Culture
Kepner: With new uniforms, MLB makes another fashion flop
Twenty years ago, after blowing the lead in a critical playoff game for the Minnesota Twins, Juan Rincón described the feeling with an all-time baseball malaprop: “Nobody wants to be in my pants right now.”
These days, it seems, nobody wants to be in any pair of baseball pants. Major leaguers reported to spring training this week to find that they cannot customize their pants anymore, and that their new style of jerseys – designed by Nike, manufactured by Fanatics – is not up to big league standards.
As The Athletic’s Stephen J. Nesbitt wrote, players around the league “criticized the jerseys’ poor fit, cheap look, inconsistent quality and small lettering.”
Sigh. Major League Baseball just can’t help itself, and it keeps getting worse.
In 2019, for the cringy “Players Weekend,” they staged an all-white vs. all-black uniform series that evoked “Spy vs. Spy” from the old Mad Magazine. The next year, as part of a 10-year deal with Nike worth more than $1 billion, they let Nike slap its logo on the front of every jersey.
Then came “City Connect” uniforms, in case you ever wondered how your favorite player would look as a blueberry, a cloud or a license plate. The All-Star Game, always a cavalcade of colors with players wearing their regular uniforms, became a three-hour ad for generic Nike jerseys.
Now this.
Baseball’s relationship with Nike is like the “Seinfeld” episode when George tries to be friends with Elaine’s cool boyfriend. He wears his hat backwards and goes rock climbing, unable to hide his infatuation. He’s desperate to be a dude, but he’s still a Costanza.
That’s not to say baseball should be stuffy. Last season’s rule changes made the product more dynamic and appealing. Plenty of other initiatives – the annual Little League Classic, the DREAM Series, the “MLB The Show” video game, the comprehensive, user-friendly MLB app – also help grow the game.
But baseball doesn’t seem to understand its own visual appeal. Let the other leagues cheapen their jerseys with advertisements. Baseball should be above that, but the last collective bargaining agreement allows teams to sell ad space on uniforms. So now the Atlanta Braves wear a sleeve patch depicting a yellow bag of concrete mix, the Toronto Blue Jays come at you with a neon green square for a bank, and the Houston Astros sport a garish patch for Oxy – the energy producer, not the drug.
When Rob Manfred became commissioner in 2015, he said he had no interest in allowing ads on jerseys. That changed, of course, and Manfred was at least honest about the reversal in 2022: “It’s a revenue source that is significant enough that it’s really impossible for a sport to ignore over the long haul. I think that’s the truth.”
It’s a business, of course. But just because you can make money by selling something doesn’t mean you should. Several teams will not sell naming rights to their ballparks because there’s more value in continuity and tradition. It’s still Dodger Stadium, not Guggenheim Field. It’s still Yankee Stadium, not Starr Insurance Park.
Manfred’s approach to the All-Star uniforms reflected a belief that Nike can do no wrong.
“I never thought that a baseball team wearing different jerseys in a game was a particularly appealing look for us,” he said in 2022. “I understand that people can have different views on that topic, but it is part of a larger program designed to market the game in a non-traditional way.”
Fine, but why obscure the identity of your players? The All-Star Game should be a showcase, and a regular-season uniform gives an easy clue: “Oh, right, he’s that guy on the Marlins who’s been doing so well….” If everyone looks the same, you miss that connection.
Manfred reiterated his faith in Nike on Thursday at Grapefruit League media day.
“I think you know, in baseball, with any new initiative, there’s going to be some negative feedback. First and most important, these are Nike jerseys,” Manfred said. “We entered this partnership with Nike. Just who they are and the kind of products they produce, everything they’ve done for us so far has been absolutely 100 percent successful across the board.
“The jerseys are different. They’re designed to be performance wear as opposed to what has traditionally been worn. So they are going to be different. But they have been tested more extensively than any jersey in any sport. The feedback from the All-Star Game last year was uniformly positive from the players. I think after people wear them for a little bit, they’re going to be really popular.”
The 2024 uniforms have a markedly smaller typeface for the player’s name. This, quite obviously, will only make it harder to know who we’re watching. How is that a possibly good thing?
“Look at the last names, bro,” Angels reliever Carlos Estévez said. “I’m 6-foot-6. This is going to look tiny on me.”
Last year vs this year’s replica jersey offerings from the fine folks at MLB, Nike & Fanatics. Last year’s being on the left and this year’s on the right.
I have a lot to say, so bear with me here.
