In 1984, manager Billy Gardner removed Ron Davis in the eighth inning of a September game in Cleveland when the Twins turned a 10-0 lead into an 11-10 defeat.(UPI photo)
The Twins on Monday announced the return of a baby blue uniform as an alternate look for 2020, patterned after the team's primary road uniform worn from 1973-1986.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the whole thing: If you're trying to figure out what people think of the baby blues, it completely depends on where you look.
As of 2:30 p.m. Monday, there were 69 comments on the Star Tribune story about the uniforms. I read each of them so you don't have to, and of the 32 that specifically commented on the appearance of the uniforms the tally was this: 24 didn't like them, often strongly; 7 did like them, often strong; 1 gave a confusing account of liking them once in a while for their ugliness. The words "ugh," "worst," "hate" and "yuck" were bandied about freely.
So basically three of every four Star Tribune commenters that took the time to voice an opinion about the subject of the story did not like the baby blues.
Also as of 2:30 p.m., there were 477 replies on the Twins' official tweet from Monday morning announcing the return of the baby blues. I did NOT read every single one of them, but I looked at a representative sample big enough to convince me that the preference was basically flip-flopped: three of every four Twitter responses were in favor of the retro alternative look — with fans demanding that the Twins "take their money" for the "awesome," "fire" and "best in the league" jerseys.
Now, you don't have to watch much Fox News or MSNBC to know that a set of facts can be interpreted a variety of ways by different audiences, but can something as simple as a reaction to a jersey be swayed by such a thing?
In a word, that answer sure seems like "yes." Here's my partial attempt at an explanation as to why:
