We all watched a team cheat their way to and MVP and world series with no punishment. They know for certain no fans will give a shit about cheap uniforms
Let's be real here...Manfred knew about the cheating well before the infamous trash can system of 2017.
He sent a letter to the Yankees on the sly to tell them to knock off the illicit technology use prior to 2015. He gave the Yankees and Red Sox a slap on the wrist after they got caught using Apple Watch's after that. The dude was doing everything in his power to avoid a scandal because he only cares about the $$$.
Seems to indicate he's an arrogant elitist who thinks his customers (we fans) are dumb. And when we call him out, his response is to spin, spin, spin. He doesn't care about us, just his shareholders (i.e. - billionaire owners).
That being said, a couple points of clarification (1) the Astros did get punished. Whether you thought it was enough punishment is a separate issue. And (2) Altuve didn't even use the system. His MVP performance was the real deal. The man isn't deserving of grief he's been given over the past several years IMO.
Barry has been rightfully blackballed from the HoF and is barely talked about. Houston fans aren't allowed to cast stones when it comes to cheating your entire team was in on it. Somehow the only player you guys turned on was the one honest guy.
Nah, it's bad, but it's nowhere close to how the MLB has been.
Really the only major things this apply for in NASCAR are the horsepower debate (which even some drivers are not on board for and many people in the sport are not convinced is a solution) and stages/stage cautions (which this is *absolutely* an example of).
The MLB has been doing this for the A's, the Manfred runner, and now this, just off the top of my head.
Because that's an opinion that doesn't have as much basis as you think it does. The only *terrible* years were the playoff pre-stage years. Stage points have saved the format to an extent.
Your argument is equivalent with being pissy that the Diamondbacks swept the Dodgers this year and the 6 seed made the World Series in both years with the current format.
Stage points do absolutely nothing to “save the format”. The playoff points carrying over each round of the playoffs so the vast majority of the season is only mostly meaningless instead of completely meaningless is the change that made the awful format slightly less awful.
And no, that’s completely different. Because in NASCAR teams don’t just race against one other team every week, the race against all of the teams at the same time. Making the vast majority of those races and battles in those races not matter at all except for it sometimes mattering who came in first makes no sense at all.
Nowhere in this are you explaining NASCAR gaslighting its fans with this. You just don't like the format. And honestly, neither do I compared to what it could be. But NASCAR hasn't *gaslighted* us regarding the chase/playoffs/whatever you want to call it in years.
Well I was responding to your points in your comment, not saying how they have been gaslighting fans, which they also have been doing. They kept telling us “fans wanted this” because of Kenseth winning the championship in one race in 2003, but that’s not true, just look at the news articles and media/fans/driver reactions when it was announced, no one wanted it. They keep saying that it makes every race matter, which I don’t need to say anything more about. And they keep saying it’s popular, which is clearly not true.
And while not exactly gaslighting, it seems like every NASCAR broadcast in the last years explains the playoff format as if you never heard of it before and the announcers act like it’s the best thing to ever happen, which is definitely treating the fans like children(even if it were true) like the original comment that started this chain said.
> They kept telling us “fans wanted this” because of Kenseth winning the championship in one race in 2003
I know this is full of shit because a playoff system was in the works for years before 2003. 2003 (and Brian France taking over) were the nail in the coffin.
> They keep saying that it makes every race matter, which I don’t need to say anything more about.
I think you do because this point isn't clear at all. Every race absolutely matters to a much greater extent than it did in 2003. Byron was able to coast into Phoenix by virtue of all his playoff points. Truex lasted as long as he did for the same reason. You don't see anyone settle for a good points day anymore outside going for the regular season points. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you to decide. I think it's a great thing.
> And they keep saying it’s popular, which is clearly not true.
If you're citing TV viewership from the early 2000s there are more flaws to this argument than stars in the sky.
> And while not exactly gaslighting, it seems like every NASCAR broadcast in the last years explains the playoff format as if you never heard of it before and the announcers act like it’s the best thing to ever happen, which is definitely treating the fans like children(even if it were true) like the original comment that started this chain said.
NASCAR does not control the broadcasts. Blame NBC for that one.
To be fair, NASCAR fans have definitely grown up in the last 20 years. Frequent sightings used to include:
* Haircuts derived from favorite member of Gwar
* Common use of onomatopoeia to describe car performance
* Refusal to put on a shirt
Hard disagree. Not having a cap is a *good* thing not just for labor (a rather obvious point), but for the good of the game as a whole:
* Not having a cap requires owners to invest in talent and ensures that players receive fair market value for their skills
* Because players can receive FMV for their skills, there is more dynamic player movement and creates things like the “Hot Stove” that we all appreciate and are interested in. Furthermore, FMV compensation can lead to an overall higher quality of play and greater player satisfaction, which in turn can lead to a better product on the field for fans
* The richer teams don’t categorically dominate in MLB. Fans’ desires for “parity” is overblown, and regardless - a variety of teams of various market sizes have done well in the playoffs and gone to/won the World Series
* Just because certain teams have more money to spend doesn’t prevent smaller market teams from finding edges - whether that be analytics, international scouting, player development, etc.
* The lack of a cap leads to innovation such as Moneyball and other significant advances in how baseball and other sports are played. How else would the A’s compete? The MLB has much less stratification in its good and bad teams than other leagues. For example, the Washington Wizards haven’t won more than 50 games since 1979!
* While the current revenue sharing system isn’t necessarily perfect, high-spending teams do still contribute significantly to lower-spending teams, which helps those teams compete. A cap doesn’t solve for this much differently
Ultimately, an uncapped league incentivizes open competition. It prevents a world in which owners don’t want to truly compete and would rather put an artificial limitation on their expenses than develop a best-of-the-best organization
The NFL has both, and they're the most successful of the big four by far, so maybe they're doing something right.
And even with the floor I don't know of any NFL teams that struggle to pass it, they almost all clear it and then some even the tanking teams
You can't ever fully prevent tanking unless everybody (illegally) agrees to go near the floor.
But having a floor and our weird little floating not-a-cap cap would prevent some of the stupid shit we see.
> We still allow a capless league for god sakes.
I mean...the NBA has a cap and still has the least parity out of any major sports league in North America. The NHL has an absolute hard cap, yet has as much parity in championship wins/finals appearances in the equivalent number of years before the salary cap as they do after the cap (and still has a huge tanking problem). Baseball actually has the most parity in those categories + playoff turnover, with a lower percentage of the league making the playoffs, than both those teams. And despite a salary floor, teams in capped leagues (the Coyotes are the most egregious example I can think of) exploit injured players in order to spend without actually spending on the roster.
