Earlier this year I wrote a post about how several Major League Baseball teams were opting for a retro look with their alternate uniforms. This week we saw several teams turn back the clock and wear uniforms specially designed to match the ones from the old days.

Chicago Cubs



The Cubs commemorated the 60th anniversary of their first broadcast on WGN with these pinstripe-less threads. You can see that the Cubs' current design has been around in some incarnation for many years.

Atlanta Braves



The Braves opposed the Cubs in these uniforms from 1948, which also happens to be the last year the Braves won the pennant in Boston. It was the second of only two they won in Beantown, but that Billy Southworth-helmed team featuring star third baseman Bob Elliott and the "Spahn and Sain and pray for rain" pitching staff was a special one.

Baltimore Orioles



They did it! They did just what I suggested on this blog! They celebrated the 25th anniversary of their last World Series title by wearing throwbacks with elastic waistbands! The Orioles organization has made a lot of mistakes in recent years, but this is one thing they definitely got right.

San Francisco Giants



The 70's was not a good decade for the Giants, but the 1978 team that these uniforms are a tribute to was memorable for being in first place most of the year until tailing off in August and finishing in third. Like the Orioles, it's good to see a team that doesn't ignore the elastic waistbands in their uniform history.

San Diego Padres



The Padres remembered the 30th anniversary of the first squad in franchise history to finish with a winning record by donning these throwbacks that actually feature the full team name. The Padres prove why I keep bringing up the elastic waistbands though, because these uniforms would be more accurate if they had them.

Cleveland Indians



Unlike the alternates that only had a retro feel to them, these are actual replicas of the 1978 Indians' uniforms (minus, all together now, the elastic waistbands). Why they'd want to honor that sixth-place team led by Andre Thornton I'm not sure, but the uniforms themselves don't look half bad.

Why do I love throwbacks so much? Why am I such a stickler for accuracy? Why do I want to remind everyone that the goofy elastic waistband uniforms ever existed? I guess it's just the sports history buff in me. No matter how ugly some teams' uniforms used to be, there's something about seeing them that stirs up my romanticism for baseball. That's another reason America's Pastime is my favorite sport; it's the only one that has that effect on me. Here's to the future and the eternal remembrance of baseball's rich history.

We're only two weeks into baseball season and already several teams have unveiled new alternate uniforms that have an old-school feel to them.

Cleveland Indians



The cap has a "C" on it, the front has block lettering, and the jersey and pants have a cream color rather than pure white. While this exact design was never actually worn by the Indians in past seasons, it has similarities to some of the team's more simple designs of yesteryear.

Toronto Blue Jays



This powder blue thing was actually the team's away uniform from 1979-1988, but it looks pretty darn cool these days in the Rogers Centre. As I have previously opined on this blog, the Blue Jays should go back to this design. It's way better than the boring togs they wear now.

Philadelphia Phillies



This style with no pinstripes, no sleeve numbers, a blue cap, piping on the sides and a cream-#### tint was worn by the Phils from 1946-1949. While the Phillies' regular uniforms are already some of the best in baseball, these look pretty sharp as well.

Kansas City Royals



Like the Indians, this exact design was never worn by the Royals, but their road uniforms were this same powder blue color from 1973-1991 and the jersey said "Royals" in white letters like these from 1983-1991. This modernization of an old design really works.

From what I hear, the Orioles are also planning to don throwbacks later this summer to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the 1983 World Series Champions. Perhaps they'll be the first team to get the 70's-80's-era throwbacks completely right and have elastic waistbands on the pants.



I love throwback uniforms. They remind us that our favorite sports wouldn't be what they are today if it hadn't been for the teams and players of bygone eras. It's interesting to think that someday teams could be wearing the uniform designs of today as throwbacks. Oh, the memories that will be sparked.

