Silent Wind of Doom

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Silent Wind of Doom last won the day on September 8 2016

Silent Wind of Doom had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

465 Excellent

1 Follower

About Silent Wind of Doom

  • Rank
    Sports Pope Farewell Year

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Great State of New York

Recent Profile Visitors

9,892 profile views
  1. Given his penchant for being the man who says nothing, I'd expect him to show up. I doubt, with five rings, it really affects him that much in the long run, or even in the short term. The sneering hot takers are going to be annoying, though. You mean make it an integral part of their identity and then nearly expunge it from their uniforms so it can't be seen from more than five feet away? It was a beautiful thing, although Fox kinda ruined it at the start of the series. Before Game 1, they showed incredibly old fans on either side talking about how long it's been, how their lives have been, and how much this would mean to them. I quickly realized that any outcome meant half of these people were just going to have their little old hearts devastated. Again.
  2. Ohh... "Cardholes" are the Missouri equivalent of "M :censored:s". Also not a good pun.
  3. Given the lack of an upright stroke on the letter after the H, it's clearly an O. It's Cardholes. Clearly a Latin mixture of Cardinal and Beans.
  4. I don't know if a change in uniforms will necessarily happen. I think the biggest change, if there is one besides behind-the-scenes business stuff, will be that the former Yankee and conservative businessman may institute an appearance policy similar to the Yankees.
  5. On a side note, I did a really quick and cheap mock up what the old Cleveland away text would look like with the C replaced. The letter could use some scrunching to look more in line with the others, but I think the idea has got some potential.
  6. Oh, yeah. In that massive message I posted, I forgot to address Jackie Robinson day. I was originally very against it, preferring the way they did it before with the teams letting players who were affected by this issue and wished to celebrate wore the number. Of course, that opens up a lot of problematic issues ("What, a white guy can't celebrate Jackie's legacy?!") and in practice I do like seeing how much better uniforms like the Angels' look without a name on the back. I'd say they should go with a black 42 on their sleeves. Two pieces, not just a large patch. Simple, neutral, respectful. You want blue at Wrigley? Because that's how you get blue at Wrigley. Then you've got the A's yellow in cloudy Seattle or Minnesota instead of under the California sun, the Mariners wearing teal in front of people who don't care, and Braves and Phillies wearing throwbacks in front of another team's fans. We need a balance. I think the best option is a regular schedule, with the road team changing in event of a clash. Up to three days of the week set for alt days, sometimes with seperate alts for whether you're home and away that day. Whites and grays for the All-Star, opening day, and most playoff games. I think one thing we can say is a positive to all the special event uniforms is that at least they're white and gray. You want to keep the black hats but get rid of the black everywhere else? Without the black lettering, numbers, and socks, the hat would clash as much as wearing a red cap over a navy alt. I think the problem in the end is that the way things work now, nobody knows. Not every team has a schedule. Many are subject to the whims of the pitcher. Others are based on the time of the game. I'm sure at least half of the teams just shrug and let it happen naturally. If you were to call an executive or higher up at the team, they'd probably tell you they find out when the team takes the field, or chide you for focusing on that when all they're focused on is winning. Who knows what probably differs from team to team depending on how they figure it out, so you can't just call the same employee at each team and organize this. You'd have to form a system to organize this or create new job positions. Maybe the equipment managers have the best scoop, but even that may be a last minute decision, not coming until the unis get hung up in the locker.
  7. Wow. Bronchitis, a sick grandfather, and a sudden trip to South Carolina really got me behind here. Time to catch up. I wasn't arguing the idea that they seem less extreme now, especially compared to the things that have come since. I was arguing about your statement that any hatred of the rebrand came from only the logo or a nostalgia for the previous identity. What I find odd is the pattern they chose to go with. It looks like it's crocheted. What about this pattern screams "Braves"? The problem is that half of the time the outline is there to better contrast the cap. The primary color may not look right straight on the crown color. In the end, either way looks wrong for multi-color teams. For them to win the banner in a colored alternate uniform would have been wrong. I think the piping comes from the fact that the braves alt without the tomahawk only has single piping. Thus, when the template got taken to other uniforms, this piping became the norm instead of the standard piping. Or it could just be simplification to keep the color palate small. Everyone with double/triple piping has just single now. See the Twins, Angels, Nationals, etc. I'm expecting they hope that they're going to open the roof and windows for such a big showcase of the facility, let in that Miami in July air. I wish I had that professor. Maybe just go with the Cardinals method? Red caps on Sundays over the home whites with red accessories? I don't know about a red alt. That would necessitate a white or navy wordmark, and neither of those feel right. Maybe with a navy C on the