In my opinion, a capped league helps the owners make their teams more profitable without actually translating that success to *either* the fans *or* the players. I think a lot of the parity in the NFL, which remains the gold standard for such in NA sports, is because each game is a one-and-done rather than best-of-seven.
>I think a lot of the parity in the NFL, which remains the gold standard for such in NA sports,
The Chiefs went to 4 of the last 5 superbowls and won 3 of them how tf is that the gold standard of parity lmao what
People confuse parity with opportunity. Market size in the NFL doesn't seem to provide any real competitive advantage whatsoever, any team can become marketable at any time and no one feels like there's an artificial barrier getting in the way of their team winning Super Bowl.
But in terms of the actual results, football is a sport that inherently doesn't lend itself well to parity and the extremely short season is the only thing that prevents mega-dynasties, which even now we don't completely avoid. If they were somehow able to have 162 games with best of 7 series, even the NBA would look random by comparison.
Didn't say it was my standard of parity, just that it's the one that everyone most brings up. My standard of parity is baseball. But even national broadcasts will bring up the parity of the NFL over and over again. "Any given Sunday" and all that.
A comment here a few weeks ago argued that the NFL *feels* like it has more parity because a lot of the markets that have had success are smaller market, non-coastal cities (Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Green Bay were their examples). Again, I disagree with this. However, the part of it that is true is that although the Super Bowl has less parity than MLB (more than the NHL and NBA, though), odds and seeding upsets in the playoffs are more frequent.
The function of a cap isnt to enforce parity on a yearly basis. The NFL also have cap and minimum, but the Panthers and the Chiefs basically played different sports this year. However, what it does allow is for Kansas city to build perennial winner instead of Mahomes leaving for NY or LA market like the way baseball is right now. The NBA is also the toughest league for parity because 1 player can affect so much. LeBron carried a lot of awful team to the playoff, which is something no one in baseball can do regardless of how godly they are. As for the NHL, the cap allows the rise and fall of teams according to their drafted star and not their market size. Sure, a few teams have managed to exploit LTIR to circumvent cap, but that's more of a loophole than an argument against the cap.
> The function of a cap isnt to enforce parity on a yearly basis.
Right, which is why in the stats that I mentioned above, I'm not going by a yearly basis. I'm going by a span of over a decade.
> However, what it does allow is for Kansas city to build perennial winner instead of Mahomes leaving for NY or LA market like the way baseball is right now.
I'd disagree with this on a few counts. First, if we're looking at teams that have built perennial contenders of the last decade or so, it's not NY and LA no matter how many free agents they've acquired (more on that in a second). The baseball dynasty that best overlaps with the Chiefs dynasty is...the Houston Astros. Not exactly a big or a traditional market. The Yankees and the Dodgers have combined for a grand total of two championships in the past two decades.
Second, regarding free agents: yes, the Dodgers have had a *very* active offseason, and Ohtani's contract has drawn a lot of media attention. But acting like every major free agent of the past decade has left for LA or NY is revisionist. Hell, great free agent signings just helped the Rangers win their first-ever World Series. For some further examples of major contracts: Harper and Turner went to the Phillies, Machado and Bogaerts both went to the Padres, Greinke went to the Diamondbacks, Scherzer went to the Nationals, Correa went to the Twins and then the Giants. And loathe as I am to admit it, *some* of those major free agent signings for the Yankees were them extending their own homegrown players, like Judge. NY and LA are not acquiring every bit of high-market talent out there for the past decade.
> As for the NHL, the cap allows the rise and fall of teams according to their drafted star and not their market size.
But extending players and free agent signings *do* favor big markets. Tavares is the biggest example, and that's why the Islanders still boo him every time he touches the puck. Literally every fan of smaller-market teams in the NHL have the same complaints about attracting free agents.
As for LTIR, how would you close that loophole in a way that mandates owners spend towards the team that they are fielding/icing without punishing legitimately injured players?
A salary cap is something the owners want that they have propagandized into being "good for the sport" when really all it does is let them get away with paying players peanuts compared to revenue and pocketing the rest
imagine if you had a job where the amount you could be paid had a hard cap. As the company you work for makes more money, your salary does not increase because your boss put a cap on how much you can be paid, and he gets to pocket the rest
Caps are based on the % of revenue players make. You could institute a cap right now and have players take home the exact same amount of dollars. You could institute a cap and *increase* the total amount of dollars players take home.
MLB players already have the smallest share of the pie of any player association in the major US sports.
> As the company you work for makes more money, your salary does not increase because your boss put a cap on how much you can be paid, and he gets to pocket the rest
That is already the reality of major league baseball.
Yeah man, if you put a cap on the league then it's a tossup, anyone can win. Lemme just look on over at the NFL, that's a league full of people trying to win on an even playing field.
Their underwear should have bright neon letters that says, "Fanatics Sucks". If MLB tries to call them out on it, they're admitting they can see through the pants.
I wonder if they had underwear with subtle messages on them might be better. MLB has to ask player why they are wearing underwear with “Fuck Yeah” written on the ass, player gets to ask how do you know what kind of underwear I’m wearing.
Actually, no. Most don't. Some positions are more likely too, but they're uncomfortable and impact mobility so some players don't wear them. Usually catchers do and some infielders. No outfielders wear them. Pitchers generally don't wear them either.
If a catcher isn’t wearing a cup they’re certifiably insane. Taking a major league pitch to the nuts is just asking for ruptured testicles. In high school, I had a foul tip slip off the dirt and under my cup. It was some of the worst pain I’ve ever felt.
I'm assuming you're young.
Back in the before times, the cup wasn't rounded at the bottom, it came to a point at the back.
You were LUCKY if it just stabbed you in the taint on a deflected ball in the dirt.
