• For The Love Of Glove II

    Posted by on April 22nd, 2011 · Comments (23)

    This is a follow up on my “Love of Glove” story from three years ago.

    This season and last year, I’ve pulled an oldie out of my collection for when I’ve been working with my kids and their Little League teams.  Here it is below:

    Model: Rawlings 8526 – “Robin Yount” signature
    Estimated Date of Purchase: 1986
    Marking on outside thumb: “Edge-U-cated Heel”
    Marking on inside pinky: “The Finest In The Field!”
    Markings inside pocket: “Deep Well Pocket” and “Hinged Pad”

    Comments: Yes, I “modifed” this one with a sharpie – back in the day – making it two-toned. Hey, it’s what the big leaguers were doing back then – before you could buy them in black and brown.

    My son, who is now seven, is starting to catch up to me in the glove collection game. He’s had three of them so far. Here they are below:

    As always, click on the thumbnails to enlarge the image.

    xxxx

    His first one was a Wilson AD425 EX 95 “T-Ball” Model. I think we found it in Marshalls. After that, he used the Rawlings JD10B “Alex Rodriguez” model. In terms of style, it’s a real mini-me version of my Rawlings 8526 model. The diffence, of course, is that his came in all black whereas mine was modified. We got that one in Modells last year. And, this season, he started using a Wilson A450 model. It is not a signature model – but, it came with a tag saying that it was endorsed by David Wright. (I suspect they don’t name these so that they can tag them in different areas with different players.) He saw it in Target and insisted on getting it. Maybe he wanted one like the model I’ve been using the last two years – meaning a two-tone look?

    Of course, he’s killing me with an A-Rod model and now a somewhat David Wright model. Then again, it could be worse. At least it’s not a Jose Reyes model or a Kevin Youkilis glove.

    I still can’t believe the one that I’ve been rocking these last two years is like a quarter-century old. Granted, it wasn’t used all that much for close to 18 of those years. But, it’s still serving me well. I do have some others in the collection that I could dig out one day. And, I have a feeling that I’m going to need a sturdy catcher’s mitt in my near future. My son’s starting to get his pitching mechanics down and I may need that soon.

    Yadier Molina is a Rawlings guy, I think? Maybe I’ll check out one of his models. I’ve always been partial to Rawlings.

    Comments on For The Love Of Glove II

    1. 77yankees
      April 22nd, 2011 | 7:12 pm

      My first glove was a Ron Guidry Wilson model bought in 1980. It was pretty tough to break in as I remember. Then four years later, being a first baseman, I got a Rawlings Keith Hernandez mitt. (Yeah, I’ll take my lumps for that, but this was before Donnie Baseball had established himself)

      The most recent glove I use regularly for softball is a Franklin model – well recommended because they break in pretty easily & quickly, and since I’ve had it ten years, it’s fairly sturdy too.

      I did buy a MacGregor Thurman Munson catcher’s mitt a few years ago on eBay. Very small glove though as my hand snugly fits inside.

      I always liked that catcher’s mitt that Lance Parrish wore for the Tigers in the 80s that had the bright orange padding that formed a bullseye target. Anyone remember that?

    2. April 22nd, 2011 | 9:23 pm

      @ 77yankees:
      I remember that mitt. Rick Dempsey used it as well:

      http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/pics/42134_03_lg.jpg

    3. Scout
      April 23rd, 2011 | 7:22 am

      I still have a glove that I purchased circa 1970. It takes time to break in a good glove….

    4. April 23rd, 2011 | 7:59 am

      @ Scout:
      Actually, the new ones break in a lot faster.
      I remember in the 70′s and 80′s, it would take a season to break in a glove, perfectly. Today’s gloves are not as stiff. You can break it in over four weeks, good enough to use in a game.

    5. Raf
      April 23rd, 2011 | 9:29 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ 77yankees:
      I remember that mitt. Rick Dempsey used it as well:
      http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/pics/42134_03_lg.jpg

      I remember it too.

      I saw one for sale not too long ago, but a different model. It was black and orange. I looked into getting one but my 1b mitt was sufficient for what I needed to do, warming up pitchers, catching bullpens and the like.

    6. Scout
      April 23rd, 2011 | 12:40 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ Scout:
      Actually, the new ones break in a lot faster.
      I remember in the 70′s and 80′s, it would take a season to break in a glove, perfectly. Today’s gloves are not as stiff. You can break it in over four weeks, good enough to use in a game.

      I was just kidding. I have a newer glove, a catcher’s mitt I used when coachign youth baseball, that was very usable in its first season.

    7. YankCrank
      April 23rd, 2011 | 5:18 pm

      I play 19th century baseball, bare hands and no flashy gloves :)

    8. FanSince1948
      April 23rd, 2011 | 10:51 pm

      Back in the ’50′s when I played (yep – I’m over 70), I used a Rawlings glove, an outfielder’s model – I forget whose model it was – which cost about $40. That buys little today, but that sure was a heckuva good glove which lasted for years. It did take a while to break in properly, and I was quite compulsive about doing it right (Neatsfoot oil, ball in pocket, glove tied around it with shoelaces.)

    9. April 24th, 2011 | 7:38 am

      YankCrank wrote:

      I play 19th century baseball, bare hands and no flashy gloves

      Yeah, but, you’re not doing it with a modern baseball. :-) I’ve seen three 19th Century type games played, and, the ones I saw all used a ball that looked bigger and softer than what we call a baseball today.