The American League has widely been considered the stronger of baseball's two leagues for the past few years. Indeed, the AL Playoff races were wrapped up fairly uneventfully, with each team having a decent-sized lead and their clinchings being mere formalities by the time they happened. The most dramatic moment that clinched anything in the AL was the Orioles coming from behind to tie the Yankees and winning on a bases-loaded bunt in extra innings. This brilliantly-executed play assured us that the Yankees would be reduced to Wild Card winners rather than AL East Champs, little more than a small victory for Yankee-haters everywhere. Any of the four teams in the AL Playoffs (Angels, Indians, Red Sox, Yankees) will be favored to win the World Series once we know which one will be playing in it.

The National League is much poorer than its younger counterpart. The NL's best team finished with a 90-72 record (worse than any of the AL Playoff participants) and allowed more runs than it scored during the season. There's so much parity in the NL that no team finished more than 19 games out of first place. While there's no denying that the NL is the weaker of the two leagues, there is one thing it provides more of than the AL: excitement.

That 90-72 team, the NL West Champion Diamondbacks, came out of nowhere to win it. The Padres and Dodgers were most people's picks to win the division before the season began, but the D-Backs stayed above .500 all year and eventually took first place in the last two months. It still isn't quite clear how they did it. On paper they don't appear to be that great a team, but you can't deny their success. Now the question is if they can continue it against the Cubs in the Playoffs.

The Cubs themselves had a pretty exciting year. The Brewers got off to a hot start and looked like the only team that wanted to win the NL Central early on. The Cubs, despite spending a lot of money in the offseason, struggled during the first two months and looked destined for another disappointing season. After Lou Piniella had his now-famous confrontation with an umpire (once again I'll brag about it...I was at that game!), the Cubs suddenly started getting back on track. As their rise coincided with the Brewers' collapse, the Cubs eventually found themselves in first place in late August. Even when they had a 3½-game lead with six games left it wasn't over. They got swept in a three-game series with the last-place Marlins and the Brewers still had a shot. Fortunately, the Cubs got back on track and clinched the division title in their final series with the Reds. They now have a shot at winning their first pennant in 62 years and their first World Series in 99 years.

The NL East had one of the most memorable races in recent times. Going into the season most people picked either the Braves or Mets to win the division, and a lot of people picking the Braves had the Mets as the Wild Card. Those two teams battled for first place during the early months while the Phillies got off to a slow start. The Mets eventually took first place and it looked like they would never relinquish it. Then, with 17 games left and the Mets holding a 7-game lead over the Phillies, the unthinkable happened. The Mets went 5-12 to finish out the season while the Phillies went 13-4 over the same span. In the end the Phillies won the division by one game and the Mets were out of the Playoffs altogether.

Then there's the Wild Card. The Padres battled the Diamondbacks for the NL West lead most of the second half. When the Diamondbacks established themselves as the division leader the Padres looked like they'd end up settling for the Wild Card. Not so fast. The Rockies, who'd stayed around .500 most of the year but never stepped it up to make a real postseason drive, suddenly went on a tear. They won 13 of their last 14 games to force a one-game playoff with the Padres which would determine the Wild Card winner. What a game it was. Both teams fought the whole way, and it eventually went 13 innings. In the top of the thirteenth the Padres got a two-run homer which looked like it would clinch the game. The Rockies didn't give up though, scoring three runs in the bottom half to earn the title of NL Wild Card.

These NL Playoff teams are a motley crew. None of them made the Playoffs last year, and the one that made it most recently was the Cubs in 2003. It's hard to believe that one of these four is going to be playing in the World Series this year. The AL, on the other hand, has the three teams with the league's highest payrolls playing this October (Angels, Yankees, Red Sox), and only one that has some underdog appeal (Indians). Except the Indians, all were in the Playoffs as recently as two years ago, and all but the Indians have won a World Series this decade. Truthfully, once you get past the Indians it's hard to root for any of the AL teams.

