The Best and Worst Uniforms of All Time: The New York Mets

12 Comments

The Best: The Mets have stayed pretty steady over the years.  The biggest change has been the introduction of black a few years ago (more on that below) and disappearing pinstripes. Otherwise, it has been a pretty classic design.  Inspired, even, taking some elements from the Yankees (pinstripes), some from the Dodgers (blue) and some from the Giants (orange).  As the only team whose very existence can be explained as a reaction to that which other teams did, this is rather appropriate. My favorite — and I bet the favorites of every Mets fan over the age of 12 — is the classic, Seaver-era look, closely tracked by the new alternate/retro home uniform.

The Worst: They’ve never been horrendous — kudos to the Mets for keeping their heads about them through the 1970s — but one of the worst things they ever did was to go wacky with the black caps and alternate jerseys they introduced a few years ago.  Less offensive are the solid home whites, but they’re still sub-optimal, as this is one of the few teams who should be pinstriped. And the less said about those blue things from the 80s the better.  But while the blues may look terrible, I’ll go with the blacks being the actual worst. Why? Because they were obviously calculated to sell product whereas those blues were just the Mets getting on the multi-color 70s bus a bit later than everyone else.  We’re all allowed an occasional transgression, right?

Assessment: There should be a law against the Mets wearing anything but the classic blue, white, and orange getup, preferably with the pinstripes.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
11 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.