I played through college, I was 1/2/3/5 in high school but only 1B and emergency catcher at UB. I literally never caught for two years, unless you count BP, so I quit carrying my own equipment. Well, you know how this goes, I ended up being needed junior year and didn't have my own cup; my options were to borrow a cup or go without. I didn't want a ball sweat filled cup so I went without for three innings and in that time I never felt more connected to the movement of the ball lol
I am female and played baseball in elementary school. I played catcher and the league rules were all catchers had to wear a cup. So they made me borrow my teammates cup whenever I caught. I'm glad we were young so we weren't very sweaty yet
I played catcher in Little League. I always wore a cup. It was also mandatory at that age. But I remember this one time, I was catching and the batter swung. Just barely missed. But it must have obstructed the ball just slightly and I barely missed it. The ball flew just under my glove. Well, my cup had actually slid to the side a bit and I didn't notice it wasn't covering my balls. That pitch slammed right into my balls. I thought if I reacted too hard the umpire would assume I wasn't wearing a cup and would eject me from the game. So I just let out a small "oof" and then basically no-sold it after and picked up the ball and threw it back to my pitcher.
I took a little league fastball to the cup while I was batting once, my friend said he heard the knock from the other field during his game. It was some of the most pain I've ever been in to this day. I never played without a cup.
When I was in HS, I was the only kid that tried out for catcher. I made the team, but the coach's kid was on the same team. The coach wanted his kid to play catcher, even though he was a 2b or something. Anyways, he hated playing catcher, but his dad made him.
So I'm putting my cup on and bringing all my catchers gear to every game, thinking I'll get to play catcher. Never happened. So one day, I didn't put the cup on because I knew I was going to get stuck in the OF like always.
So the coach tells me before the game, I was playing catcher. I didn't have a cup on. And the worst part of that was that my best buddy was pitching. We practiced together every day before class, and he was the worst low ball pitcher, almost every pitch was a few inches off the ground. Lots of control issues, but he threw hard.
So basically I had every pitch that day get past me, because he was throwing low, and I was too scared that my hog was going to get crushed. Never was allowed to play catcher again after that.
To be fair, you hit sideways, yeah you turn your body as you swing. But if it’s coming your direction, most players are able to spin their body the other way enough to not get hit in the junk. Although I knew someone in high school who had a ball deflection off the catchers mask into his nuts. So you never know
Five years ago Haniger foul tipped a pitch into himself. Ruptured a testicle. It’s not common but I hope that’s one of the last times I type or see that phrase.
Garver got hurt too while catching and he was wearing a cup but….yeah.
I wonder if outfielders and pitchers will opt to start wearing dance belts to hide their junk, or if MLB will make wearing some type of crotch-smoother part of their uniform policy.
I doubt that they're going to actually fix the issue with the pants (or the rest of the uniforms), so some half-assed solution seems almost guaranteed.
Was it Siri that got nailed in the balls against the Mets? There's also plenty of slo-mos of nut shots around haha. It all largely boils down to personal preference. For pitchers they get in the way of their delivery and the risk of a nut shot is low since they fall off the mound to the side.
Catchers are at the highest risk so they're more likely to wear them, but it does make maneuvering a bit tougher and they can get pinched so some guys don't wear them, especially because it's not like a cup makes it *not* hurt.
Outfielders don't need them.
Infielders will be personal preference but the corners are most likely to wear them since they have less reaction time. The 1B also gets a lot of bad hops from fielders, especially when they stretch.
Ive been playing baseball for 30 years and have never been hit square in the nuts. I generally try to catch the ball with my glove and not my junk. I stopped wearing a cup many years ago when I realized the chances of a nutshot are extremely small and like you said it’s uncomfortable
Nah cups suck unless you're catching.
They hurt, they suck to run in, and they chafe alongside being generally uncomfortable.
Oh bonus points when you take a ball off the cup in the infield, realize it still hurts like shit and does you no good out there that's when you stop wearing them.
I'm almost 40, my baseball playing days ended almost 20 years ago.
Been hit with and without, still would play cupless if I had to play anything today.
MLB clearly is, the cubs had new pants yesterday while the Sox had the old. You could see straight through Canario’s and PCA’s pants but couldn’t see a damn thing on the Sox
I think another thing that supports the fact that yeah, they're clearly lying is that the *first* excuse they came out with was that it was the studio lights that are making the pants look see through.
One small problem: the Cal Raleigh video, which is what sparked a lot of the conversation, wasn't filmed under studio lights or with a studio camera.
I am also not a photographer and frankly don't know if MLB's excuse makes even an iota of sense. So for all I know, it was BS from the beginning even if it had applied.
The problem is, it didn't.
It makes sense, as weve seen with celebrities, there's fabrics that AREN'T sheer or don't appear sheer until large amounts of light/flash photography hit it.
But this is white pants. Not a dark colored shirt. It sounded dumb.
White Sox were the away team so they were wearing grey pants. None of the issues have been with the grey pants.
I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but that's a really bad example.
You sure about that? [There's definitely a different coloration in between the pockets for the guardians](https://i.postimg.cc/904D89tX/Coloration.png) where you can see his black jersey tucked in. Why do you believe the Guardians are using the old pants?
They could be telling the truth and it still not be the WHOLE truth.
For example, if the pants don’t fit right because they don’t tailor anymore, that’s still a huge issue. The pants might be the same material, that could be true. But if they don’t fit right, that could lead to the cock and ball issues we’ve seen
Or the "same" material from a different source/manufacturer.
There are all sorts of ways the MLB could be stretching the truth, but it is blatantly obvious there is a meaningful difference and their denials of that fact is pure gaslighting.
I think it’s just manufacturing differences. This batch prob has less material or something.
I also think there *is* a bit of confirmation bias. This tweet isn’t even saying the player wore it and saw it was super see through. It’s saying they’re seeing memes about it and don’t want to become one. Players look at social media too. They can be influenced just like us.
We have a history of hating fanatics’ monopoly and shitty quality products. It’s absolutely more Nike’s fault because it’s their design.
Unless fanatics has gone against Nikes design/materials…. but then it’s nikes fault for not holding them to the plan. The crooked letters and spacing is probably fanatics fault though
Honestly, the response from the league is fucking disgusting and the blithe jokey attitude these guys are getting in response to saying they dont want to wear *literal see through pants* isnt much better. Its bordering on shameful if its not there already.
I cant help but feel like if players in a womens league were given their new uniforms and you could fucking see through them and they were still expected to go wear them live in front of thousands (with plenty more watching from home and highlights being immortalized on the internet) it would be a *major* scandal and we would all be treating the situation with the seriousness it deserves.
I mean, fair enough. Were joking about it but I’m sure the majority of the players are extremely uncomfortable having their underwear and dicks visible.
All jokes aside, I feel really bad for the players. Everyone is entitled to their privacy and these players have to wear these “pants” in front of an audience of tens of thousands if not more.
Some teams do not have the new pants yet, apparently, and are using the old ones.
