BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baseball’s classic stirrups all but gone

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 06, 2009

Baseball’s classic stirrups all but gone

Today’s big leaguer puts his socks on one foot at a time just like every ballplayer before him.

Yet, Los Angeles Dodgers outfielder Juan Pierre is a relic in today’s game. He’s one of the few who, with a lamentable tug at a slice of bygone baseball hosiery, still finishes the job.

“I put on my stirrups,” Pierre said.

The stirrup, the colored sock with no foot but half-moons – or arches or loops – rising in front and back, was once the most distinctive component of the baseball uniform. Estranged from the game now for a good decade-and-a-half, the vanishing stirrup gave way to the baseball trouser, a vexing transformation and one that still somehow seems overnight.

For more than 80 years the stirrup carried on, taking on different dimensions through baseball’s eras. Stirrups started low with the arches barely rising high enough to detect the white undersock – called sanitaries or “santies,” to this day – then moving up to the mid-shin, and finally stretching so high and tight that the remaining visible stripe resembled a colored rubber band about to snap.

As stirrups rose, pants began to fall, eventually sliding so far down the leg that stirrups mostly took the field incognito.

Sadly, the stirrup has long since been sacked, save for Pierre and die-hards such as Oakland Athletics pitcher Josh Outman and 46-year-old Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer. San Francisco pitchers Barry Zito and Jonathan Sanchez, and Twins pitcher and former Rangers starter R.A. Dickey mix in a pair now and again.

Stirr it up!

Gamingboy Posted: July 06, 2009 at 01:53 PM | 63 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: history, obituaries

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. salvomania Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:26 PM (#3243236)

Brendan Ryan still represents nicely.

He doesn't show a lot of the "sani," but I love the stripes.

With his flat-brimmed, low-riding cap and his huge gold chain, he looks like a lot 13-19 year-old "gangsters" in my neighborhood.

2. SoSH U at work Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:32 PM (#3243240)

How does this story get written with no mention of Nyjer Morgan? That's the way a ballplayer is supposed to look.

3. Flynn Posted: July 06, 2009 at 03:35 PM (#3243243)

Nyjer Morgan also wears the real thing as well.

I love a good stirrup. IMO, the height of baseball aesthete was the mid to late 1960s. This, this, and this are good examples.

4. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: July 06, 2009 at 04:13 PM (#3243273)

To each his own, but I always found stirrups to be very uncomfortable to wear.

5. Craig Calcaterra Posted: July 06, 2009 at 04:17 PM (#3243275)

I hated wearing them too and to be honest, though, when I see guys in long solid socks with no stirrups, I always think they look more comfortable too.

But I love the stirrup look.

6. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 04:25 PM (#3243286)

this is one of my biggest pet peeves. i hate the long pants, and now what they say to me is 'steroid era' ...
if i was commissioner, i'd make it a rule that the players had to pull up the bottom of their pants and show some sock, stirrups optional.

7. Baseball-Birthdays.com Posted: July 06, 2009 at 04:27 PM (#3243293)

I love a good stirrup. IMO, the height of baseball aesthete was the mid to late 1960s.

metoometoo, although I also gotta agree that they could/can be uncomfortable... was it George Hendrick who first started screwing with the stirrups? he was the first to wear the shoe-top length pants, I think...

8. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:03 PM (#3243330)

this article reminded me about:

"In his classic memoir “Ball Four,” Jim Bouton reported that many players sliced the bottoms of their stirrups and had extra fabric sewn in, so the pants could be stretched ever higher. That way, wrote Bouton, “your legs look long and cool instead of dumpy and hot.”"

9. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:15 PM (#3243346)

I think it's true in most sports that fashions follow large historical cycles: periods of looking sharp followed by periods of looking like something that the cat dragged in. Baseball is currently in the cat-dragged-in phase, with the long rumpled pants and the pine-tarry helmets and the appallingly sweat-stained hats. Things will come around again. Certain styles of play only work in form-fitting doubleknits.