    10. April 24th, 2011 | 7:45 am

      FanSince1948 wrote:

      Back in the ’50′s when I played (yep – I’m over 70), I used a Rawlings glove, an outfielder’s model – I forget whose model it was – which cost about $40. That buys little today, but that sure was a heckuva good glove which lasted for years. It did take a while to break in properly, and I was quite compulsive about doing it right (Neatsfoot oil, ball in pocket, glove tied around it with shoelaces.)

      Forty bucks in the ’50′s? That must have been a top notch glove!

      I’m thinking it may have been more like $15 bucks back then. See this link:

      http://keymancollectibles.com/advertising/images/wpe26.jpg

      BTW, it’s great to have someone older than me commenting on this blog! (I was born in ’62.) There’s a few of us here – but I love to see more!

    11. FanSince1948
      April 24th, 2011 | 8:44 am

      @Steve: I went through the internet to check prices of a 1954 glove – the Mantle configuration was quite similar to mine (w/ “deep well pocket”, full web, etc) but mine wasn’t a Mantle. I could well be mistaken about the price, but the glove was the top of the line model Rawlings that Davega’s sold in NY (I’m shocked I remembered that name!). Maybe my later Ted Williams model glove I converted to softball was $40.

      I was born in ’37. My college roommate told me he played against Maris (he was from Bismarck, ND; Maris from Fargo, I believe) and when we went to games, we would sit in the right field bleachers and he would heckle Maris, who kept on turning around to see who in the stands knew him.

    12. YankCrank
      April 24th, 2011 | 9:33 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      YankCrank wrote:
      I play 19th century baseball, bare hands and no flashy gloves
      Yeah, but, you’re not doing it with a modern baseball. I’ve seen three 19th Century type games played, and, the ones I saw all used a ball that looked bigger and softer than what we call a baseball today.

      It actually depends on the year of rules you play. My team plays 1880′s rules which is a ball as hard as the modern ball. But the further back you go, the ball was mush softer.

      Believe it or not, that’s actually why a shortstop was put into the game. The ball used to be so soft (so you can peg players for outs) that it was impossible to throw for distance. They needed a player between the outfielders and infielders to help throw the soft ball to the bases.

    13. April 25th, 2011 | 7:25 am

      FanSince1948 wrote:

      I was born in ’37. My college roommate told me he played against Maris (he was from Bismarck, ND; Maris from Fargo, I believe) and when we went to games, we would sit in the right field bleachers and he would heckle Maris, who kept on turning around to see who in the stands knew him.

      Just don’t tell me how much those seats cost back in the day. :-)

      I wish we could get back to that in baseball.

    14. April 25th, 2011 | 7:28 am

      YankCrank wrote:

      Believe it or not, that’s actually why a shortstop was put into the game. The ball used to be so soft (so you can peg players for outs) that it was impossible to throw for distance. They needed a player between the outfielders and infielders to help throw the soft ball to the bases.

      Interesting. Here’s another theory on the SS position. Sort of makes sense – since they call it Short Stop

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/266/in-baseball-why-is-the-shortstop-called-the-shortstop

    15. April 25th, 2011 | 7:31 am

      Here’s more on the origins of SS:

      http://tinyurl.com/3ckxsgr

    16. Raf
      April 25th, 2011 | 7:44 am

      Good stuff, guys! :D

    17. YankCrank
      April 25th, 2011 | 8:21 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      Good find, Steve.

    18. April 25th, 2011 | 8:56 am

      It is an interesting question…why do they call it shortstop. I’m surprised it doesn’t come up more in TV coverage of games. Then again, my kids never asked me about it. They just accepted that the position is called shortstop and never asked why. I bet I pretty much did the same thing when I learned the game.

    19. YankCrank
      April 25th, 2011 | 9:49 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      It is an interesting question…why do they call it shortstop.

      I agree. This is what I was alluding to, from Baseball in the Garden of Eden:

      The advent of the shortfielder, or shot stop – a position created in 1849 – was a radical development, and a distinct innovation of the Knickerbocker club, unlike so much else that is claimed for them.

      “I used to play shortstop,” D. L. Adams reminisced,(Knickerbocker player, also played for teams preceding the Knickerbockers in the 1820′s and 30′s)”and I believe I was the first one to occupy that place, as it had formerly been left uncovered.” However, when Adams first traipsed out to a spot between and beyond second and third bases, it was not to bolster the infield but to assist in relays from the outfield. The early Knickerbocker ball was so light that it could not be thrown even two hundred feet, thus the need for a short fielder to send the ball to the pitcher’s point. It was also soft enough to permit barehand play, which was the standard well into the 1880′s.

    20. April 25th, 2011 | 10:19 am

      @ YankCrank: Very interesting!

    21. Raf
      April 25th, 2011 | 10:59 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      I bet I pretty much did the same thing when I learned the game.

      As did I. Coaches usually hated to answer questions unless they had to do with play on the field.

    22. FanSince1948
      April 25th, 2011 | 11:05 am

      “Just don’t tell me how much those seats cost back in the day.”

      Coupla bucks, probably. Then again, a monthly bus/subway pass cost me $0.50 when I went to grade and high school.

      But last year, I was at the Yankees 4 game set at KC in August (daughter had season tix in the 3rd row behind the Royals dugout, and I was also there for a series the year before). Those tickets cost on a game-by-game basis $42 in ’09 and minimally more last year, before the season discount.

      How much are those seats in YS? Let me sit down first. ;-)

    23. April 25th, 2011 | 11:28 am

      You would need a second mortgage for those seats at the new Stadium.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.