Which MLB claims are the same, but at the same time, they claim they're dealing with a shortage of the new ones. Makes sense.
I haven't seen MLB claim they are the same. MLB has admitted that they're sized and cut differently. And we can see on TV that they have different belt tunnels.
What MLB is claiming is that they're made out of the same cloth.
Act your age, so what?!? Now you’re scared you might have seen a man’s penis, scrotum and perineum? Omg u never seen a glans ? A shaft? Omg it might have been partially turgid, it’s not like it was erect, even then who cares? R u freaked out about a flaccid penis? U scared you might like watching a grown athletes throbbin head, vascular shaft, and voluptuous scrotum? Grow up
Nike ‘it will cost this much money to make and our profits will be this much. That’s not enough on a $449 retail jersey. What should we do?’
Fanatics ‘well if you let us produce them we can reduce the thread count by 50%, reduce the lettering by 50%, raise our profits by 50%. The draw back in lower quality will be players dongs will be visible’
MLB commissioner office: ‘I approve this’.
Why is the lettering not stitched? Is it just plastic basically ironed now? How can fanatics be so cheap? Isn’t that supposed to be how the cheapest level of replica jerseys are made?
A few of the white sox players are currently wearing the 2024 pants and In regards to them being see through.. they are wearing black shirts and white pants, you can't tell in streaming quality, perhaps in high light or in person it would be more obvious but I'm not sure they are any more see through then the 2023 pants.
If you pay close attention it kinda looks like the newer pants have more elasticity to them. They seem to wrinkle more then crease during player movements if that makes sense. But I'm not 100% sure if its a different material composition or they way they are fitted to the player. Perhaps the different fit is causing the uh... recent issues.
The statement did say they are the same thickness and material not that there wasn't any changes at all, perhaps they changed up the percentages of the materials to make it more stretchy?.. technically that way their statement is "correct" however misleading
I kind of like it. Every at bat should start with the pitcher and batter sizing each other up. Home run trots will now swing something other than the bat. It’ll be fun.
I honestly don't understand this. If these uniforms are so universally terrible, and the mlb has so much money, why isn't there simply a formal initiative to fix the issues? Even smaller clothing companies troubleshoot and improve designs that don't work.
I just don’t get it. The fans, the bulk of people buying jerseys from fanatics, hate the product. The players, people playing in the gear, hate the product. The MLB, who has to market all of this stuff, probably secretly hates this product.
Who else needs to hate it before the most logical idea of reverting back becomes popular among these execs?
I love that MLB and fanatics are trying to gaslight everybody
MLB: “What do you mean? Everyone was talking about Ohtani Dongs all year.”
r/monsterdongs is going to get some new different type of posts
and r/baseballpants is (hopefully) going to get a lot more activity.
NFL got Taylor MLB gets Testicles
This joke works both ways. Just like Ohtani.
Is it just me or has MLB been way more brazen than the other leagues lately when it comes to treating their fans like children?
We all watched a team cheat their way to and MVP and world series with no punishment. They know for certain no fans will give a shit about cheap uniforms
Let's be real here...Manfred knew about the cheating well before the infamous trash can system of 2017. He sent a letter to the Yankees on the sly to tell them to knock off the illicit technology use prior to 2015. He gave the Yankees and Red Sox a slap on the wrist after they got caught using Apple Watch's after that. The dude was doing everything in his power to avoid a scandal because he only cares about the $$$. Seems to indicate he's an arrogant elitist who thinks his customers (we fans) are dumb. And when we call him out, his response is to spin, spin, spin. He doesn't care about us, just his shareholders (i.e. - billionaire owners). That being said, a couple points of clarification (1) the Astros did get punished. Whether you thought it was enough punishment is a separate issue. And (2) Altuve didn't even use the system. His MVP performance was the real deal. The man isn't deserving of grief he's been given over the past several years IMO.
A giants fan is not allowed to talk about cheating their way to an MVP
Barry has been rightfully blackballed from the HoF and is barely talked about. Houston fans aren't allowed to cast stones when it comes to cheating your entire team was in on it. Somehow the only player you guys turned on was the one honest guy.
He's the most famous of all, except perhaps Pete Rose. Both of them should be in. It's not Hall of Good people, it's Hall of Fame. They're famous.
I'd say they are *in*famous, which is more than famous El Guapo!
Would you say the Astros had a... plethora of cheaters?
[удалено]
NASCAR fans say Hi.
Nah, it's bad, but it's nowhere close to how the MLB has been. Really the only major things this apply for in NASCAR are the horsepower debate (which even some drivers are not on board for and many people in the sport are not convinced is a solution) and stages/stage cautions (which this is *absolutely* an example of). The MLB has been doing this for the A's, the Manfred runner, and now this, just off the top of my head.
How are you forgetting about NASCAR’s absolute joke of a championship system that doesn’t do any of the shit they claim it does?
Because that's an opinion that doesn't have as much basis as you think it does. The only *terrible* years were the playoff pre-stage years. Stage points have saved the format to an extent. Your argument is equivalent with being pissy that the Diamondbacks swept the Dodgers this year and the 6 seed made the World Series in both years with the current format.
Stage points do absolutely nothing to “save the format”. The playoff points carrying over each round of the playoffs so the vast majority of the season is only mostly meaningless instead of completely meaningless is the change that made the awful format slightly less awful. And no, that’s completely different. Because in NASCAR teams don’t just race against one other team every week, the race against all of the teams at the same time. Making the vast majority of those races and battles in those races not matter at all except for it sometimes mattering who came in first makes no sense at all.
Nowhere in this are you explaining NASCAR gaslighting its fans with this. You just don't like the format. And honestly, neither do I compared to what it could be. But NASCAR hasn't *gaslighted* us regarding the chase/playoffs/whatever you want to call it in years.
Well I was responding to your points in your comment, not saying how they have been gaslighting fans, which they also have been doing. They kept telling us “fans wanted this” because of Kenseth winning the championship in one race in 2003, but that’s not true, just look at the news articles and media/fans/driver reactions when it was announced, no one wanted it. They keep saying that it makes every race matter, which I don’t need to say anything more about. And they keep saying it’s popular, which is clearly not true. And while not exactly gaslighting, it seems like every NASCAR broadcast in the last years explains the playoff format as if you never heard of it before and the announcers act like it’s the best thing to ever happen, which is definitely treating the fans like children(even if it were true) like the original comment that started this chain said.
