PDA

View Full Version : White Sox Uniforms: Names Or No Names On The Back?


Thome25
11-05-2008, 03:58 PM
I was just watching the old Robin Ventura video from July 31st 1991 and I noticed that the White Sox didn't have any player names on the backs of the white home pinstriped jerseys.

I kinda liked that look. I wish they would've kept it old school and left the names off of the jerseys.

So what do you think? Names or no names on the backs of the jerseys? (and why/why not.)

THANKS for posting!!

turners56
11-05-2008, 03:59 PM
Names.

35th and Shields
11-05-2008, 04:02 PM
I was just watching the old Robin Ventura video form July 31st 1991 and I noticed that the White Sox didn't have any player names on the backs of the white home pinstriped jerseys.

I kinda liked that look. I wish they would've kept it old school and left the names off of the jerseys.

So what do you think? Names or no nmes on the backs of the jerseys? (and why/why not.)

THANKS for posting!!

I remember hearing from somewhere that the white sox were one of the first teams to use names on the the back of their jerseys and if this is the case I think they should keep it.

KnightSox
11-05-2008, 04:03 PM
I can go both ways on this, but names on the road and none at home is fine by me.

SaltyPretzel
11-05-2008, 04:04 PM
I remember hearing from somewhere that the white sox were one of the first teams to use names on the the back of their jerseys and if this is the case I think they should keep it.

They were the first. 1960 I think.

doublem23
11-05-2008, 04:05 PM
The White Sox should always have their names on the backs of their jerseys.

Lundind1
11-05-2008, 04:06 PM
I would say that the names are a good thing. Most teams have adopted that format. There are a few that don't, I believe the Yankees and Red Sox don't on some of their Jerseys. It just helps to identify the players, plus it is cool to get your name on personalized jersey.

I want Mags back
11-05-2008, 04:08 PM
definitely names. no names is so cocky

johnr1note
11-05-2008, 04:12 PM
They were the first. 1960 I think.

This is correct. As we were the first, we should continue.

PaleHoser
11-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Picture of Ted Kluszewski (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2080/1533078915_3cbc7a698f_o.jpg) - with name intentionally misspelled as one of Barnum Bill's gimics - in 1960.

Thome25
11-05-2008, 04:49 PM
definitely names. no names is so cocky

Why is that cocky? It shows that they're putting team ahead of individuals. I.E. The only name on the jersey is the team name which is a sign of solidarity.

hi im skot
11-05-2008, 04:54 PM
Why is that cocky? It shows that they're putting team ahead of individuals. I.E. The only name on the jersey is the team name which is a sign of solidarity.

http://www.freewebs.com/nofear7/no%20fear.gif


:rolleyes:

I want Mags back
11-05-2008, 05:53 PM
Why is that cocky? It shows that they're putting team ahead of individuals. I.E. The only name on the jersey is the team name which is a sign of solidarity.
it says, everyone should already know or names, were the motha ****in New York Yankees. thats cocky

BadBobbyJenks
11-05-2008, 05:59 PM
This poll sucks. Names are a must.

Rdy2PlayBall
11-05-2008, 06:03 PM
Names make it a lot easier for younger or just new fans to know and learn the players. Keep the names for sure.

oeo
11-05-2008, 06:03 PM
The Sox were the first team to do it, so it's tradition. That's something in Sox history that you should be proud of. Would you like them to stop the fireworks, too?

Bucky F. Dent
11-05-2008, 06:17 PM
No names! Like the old school - and if that's cocky, so be it!

Brian26
11-05-2008, 07:21 PM
This poll sucks.

As is any thread questioning whether or not to change the uniforms. The current uniforms are the best in franchise history and some of the best in baseball.

Brian26
11-05-2008, 07:25 PM
Names make it a lot easier for younger or just new fans to know and learn the players. Keep the names for sure.

It also makes it easier to discern garbage bullpen pitchers Kenny just picked off the waiver wire. Can you imagine going through 2007 trying to recognize if Brett Prinz or Ryan Bukvich was warming up in the bullpen? More torturous than it already was.

cub killer
11-05-2008, 07:27 PM
The Yankees and red sox are the only teams "special enough" right now to have nameless jerseys. Boston's home jerseys are nameless but their away ones do have names on the back. The Yankees' both home and away jerseys are always nameless. That's all fine but vendors are selling Yankees jerseys with player names on it. That's stupid. If the players themselves don't wear their names on their backs, why would anyone want to buy a jersey that's different from the game-worn ones. It's idiotic. We all know who #13 is for the Yanks. The fans I've seen with Rodriguez on their backs look foolish. That's not how the jerseys are during the games, they should sell replicas the same way.