Football has the same cycles. Football players either want to look like something that got caught in between Sam Huff and Dick Butkus traveling full speed, or they want to have unblemished form-fitting pants in powder blue or aquamarine. Ditto the NBA: sometimes you want to appear in a crappy-looking T-shirt under singlet and shorts three sizes too big, other times you want to look like you have some class :)

10. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:15 PM (#3243348)

I always liked wearing them. I always thought it made me look more like a ballplayer, and that made me feel more like a ballplayer.

11. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:19 PM (#3243351)

I always liked wearing them. I always thought it made me look more like a ballplayer, and that made me feel more like a ballplayer.

This is exactly how I felt about them. Loved the stirrups. Loved em!

12. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:24 PM (#3243353)

Well, the '80s are coming back, fashion-wise (much to my chagrin). Maybe they'll be back in baseball in 5-8 years or so.

13. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:38 PM (#3243370)

I love the stirrups, you are not a ballplayer unless you have stirrups, it's like claiming to be goth but not having any black on, it just doesn't seem right.

as to uncomfortable? I just don't see it, loved the feel, gave me a positive feeling. And I have to second and third the rest of the people that say that the long pants just don't make me think ball player.

14. Obama Bomaye Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:42 PM (#3243373)

WTF? Are these little icons coming back?

15. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:43 PM (#3243375)

Before I brought back stirrups, I'd make teams get rid of the uniformly-hideous "alternate" tops. White for home, gray for road. Why did teams mess with that winning formula?

16. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:47 PM (#3243379)

Before I brought back stirrups, I'd make teams get rid of the uniformly-hideous "alternate" tops. White for home, gray for road. Why did teams mess with that winning formula?

I'm sure they'll be happy to just as soon as you reimburse them for all of the alternate jerseys they won't be selling in their souvenir shops.

17. Crispix Attacks Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:48 PM (#3243380)

I think it's true in most sports that fashions follow large historical cycles: periods of looking sharp followed by periods of looking like something that the cat dragged in. Baseball is currently in the cat-dragged-in phase, with the long rumpled pants and the pine-tarry helmets and the appallingly sweat-stained hats. Things will come around again. Certain styles of play only work in form-fitting doubleknits.

And yet in the mid-80s, as in your picture, every player had a moustache and a mullet, whereas now being cleanshaven or having carefully groomed facial hair predominates.

18. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:50 PM (#3243382)

WTF? Are these little icons coming back?
I don't think so, I think it's an error with my name somehow

19. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:50 PM (#3243383)

I'm sure they'll be happy to just as soon as you reimburse them for all of the alternate jerseys they won't be selling in their souvenir shops.

Who buys those things? Ew.

20. SoSH U at work Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:55 PM (#3243389)

I don't think so, I think it's an error with my name somehow

Jim ran a test post earlier. Probably somehow connected to that.

21. Designated Sitter (GGC) Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:56 PM (#3243391)

I love the stirrups, you are not a ballplayer unless you have stirrups, it's like claiming to be goth but not having any black on, it just doesn't seem right.

as to uncomfortable? I just don't see it, loved the feel, gave me a positive feeling. And I have to second and third the rest of the people that say that the long pants just don't make me think ball player.

I suppose you wear ties, even on days when the dress code is business casual. Dewey, I'd make an exception for light blue road unis. I miss those.

22. Benji Gil Gamesh is not being paid to be that guy Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:58 PM (#3243395)

Who buys those things? Ew.

I like some of them. Like the navy blue uni shirts the Red Sox have worn a time or two of late.

23. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 05:59 PM (#3243397)

I suppose you wear ties, even on days when the dress code is business casual. Dewey, I'd make an exception for light blue road unis. I miss those.

Honestly I like wearing ties, but haven't had to in years. I like to have something that provides a contrast. But the stirrups were never uncomfortable. Just a different type of sock.

24. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:02 PM (#3243402)

And yet in the mid-80s, as in your picture, every player had a moustache and a mullet, whereas now being cleanshaven or having carefully groomed facial hair predominate

Yes, fashion has strange mixes. As scruffy uniforms were coming in in c2000 so were those hideous "soul-patch" beards ...

25. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:07 PM (#3243412)

As scruffy uniforms were coming in in c2000 so were those hideous "soul-patch" beards ...

...which were popular in the real world in about 1995.

I've noticed that baseball players tend to be about 5-10 years behind the times, fashion-wise. It's like they're trapped in high school.

26. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3243458)

ahem ... not to brag, but i think you get the little dingus on your handle if you helped out earlier this year with a contribution to btf. i figgered its the least i could do after all the inane stuff i've put up here.

27. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:39 PM (#3243459)

28. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:40 PM (#3243460)

I suppose you wear ties, even on days when the dress code is business casual. Dewey, I'd make an exception for light blue road unis. I miss those.

i have to wear a tie, and my boss also doesn't allow casual fridays. and i live in L.A.! go figure.

29. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:42 PM (#3243463)

Yeah? Well #### you Mr. Big Shot!

now don't go jumping in front of your mom.

30. Shock Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:44 PM (#3243466)

I like how you all have singles, but when you click it there is no option to get a single. You get a double for donating $25-$50 and a Francoeur if you donate up to $24.99. I'm just going to assume you've donated $24.9999

31. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:44 PM (#3243467)

now don't go jumping in front of your mom.

No more mom jokes. I'm getting typecast. I don't want to be the Urkel of BBTF. Or is it too late?

edit: So, if we're a deadbeat about donating to BBTF, everyone is going to know it now? The scarlet C, huh? I'll wait until Ryan Jones donates and then go one notch better since I can donate in a real currency and not some made up one.

32. Shock Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:48 PM (#3243477)

I can donate in a real currency and not some made up one.

Yeah, Jim wouldn't accept my donation of 10 moose pelts.

33. Obama Bomaye Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:49 PM (#3243479)

ahem ... not to brag, but i think you get the little dingus on your handle if you helped out earlier this year with a contribution to btf.

But they were introduced a few years back and the consensus reaction seemed to be to get rid of them (along with the little professor hats), for various reasons. Odd that they suddenly appear again. Unless SOSH's theory is correct. They're kind of annoying.

34. RJ in TO Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:51 PM (#3243483)

I've noticed that baseball players tend to be about 5-10 years behind the times, fashion-wise. It's like they're trapped in high school.

If you think baseball players are bad, you should check out what hockey players consider to be stylish.

35. RJ in TO Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:53 PM (#3243486)

edit: So, if we're a deadbeat about donating to BBTF, everyone is going to know it now? The scarlet C, huh? I'll wait until Ryan Jones donates and then go one notch better since I can donate in a real currency and not some made up one.

Then you're safe for a bit - I don't have a paypal account, and I don't have a US funds bank account. As a result, it'll take me a little bit to sort out how to best arrange for a donation.

Honestly, it'd be easier for me if there was just a way to donate through a credit card, although I realise that does require a lot of extra setup for Jim.

36. Shock Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:55 PM (#3243489)

Honestly, it'd be easier for me if there was just a way to donate through a credit card, although I realise that does require a lot of extra setup for Jim.

Actually it requires none. you can donate via credit card through Paypal even if you have no Paypal account.

37. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:56 PM (#3243491)

Actually it requires none. you can donate via credit card through Paypal even if you have no Paypal account.

Then Ryan and I are both screwed!

38. robinred

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:57 PM (#3243495)

Then Ryan and I are both screwed!

Like mothers, like sons.

39. RJ in TO Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:59 PM (#3243499)

Actually it requires none. you can donate via credit card through Paypal even if you have no Paypal account.

Huh. I was completely unaware of that. Thanks for letting me know.

40. robinred

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 06:59 PM (#3243500)

I guess phredbird gave more $ than I did. Either that or he got to second base with Ryan's mom.

Edit: While I think the thought is nice, I don't think the little diamond thing is a good idea.