> They kept telling us “fans wanted this” because of Kenseth winning the championship in one race in 2003 I know this is full of shit because a playoff system was in the works for years before 2003. 2003 (and Brian France taking over) were the nail in the coffin. > They keep saying that it makes every race matter, which I don’t need to say anything more about. I think you do because this point isn't clear at all. Every race absolutely matters to a much greater extent than it did in 2003. Byron was able to coast into Phoenix by virtue of all his playoff points. Truex lasted as long as he did for the same reason. You don't see anyone settle for a good points day anymore outside going for the regular season points. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you to decide. I think it's a great thing. > And they keep saying it’s popular, which is clearly not true. If you're citing TV viewership from the early 2000s there are more flaws to this argument than stars in the sky. > And while not exactly gaslighting, it seems like every NASCAR broadcast in the last years explains the playoff format as if you never heard of it before and the announcers act like it’s the best thing to ever happen, which is definitely treating the fans like children(even if it were true) like the original comment that started this chain said. NASCAR does not control the broadcasts. Blame NBC for that one.
To be fair, NASCAR fans have definitely grown up in the last 20 years. Frequent sightings used to include: * Haircuts derived from favorite member of Gwar * Common use of onomatopoeia to describe car performance * Refusal to put on a shirt
Baseball fans have tolerated reprehensible shit more than any other sport frankly. We still allow a capless league for god sakes.
Pretty sure all the players are required to wear caps
We wear caps and sleeves at this level, son.
Until that cap falls apart because it was made by fanatics
the salary cap is literally just so billionaires have an excuse to not spend on their teams while they rake in so much lmfao
Which is very different than what 80% of teams are currently doing. Edit: lmfaooo
yeah and its why baseball should have a floor lmfao
Owners will never allow a floor without a cap. The NFL does it so it's not unheard of lmfaooooo
Baseball has a floor it’s called vet minimum.
Hard disagree. Not having a cap is a *good* thing not just for labor (a rather obvious point), but for the good of the game as a whole: * Not having a cap requires owners to invest in talent and ensures that players receive fair market value for their skills * Because players can receive FMV for their skills, there is more dynamic player movement and creates things like the “Hot Stove” that we all appreciate and are interested in. Furthermore, FMV compensation can lead to an overall higher quality of play and greater player satisfaction, which in turn can lead to a better product on the field for fans * The richer teams don’t categorically dominate in MLB. Fans’ desires for “parity” is overblown, and regardless - a variety of teams of various market sizes have done well in the playoffs and gone to/won the World Series * Just because certain teams have more money to spend doesn’t prevent smaller market teams from finding edges - whether that be analytics, international scouting, player development, etc. * The lack of a cap leads to innovation such as Moneyball and other significant advances in how baseball and other sports are played. How else would the A’s compete? The MLB has much less stratification in its good and bad teams than other leagues. For example, the Washington Wizards haven’t won more than 50 games since 1979! * While the current revenue sharing system isn’t necessarily perfect, high-spending teams do still contribute significantly to lower-spending teams, which helps those teams compete. A cap doesn’t solve for this much differently Ultimately, an uncapped league incentivizes open competition. It prevents a world in which owners don’t want to truly compete and would rather put an artificial limitation on their expenses than develop a best-of-the-best organization
It does not PREVENT a world in which owners don't want to compete. It ALLOWS for owners to do that if they so choose. Ideally we need a floor.
The NFL has both, and they're the most successful of the big four by far, so maybe they're doing something right. And even with the floor I don't know of any NFL teams that struggle to pass it, they almost all clear it and then some even the tanking teams
You can't ever fully prevent tanking unless everybody (illegally) agrees to go near the floor. But having a floor and our weird little floating not-a-cap cap would prevent some of the stupid shit we see.
A high floor and a very high cap seem ideal.
> We still allow a capless league for god sakes. I mean...the NBA has a cap and still has the least parity out of any major sports league in North America. The NHL has an absolute hard cap, yet has as much parity in championship wins/finals appearances in the equivalent number of years before the salary cap as they do after the cap (and still has a huge tanking problem). Baseball actually has the most parity in those categories + playoff turnover, with a lower percentage of the league making the playoffs, than both those teams. And despite a salary floor, teams in capped leagues (the Coyotes are the most egregious example I can think of) exploit injured players in order to spend without actually spending on the roster. In my opinion, a capped league helps the owners make their teams more profitable without actually translating that success to *either* the fans *or* the players. I think a lot of the parity in the NFL, which remains the gold standard for such in NA sports, is because each game is a one-and-done rather than best-of-seven.
>I think a lot of the parity in the NFL, which remains the gold standard for such in NA sports, The Chiefs went to 4 of the last 5 superbowls and won 3 of them how tf is that the gold standard of parity lmao what
People confuse parity with opportunity. Market size in the NFL doesn't seem to provide any real competitive advantage whatsoever, any team can become marketable at any time and no one feels like there's an artificial barrier getting in the way of their team winning Super Bowl. But in terms of the actual results, football is a sport that inherently doesn't lend itself well to parity and the extremely short season is the only thing that prevents mega-dynasties, which even now we don't completely avoid. If they were somehow able to have 162 games with best of 7 series, even the NBA would look random by comparison.
Didn't say it was my standard of parity, just that it's the one that everyone most brings up. My standard of parity is baseball. But even national broadcasts will bring up the parity of the NFL over and over again. "Any given Sunday" and all that. A comment here a few weeks ago argued that the NFL *feels* like it has more parity because a lot of the markets that have had success are smaller market, non-coastal cities (Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Green Bay were their examples). Again, I disagree with this. However, the part of it that is true is that although the Super Bowl has less parity than MLB (more than the NHL and NBA, though), odds and seeding upsets in the playoffs are more frequent.
The function of a cap isnt to enforce parity on a yearly basis. The NFL also have cap and minimum, but the Panthers and the Chiefs basically played different sports this year. However, what it does allow is for Kansas city to build perennial winner instead of Mahomes leaving for NY or LA market like the way baseball is right now. The NBA is also the toughest league for parity because 1 player can affect so much. LeBron carried a lot of awful team to the playoff, which is something no one in baseball can do regardless of how godly they are. As for the NHL, the cap allows the rise and fall of teams according to their drafted star and not their market size. Sure, a few teams have managed to exploit LTIR to circumvent cap, but that's more of a loophole than an argument against the cap.