The AL may be stronger. One of their teams may end up hoisting the World Series trophy at the end of this month. They may be representative of what great baseball teams truly look like. Why would we follow sports though, if there were never any excitement? If the same teams always won easily it would be boring to follow them. If you simply want to marvel at greatness, the AL is there for you. If you want thrilling races, determination and never-say-die dramatics, the NL is the far superior league.

Ryan Dempster has been a solid pitcher for the Cubs over the past four seasons. He's had some inconsistency, but overall he's done what we've asked of him. When he joined the Cubs he took the uniform number 46, which he wore during his prime years as a starter with the Marlins. Certainly it wasn't a surprising choice, as many players prefer to wear the same number as often as possible during their careers.

Before the 2006 season the Cubs signed another veteran reliever, Bob Howry. The Cubs were Howry's fourth Major League team, and he had worn number 46 at some point with each of the previous three. Because of Dempster, he chose the number 62. Howry said at the time that he didn't want to be one of those guys who wore a bunch of different numbers during his career, so he took 62 because it was the number he wore as a rookie with the White Sox. Howry had also worn 62 during the first of his two seasons with the Indians, but he switched to 46 for the second.

Before this season the Cubs acquired pitcher Neal Cotts from the White Sox. Cotts had worn number 46 the previous three seasons, but that was obviously no longer an option with the Cubs. He'd worn number 38 for four games during his first Major League callup, but Carlos Zambrano already had that one too. Unlike Howry, he had to take a number he'd never worn at the Major League level. Cotts is currently back in the Minors, but he wore number 48 earlier this season for the Cubs and still holds that number on their 40-man roster. Perhaps he combined his two numbers with the Sox. I'm not sure.

Now there's the Cubs' most recent acquisition. After leaving the team as a free agent following the 1999 season, Steve Trachsel has returned to the Cubs in a trade with the Orioles. While he's worn a few different numbers since he's been away, his number during his first seven years with the team was (you guessed it) 46. Trachsel is listed on the Cubs' roster now as wearing number 52. Though it's been a while, my "visual" of Steve Trachsel is him on the mound with that big 46 on his back. It'll be odd to see him wearing something else.

In Ryan Dempster's relatively short tenure with the Cubs he's already denied three other pitchers the ability to wear a familiar number. I certainly wouldn't suggest that he give up number 46 for any of them (since none of them will go down in history as anything better than "above average"), but it's interesting. I can't recall another time when I've seen that many guys have to switch numbers over a player of Dempster's caliber. If the Cubs get rid of him anytime soon I have a feeling that a few guys are going to be fighting over a certain two-digit combination.

Today (Sunday) two of the greatest players from the 80's-90's era will officially be added to the ranks of their sport's immortals when the Baseball Hall of Fame holds the induction ceremony for Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken Jr. Both of these men undoubtedly belong there and have several noteworthy achievements to their names. Gwynn was a 15-time All Star (10-time starter), career .338 hitter, 5-time Gold Glover and 8-time batting champion. He spent his entire 20-year career with the San Diego Padres and was the only Padre to play for both the 1984 and 1998 pennant winners. Ripken was a 2-time MVP, 2-time Gold Glover, 19-time All Star (starting 17 times), and holds baseball's record for most consecutive games played with 2,632. He played 21 years, all with the Baltimore Orioles, and led them to their last World Series championship in 1983. Both were still in their primes when I first started following baseball, so I have plenty of memories of them from their playing days.

I was always a big Tony Gwynn fan. Whenever I thought about the Padres back in the 90's Tony Gwynn was always the first guy to come to mind. He was "Mr. Padre," the face of the franchise for most of his career and still probably their greatest player to this day. You could count on him to contend for the batting title every year, because he was one of the most studious hitters of his era. He struck me as a guy who truly loved baseball, and I always enjoyed hearing or reading his thoughts. I'll never forget the image of him crying with Ted Williams at the 1999 All Star Game. I loved seeing a guy who appreciated the science of hitting honoring one of its pioneers.

