Postponed, Part Deux, and Other Thoughts

Another two games rained out. That gives one game in four days. When the equivalent of this happened last year (the first Houston series), I was in a state of panic. This time around, though, I'm fairly nonchalant. I guess the blog is helping me kick my baseball addiction by overexposing me to baseball.

The Giants caould possibly trade Eddy Martinez-Esteve to the Orioles for Billy Rowell. EME won't ever help the Giants, being the prototypical AL player, and Rowell would give the Giants a young, versatile prospect with big upside.

Today was Jackie Robinson Day in baseball. Do you know what I think about Robinson, his day, and Barry Bonds' unsuccessful attempt to wear #42? #*@^!!! For details, read my previous post on the topic.

Jackie Robinson and Retired Numbers

I think Jackie Robinson is evil. Are you all clear about that? OK, good to get that out of the way, just making sure your automatic "racist" ticker doesn't go off. In 1968, he called Willie Mays a "do-nothing Negro" for not "fulfilling his obligations to the black community". That's just the tip of the iceberg. In 1956, he was traded to the Giants and promptly retired. What is up with that? Marichal was dignified enopugh to acknowledge that he was going to be a Dodger near the tail end of his career. Vice versa for Robinson's old teammate, Snider. Then, years after his death, Selig decides to cruelly force the Giants to retire his number. Don't you think that blue 42 looks ugly up there next to all those other numbers at the Phone Booth? What's the problem with Monte Irvin? He was the 5th black in baseball (3rd in the 20th century), and a HoFer too. Speaking of which, what was so great about Jackie Robinson, anyway? He wasn't the first black in the bigs, not by 60 years. Why not retire Moses and Welday Walkers' numbers? I kow, they didn't have numbers. So? That hasn't stopped the Giants from retiring numbers. As an additional bonus, since the team the Walkers played for soon folded, reitiring their "numbers" wouldn't be glorifying any particular team, like the Dodgers are right now. If only Kirk Rueter could take up roster space forever, and the Giants would never have to retire his number 42.

On a somewhat related note, I remember reading that it was Giants team policy to not retire the numbers of non-HoFers. So then, why aren't all those HoFers from the New York Giants recognized? Some of them are. Of course, I realize that the Giants have more HoFers than any other team, and doing that would make Barry Zito's number the lowest on the team, but still, just the ones that wore a Giants cap on their plaques? Why not?

The Giants' Uniforms

A few days ago, I talked about how darn ugly the D'backs' (D-backs?) uniforms were. Well, we now wind our way to the best-looking uniforms in the Big Leagues: the Giants'! Everything you could desire from a uniform is right here:

1. Classic: These uniforms are classic as it gets, reaching back to 1933. The design was finalized by 1949 (with "NEW YORK" and "NY" instead of "SAN FRANCISCO" and "SF", of course), and have been use ever since then, except for the Lurie years. (Bob Lurie, for all his qualities, was sartorially blind.) Very few uniforms have been around that long, and the home unis are basically unchanged.
2. Names: What more could you want on that front? The Giants' uniforms, with regard to names, are designed the way all uniforms should be: team name but no player names at home, city name and player names on the road, what more to ask for? Well, maybe great lettering. The Giants have that, too. The script lettering is all the better because no one else has anything quite like this tested-and-true font. Try to imagine any other lettering (let's say cursive) on the uniforms the Giants wear. Can you? I sure can't.
3. Design: The Giants' uniforms, from an aesthetic standpoint, are absolutely wonderful. The colors are very well done, the uniform has the light-at-home, dark-away color scheme, which never fails, and the cream on the home uniforms adds an unexpected but eye-pleasing touch. The orange-and-black caps with an intertwined "SF" are of the old, no-frills kind, which will never look garish, unlike the halos on the Angels' old caps.
4. Originality: This is the last, but most important point. If you are wondering why this is so important, let me ask you a question: What good is it to have a perfect uniform if you copied it off five other teams with the same exact scheme? Nothing, of course, and in the end, this is what makes the Giants' uniforms so great: They're unique. They don't have the Yankeeesque pinstripes or the Dodgeresque cursive, and no one has a Giants copycat scheme. The Giants are all the better for it.

The Diamondbacks' Uniforms

Sartorially the Diamondbacks have always ranked among the worst franchises in the league, and the new uniforms don't change a thing. They're still ugly, but now they're ugly in a different way. Before, the Diamondbacks' colors screamed haphazardly put together, and now they scream stupidity; who had the great idea of putting an abbreviation on the uniforms?. Who wants that? In the D'backs'—or rather, D-backs', as the uniforms define the new abreviation—In the D'Backs' old uniforms, the color purple was prominent. Why? Because the Phoenix Suns wore that color! That is the epitome of sartorial BBLLEECCHH. And then there are the placket problems. In the words of Paul Lukas of Uni Watch:

Turns out I was right, but not in the way I expected. Whatever else you may think of the new unis, it looks like they’ve got a major problem with the way the chest insignia breaks across the jersey placket. In short: Because of the logo’s design, they had to split the “a” into two halves, and most of the time it doesn’t line up. This shows up again and again (and again) in photos from last night’s unveiling event, and even, to a lesser extent, in MLB’s official merch photo.