Let’s just rip the bandaid off right away with this year’s new jersey offerings pic.twitter.com/3IShhlj0nL
— Bobby Mullins (@TheBobbyMullins) February 11, 2024
Hey, maybe the players – many with Nike sponsorship deals – will change their minds once they play a few games. Maybe, in time, the jerseys won’t look like the replica you buy when you’re trying to save money but still want to kinda look authentic.
But the underlying concept persists. Baseball, guided by Nike, is trying to force-feed all these stylistic changes instead of just letting them happen organically. Consider the last few decades of uniforms trends, and how they reflected the times:
In the 1970s, color TVs gave rise to bright, gaudy uniforms. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, things were more conservative – button-down jerseys, belts, whites at home, grays on the road, a nostalgic turn also reflected in the retro ballpark boom.
The Marlins won the 1997 World Series while wearing their sleeveless white jerseys. (AP Photo/Eric Draper)
Four expansion teams joined MLB in the 1990s, and two, the Florida Marlins and Arizona Diamondbacks, would soon win a World Series while wearing sleeveless jerseys in Game 7. All of the expansion teams wore black – with some combination of purple and/or teal – and black became the popular color, with the Mets, Blue Jays, Royals, A’s and others diving in.
In the 2010s, teams increasingly pivoted to alternate jerseys, which often became their de facto primary look. Four seasons in a row ended with the World Series winner wearing a colored jersey: the 2016 Cubs, 2017 Astros, 2018 Red Sox and 2019 Nationals.
The pants, thankfully, were still white or gray. Then City Connect came along, and now we’re seeing the White Sox, Pirates, Mariners, Reds, Rangers and Orioles in black pants. The Astros and Cubs have all-navy getups, and the Diamondbacks sometimes wear all-yellow. We’re reverting to the worst of the ’70s.
Some teams have made sharp updates to classic looks. In the last decade or so, the Orioles, Brewers, Blue Jays, Padres, Astros and Rangers have streamlined the vintage styles of their glory years, honoring their traditions in a fashion-forward way.
But when the league gets involved, it’s too much, too fast – an assault on the eyes for a sport that can, and should, be a visual delight.
(Top photo of Giants pitcher Juan Sanchez: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Culture
Poetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
Let’s memorize a poem! Not because it’s good for us or because we think we should, but because it’s fun, a mental challenge with a solid aesthetic reward. You can amuse yourself, impress your friends and maybe discover that your way of thinking about the world — or even, as you’ll see, the universe — has shifted a bit.
Over the next five days, we’ll look closely at a great poem by one of our favorite poets, and we’ll have games, readings and lots of encouragement to help you learn it by heart. Some of you know how this works: Last year more Times readers than we could count memorized a jaunty 18-line recap of an all-night ferry ride. (If you missed that adventure, it’s not too late to embark. The ticket is still valid.)
This time, we’re training our telescopes on W.H. Auden’s “The More Loving One” — a clever, compact meditation on love, disappointment and the night sky.
Here’s the first of its four stanzas, read for us by Matthew McConaughey:
The More Loving One
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well
That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
But on earth indifference is the least
We have to dread from man or beast.
Matthew McConaughey, actor and poet
In four short lines we get a brisk, cynical tour of the universe: hell and the heavens, people and animals, coldness and cruelty. Commonplace observations — that the stars are distant; that life can be dangerous — are wound into a charming, provocative insight. The tone is conversational, mixing decorum and mild profanity in a manner that makes it a pleasure to keep reading.
Here’s Tracy K. Smith, a former U.S. poet laureate, with the second stanza:
How should we like it were stars to burn
With a passion for us we could not return?
If equal affection cannot be,
Let the more loving one be me.
Tracy K. Smith, poet
These lines abruptly shift the focus from astronomy to love, from the universal to the personal. Imagine how it would feel if the stars had massive, unrequited crushes on us! The speaker, couching his skepticism in a coy, hypothetical question, seems certain that we wouldn’t like this at all.
This certainty leads him to a remarkable confession, a moment of startling vulnerability. The poem’s title, “The More Loving One,” is restated with sweet, disarming frankness. Our friend is wearing his heart on his well-tailored sleeve.
The poem could end right there: two stanzas, point and counterpoint, about how we appreciate the stars in spite of their indifference because we would rather love than be loved.
But the third stanza takes it all back. Here’s Alison Bechdel reading it:
Admirer as I think I am
Of stars that do not give a damn,
I cannot, now I see them, say
I missed one terribly all day.
Alison Bechdel, graphic novelist
The speaker downgrades his foolish devotion to qualified admiration. No sooner has he established himself as “the more loving one” than he gives us — and perhaps himself — reason to doubt his ardor. He likes the stars fine, he guesses, but not so much as to think about them when they aren’t around.
