<$BlogRSDURL$>
Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

No Names On Dodgers Jerseys

If this is true, I'm going to explode. The "no names on the jerseys" thing is pretentious BS. If they were really hot after tradition, why the hell did they fire Ross Porter?

And here I go ignoring my hiatus already.

Update: duh, it was first reported here, for reals, in the Times as a story by Bill Shaikin.

Garvey, Cey, and Lopes all had their names on their backs. So did Fernando Valenzuela, Kirk Gibson, and Orel Hersheiser. (Yeah, yeah, so did Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, and Raul Mondesi. Cry me a river.) This is just. So. Wrong.

Or maybe they're just hoping we won't notice when 29 and 38 don't return.


Comments:
I don't see anything wrong with hearkening back to the 40's, 50's and 60's. Besides, what purpose do the names serve other than to sell shirts? Seems like a pretty selfless move on McCourt's part.
 
1) I like seeing names. It makes it that much easier to tell who's doing what on a crowded play.

2) It also makes it easier to tell who's doing what for the opponent's team when you don't know the opponent's numbers well. I shouldn't need a scorecard to tell everyone apart.

It's senseless traditionalism that retards the game.
 
Tradition my aching ass.

I don't really care one way or the other about names on the jerseys because I know who all the (Dodger) players are and I think visiting teams have names on theirs. It's been a well known fact that no names sells more programs and that is McCourt's simple commercial basis for making this move.

The only tradition McCourt is interested in is an ex-president's picture on a greenback.

AHB
 

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.



Newer›  ‹Older
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Google

WWW 6-4-2