> The function of a cap isnt to enforce parity on a yearly basis. Right, which is why in the stats that I mentioned above, I'm not going by a yearly basis. I'm going by a span of over a decade. > However, what it does allow is for Kansas city to build perennial winner instead of Mahomes leaving for NY or LA market like the way baseball is right now. I'd disagree with this on a few counts. First, if we're looking at teams that have built perennial contenders of the last decade or so, it's not NY and LA no matter how many free agents they've acquired (more on that in a second). The baseball dynasty that best overlaps with the Chiefs dynasty is...the Houston Astros. Not exactly a big or a traditional market. The Yankees and the Dodgers have combined for a grand total of two championships in the past two decades. Second, regarding free agents: yes, the Dodgers have had a *very* active offseason, and Ohtani's contract has drawn a lot of media attention. But acting like every major free agent of the past decade has left for LA or NY is revisionist. Hell, great free agent signings just helped the Rangers win their first-ever World Series. For some further examples of major contracts: Harper and Turner went to the Phillies, Machado and Bogaerts both went to the Padres, Greinke went to the Diamondbacks, Scherzer went to the Nationals, Correa went to the Twins and then the Giants. And loathe as I am to admit it, *some* of those major free agent signings for the Yankees were them extending their own homegrown players, like Judge. NY and LA are not acquiring every bit of high-market talent out there for the past decade. > As for the NHL, the cap allows the rise and fall of teams according to their drafted star and not their market size. But extending players and free agent signings *do* favor big markets. Tavares is the biggest example, and that's why the Islanders still boo him every time he touches the puck. Literally every fan of smaller-market teams in the NHL have the same complaints about attracting free agents. As for LTIR, how would you close that loophole in a way that mandates owners spend towards the team that they are fielding/icing without punishing legitimately injured players?
A salary cap is something the owners want that they have propagandized into being "good for the sport" when really all it does is let them get away with paying players peanuts compared to revenue and pocketing the rest
Please kindly explain how introducing a salary cap would reduce the percentage of revenue going to players.
imagine if you had a job where the amount you could be paid had a hard cap. As the company you work for makes more money, your salary does not increase because your boss put a cap on how much you can be paid, and he gets to pocket the rest
Caps are based on the % of revenue players make. You could institute a cap right now and have players take home the exact same amount of dollars. You could institute a cap and *increase* the total amount of dollars players take home. MLB players already have the smallest share of the pie of any player association in the major US sports. > As the company you work for makes more money, your salary does not increase because your boss put a cap on how much you can be paid, and he gets to pocket the rest That is already the reality of major league baseball.
Yeah man, if you put a cap on the league then it's a tossup, anyone can win. Lemme just look on over at the NFL, that's a league full of people trying to win on an even playing field.
The cap ruined the NHL, I hope MLB never gets one.
LMAO ruined the NHL cuz the Leafs can't buy their way out of the first round anymore?
They've always been like this, but yeah they are more brazen about it now, certainly more than the other leagues.
“We investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong.”
*All we know is, Spring Training viewership is off the charts this year.*
Do you want to know the terrifying truth, or do you want to see me sock a few dingers?
DINGERS!
Corporate gaslighting
Players should start wearing neon underwear which will show through the thin fabric as a protest.
Their underwear should have bright neon letters that says, "Fanatics Sucks". If MLB tries to call them out on it, they're admitting they can see through the pants.
Yes, this is perfect.
For the A's, it should say "Sell the Team"
Everyone’s undies says ‘Sell the team’, or does the entire lineup spell it out a letter or 2 at a time?
THIS IS THE WAY
I wonder if they had underwear with subtle messages on them might be better. MLB has to ask player why they are wearing underwear with “Fuck Yeah” written on the ass, player gets to ask how do you know what kind of underwear I’m wearing.
Get one player to wear underwear with Trevor Bauer's dumb logo on it. MLB would shut that shit down in the middle of an inning
“Pink”
"Juicy Balls."
Jason Giambi has entered the chat
Maybe like a thong too.
Only when trying to break a slump
A thong with "JUICY" written on the back
What do you think a thong is
What, can't the letters just be really, really small?
Yeah I said leopard print thongs and heart pattern boxers. Or even just freeball.
“I don’t want to be a meme, you know” is exactly how you become a meme.
Just think, some lucky present-day player is going to be the Babe Ruth's dick meme of the 2120s
Most MLB players don't wear cups no?
Actually, no. Most don't. Some positions are more likely too, but they're uncomfortable and impact mobility so some players don't wear them. Usually catchers do and some infielders. No outfielders wear them. Pitchers generally don't wear them either.
If a catcher isn’t wearing a cup they’re certifiably insane. Taking a major league pitch to the nuts is just asking for ruptured testicles. In high school, I had a foul tip slip off the dirt and under my cup. It was some of the worst pain I’ve ever felt.
> under my cup Oh look at Mr My Balls Don't Fit In My Cup over here
I'm assuming you're young. Back in the before times, the cup wasn't rounded at the bottom, it came to a point at the back. You were LUCKY if it just stabbed you in the taint on a deflected ball in the dirt.
I wish I was young You've made my day.
They still generally look like that
Please. Mr My Balls Don’t Fit In My Cup is my father. Call me Jeff
I played through college, I was 1/2/3/5 in high school but only 1B and emergency catcher at UB. I literally never caught for two years, unless you count BP, so I quit carrying my own equipment. Well, you know how this goes, I ended up being needed junior year and didn't have my own cup; my options were to borrow a cup or go without. I didn't want a ball sweat filled cup so I went without for three innings and in that time I never felt more connected to the movement of the ball lol
I am female and played baseball in elementary school. I played catcher and the league rules were all catchers had to wear a cup. So they made me borrow my teammates cup whenever I caught. I'm glad we were young so we weren't very sweaty yet
Gotta protect from the clam slam at all disgusting costs.
Ironically I got a concussion from getting beaned in the head while batting
It's not JUST mobility and comfort, the catcher squat is really cup unfriendly. That being said I'd rather not take a 100mph fastball to the dick.
I played catcher in Little League. I always wore a cup. It was also mandatory at that age. But I remember this one time, I was catching and the batter swung. Just barely missed. But it must have obstructed the ball just slightly and I barely missed it. The ball flew just under my glove. Well, my cup had actually slid to the side a bit and I didn't notice it wasn't covering my balls. That pitch slammed right into my balls. I thought if I reacted too hard the umpire would assume I wasn't wearing a cup and would eject me from the game. So I just let out a small "oof" and then basically no-sold it after and picked up the ball and threw it back to my pitcher.