The fourth and final stanza, read by Yiyun Li, takes this disenchantment even further:
Were all stars to disappear or die,
I should learn to look at an empty sky
And feel its total dark sublime,
Though this might take me a little time.
Yiyun Li, author
Wounded defiance gives way to a more rueful, resigned state of mind. If the universe were to snuff out its lights entirely, the speaker reckons he would find beauty in the void. A starless sky would make him just as happy.
Though perhaps, like so many spurned lovers before and after, he protests a little too much. Every fan of popular music knows that a song about how you don’t care that your baby left you is usually saying the opposite.
The last line puts a brave face on heartbreak.
So there you have it. In just 16 lines, this poem manages to be somber and funny, transparent and elusive. But there’s more to it than that. There is, for one thing, a voice — a thinking, feeling person behind those lines.
When he wrote “The More Loving One,” in the 1950s, Wystan Hugh Auden was among the most beloved writers in the English-speaking world. Before this week is over there will be more to say about Auden, but like most poets he would have preferred that we give our primary attention to the poem.
Its structure is straightforward and ingenious. Each of the four stanzas is virtually a poem unto itself — a complete thought expressed in one or two sentences tied up in a neat pair of couplets. Every quatrain is a concise, witty observation: what literary scholars call an epigram.
This makes the work of memorization seem less daunting. We can take “The More Loving One” one epigram at a time, marvelling at how the four add up to something stranger, deeper and more complex than might first appear.
So let’s go back to the beginning and try to memorize that insouciant, knowing first stanza. Below you’ll find a game we made to get you started. Give it a shot, and come back tomorrow for more!
Play a game to learn it by heart. Need more practice? Listen to Ada Limón, Matthew McConaughey, W.H. Auden and others recite our poem.
Question 1/6
Looking up at the stars, I know quite well That, for all they care, I can go to hell,
Tap a word above to fill in the highlighted blank.
Your first task: Learn the first four lines!
Let’s start with the first couplet. Fill in the rhyming words.
Monday
Love, the cosmos and everything in between, all in 16 lines.
Tuesday (Available tomorrow)
What’s love got to do with it?
Wednesday (Available April 22)
How to write about love? Be a little heartsick (and the best poet of your time).
Thursday (Available April 23)
Are we alone in the universe? Does it matter?
Friday (Available April 24)
You did it! You’re a star.
Ready for another round? Try your hand at the 2025 Poetry Challenge.
Edited by Gregory Cowles, Alicia DeSantis and Nick Donofrio. Additional editing by Emily Eakin,
Joumana Khatib, Emma Lumeij and Miguel Salazar. Design and development by Umi Syam. Additional
game design by Eden Weingart. Video editing by Meg Felling. Photo editing by Erica Ackerberg.
Illustration art direction by Tala Safie.
Illustrations by Daniel Barreto.
Text and audio recording of “The More Loving One,” by W.H. Auden, copyright © by the Estate of
W.H. Auden. Reprinted by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd. Photograph accompanying Auden recording
from Imagno/Getty Images.
Culture
Famous Authors’ Less Famous Books
Literature
‘Romola’ (1863) by George Eliot
Who knew that there’s a major George Eliot novel that neither I nor any of my friends had ever heard of?
“Romola” was Eliot’s fourth novel, published between “The Mill on the Floss” (1860) and “Middlemarch” (1870-71). If my friends and I didn’t get this particular memo, and “Romola” is familiar to every Eliot fan but us, please skip the following.
“Romola” isn’t some fluky misfire better left unmentioned in light of Eliot’s greater work. It’s her only historical novel, set in Florence during the Italian Renaissance. It embraces big subjects like power, religion, art and social upheaval, but it’s not dry or overly intellectual. Its central character is a gifted, freethinking young woman named Romola, who enters a marriage so disastrous as to make Anna Karenina’s look relatively good.
It probably matters that many of Eliot’s other books have been adapted into movies or TV series, with actors like Hugh Dancy, Ben Kingsley, Emily Watson and Rufus Sewell. The BBC may be doing even more than we thought to keep classic literature alive. (In 1924, “Romola” was made into a silent movie starring Lillian Gish. It doesn’t seem to have made much difference.)
Anthony Trollope, among others, loved “Romola.” He did, however, warn Eliot against aiming over her readers’ heads, which may help explain its obscurity.
All I can say, really, is that it’s a mystery why some great books stay with us and others don’t.
