friday: Braves vs. Mets, 1991

Out at first

This week's slideshow is another set taken before I got my first SLR (and, therefore, first telephoto lens), so the photos tend to be more of the wide-view variety. I cropped closer where I could, but for the most part, the view is what I saw 18 years ago.

A few highlights about this game. On a personal level, it was my first field-level game at Shea Stadium. We got a thrill out of being so close to the field, particularly during pregame warmups, when the players were so close. This collection of images also includes some personal favorites in terms of players: Howard Johnson, Gregg Jefferies and Todd Hundley. I also like how you can see the blue-and-orange racing stripe down the side of the uniforms, even at a distance. And one photo that's a particular favorite -- and I nealy used for the image at the top -- shows the outfield wall in left-center, with the old logos of the National League teams along the blue background. Those were so much more attractive to me than advertisements, which I prefer for the minor leagues, not the Majors.

Project Rundown: The Bucs' sartorial switch

I was looking through the Pirates uniform history in the 1970s on Dressed to the Nines and noticed something that seemed peculiar to me. In 1970, the club had two distinct sets of home and away uniforms: The traditional sleeveless vests the team wore through the '60s and the pullover double-knits familiar through the '70s. And then it struck me: Did they change uniforms when they changed ballparks?

Indeed they did. As the club's website points out: "The Pirates became the first major league club to adopt the new double-knit fabric uniforms, which they debuted at the first game at the new Three Rivers Stadium. The jersey became a pullover with no button or zipper. The pants contained a built-in sash belt. The cap crown was mustard yellow with a black bill. Within two years, nearly every other club was wearing a double-knit uniform. "

The Bucs' last game at Forbes Field was on June 28, 1970, and they opened Three Rivers Stadium after the All-Star break, on July 16. With the new stadium came a new outfit for the players. Obviously, teams have opened ballparks midseason -- the Blue Jays at SkyDome in 1989 and the Mariners at Safeco in 1999 to name two -- but they didn't change their uniforms at that point, wearing one version to close out the old stadiums and a new design to open the new place. I'm not aware of any other instances of a team making a midseason uniform switch, and I e-mailed Paul over at Uniwatch and he hadn't heard of any, either. Interesting stuff.

Flushing's Bay

Jason Bay was introduced to the New York media today and handled himself rather well in the face of some tough questions. He declined to answer whether any other teams were close in their offer with what the Mets offered, but he did not try to say it's not about the money. "Don't get me wrong," he said. "The money's nice. But the bottom line is that I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to be here."

When asked about Peter Gammons' comment that Bay would rather play in Beirut than Queens, he criticized the remark. Bay also said that his shoulders were not an issue, despite reports that said there were some red flags there. He said that he had surgery in 2003, but hasn't had any problems since.

But what really had me watching on MLB.com today was to see what number he chose. Bay wore No. 38 in Pittsburgh, but switched to 44 in Boston. Forty-four has been donned by a few notable players in Mets history, mainly David Cone and Mike Cameron, but 38 has a less illustrious past -- and has only been worn by one non-pitcher. Bay could have made that number his own in Queens, but instead he'll stick with 44.

And what was up with hockey Hall of Famer Rod Gilbert presenting Bay with a Rangers jersey? Are the Wilpons stepping up their efforts to get next year's Winter Classic at Citi Field? Obviously, there is the Canadian connection, of which Gilbert spoke, and I guess this was exactly what it looked like: Another small gesture to help make Bay feel welcome in his new city. I'm not sure if the Mets approached the Rangers, or if it was the other way around, but I wonder what the Islanders think about it.

'New' Mets unis

I saw the story -- and got the e-mail -- yesterday of the Mets' announcement that they will wear new pinstriped uniforms in 2010. The only real difference is that they're off-white instead of pure white, a slight shift and minor nod to the original uniforms the team wore in the 1960s.

But they still have the black dropshadow -- and the black alternates -- so what's the point? Black isn't a Mets color. Kill it.

The Bizarro Yankees

What a game at Yankee Stadium tonight.

Why is it that with the Yankees and Devil Rays, you always expect something wacky to happen? Or at the very least, we should be expecting a 20-2 Yankees win, but we're not that surprised when Tampa Bay (with its $38 million payroll less than 20 percent of the Yankee's $205 million) goes up 10-2, and even less surprised when the Yankees put up 13 in the eighth to win it.

The Devil Rays are totally the Bizarro Yankees.

The New York Yankees' ownership is based in Tampa; the Tampa Bay Devil Rays' ownership is based in New York.

The Yankees have no limit to their spending, the Devil Rays have virtually no spending and they're immediately at their limit.

The Yankees have no prospects in their system to help them as Yankees, or in trades for established stars; the Devil Rays are loaded with prospects in their system, but won't trade them for established stars and won't bring them up to help the big club.

The Yankees' Sean Henn pitches all his major league games against Tampa, and loses them all; last year, Kevin Brown pitched, what, his first four games against Tampa and won them all.

