Can anyone tell me why the New York Yankees players don't have their names on their uniforms? Even The Umpire wasn't able to answer this when I posted it on one of his threads, but perhaps some Yankees fan can provide an answer. An Internet search simply revealed that it's a 'long standing tradition', but that alone doesn't seem like a satisfactory answer. Having the names on the uniforms would obviously make it easier to identify the players...or are the high-profile Yankees so well-known that fans are expected to know them by face and number only?

I also notice the Boston Red Sox SOMETIMES play without players' names on their uniforms. This is even more bewildering...at least the Yankees are consistent about their 'anonymity'.

From what I've seen watching baseball on TV, all the other MLB teams consistently display players' names on the back of their jerseys.

I know the Yankees still play without names on the backs above the number, the Red Sox home uniforms do not have names, and the Giants home uniform do not have names on the backs, but this was done as a throwback only when the Giants moved into PacBell. The Cubs only recently put names on their unis (can't remember exactly when, might've been early to mid-90's.) I can't really think of why these teams have held out, besides tradition. Originally, it corresponded with the player's place in the batting order, i.e.; Ruth #3, batting third, Gehrig #4, batting fourth. But you know baseball is a traditionalist's game, so this is to be expected, I think.

It's tradition. WHO they are doesn't matter - all that matters is that they're NY Yankees. And that's what the uniform says.

"Long standing tradition" is good enough reason for me. I suspect it's sort of a tribute to the fact that the Yankees were the first team to use numbers on the uniforms, and perhaps fans were expected to know who was who by their numbers. I think there is a "history" or "legacy" section for each team at their MLB.com websites which might shed some light.

This reminded me something at the Royals' Kaufman Stadium, where for many years three retired numbers (10, 5 & 20) were prominently displayed below the scoreboard. A couple of years ago, they added the names of Howser, Brett and White below the numbers. Some Royals fans were incensed that they had the nerve to add those names, because after all, any true fan would know who those numbers belonged to.

[ June 05, 2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

I did a scintilla of Web research and couldn't find a specific answer , but I can tell you that when I first started following baseball in 1971 *gasp*, teams tended to wear names on the back only on the ROAD ... I can't recall a home team that did -- wait, maybe the Cardinals. And many had names on neither at that time, my memory says.

When you think about it, wearing your name kinda defeats the points of the number, huh? (And depresses sales of programs.) The Mets' home pinstripes used to be without names, and as a fan I have to say I wish they had kept 'em that simple (without the hideous 1986 rally stripes down the sides, too)! :mad:

[ June 05, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

The real reason the YankeesSuck don't wear names on their uniforms is because names personify the players. They begin to be viewed as people instead of the devil-spawn they truly are.

So the Red Sox are "devil spawn" at home?

That is so weird because I was just having this exact conversation with my Dad last night. He can't really deal with the "gay thing", so we usually keep it to stuff like the Yankees, Knicks, Rangers, etc. Anyway, I said that the reason the Yankees don't have names on the back of their uniforms is because they have always been so famous that you should know who they are by just looking at the number. No one needs to tell you who is number 2 or 25 or 46 if you are indeed a true Yankee fan. Also, no one should need to tell you number 3 or 7 or 23 or 44 were in the Yankees' past either.

I don't know the exact reason, but do know that my Mother, a lifelong Red Sox fan and Yankee hater was always proud that the Sox did not have their names on their jerseys (she only ever commented on this when we were at a home game, so I don't remember if they had their names on the jerseys for away games way back then). I believe it had something to do with the nature of being a Red Sox fan, though - you are supposed to be so dedicated to the team (just wait 'til next year!) that you know all the players.

Thanks for helping me out with this subject, guys. As cubsfan pointed out, baseball is very much steeped in tradition...nothing wrong with that, but I just think traditions (not just in baseball) sometimes need to be questioned when the logic or purpose, if any, behind them is unclear. Actually, Bill W may have come closest to the truth (even if it's a rather cynical view) when he said that nameless uniforms help generate the sale of programs wink