Master Index of Archived Threads


Met Shoes

Edgy DC Jan 30 2006 04:57 PM

I'm looking at the pictures of Mookie Wilson in the photo thread. I'm recalling how through most of the Mookie era the Mets all seemed to be shot in Pony baseball shoes. In the shot of Mookie dodging the wild pitch in game six, seems to be wearing Asics. (I could be wrong there.) Though I follow the Mets as closely now as I did then, it's in a different way, of course. I couldn't telll you now what anybody wears on their feet. I do know that nobody wears stirrups. They may all wear sanitary sox, but few let them show. So, tell me. Did the Mets then or do they now have an official shoe? My assumption is that at one time teams could designate an official uniform cobbler, but the union fought that, likely under the auspices that a player needs to select for himself what is most appropriate for his needs in such an important and sensitive area as footwear, but in reality because teams were getting footwear endorsement money that players should have gotten. But that's all guesswork. What's the real story? Am I right that all the Mets wore blue-and-orange Ponys in the early eighties, or do I jsut have Neil Allen on the brain.

Zvon Jan 30 2006 05:28 PM

......more importantly.... did Mookie wear underwear? HA! I kid. Thru details in my drawings I did notice the Mets wore Ponys as well as other shoes thru the mid eighties. Yearbooks should be a good indicator if they were wearing a uniform shoe at any point. Call me a girlyman, but I miss the ol sturrup look.

Johnny Dickshot Jan 30 2006 06:36 PM

My guess would be your guess: Players, especially today, through agents, arrange their own deals with equipment vendors who prolly work to provide footwear that conforms to actual uniform requirements of color. So while a make of shoe isn't a part of the team uni, the design of it prolly is. Met fashion footwear show: Ron Darling in blue ROOS, 1986: Ojeda in blue Pumas, 1986 Knight in black (or blue) Nikes, meets Paul in black Adidas, 1986 Gregg Jefferies in blue Nikes, 1989 Mazzilli in black Addidas, 1979 Gilkey in blue Reeboks, 1998: Kingman in white Pumas, 1976: Piazza in black Asics, 2002(?)

Johnny Dickshot Jan 30 2006 06:40 PM

Seaver in Spalding, 1983

Edgy DC Jan 30 2006 06:57 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jan 31 2006 09:50 AM

Stearns in black Pumas: Doc in black Nikes: I guess if there was a time when they was an official team footware, it's going to be hard to isolate it, unless the yearbooks say so. Although here Koosman's wearing the same black Adidas with orange-red trim that Mazz has above.

Zvon Jan 30 2006 11:32 PM

lmao. great choice for the Piazza pic JD. I know, it does show his footware.

Frayed Knot Jan 30 2006 11:50 PM

IIRC, the Mets were one of the later teams to even permit their players to "show" the shoes they were wearing. Prior to that - somewhere around the mid/late '70s I'd guess - they were in the "all black" mode. Players probably did wear the shoes of their choice but individual shoe contracts were unlikely since they were mostly indistinguishable with their stripes and other marks colored in.

seawolf17 Jan 31 2006 06:28 AM

="Johnny Dickshot"]Ron Darling in blue ROOS, 1986: Roos? ROOS!?! Ronnie, you gotta be kidding me. What, did he have to keep change in the little pouch in case he needed to buy something on the field?

Edgy DC Jan 31 2006 09:42 AM

I have no idea what Roos are. I thought those were Ponys. Looking closely, it seems to say "ROOS," though. What kind of jive-ass shoes are they?

Johnny Dickshot Jan 31 2006 09:59 AM

They had little pockets with velcro closures sewn into the tounges.

Edgy DC Jan 31 2006 10:13 AM

Did they suck?` Did they get people beat up? I'm sorry. You weren't made to wear them, were you?

soupcan Jan 31 2006 10:22 AM

Roos w/ pockets. As in Kanga-ROOS...

DocTee Jan 31 2006 10:29 AM

It wasn't pocket change that most people kept secreted in their Roos

Johnny Dickshot Jan 31 2006 10:30 AM

I wouldn't have been caught dead in them. IIRC, they came out around the same time as Reeboks did. I thought guys who wore Reeboks were fruits too. I do seem to recall having a detachable velco pocket to store keys & cash on my shoes for running at one point. That a 50-cent accessory made the whole concept of ROOS worthless sort of explains why they aren't around today. Unless they are... (checking)

Johnny Dickshot Jan 31 2006 10:33 AM

[url]http://www.zappos.com/n/es/d/722001412/page/1.html[/url]

Edgy DC Jan 31 2006 10:35 AM

Any sign of Zips and LA Gear out there in Discredited Footwareland