I remember seeing a segment on "This Week in Baseball" where they asked players which pitchers their first Major League hits and home runs were against. At one point they asked Tony Gwynn about the subject and he said that he'd always break the ice with new players on the team by asking them questions like that. He said that every guy always has an immediate answer for you, but there was one guy (I can't recall who he said it was) who told him "I don't remember." He was shocked by that answer. "What?? You don't remember your first Major League home run?" I always love stuff like that because it gives you a glimpse of how big leaguers think about the game.

I've read some stuff from sabermetricians saying that Gwynn is an overrated player. I understand where they're coming from. He was mainly a contact hitter without much power. He didn't draw a lot of walks and only 763 of his 3,141 hits went for extra bases. He started out as a stolen base threat, but in the second half of his career he put on weight (perhaps from spending too much time watching film) and mostly lost that aspect of his game. Back in my less analytical days I didn't think much about that stuff, but now that I'm older I understand the value of looking at it.

Overrated or not, there's no denying that Tony Gwynn was great at what he did. He was one of my favorite players as a young baseball fan and still is to this day. Congratulations on making the Hall, Tony. Baseball is better for having had you.

Then there's Cal Ripken Jr. I have to confess that there was a time when I didn't like Cal. The media gave him this status as some sort of untouchable figure who transcended the game, which annoyed me. I felt that he was overrated because of the consecutive games streak and I was tired of him constantly being shoved down my throat. Over time I've grown to appreciate, respect, and even like him, but because I strongly disliked him at one point I won't be able to look back on his career as fondly as Tony Gwynn's. Still, there's a lot of good to say about him.

I remember when he broke the streak. Back in those days my family had satellite TV. Even though we didn't get the baseball package, the satellite company gave it to everyone for free at the end of the 1995 season. It was nice being able to watch any ballgame I wanted to for about a month. I had the opportunity to see the streak be broken, so how could I pass it up? I only watched the first few innings before I got bored, because I didn't think there was anything else to see. I wasn't an Orioles or Angels fan, after all. Still, that's a record that won't be broken anytime soon, if ever. I was glad that I got to witness it.

They made a big deal about Cal Ripken's last season, since it would be the last time anyone got to see him play. I was in the stands for his last game at Comiskey Park on July 1, 2001. I think it was actually "Cal Ripken Day" at the ballpark, and I guess I figured it'd be kind of cool to say I was there. Fans must have felt that Ripken wasn't quite as legendary as he was made out to be, since the game wasn't even a sellout. My father and I had seats in the upper deck, and we kept moving as the shadows crept in (it was cold in those shadows). I also remember a foul ball being hit right to the spot where we had been sitting a few minutes after we moved. Darn the luck. The Sox ended up losing, so Ripken got to win his last game in Comiskey.

Many credit him with revolutionizing the shortstop position. He didn't fit the mold of the small, speedy, light-hitting, defense-oriented shortstop as he was a 6'4" power hitter. He wasn't the first slugging shortstop, as players like Honus Wagner, Vern Stephens, Ernie Banks and Rico Petrocelli all preceded him, but they've been more common since Ripken played than they were before. Most of us remember earlier this decade when Derek Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra, Alex Rodriguez and Miguel Tejada were known as the "Big Four," though they aren't called that anymore because two of them no longer play shortstop. Still, we take the slugging shortstop for granted today, but it was fairly unusual in Ripken's time. I remember all the talk when he moved to third base (which he actually played when he first came up), because he was so well-known for what he did at shortstop. He's one of those guys who will always be in the debate for best ever at his position.

You could argue that Ripken is overrated (if only because he's thought so incredibly highly of), but he was definitely a great player. Congratulations, Cal. You earned your place in history.

These two men are icons for their respective franchises and are finally getting the ultimate honor bestowed upon their careers. Some Hall of Fame selections are questioned down the road, but I doubt either of these will be. The Hall of Fame will never be complete as long as baseball is still being played, but it never would be without these two.