The flubs didn't add names to their home jerseys 'till like 1992. Then they took them back off in 2005. Then in 2007 they went back to having names on their backs. The Dodgers also went a couple of years with nameless home jerseys, I think from like 2002-2006. I'm sure both teams realized that it's easier to market their players if they advertise their names on the backs of their jerseys. So as it stands, only the Yanks and red sox should keep the nameless tradition. Hopefully no other team will try to go retro and take names off their backs. They would be posers if they did.



Incidently, I think golfers and tennis players should add their names to the backs of their shirts. It would help market themselves and their sports.

veeter
11-05-2008, 07:29 PM
Names.

pearso66
11-05-2008, 07:34 PM
The Yankees and red sox are the only teams "special enough" right now to have nameless jerseys. Boston's home jerseys are nameless but their away ones do have names on the back. The Yankees' both home and away jerseys are always nameless. That's all fine but vendors are selling Yankees jerseys with player names on it. That's stupid. If the players themselves don't wear their names on their backs, why would anyone want to buy a jersey that's different from the game-worn ones. It's idiotic. We all know who #13 is for the Yanks. The fans I've seen with Rodriguez on their backs look foolish. That's not how the jerseys are during the games, they should sell replicas the same way.

The flubs didn't add names to their home jerseys 'till like 1992. Then they took them back off in 2005. Then in 2007 they went back to having names on their backs. The Dodgers also went a couple of years with nameless home jerseys, I think from like 2002-2006. I'm sure both teams realized that it's easier to market their players if they advertise their names on the backs of their jerseys. So as it stands, only the Yanks and red sox should keep the nameless tradition. Hopefully no other team will try to go retro and take names off their backs. They would be posers if they did.



Incidently, I think golfers and tennis players should add their names to the backs of their shirts. It would help market themselves and their sports.


I think the Sox should have names on their jerseys.

I believe the Cubs still have a nameless uniform, I'm thinking their home one is. The Giants also have a nameless jersey and I believe the Dodgers home still is nameless. I could be wrong on all 3 accounts, but I'm pretty sure the first 2 are right.

PalehosePlanet
11-05-2008, 07:38 PM
The Sox were the first team to do it, so it's tradition. That's something in Sox history that you should be proud of. Would you like them to stop the fireworks, too?

We were the first to do it in 1960, but only on the road uniforms at that time.

johnnyg83
11-05-2008, 07:51 PM
I think the Sox should have names on their jerseys.

I believe the Cubs still have a nameless uniform, I'm thinking their home one is. The Giants also have a nameless jersey and I believe the Dodgers home still is nameless. I could be wrong on all 3 accounts, but I'm pretty sure the first 2 are right.

You're only right on the Giants.

I vote no names ...

Daver
11-05-2008, 07:57 PM
Get rid of the names and the numbers.

Brian26
11-05-2008, 08:11 PM
I believe the Cubs still have a nameless uniform, I'm thinking their home one is. The Giants also have a nameless jersey and I believe the Dodgers home still is nameless.

Dodgers road is nameless now too.

rdwj
11-05-2008, 08:42 PM
I like names

chisox616
11-05-2008, 09:03 PM
It looked kinda cool on our unis, but...we need names. It's a tradition. Besides, I don't think you can connect with the players as well without them.

Still, I'm not saying the Yanks or Boston should add them to theirs. It's their tradition so let them stick with it. Although it does seem a bit cocky.

hi im skot
11-05-2008, 09:11 PM
Get rid of the names and the numbers.

:geezer:

skobabe8
11-05-2008, 09:12 PM
it says, everyone should already know or names, were the motha ****in New York Yankees. thats cocky

What about IU?

TheOldRoman
11-05-2008, 09:12 PM
Dodgers road is nameless now too.False. Dodgers took the names off their jerseys in 2005, and they looked like crap. Their standard MLB block font just wasn't enough to carry a jersey by itself. Vin Scully hated them, too. At his request, the names were returned to the jerseys in 2007, at which point they slightly changed the road unis. The Cubs left the names off their home jerseys in 2005 and 06. It was particularly ridiculous because, they still wore their garrish blue alternate tops at home, but they had a version without names. On the road they wore the same exact jersey, except with names.

