(Editor’s note: File this under “Great Minds Think Alike”; you may have seen a version of this post earlier today. Tom and I wrote similar posts on the same subject and posted them within minutes of each other. I’ve combined those two posts into this one. –Chad)

CHAD: I don’t like this one bit:

It might be of subtle notice but Reds minor leaguers are no longer required to wear their socks high over their pants. Being clean shaven is not mandatory anymore either. That rule extended to coaches too. Triple-A Louisville manager Rick Sweet is wasting no time growing a mustache.

I don’t care about the facial hair, though we still have a strict no-facial-hair policy for the editors here at Redleg Nation. It’s the other part, about the socks, that irritates me.

I’ve been on a crusade to get the Reds to wear the old-style stirrups again. Well, it isn’t really a crusade; all I’ve done is complain on a dumb little blog, but still…the stirrups are classy and they make the uniform look much better.

I don’t know if I can bear watching the minor league Reds now. They’ll all probably wear those stupid long pants that come down under their cleats. Ugh.

Wonder if I can talk our Spotlight Players into wearing the high socks for us? I’m looking at you, Logan Parker and Matt Klinker!
—–

TOM: I must say I am saddened by this news. I know in the bigger scheme of things it probably doesn’t really matter and is merely a personal preference on my part. I’ve never liked how the big baggy pants all bunched up over the top of the cleats looks. I think it looks sloppy. I also dislike that the players’ uniforms look different, with some players wearing their pants traditionally showing their red socks, and others with the frumpy bunched up look going on.

I think having the minor leaguers all required to wear their uniforms the same instills a little bit of the importance of being a team. I believe it also provides a bit of discipline in the young men, which seems to be missing in many places these days. I don’t mind as much that the clean shaven rule was also dropped, as long as they require them to keep their facial hair neatly trimmed. Like I said, I’m sure this is just an old-school personal preference on my part, but I always liked that the Reds required their minor leaguers to do this. How is everyone else out there in Redleg Nation feeling about this bit of news?

14 Responses

  1. RiverCity Redleg

    I am 1000% in agreement with you both. I can’t stand the long pants. I liked that the Minors still wore the high socks. I don’t even have to have stirrups, but the high socks are a must. They look so much cleaner. Somehow, I think it even makes the players look faster and more athletic. What can I do to help the cause?

  2. Bill Lack

    Chad writes: I don’t care about the facial hair, though we still have a strict no-facial-hair policy for the editors here at Redleg Nation.

    Like Greg Vaughn years ago for the Reds, if I don’t get a waver, I’m outta here.

    • RedinFla

      Chad writes: I don’t care about the facial hair, though we still have a strict no-facial-hair policy for the editors here at Redleg Nation. Like Greg Vaughn years ago for the Reds, if I don’t get a waver, I’m outta here.

      Hey, Bill –
      “waver” with no “i” means somebody waving. So, I guess you just got what you wanted. 😆

    • preach

      Chad:

      If you are going with the ‘no facial hair rule’, then you should tuck your pant legs into your socks.

      So long, Bill.

    • Bill Lack

      So long, Bill.

      I just realized the rational for this…you can’t grow a beard or mustache. NOW I get it.

  3. preach

    Or is it that you start every post with comments from the CF and SS?

  4. Mike Martz

    I want to go on record as hating the long pants as well!
    After all we are the
    “CINCINNATI RED STOCKINGS”
    not the
    CINCINNATI BELL BOTTOMS!

    😐

  5. hoosierdad

    If the REDS go with the clean-shaven look, maybe they can get Aqua Velva to sponsor the broadcasts. Hey, Pete used to do commercials for them! As for the pants, would love to see stirrups again. Just something about seeing that high leg kick of a pitcher with the stirrup on that brings back great memories of pitchers gone by.

  6. Python Curtus

    Can I just point out that since Greg Vaughn sweet talked a senile Marge Schott into allowing facial hair back in ’99, the Reds have had exactly 2 winning seasons. You know how baseball players are about their superstitions. Some fans have superstitions of their own and I really believe it’s not a coincidence that with the goatees came the losing.
    The Yankees have steadfastly maintained a ban on any hair below the lips since the beginning of time almost. I think there is a lot to be said for a discipline of appearance. They don’t have to be as extreme as Sparky’s anti-long hair mania or Schott’s insistance on a jacket and tie for all off-field appearances. But I do think evryone should wear their uniforms the same way and look like a team and not groom themselves to look like refugees from a grunge-rock festival gone awry.
    And am I the only one who misses the uniform style from the 80s, when evryone looked as lean and mean as Eric Davis in his prime?

  7. pinson343

    Until the mid-90’s, stirrups were an integral part of a baseball uniform, including the Reds’ uniform. A lot of teams (such as the Cincinnati Red Stockings, later the Reds) were named after the color of their stirrups.

    One of my first baseball memories was of Vada Pinson, wearing his stirrups high and meticulous.