No knit-in belts. Okay, we’ll give the Padres the benefit of a doubt with the black shoes. Everything else, spot-on.

Would have snapped a photos, but he was struck by a line drive and had to be taken out of the game

=bg= said:

War Damn Eagle said:

Is this a new logo for the Heat? I haven’t seen it before.

http://www.nba.com/d...

nah i think thats just one of those made up fashion things. not an NBA fan- but when will those terrible Clippers unis get a facelift?

Maybe it’s just me, but I like the Clippers unis. I used to think they were old and boring, but after other teams have come out with awful designs I have learned to appreciate simple. If you notice the newer NBA unis are more simple/traditional than their predecessors (ex: Jazz, Grizzlies, Raptors, Bucks). Any news on if the Wizards are going to get rid of their unis? They are brutal. Their alt. jerseys are ugly, but in comparison they are beautiful.

I agree. I love the Clips uniforms. People call them ugly all the time, but I don’t get it. They have a charming clunkiness that really stands out against all these computer generated designs. And that aspect certainly fits the franchise. Although, maybe the other guy is right and they should get with the 21st century. Might be just what they need. (Yeah, right.) Anyway, royal blue and red is a great color combo which I don’t think anyone else has. Even the alt. road blues are neat.

He is absolutely legit!!!!!!!!!

plus one here-good stuff. Got in on half price nfl jersey sale this winter. wow.

I had no idea.

I saw this, and thought to myself, Is this real? Am I dreaming? Could it be? Finally, after 11 years of hoping?

YES!!

YES!!

YES!!

This was a sight to see, a thing of absolute beauty. A gorgeous, brilliant, classic look that has been missing for far too long, that I have personally been clamoring for ever since it went away after the 1997 season. Please, Charlie Samuels, make this regular and permanent. PLEASE.

adam said:

hi,
are there any SABRmetricists out there who might have started to collect and compare stats such as, OBP of pajama players v. high socks, v. stirrups. I wonder if a statistical argument could be made claiming that one style would produce more runs per game than would another?

or is this the stupidest thing i’ve ever thought of?

I think it might all be relative…and no…nothing that is thought up on this board is stupid as long as you don’t use puns based on posters names…Walaitis!

But seriously, Like with golf, I heard a stat recently that even with all of the technologically advanced equipment that is now on the market for golfers…the average handicap has not changed very much over the past 50 or so years.

Johnny O or someone more knowledgable in golf might want to clarify that point!

But to study something like you mentioned, no it’s not stupid, Hell maybe it could become the topic for one of Paul’s columns!

And BTW, the mother of one of my 6 year old’ friends asked me today why baseball players look so sloppy today. I just had to chuckle.

Her husband, a huge Giants fan and I were looking through the commemorative Super Bowl SI at their house today, and as I was picking apart the uni-centric nuggets in each pic, she asked me the baseball question.

Needless to say, we’ll probably have two new readers soon!

BTW, you guys get a week off from me. My family and I are going to Cape Cod for about ten days.

I”ll probably check out a few Cape league ball games so I’ll try to compile as extensive a report as Our friend today did!!!

You are very right. The stat is right around 40 years, but close enough. The thing about golf, is that a lot has changed for the better as far as technology, and even fitness, but back in the day, golf course were much shorter in length, and the equipment, i.e. hickory shafted clubs, persimmon woods, didn’t allow the golfer to hit the ball as far as we hit it today, so the golfer could be more accurate. All golfers will tell you that hitting the ball further is not really “better”, because most of the time your further into the woods. Also, greens are much faster on the stimp meter that back 40 years ago. With slower greens, the ball does not break as much, making most putts straighter and therefore easier. I think that’s all I have to offer on that subject for now.

As a sidenote… Dany Heatley is playing at my golf course tomorrow, and Tony Romo played at a different course in my town today, so we are full of celebs in Janesville, WI!

hi,
are there any SABRmetricists out there who might have started to collect and compare stats such as, OBP of pajama players v. high socks, v. stirrups. I wonder if a statistical argument could be made claiming that one style would produce more runs per game than would another?

or is this the stupidest thing i’ve ever thought of?

