- 6,796
- 24
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
Dumb question... but why is baseball the only sport where managers have numbers and wear the team uniform?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
We first noticed this phenomenon when we were nine. The Dodgers were playing the Phillies, and L.A. manager Tommy Lasorda was looking particularly portly. Watching him "jog" onto the field in his ill-fitting uniform was something we never forgot. Were we scarred? Of course -- who wouldn't be. Did we vow to one day figure out why large men are forced to squeeze into outfits intended for Adonis-like athletes? You bet we did.
In baseball's early days, it was common for managers to play for their teams (Pete Rose played and managed the Reds in the 1980s). It made sense for the manager to dress like a player -- he was one. As the years went by, managers played less often, but the tradition stuck around. As the Straight Dope notes, this has a lot to do with an "edict" requiring coaches be in uniform (though it's just as much a tradition as a formal rule).
Two managers did spite baseball's fashion gods by wearing street clothes in the dugout. The great Connie Mack wore suits when he managed the Philadelphia Athletics, and Burt Shotton wore a team jacket over a suit and tie when he managed the Dodgers in the late 1940s.
No matter what you call it -- rule, edict, or wacky tradition -- it is unique to the sport of baseball. After all, no other coaches wear their team uniforms. Imagine Andy Reid in shoulder pads. Or Stan Van Gundy in short shorts. Actually, on second thought, don't.
They should be eligible to pinch-hit imoOriginally Posted by Dunkaroos
It started as a tradition and now it's a rule.
Baseball is the only sport in which the manager is goes onto the field during the game. So, in a way, he's like another player.
Given the 162 game season, it's not surprising that the team has an emotional connection and the uniform only reinforces that.
Originally Posted by kdawg
From ask Yahoo:
We first noticed this phenomenon when we were nine. The Dodgers were playing the Phillies, and L.A. manager Tommy Lasorda was looking particularly portly. Watching him "jog" onto the field in his ill-fitting uniform was something we never forgot. Were we scarred? Of course -- who wouldn't be. Did we vow to one day figure out why large men are forced to squeeze into outfits intended for Adonis-like athletes? You bet we did.
In baseball's early days, it was common for managers to play for their teams (Pete Rose played and managed the Reds in the 1980s). It made sense for the manager to dress like a player -- he was one. As the years went by, managers played less often, but the tradition stuck around. As the Straight Dope notes, this has a lot to do with an "edict" requiring coaches be in uniform (though it's just as much a tradition as a formal rule).
Two managers did spite baseball's fashion gods by wearing street clothes in the dugout. The great Connie Mack wore suits when he managed the Philadelphia Athletics, and Burt Shotton wore a team jacket over a suit and tie when he managed the Dodgers in the late 1940s.
No matter what you call it -- rule, edict, or wacky tradition -- it is unique to the sport of baseball. After all, no other coaches wear their team uniforms. Imagine Andy Reid in shoulder pads. Or Stan Van Gundy in short shorts. Actually, on second thought, don't.