‘Quiet Dell’ (2013) by Jayne Anne Phillips
This was an Oprah Book of the Week, which probably disqualifies it from B-side status, but it’s not nearly as well known as Phillips’s debut story collection, “Black Tickets” (1979), or her most recent novel, “Night Watch” (2023), which won her a long-overdue Pulitzer Prize.
Phillips has no parallel in her use of potent, stylized language to shine a light into the darkest of corners. In “Quiet Dell,” her only true-crime novel, she’s at the height of her powers, which are particularly apparent when she aims her language laser at horrific events that actually occurred. Her gift for transforming skeevy little lives into what I can only call “Blade Runner” mythology is consistently stunning.
Consider this passage from the opening chapter of “Quiet Dell”:
“Up high the bells are ringing for everyone alive. There are silver and gold and glass bells you can see through, and sleigh bells a hundred years old. My grandmother said there was a whisper for each one dead that year, and a feather drifting for each one waiting to be born.”
The book is full of language like that — and of complex, often chillingly perverse characters. It’s a dark, underrecognized beauty.
‘Solaris’ (1961) by Stanislaw Lem
You could argue that, in America, at least, the Polish writer Stanislaw Lem didn’t produce any A-side novels. You could just as easily argue that that makes all his novels both A-side and B-side.
It’s science fiction. All right?
I love science and speculative fiction, but I know a lot of literary types who take pride in their utter lack of interest in it. I always urge those people to read “Solaris,” which might change their opinions about a vast number of popular books they dismiss as trivial. As far as I know, no one has yet taken me up on that.
“Solaris” involves the crew of a space station continuing the study of an aquatic planet that has long defied analysis by the astrophysicists of Earth. Part of what sets the book apart from a lot of other science-fiction novels is Lem’s respect for enigma. He doesn’t offer contrived explanations in an attempt to seduce readers into suspending disbelief. The crew members start to experience … manifestations? … drawn from their lives and memories. If the planet has any intentions, however, they remain mysterious. All anyone can tell is that their desires and their fears, some of which are summoned from their subconsciousness, are being received and reflected back to them so vividly that it becomes difficult to tell the real from the projected. “Solaris” has the peculiar distinction of having been made into not one but two bad movies. Read the book instead.
‘Fox 8’ (2013) by George Saunders
If one of the most significant living American writers had become hypervisible with his 2017 novel, “Lincoln in the Bardo,” we’d go back and read his earlier work, wouldn’t we? Yes, and we may very well have already done so with the story collections “Tenth of December” (2013) and “Pastoralia” (2000). But what if we hadn’t yet read Saunders’s 2013 novella, “Fox 8,” about an unusually intelligent fox who, by listening to a family from outside their windows at night, has learned to understand, and write, in fox-English?: “One day, walking neer one of your Yuman houses, smelling all the interest with snout, I herd, from inside, the most amazing sound. Turns out, what that sound is, was: the Yuman voice, making werds. They sounded grate! They sounded like prety music! I listened to those music werds until the sun went down.”
Once Saunders became more visible to more of us, we’d want to read a book that ventures into the consciousness of a different species (novels tend to be about human beings), that maps the differences and the overlaps in human and animal consciousness, explores the effects of language on consciousness and is great fun.
We’d all have read it by now — right?
‘Between the Acts’ (1941) by Virginia Woolf
You could argue that Woolf didn’t have any B-sides, and yet it’s hard to deny that more people have read “Mrs. Dalloway” (1925) and “To the Lighthouse” (1927) than have read “The Voyage Out” (1915) or “Monday or Tuesday” (1921). Those, along with “Orlando” (1928) and “The Waves” (1931), are Woolf’s most prominent novels.
Four momentous novels is a considerable number for any writer, even a great one. That said, “Between the Acts,” her last novel, really should be considered the fifth of her significant books. The phrase “embarrassment of riches” comes to mind.
Five great novels by the same author is a lot for any reader to take on. Our reading time is finite. We won’t live long enough to read all the important books, no matter how old we get to be. I don’t expect many readers to be as devoted to Woolf as are the cohort of us who consider her to have been some sort of dark saint of literature and will snatch up any relic we can find. Fanatics like me will have read “Between the Acts” as well as “The Voyage Out,” “Monday or Tuesday” and “Flush” (1933), the story of Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s cocker spaniel. Speaking for myself, I don’t blame anyone who hasn’t gotten to those.
I merely want to add “Between the Acts” to the A-side, lest anyone who’s either new to Woolf or a tourist in Woolf-landia fail to rank it along with the other four contenders.
As briefly as possible: It focuses on an annual village pageant that attempts to convey all of English history in a single evening. The pageant itself interweaves subtly, brilliantly, with the lives of the villagers playing the parts.