I think it might all be relative…and no…nothing that is thought up on this board is stupid as long as you don’t use puns based on posters names…Walaitis!

But seriously, Like with golf, I heard a stat recently that even with all of the technologically advanced equipment that is now on the market for golfers…the average handicap has not changed very much over the past 50 or so years.

Johnny O or someone more knowledgable in golf might want to clarify that point!

But to study something like you mentioned, no it’s not stupid, Hell maybe it could become the topic for one of Paul’s columns!

And BTW, the mother of one of my 6 year old’ friends asked me today why baseball players look so sloppy today. I just had to chuckle.

Her husband, a huge Giants fan and I were looking through the commemorative Super Bowl SI at their house today, and as I was picking apart the uni-centric nuggets in each pic, she asked me the baseball question.

Needless to say, we’ll probably have two new readers soon!

BTW, you guys get a week off from me. My family and I are going to Cape Cod for about ten days.

I”ll probably check out a few Cape league ball games so I’ll try to compile as extensive a report as Our friend today did!!!

or is this the stupidest thing i’ve ever thought of?

Ricko said:

MPowers1634 said:

Oh, BTW…as for yesterday’s “Subliminal Nike Messaging” Discussion and the idea that Nike avoids all use of stripes:

I forgot all about these until I was at the gym this morning and was hit by a bolt of “Lightning”!

Phil Knight’s stepchildren at the U of O wore these striped shorts the last two seasons:

http://a712.g.akamai...

http://www.doubleazo...

http://www.journalst...

http://cache.viewima...

My bad. I guess I reasoned that because I was talking about adidas in that context that people would understand I meant stripes that were straight (not swirling, undulating or twisting) as in the geometric concept of the shortest distance between two points.

And, yes, while those Oregon hoop unis technically have stripes, they might just as easily be described as something like “swirls” or “curved bands”. But no one ever said Joe Montana’s 49er sleeves had three “swirls”.

I really don’t want to argue, so I’ll amend my earlier notion (and take responsibility of under-explaining it in the first place) that Nike’s core theme for uniform design looks like it could be (not is; “could be”): If possible, in any re-design avoid straight lines parallel with, or perpendicular to, other design elements. From a design standpoint it is not difficult to envision that central philosophy…and it would be a really interesting one at that, but it’s SO tough to put into words. In general design-speak it would be something like “organic” as opposed to “structural”. Lines and shapes flow, they don’t go directly from here to there.

Am I making it more clear, or just muddying it up?

And again, I do NOT hate Nike. I like some of their designs, hate others.I just couldn’t figure out what they were up to, couldn’t find the common element, but now I kinda understand. And it will be interesting to see what they do from now on.

I’m reading you loud and clear, Ricko!!!

Sometimes, they have been less than discreet with their designs:

http://www.kicksolog...

http://images.google...

Sometimes, the liberties that they take with their designs get them in trouble; as was the case with the original Nike Air Bakin, worn by Tim Hardaway.

http://style.anugaas...

The “Air wordmark was emroidered in a fashion that looked very similar to the name of the deity in the Muslim religion, I am unaware if it is blasphemous to type the name, so I will only refer to the figure!!!

http://images.google...

The release of this shoe caused waves of discord with Muslims around the world, so that when the shoe was retroed this year, Nike changed the rear of the shoe to look like this:

http://img521.images...

As far as being more functional in the outdoors, they seem to have gotten that one right, but why the color changes?

If it was to make the scouts wear them more often, I think that having clothing colored in a way that it resembles no other and no one but guerrillas would wear is a bad move. Guerrillas want to blend into their surroundings for a reason.

Most every other world scout organization but the Boy Scouts of America has figured out that more vibrant colors are the definite way to go.

Think about it this way, you dont see a lady mutilate squeeze into any scout shirt besides the Cub Scout shirt that is dark blue.

Simply put, no one wants to wear these unless they absolutely have to. Not much motivation for a 10 year old to get behind the scouting movement.