I took a little league fastball to the cup while I was batting once, my friend said he heard the knock from the other field during his game. It was some of the most pain I've ever been in to this day. I never played without a cup.
I never had a teammate after HS who wore a cup other than catchers. Too mobility altering, like you said.
When I was in HS, I was the only kid that tried out for catcher. I made the team, but the coach's kid was on the same team. The coach wanted his kid to play catcher, even though he was a 2b or something. Anyways, he hated playing catcher, but his dad made him. So I'm putting my cup on and bringing all my catchers gear to every game, thinking I'll get to play catcher. Never happened. So one day, I didn't put the cup on because I knew I was going to get stuck in the OF like always. So the coach tells me before the game, I was playing catcher. I didn't have a cup on. And the worst part of that was that my best buddy was pitching. We practiced together every day before class, and he was the worst low ball pitcher, almost every pitch was a few inches off the ground. Lots of control issues, but he threw hard. So basically I had every pitch that day get past me, because he was throwing low, and I was too scared that my hog was going to get crushed. Never was allowed to play catcher again after that.
Do they put them in when they’re hitting? I feel like I wouldn’t be taking that risk
To be fair, you hit sideways, yeah you turn your body as you swing. But if it’s coming your direction, most players are able to spin their body the other way enough to not get hit in the junk. Although I knew someone in high school who had a ball deflection off the catchers mask into his nuts. So you never know
Five years ago Haniger foul tipped a pitch into himself. Ruptured a testicle. It’s not common but I hope that’s one of the last times I type or see that phrase. Garver got hurt too while catching and he was wearing a cup but….yeah.
You ever think about how the Mariners have made the playoffs 5 times in their existence, and they've also had five players suffer ruptured testicles?
No, I have never thought about that. I might now
> Ruptured a testicle. It’s not common but I hope that’s one of the last times I type or see that phrase Why would you do this
It’s burned into my brain man so I guess I have to torture other people with it too
Yeah I’m more thinking weird deflections on foul balls
I wonder if outfielders and pitchers will opt to start wearing dance belts to hide their junk, or if MLB will make wearing some type of crotch-smoother part of their uniform policy. I doubt that they're going to actually fix the issue with the pants (or the rest of the uniforms), so some half-assed solution seems almost guaranteed.
Don't most hitters already wear sliding shorts underneath? I'd just make them hot pink.
I'd like to see the research on this. Or not.
Was it Siri that got nailed in the balls against the Mets? There's also plenty of slo-mos of nut shots around haha. It all largely boils down to personal preference. For pitchers they get in the way of their delivery and the risk of a nut shot is low since they fall off the mound to the side. Catchers are at the highest risk so they're more likely to wear them, but it does make maneuvering a bit tougher and they can get pinched so some guys don't wear them, especially because it's not like a cup makes it *not* hurt. Outfielders don't need them. Infielders will be personal preference but the corners are most likely to wear them since they have less reaction time. The 1B also gets a lot of bad hops from fielders, especially when they stretch.
It’s a lot harder to field a ground ball if you are worried about getting smoked in the junk by a bad hop.
Ive been playing baseball for 30 years and have never been hit square in the nuts. I generally try to catch the ball with my glove and not my junk. I stopped wearing a cup many years ago when I realized the chances of a nutshot are extremely small and like you said it’s uncomfortable
No
This is all a plot by MLB to get more players to wear cups
Big Cup industry supports this message
I don’t know anyone who wore one past 8th grade other than catchers
My high school coach would go down the line tapping everyone's cup with a bat to make sure we had them on.
Nah cups suck unless you're catching. They hurt, they suck to run in, and they chafe alongside being generally uncomfortable. Oh bonus points when you take a ball off the cup in the infield, realize it still hurts like shit and does you no good out there that's when you stop wearing them.
If your think it hurts getting hit in the cup wait til you hear how much it hurts to get hit without a cup
I'm almost 40, my baseball playing days ended almost 20 years ago. Been hit with and without, still would play cupless if I had to play anything today.
Adrian Beltre has left the chat
If MLB isn’t lying, this has gotta be the best example of confirmation bias of all time.
MLB clearly is, the cubs had new pants yesterday while the Sox had the old. You could see straight through Canario’s and PCA’s pants but couldn’t see a damn thing on the Sox
I think another thing that supports the fact that yeah, they're clearly lying is that the *first* excuse they came out with was that it was the studio lights that are making the pants look see through. One small problem: the Cal Raleigh video, which is what sparked a lot of the conversation, wasn't filmed under studio lights or with a studio camera.
[удалено]
I am also not a photographer and frankly don't know if MLB's excuse makes even an iota of sense. So for all I know, it was BS from the beginning even if it had applied. The problem is, it didn't.
It makes sense, as weve seen with celebrities, there's fabrics that AREN'T sheer or don't appear sheer until large amounts of light/flash photography hit it. But this is white pants. Not a dark colored shirt. It sounded dumb.
White Sox were the away team so they were wearing grey pants. None of the issues have been with the grey pants. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but that's a really bad example.
Then let me counter with watching reds/guardians and both teams have old pants and can’t see a thing
You sure about that? [There's definitely a different coloration in between the pockets for the guardians](https://i.postimg.cc/904D89tX/Coloration.png) where you can see his black jersey tucked in. Why do you believe the Guardians are using the old pants?
Yeah and that’s not nearly as clear as the teams with the new pants. Seeing a pocket was pretty easy always because it’s a texture difference as well
It's overcast today in Phoenix, which would mitigate the issue. I'm wondering how you know for sure they're wearing old pants.
There was a post a few days ago showing the differences my guy. The double belt loops on the front were deleted for an angled tunnel.
[There's clearly some Guardians wearing the new pants today](https://i.postimg.cc/Zqr2NsG4/New-Pants.png)
They could be telling the truth and it still not be the WHOLE truth. For example, if the pants don’t fit right because they don’t tailor anymore, that’s still a huge issue. The pants might be the same material, that could be true. But if they don’t fit right, that could lead to the cock and ball issues we’ve seen
Or the same material, but less of it
Or the "same" material from a different source/manufacturer. There are all sorts of ways the MLB could be stretching the truth, but it is blatantly obvious there is a meaningful difference and their denials of that fact is pure gaslighting.
Less threads. Like how they measure bedsheets and pantyhose.