It’s one of Woolf’s most lusciously lyrical novels. And it’s a crash course, of sorts, in her genius for conjuring worlds in which the molehill matters as much as the mountain, never mind their differences in size.
It’s also the most accessible of her greatest books. It could work for some as an entry point, in more or less the way William Faulkner’s “As I Lay Dying” (1930) can be the starter book before you go on to “The Sound and the Fury” (1929) or “Absalom, Absalom!” (1936).
As noted, there’s too much for us to read. We do the best we can.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
Culture
6 Poems You Should Know by Heart
Literature
‘Prayer’ (1985) by Galway Kinnell
Whatever happens. Whatever
what is is is what
I want. Only that. But that.
“I typically say Kinnell’s words at the start of my day, as I’m pedaling a traffic-laden path to my office,” says Major Jackson, 57, the author of six books of poetry, including “Razzle Dazzle” (2023). “The poem encourages a calm acceptance of the day’s events but also wants us to embrace the misapprehension and oblivion of life, to avoid probing too deeply for answers to inscrutable questions. I admire what Kinnell does with only 14 words; the repetition of ‘what,’ ‘that’ and ‘is’ would seem to limit the poem’s sentiment but, paradoxically, the poem opens widely to contain all manner of human experience. The three ‘is’es in the middle line give it a symmetry that makes its message feel part of a natural order, and even more convincing. Thanks to the skillful punctuation, pauses and staccato rhythm, a tonal quality of interior reflection emerges. Much like a haiku, it continues after its last words, lingering like the last note played on a piano that slowly fades.”
“Just as I was entering young adulthood, probably slow to claim romantic feelings, a girlfriend copied out a poem by Pablo Neruda and slipped it into an envelope with red lipstick kisses all over it. In turn, I recited this poem. It took me the remainder of that winter to memorize its lines,” says Jackson. “The poem captures the pitch of longing that defines love at its most intense. The speaker in Shakespeare’s most famous sonnet believes the poem creates the beloved, ‘So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.’ (Sonnet 18). In Rilke’s expressive declarations of yearning, the beloved remains elusive. Wherever the speaker looks or travels, she marks his world by her absence. I find this deeply moving.”
“Clifton faced many obstacles, including cancer, a kidney transplant and the loss of her husband and two of her children. Through it all, she crafted a long career as a pre-eminent American poet,” says Jackson. “Her poem ‘won’t you celebrate with me’ is a war cry, an invitation to share in her victories against life’s persistent challenges. The poem is meaningful to all who have had to stare down death in a hospital or had to bereave the passing of close relations. But, even for those who have yet to mourn life’s vicissitudes, the poem is instructive in cultivating resilience and a persevering attitude. I keep coming back to the image of the speaker’s hands and the spirit of steadying oneself in the face of unspeakable storms. She asks in a perfectly attuned gorgeously metrical line, ‘what did i see to be except myself?’”
‘Sonnet 94’ (1609) by William Shakespeare
They that have power to hurt and will do none,
That do not do the thing they most do show,
Who, moving others, are themselves as stone,
Unmovèd, cold, and to temptation slow,
They rightly do inherit heaven’s graces
And husband nature’s riches from expense;
They are the lords and owners of their faces,
Others but stewards of their excellence.
The summer’s flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die;
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity.
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
“It’s one of the moments of Western consciousness,” says Frederick Seidel, 90, the author of more than a dozen collections of poetry, including “So What” (2024). “Shakespeare knows and says what he knows.”
“It trombones magnificent, unbearable sorrow,” says Seidel.
“It’s smartass and bitter and bright,” says Seidel.
These interviews have been edited and condensed.
More in Literature
See the rest of the issue
-
Movie Reviews7 minutes agoFILM REVIEW: ROSE OF NEVADA – Joyzine
-
World19 minutes ago
Oil prices rise anew after a US-Iran standoff in the Strait of Hormuz strands tankers
-
News25 minutes agoVideo: 8 Children Killed in Louisiana Shooting, Police Say
-
Culture1 hour agoPoetry Challenge: Memorize “The More Loving One” by W.H. Auden
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoPhotos: How overfishing in Southeast Asia is an ecological and human crisis
-
Technology1 hour agoBlue Origin successfully reused its New Glenn rocket
-
World1 hour agoDistress call captures tanker under fire, Iran shuts Hormuz trapping thousands of sailors
-
Politics2 hours agoTrump ally diGenova tapped to lead DOJ probe into Brennan over Russia probe origins