I'll admit from the start that this subject of baseball uniforms is not likely to inspire the most profound philosophical discourse and, since I'm a relative newcomer to the Baseball Message Board I realize this topic may have been addressed in the past (perhaps several times) before I began browsing the OutSports site. If that is the case, I'll ask the Moderators to pardon my mistake and please feel free to delete this posting, if necessary!
I've noticed that players on MLB teams these days usually opt for one of at least three different ways of wearing their uniform: A.) The traditional "knickerbocker" style, with the socks pulled up almost to the knee over the pant leg; B.) The regular modern-day style, with the pants covering the sock down to the shoe-top; C.) The most recent variation I've seen, really baggy trousers long enough to bunch over the shoes all the way down to the cleats.
I thought I'd conduct an informal poll and ask folks to determine which style gets the most votes. (As you can probably guess, I'm a baseball traditionalist so, I admire those players who honor the history of the sport by hitching up their socks. I'm also a little puzzled by the droopy drawers; I haven't seen this problem happen yet, but I keep wondering how those guys avoid tripping over their own trousers when they're running the bases.)
In my previous job as a Library Technician, I came across an incredible book (Amazon.com lists it as currently out of print, unfortunately) that contains detailed illustrations of every uniform worn by every Major League team throughout the last 100 years. It was written by Marc Okkonen and titled BASEBALL UNIFORMS OF THE 20TH CENTURY: The Official Major League Baseball Guide. I was amazed they have been able to document this history with such accuracy, but I suppose there exists an uninterrupted photographic record of baseball teams through all those years, enabling them to show each uniform down to the correct number of buttons. There have been some far-ranging variations over time, and if you look farther back to the 19th century you'll see even more flamboyance. I'll say I'm kind of partial to those early double-breasted jerseys (with handkerchief neckties, no less) but those wool shirts must have been hotter than hell.
Any opinions on the uniform having the most handsome design, worn by a Major League team today? I can't really offer a final judgement since I'm not familiar with them all (although I'm pretty sure the Yankee Pinstripe, as classic as it may be, won't place high on my own list. I like seeing some bolder color.) And even though I understand that players' names on the jerseys are a (relatively) recent innovation in the long chronology of baseball, I'm not crazy about the recent decision some teams have made to display numbers-only.
My choice for favorite logo (Major or Minor Leagues): Everett AquaSox --a spunky little tree-frog snagging a fly ball with his prehensile tongue. Gotta love 'im. Can you say "homo-erotic?"

WEBBLY, the AquaSox frog

although I do appreciate the earlier baseball uniforms. I think, they were fairly faithful to the clothes worn for Cricket.

I happen to be partial to the tight, body hugging, usually white baseball uniforms of today's MLB. I mean...... let's face it. "It's finger-licking good." (thanks to Kentucky Fried Chicken for the use of the slogan)

I like when the guys wear the sox high! Very old school, very playful.
My favorite uniforms are tight-some of our boys of summer look utterly yummy in them!
My favorite Team uniforms:
Detroit Tigers (white)
Chicago Cubs (white and blue pinstripes, and the road grey-Ron Coomer was so hot in his...)
Boston Red Sox (home)
my least favorite:
$pankees-ish!
Expos
Oakland A's
Cheers,
~Larry~

I have to vote on the side of today's modern wonderfully tight white and colored uniforms. Today's baseball uniform beautifully emphasize the players butt and crotch area.

Has anyone seen the Padre's new camoflage uniform? Hot look. But just the jerseys are camo style. The pants are still white. Still the guys look great in them.

[quote] Has anyone seen the Padres' new camoflage uniform?

---

Hey, thumper--
Just yesterday I glimpsed a few brief shots of a Padres game, featured on a baseball highlights program, and I wasn't certain whether the camoflage uniforms I THOUGHT I was seeing were, in fact, what I WAS seeing. I was watching this program on a small-screen TV, and the highlights were short "video clips" without any close-ups so, I wondered if I was just imagining the camoflage. I'll have to wait until I get a better picture of these uniforms before coming to final conclusions; however, I'll have to admit that my first reaction was, "Oh Lord, the creeping camo-menace has claimed more unwitting victims." (This is only one man's opinion, but it strikes me that wearing camoflage outside of military/hunting situations is just straight-boy-machismo-drag and makes about as much sense as wearing road-construction-crew reflective orange gear in athletic or social events. Well, as one famous transvestite [was it RuPaul?] has said, "unless you're naked, it's ALL drag" so, I'll try not to get my knickers in a knot over this business. Of course if the Padres were honoring their team namesake, their uniforms would resemble 16th century Spanish-colonial cleric's vestments, and that would be even more bizarre.) Who knows, maybe the Padres will eventually win me over with this camoflage idea. I can't tell you exactly why, but, I've always been kind of fond of that often-overlooked team way down in the corner of California.

I'm also new to these boards (although I regularly post on MLB.com).

I've gotta admit that, as a baseball purist, I prefer the "knickerbocker" style that's worn by some ballplayers. (But whatever happened to stirrups?) However, the longer, down-to-the-cleat look is so damn hot! I don't know why it's so becoming, but I never would have thought Jason Giambi would look so fine without his chin pubes.

Since I'm a traditionalist I object to the myriad versions that certain teams use for home/away/day/night/Jewish holiday games. Maybe this is just "Yankee bias," but teams should have just two uniforms - one, based in white, for home games, and one gray-dominated uniform for the road. Wasn't there an Astros pitcher who recently wore one jersey while the rest of his team sported another?

Enough. I think the main reason they do this is for merchandising purposes - to bilk rabid fanatics who simply must have every permutation of their beloved team's jersey, and cost be damned.

Anyway, I don't really have a "favorite" (besides Bomber pinstripes of course) or "least favorite" when it comes to the specific styles of today; none of the current uniforms are eyesores, unlike, say, the day-glo Royal sky-blue or the Padres' piss-and-shit color scheme monstrosity from not too long ago.

[quote]Tigersfan62: Chicago Cubs (white and blue pinstripes, and the road grey-Ron Coomer was so hot in his...)

---

Ron Coomer was hot once? I didn't know much about him until he became a Yankee, so maybe pinstripes are unflattering on him, or perhaps he's just getting old. To me, all Yankees not named Gerald Williams are sexy in some way, but Coomer would be the guy I'd go to if I needed to know where to find a good buffet, not a man whose body inspires naughty thoughts.

Now that I've thought of it, there is one uniform that needs an alteration - the A's home look. Not the uniform exactly, but what's with the white shoes? I feel like reaching for my Contrast Control button on my TV remote to soften the blinding brightness of their cleats. It's not quite as bad when they're wearing their green jerseys, but if any team should look that ethereal, shouldn't it be a team called the Angels? If I watch one of their games too long I start having a Gizmo seizure (Bright light! Bright light!).

FeverDog