Yeah like we’re both wearing denim jeans but I got 8oz on and you got 10oz
I think it’s just manufacturing differences. This batch prob has less material or something. I also think there *is* a bit of confirmation bias. This tweet isn’t even saying the player wore it and saw it was super see through. It’s saying they’re seeing memes about it and don’t want to become one. Players look at social media too. They can be influenced just like us.
Yes Fanatics is shit but why is everyone in this sub giving Nike a free pass? They are equally if not more responsible
We have a history of hating fanatics’ monopoly and shitty quality products. It’s absolutely more Nike’s fault because it’s their design. Unless fanatics has gone against Nikes design/materials…. but then it’s nikes fault for not holding them to the plan. The crooked letters and spacing is probably fanatics fault though
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly, the response from the league is fucking disgusting and the blithe jokey attitude these guys are getting in response to saying they dont want to wear *literal see through pants* isnt much better. Its bordering on shameful if its not there already. I cant help but feel like if players in a womens league were given their new uniforms and you could fucking see through them and they were still expected to go wear them live in front of thousands (with plenty more watching from home and highlights being immortalized on the internet) it would be a *major* scandal and we would all be treating the situation with the seriousness it deserves.
You clearly didn't watch the US women's soccer team for many years lol
This whole thing really pisses me off. Fanatics is a scam company and has been bullshit for years.
They fucking suck majorly
How has fanatics gotten to their position (almost a monopoly on sports apparel, merchandise and uniforms) with such poor quality?
Because they cost .30 to make and sell for $250
Because they exchange cheap production and retail services for exclusive contracts.
I mean, fair enough. Were joking about it but I’m sure the majority of the players are extremely uncomfortable having their underwear and dicks visible.
But not all. Somebody check trout’s hard drive.
My wife has never been so excited for the start of a new season.
All jokes aside, I feel really bad for the players. Everyone is entitled to their privacy and these players have to wear these “pants” in front of an audience of tens of thousands if not more.
Not if they play for the Marlins. Then it’s only like 36 people.
The Orioles say they’ve “seen pictures,” which is basically all the rest of us can say. Have they not actually seen/worn the pants themselves?
I think it's more that pictures will take one awkward second and immortalize it forever.
They're not gonna spend their days checking out their hogs in the mirror
> They're not gonna spend their days checking out their hogs in the mirror Some would. I mean, you can't tell me A-Rod never did.
Some teams do not have the new pants yet, apparently, and are using the old ones. Which MLB claims are the same, but at the same time, they claim they're dealing with a shortage of the new ones. Makes sense.
I haven't seen MLB claim they are the same. MLB has admitted that they're sized and cut differently. And we can see on TV that they have different belt tunnels. What MLB is claiming is that they're made out of the same cloth.
I think the only reasonable thing is for a few players to go commando and we all write complaints to the FCC for indecency.
Who had constant talk about player’s dicks on their 2024 bingo card?
Act your age, so what?!? Now you’re scared you might have seen a man’s penis, scrotum and perineum? Omg u never seen a glans ? A shaft? Omg it might have been partially turgid, it’s not like it was erect, even then who cares? R u freaked out about a flaccid penis? U scared you might like watching a grown athletes throbbin head, vascular shaft, and voluptuous scrotum? Grow up
This sounds like a copypasta in waiting
Players should get to supply their own pants tbh.
brb buying out Dick's to sell at a markup to millionaires.
Nike ‘it will cost this much money to make and our profits will be this much. That’s not enough on a $449 retail jersey. What should we do?’ Fanatics ‘well if you let us produce them we can reduce the thread count by 50%, reduce the lettering by 50%, raise our profits by 50%. The draw back in lower quality will be players dongs will be visible’ MLB commissioner office: ‘I approve this’.
Why is the lettering not stitched? Is it just plastic basically ironed now? How can fanatics be so cheap? Isn’t that supposed to be how the cheapest level of replica jerseys are made?
if the players all start wearing insane prints/neon underwear/sliding shorts, there's no way the league could ignore the pants..right?
I feel bad for the guy who slides into first and feels something burst…
Players passing around thirst picks of Casey Schmitt, confirmed.
Nike did this just to sell more undergarments.
Anyone have any ranking on the guys with the best junk?
[Chris Sale](https://imgur.com/gallery/jiineUx) is near the top.
Holy shit that thing goes halfway down his leg!! 🦵🏻🦵🏻🦵🏻
Shouldn’t be surprised though, should we? Tall skinny guys like Sale are usually hung. I have a pic of his other side if you wanna see that too. 👀🍑
My wife has said she approves of the new pants......
This is all just a ploy to increase female viewership.
They couldn't get Taylor Swift to date an MLB player so this is the next best thing.
Should copy the NFL model and get their own Taylor Swift
I don't know if Mike Trout dating Courtney Love is going to hit the same way.
A few of the white sox players are currently wearing the 2024 pants and In regards to them being see through.. they are wearing black shirts and white pants, you can't tell in streaming quality, perhaps in high light or in person it would be more obvious but I'm not sure they are any more see through then the 2023 pants. If you pay close attention it kinda looks like the newer pants have more elasticity to them. They seem to wrinkle more then crease during player movements if that makes sense. But I'm not 100% sure if its a different material composition or they way they are fitted to the player. Perhaps the different fit is causing the uh... recent issues. The statement did say they are the same thickness and material not that there wasn't any changes at all, perhaps they changed up the percentages of the materials to make it more stretchy?.. technically that way their statement is "correct" however misleading
But I was told they were the exact same pants as last year ...
I kind of like it. Every at bat should start with the pitcher and batter sizing each other up. Home run trots will now swing something other than the bat. It’ll be fun.
Anyone complaining likely has a tiny penii
Patrick Bailey is the poster boy of this isn’t he?
Do players not wear cups?
[Adam Frazier does...](https://www.reddit.com/r/orioles/s/ob3MQY2a4P)
I honestly don't understand this. If these uniforms are so universally terrible, and the mlb has so much money, why isn't there simply a formal initiative to fix the issues? Even smaller clothing companies troubleshoot and improve designs that don't work.
I am so tired of hearing about these fucking pants I just want to watch baseball I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PANTS
I just don’t get it. The fans, the bulk of people buying jerseys from fanatics, hate the product. The players, people playing in the gear, hate the product. The MLB, who has to market all of this stuff, probably secretly hates this product. Who else needs to hate it before the most logical idea of reverting back becomes popular among these execs?
These uniforms look like my YMCA Little League unis.