The Yankees play in one of the most historic sports sites in the world, a place with lots of charm and character; the Devil Rays play in an antiseptic dome in The Sunshine State, a "ballpark" with all the character of a mausoleum in a city (that would be St. Petersburg) with absolutely no sports history -- unless you count shuffleboard, or the baseball game Jack Kerouac invented and no doubt played when he lived his last days there. There's more history in the Yankee Stadium sprinkler system than in St. Pete.

With the exception of adding the "NY" to the home jerseys, the Yankees haven't changed their general uniform design in eight decades; the Devil Rays haven't existed for a decade and have changed their general uniform design about eight times. (OK, five when you count not one, but two alternate jerseys. Seven if you count two spring training tops.)

So I'm going to the Bronx tomorrow to experience this dichotomy in person.

What's in a name?

At Notre Dame, there's a women's dorm called Lyons Hall which chose as its sports mascot the mighty lion. The Lyons Lions.

A high school in Los Gatos, California, calls its sports teams the Wildcats. Translating the town's name into English gives you The Cats Wildcats.

Add The Angels Angels to the list.

In some sort of marketing move that's a bit above my head, California's Angels have gone and mushed together the team's original and current monikers, calling themselves the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Why didn't they just take a cue from Thornton Wilder's Our Town and go with The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, California, United States of America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, the Solar System, the Universe, In the Eye of God?

Clearly, the bang-up marketing job done by the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (they're a professional hockey team, if you can remember back to when there was professional hockey) has rubbed off on Angels owner Arte Moreno. Yet as of last January, those fightin' Mighty Ducks were ranked 18th among the NHL's 30 teams in merchandise sales, though the team was once named the best-dressed in professional sports. Why, exactly, would the team with the third-highest attendance last year need a name change to increase its reach? Moreno apparently wanted to change the name when he bought the team two years ago, but surely in that time he must've learned what really brings exposure: winning. The Angels signed Vladimir Guerrero and won the division, and only their neighbors to the north, the Dodgers (of Los Angeles) and the Evil Empire to the East, the Yankees, drew more fans. Oh, and all were playoff teams.

What Moreno really missed out on was a true stroke of marketing genius. How could his marketing people not turn on their TVs to Fox -- baseball's own network, no less -- and miss a souvenir sale gold mine right in their midst?

They should've renamed the team The Anaheim Angels of The OC. Think of the possibilities! Seth Cohen bobblehead dolls. Caps with attachments that make the wearer have bushy eyebrows like Peter Gallagher. Fans in eating contests with Marissa Cooper and Summer Roberts. Imagine what I could come up with if I gave it a full 15 minutes of thought!

For the moment, it seems that the name will be the only change. The Angels will still retain the "A" as their main logo, but by now putting "Los Angeles" out in front and "Anaheim" to the back, it moves the team from first in the alphabetical list of franchises to the middle of the pack. How will the AP list them when it comes to putting out the standings come April? "Los Angeles" seems to be the likely choice, but will it now necessitate "L.A. Dodgers" and "L.A. Angels" to differentiate? Or will they just stick with "Anaheim" for convenience? Will they be allowed to?

As more of a baseball purist than an advocate of change, I prefer classic uniforms with original colors (meaning only teams whose colors have always included black can use it for jerseys), team names on the home shirts and city (or state) names on the road ones. The Angels may stick with "Angels" on the road grays, or go with "Los Angeles," but I'd like to see them try to get "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" across the chest. There'd be so much stitching there, the batters would have an unyielding chest protector of sorts getting in the way every time they swung.

The problem is, this change opens the door for so many other teams to go after outrageous geographic marketing takeovers. What stands in the way of the Dallas Cowboys of America, since they already consider themselves America's Team? With the loss of the Hartford Whalers in Connecticut, the Nutmeg State and its siblings to the north -- Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine -- now have to settle for the Boston teams as their own, so we can expect "of New England" to appear behind the names of the Bruins, Red Sox and Celtics (there's no need for the New England Patriots to get redundant).

But there are much bigger regions devoid of professional teams, so that the reach of some teams goes far beyond the hometown area code. The Atlanta Braves of the Southern Atlantic Coast? The Minnesota Twins of the Great Plains? The St. Louis Cardinals of Middle America? The New York Yankees of the Entire Tri-State Area?

Back in September, an AP report talked about New Jersey's attempts to lure a team, starting with the Mets. The Giants and Jets have been in the Garden State for more than two decades, yet the only references to New Jersey come on gameday when 79,000 fans trek to the Meadowlands. Would the Mets drop "New York" for "New Jersey"? Would they trade the interlocking "NY" on the caps for "NJ"? Would they follow their football cousins' lead and stubbornly stick with "New York"? Or would the Angels become a model for the Metropolitans, who could go with the New York Mets of the Hudson?

Does Arte Moreno realize the Pandora's Box he's opened here? I shudder to think of what this will become if the Angels win the World Series this year.