Extra! Extra! (11.30)
We at Blue Notes believe in the adage claiming it's the name on the front of the jersey that counts most. Absolutely. But let's be honest. A moniker on the back does supply some awfully important info, which makes the recent decision to once again display last names on the jerseys perfectly sensible. Even a little old school, a vibe that most baseball fans also appreciate. Then again, nobody will appreciate Randy Wolf's name on the back of a Dodger jersey more than the lefty himself. Wolf's joy was even worth a pay cut (of sorts), which certainly ain't the norm these days.
Subscribe to this Blog | What is RSS?
plus not THE WOLF can get a jersey.
I missed the names on the jersey's...simply because that is how it was done by the LA Dogers. :)
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 30, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Maybe I'm dating myself, but isn't having uniforms without names on the back old school? Didn't that trend start in the late 60's or the early 70's?
Posted by: Walt Grassl | November 30, 2006 at 05:56 PM
Walt,
Apparently, that's not the case with the Dodgers, but I'm probably not the best source, being only 34 myself. haha
AK
Posted by: Andrew Kamenetzky | November 30, 2006 at 06:54 PM
I think the Dodgers began doing it when the moved to LA. I am pretty sure before then it was just the numbers.
I seem to recall that it was either LA or SF that did it to help the fans out west learn the player names.
And I wanna say I heard it from Vinny a while back...but, that might be incorrect...dunno...
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 30, 2006 at 07:31 PM
nope, it looks like it did start in the 60s(not when the Dodgers moved west) but was the ChiSox who did it...read here:
Scroll down to the part about the "History of White Sox uniforms"...interesting!! I would have sworn the Dodgers had them earlier...not old enough I guess.... :)
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 30, 2006 at 07:34 PM
d'oh!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bmicomp/Chicago_White_Sox
Posted by: grumpy3b | November 30, 2006 at 08:45 PM