chest, but then you look too much like the Twins' alt. Of course, I'd rather the Twins wore their Dairy Queens. I've never heard of this practice. I don't think John and Suzyn have rings, and... I kinda feel okay with that. The same reason fans left jerseys on gravesites. On the subject of the old C, a lot of people take issue with the disparity of elements in that idea. The C in the old cursive wordmark was never really anything special or celebrated in the hearts of fans. I wonder how it would look if you switched them. Then you could put that on the road and the identity would be unified. The Browns of baseball. To me it looks more like the original White Sox logo. I hate those walls. Not only does the green look more like the produce section at your local grocery store or a placeholder to be green-screened in later. Meanwhile, the team's got half a dozen colors and they had to bring in a completely different color not anywhere in their pallette for the walls? Their old teal (a throwback to their original home) or their new blue would have both been so much better. I would have taken orange. Why not a traditional Caribbean pastel blue? This is made more jarring by the old giant walls that, rather than being made of the material of other walls in the park, were made the same color as the fences, but were huge swaths with nothing breaking them up. I'm glad the above pictures of the updated park show a much more reserved use of this green. Yes, I understand the level system the park has. The lower floor is green. But it was just too much of a bad color. On a side note, while looking for the above picture, I found that apparently the original concepts showed a more traditional green wall color. While I do agree with you, reasoning on the names of older organizations quickly becomes a slippery slope. Oh... Oh good lord. Now I'm picturing a team with the name Redskins and the Wahoo logo. The horror. The horror. Again, I'm not necessarily arguing for or against Wahoo, but this argument kinda falls apart quickly. Nobody says that outsiders should have considered the feelings of those who were fans of minstrel shows before arguing they were unacceptible. This is my constant struggle, especially being a fan of traditional looks and having a traditional team that I never want to change. I love white and gray, but dangit so many colored alts look good. Same for some of the Stance socks that shirk already established designs and traditional design, but just kinda look cool. I actually do dig the All-Star look this year. Fake stirrups or two-in-ones are perfectly fine. Seeing them in action still fills me with the same apprehension I had when I first saw them. Those stripes across the ankle ruin any attempt to try to look like stirrups for me. At least they're halfway decent from the side. More like stirrups with high-top shoes. When the month is over, we should have seen all combinations and teams that aren't going to constantly switch things up anyway. I'll have to put together a report card on how everything looks. The Red Sox, Orioles, Rays, Astros, Athletics, Mariners, Nationals, Marlins, Braves, Pirates, Giants, and Rockies all wear regular colored alts of their two primary non-white colors, and others have done it in the past. It's a common practice. Not really anything to worry about. Yeah. Once you introduce the possibility of there being more than one league-wide retiring, the floodgates do open, even though I think Clemente well worth it if it was. Then you'll have the arguments for 44, 3, 4, 24, 9, 34, 6, or even... *shudder* ...14. I feel you. Our top new guy is wearing 99. We're already out of single digits. Although we all know that a thousand years from now it's the Mets that will be in trouble. (I dig that the racing stripes will eventually come back.) That text is so wonky. I'd rather they put pinstripes on the current navy outlined in red wordmark and modernize it. Drop the gold. It would look good and differentiate from the Homerdome style, which they can save for Friday nights or something. There's three reasons for wearing a name other than your city's. 1. You're trying to obscure where you're playing/not alienate a nearby market of another name. (California Angels, Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Rays/Lightning/Buccaneers, New England Patriots/Revolution, Carolina Panthers, Golden State Warriors,) 2. You're the first/only team in the state and want to plant your flag/show that you represent everybody. (Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks/Coyotes/Cardinals, Carolina Hurricanes, Colorado Avalanche/Rapids, Tennessee Titans. Utah Jazz) 3. Your name is an established phrase. (Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies.) The Twins are an example of #1, not #2. About every team before them wore the name of one of the Twin Cities and failed as they alienated the other. The Twins decided to avoid this issue, and if I recall correctly they became the first state named team in professional sports in the process. Almost all Minnesota-based teams followed suit. I don't think I will ever get over the fact that they wear an alternate cap as their standard home cap. It just... turns a rage switch on in my brain. It feels more against any established tradition or rules than anything the Diamondbacks or Stance have trotted out. Okay, the soapy teal almost made me rant as much, but the alternate home is still worse. I'd mentioned above my dream vision for the Twins' identity. That being said, the color scheme of those alts are very unique and sharp. I'd love to see them on someone, although I'm not 100% sure it's the twins. Maybe the White Sox should add a splash of red. Now for new business. Anyone else watching the games/highlights in Pittsburgh? What's with the helmet being worn by the base coach (not sure what side)? It's got really complicated vents on it that the players don't wear, and looks nothing like the old vented/two-toned helmets.