41. DL from MN Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:01 PM (#3243507)

Why not stirrup socks (socks with a line up the side)? It's the best compromise between stirrups (that fall down all the time and can cause blisters) and socks (which look like you're just wearing socks). I don't like baggy uniforms much, especially Brandon Inge's this weekend. He should have been forced to change shirts.

42. regfairfield Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:02 PM (#3243508)

If you had women constantly throwing themselves at you, you wouldn't care how dumb your facial hair looked either.

43. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:05 PM (#3243512)

If you had women constantly throwing themselves at you, you wouldn't care how dumb your facial hair looked either.

Do women throw themselves at Chad Gaudin? What kind of women?

44. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:26 PM (#3243548)

I block all images from BBTF (like a lot of sites), so I can't see any hats or captain's Cs.

45. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:28 PM (#3243554)

Do women throw themselves at Chad Gaudin? What kind of women?

hotties

46. Crispix Attacks Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:30 PM (#3243556)

Hey, I made a donation too. I even got an email asking who I was because I was unidentifiable by name or email address, so that I could be listed among "Supporters".

47. Dewey, Steven Wright Wannabe and Soupuss Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:35 PM (#3243568)

I'm going to assume that #45 is an Albright.

48. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:41 PM (#3243575)

I'm going to assume that #45 is an Albright.
I wished I would have done that before clicking.

49. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:56 PM (#3243595)

I guess phredbird gave more $ than I did. Either that or he got to second base with Ryan's mom.

or it could have been both.

50. phredbird

Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:57 PM (#3243596)

btw, i think its funny to call a $24.99 donation a 'francoeur'.

i guess if you give $100, you've given a 'pujols'.

51. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: July 06, 2009 at 07:59 PM (#3243600)

I also recall stirrups being uncomfortable.

52. Shock Posted: July 06, 2009 at 08:01 PM (#3243603)

btw, i think its funny to call a $24.99 donation a 'francoeur'.

Jim (or someone) just changed the legend. Now the lowest you can get is an Ichiro.

53. Walt Davis Posted: July 06, 2009 at 08:14 PM (#3243616)

Guys wired on greenies wore stirrups, ergo socks are performance enhancing.

54. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 06, 2009 at 10:42 PM (#3243724)

btw, i think its funny to call a $24.99 donation a 'francoeur'.

I agree--at first glance a francoeur looks to be worth $24.99, but after awhile, you realize it's only worth $1.49

55. Cabbage Posted: July 07, 2009 at 12:43 AM (#3243859)

1) Do stirrups serve a function?
2) If I owned a team, the uniform shirt would pull over and have collar.

56. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: July 07, 2009 at 01:02 AM (#3243876)

1) Do stirrups serve a function?

They make you faster and allow you to shoot lasers out of your eyes.

57. AndrewJ Posted: July 07, 2009 at 01:33 AM (#3243905)

My only comment on this subject is that the White Sox should actually wear white socks (no stirrup) as they did in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

58. flournoy Posted: July 07, 2009 at 02:43 AM (#3243958)

I think that almost universally, every team had its best uniform in 1992 or 1993.

For example: Angels Astros Blue Jays Brewers Mariners Marlins

59. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: July 07, 2009 at 02:50 AM (#3243967)

There's a fine argument to be made for that, all right.

Of course, I was 12 in 1992.

I pity people who were 12 in 1997 . . .

60. flournoy Posted: July 07, 2009 at 03:06 AM (#3243976)

Well I was 12 for half of '97. I don't remember disliking the "sleek" new uniform/logo design at the time, but I know I preferred the early nineties stuff.

61. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: July 07, 2009 at 03:11 AM (#3243980)

I'm glad, for all the good it does :)

62. Chipper Jonestown Massacre Posted: July 07, 2009 at 04:29 AM (#3243999)

I like the Braves uni's from the 2000 season - the one year in recent times when they had stripes on the socks.

Some Braves players showed the stripes on occasion, but Mike Remlinger was about the only one who showed them on a consistent basis.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, July 06, 2009

Baseball’s classic stirrups all but gone

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics