Thursday, November 09, 2006

Out with the purple, in with... Another red team!

Ed McElvain

The Arizona Diamondbacks yesterday made baseball fashion news by trading in their horrible purple and turquoise uniforms for... red. As in the same color that the Nationals adopted after saying bye bye to their less-than-illustrious past playing the Expos blues. As in the same color that the Astros and Angels adopted last decade. As in the same color that the Rangers, Braves, and Red Sox wear (only, at home on a Sunday when a lefty with 3 vowels in his first name is pitching or something). As in the same color that the Cardinals, Reds, and Phillies have always worn.

Next year there will be an almost 1 in 3 chance that at least one of the teams playing in any ball game will be wearing red as their primary color (assuming it is the day that the part-time teams wear their red unis) -- 6/16 in the National League. Red is batting .375 in the NL.

It could be worse, though. In the late 19th Century the game experimented with having unique uniforms by position (rather than team) great confusion. No one could tell who played for what team. Luckily, due to road/home jersey differentiation and the fact that most teams today have 3 or 4 different jersey's to choose from, we probably aren't going to have to worry about it getting that bad even if eventually every team wears red.


Blogger Ben Godar said...

For me, it's not an issue of differentiating between home and visitor. If I'm in a bar or something, not right next to the TV, I often can't tell who's playing anymore.

If you are an expansion team, you should be saddled with purple, black, silver or some other late-comer to the team color party. The primary colors should only be available if they are vacated by a previous owner.

In fact, restricted color pallettes could add a new wrinkle to trade negotiations. As in, "the Rangers traded Mark Texiera to the A's for Bobby Crosby and a crisp shade of yellow."

7:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home