The only teams that don't have names are the Yankees (both), Red Sox (home and red alt), and Giants (home). Also nameless are the throwback alts worn by the Indians and Blue Jays.

As for the OP, definitely keep the names. The Yankees jerseys look perfect without the names. I actually think adding names would make them look worse. However, the Red Sox and Giants would both look better with names on their home unis.

Thome25
11-05-2008, 09:17 PM
The Sox were the first team to do it, so it's tradition. That's something in Sox history that you should be proud of. Would you like them to stop the fireworks, too?

Comparing getting rid of the name on the back of the jersey to getting rid of the fireworks is a bit extreme don't you think?

Names on the back is not a tradition it's something that popped up because of the TV age so people could better recognize the players.

A uniform tradition for the White Sox would be the 1917 or current gothic S-O-X script. Not players names IMO.

As is any thread questioning whether or not to change the uniforms. The current uniforms are the best in franchise history and some of the best in baseball.

The uniform change already occurred. The current uniforms were originally made WITHOUT names on the back.

oeo
11-05-2008, 09:30 PM
Comparing getting rid of the name on the back of the jersey to getting rid of the fireworks is a bit extreme don't you think?

Nope. It's something that started with the White Sox, it should stay with the White Sox.

Names on the back is not a tradition it's something that popped up because of the TV age so people could better recognize the players.

I might be wrong here, but I thought it was actually for those who were at the game.

The uniform change already occurred. The current uniforms were originally made WITHOUT names on the back.And it was obviously changed for a reason. Don't fix what's not broken. No red outline, no removing the names, etc. I hope they never change again.

TheOldRoman
11-05-2008, 09:31 PM
Names on the back is not a tradition it's something that popped up because of the TV age so people could better recognize the players.Not fully true. Like many things Veeck did, it was widely criticized. People thought of it as some sideshow thing that would never catch on.

october23sp
11-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Mostly because we were first we need them.

ChiSoxFan81
11-05-2008, 10:50 PM
Keep the names. In an era of free agency, players move around and change around numbers so often, that it isn't as easy to associate a player with a number anymore, especially guys that have a cup of coffee or are minor league callups. Guys even give up numbers sometimes when a trade happens. Obviously the diehard fans would know who's who, but the casual fan wouldn't.

jortafan
11-06-2008, 08:16 PM
Just a thought here, but why do teams still bother to put numbers on uniforms if the purpose of putting the names on them is to identify the players.

It strikes me that "name" and "number" is redundant. Perhaps teams should get rid of the number and leave the name?

And yeah, fans originally hated the idea of uniform numbers for identification purposes, joking that they made the ballplayers look like prison inmates (just like fans originally thought names on uniforms were tacky).

GlassSox
11-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Names & numbers!

MHOUSE
11-06-2008, 10:00 PM
No names is for cocky schools/teams. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Fighting Irish, USC Trojans think they're too good for names on their jerseys. It's a pompous look.

Stoky44
11-06-2008, 10:21 PM
Having names on sox uni's is old school! We did it first in 1960. The sox have had names on uni's for almost 40-45% of their history.

tick53
11-08-2008, 08:48 AM
Names please.

Gammons Peter
11-08-2008, 09:18 AM
Names look dumb on pin stripes....but I'm old school

TornLabrum
11-08-2008, 02:14 PM
No names at home. Names on the road.

tebman
11-08-2008, 05:14 PM
In the text of Bill Veeck's Hall of Fame plaque (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492585), it lists among his innovations, "player names on backs of uniforms."

The Sox were the first to do it, and Veeck took a lot grief for it from the hidebound traditionalists who thought that it was undignified. I remember reading a quote from Veeck when he was asked about it. He said he just thought people might like to know the players names when they saw them. Not much more complicated than that.

That was in 1960. Keep the names. I think 48 years qualifies as old school. :geezer:

russ99
11-08-2008, 05:27 PM
I remember hearing from somewhere that the white sox were one of the first teams to use names on the the back of their jerseys and if this is the case I think they should keep it.

As I recall that is true. Didn't Veeck do this, at the behest of other owners who didn't want to cut into scorecard sales?

To change it back now would look like copycatting the Yankees and Red Sox. Which we never want to do. I prefer our own tradition, which player names seem to be a part of.

Rohan
11-09-2008, 10:54 PM
Little leagues and pony leagues don't have names on jerseys..
Why would we regress?