  8. Sorry, guys. I've dealt with a sickness, a grandfather in the hospital that I've been the primary one watching over, and a sudden, last minute trip with my aunt and cousin who have been having a rough time of it. I've been kinda busy. Hopefully I'll be back to help you guys soon.
  9. Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, White Sox, Royals, Twins, Angels, Athletics, Mariners, Cubs, Reds, Cardinals, Braves, Marlins, Mets, Phillies, Nationals, Rockies, Dodgers, and Giants, as far as I've seen. The Tigers, Brewers, Diamondbacks, and Padres have worn different socks, but with different uniforms, not between teammates. 80% of the league has been consistently uniform. Although I'm unsure if the Astros wore those skyline socks together or not. The Marlins were decried in their last decade in Miami Gardens for drowning all other colors in black and Loria's strange obsession with adding orange (a color locals considered better suited for Central Florida). The rebrand doubled down on both of these, made a beloved feature of their identity a strange-lined swoosh that causes most concepts for the team start with "The first thing I did was fix the Marlin. They said they'd go colorful, and then cut most of the color in their first season, if it even saw the field, instead focusing on almost entirely wearing black. That's why people are unhappy with the rebrand.
  10. No, no, no. I'm well aware of the non-uniformity of 13% of the league (which is one of the thing that has been way overblown in the Chicken Little reactions I've seen to this changeover), and I've been telling others an lauding the fact that this brand is not forced on everyone unilaterally. I'm talking about the teams (that I'd included pictures of) which have fully gone for games wearing solid socks that Stance offers, but instead wearing other brand socks. I don't know if there's an issue with comfort. I honestly don't know how much difference there is in the construction of these socks. We've kinda mostly been focused on the aesthetics. We've seen the White Sox wear solid black Stance socks. Meanwhile, the Giants and Rockies are wearing off-brand logo-less solid black socks. The Royals, Dodgers, and Mets are wearing solid blue Stance while the Cubs are wearing blank. The Yankees, Braves, and Rays are wearing solid navy Stance, and the Tigers and Mariners are wearing blank. Like I said, I can understand if they find the feel of Stance socks to not be as good as their usual socks, but the Tigers wore Stance for the whole opening series on the road without having a problem with it. I don't know if there's any rhyme or reason. In the end, it may just be that they feel like it, like what color the Rangers are on any given day. Oh, snap. Thanks. I've been scouring their pictures and their introduction video on opening day. It took until a guy came into his spot in the rotation for someone to show their socks. They look good, and I wish more of his teammates would follow suit.
  11. I think Miller and Lindor have it down, splitting the difference. They may be a little high, but the cut coming halfway up the sock, leaving plenty of room for stripes or other features looks pretty good. If only their teams would jump on the wagon with them. Meanwhile, I definitely am happy to see that teams are not completely beholden to Stance, or rather that even though they are not legally obligated, they don't feel a sense of obligation to show brand loyalty. They break out what they want. What confuses me is the teams that are not going with proprietary stripe designs or such are just going with their own rather than rocking the Stance logo. If trying to figure out what's happening with Stance in this season has taught me anything, it's that socks are really friggin' inconsistent. I mean, we knew that the A's and a Pirate or two wore non-uniform socks. But teams seem to be mixing and matching Stance and non-Stance for various things, including wearing non-Stance solid colors one day and then Stance solid colors another. Then when I went to see if Corey Seager and... I forget the other guy were still wearing the same socks with different logos, I found that Seager wore his pants down the second game after wearing them up the first game. I figured players were either socks or not players, but apparently not. Meanwhile, still haven't seen socks from the Twins.
  12. Weird. Where did this graphic come from? I thought maybe whoever it was was doing that with all the teams, but COL is Coll Airport in Scotland. Huh. Can't believe this never got mentioned in the MLB threads of the past. It's a nice look. Back when all this was announced it was said that teams could wear other socks, just without any brand logos on them. While professional quality hats and jerseys are a little harder to come by, anyone can grab a pair of socks, and they don't need official licensing. While I was expecting some to do this, I wasn't expecting as much to see entire teams decide to skip Stance at a time. With the new socks, I'm feeling less and less like this is a throwback and more like an alt in the old colors. I saw socks themed to the White Sox throwback. The Diamondbacks are one thing, but... there's no way Chicago would wear those with their throwback... right?
  13. There's definitely multiple team options from Stance. Both of the Tampa Bay options with their traditional striping (the TB one and the sunburst one) that we saw opening day had the yellow Stance logo on them. Who knows how many options there are. It's weird that the Diamondbacks have introduced new socks that are not Stance. I really dig them, though. Hope they keep them around. Weirder still is that they went with Stance for the throwback. I guess it's just a matter of what the team picks, though. In the end, that's what this all comes down to. Looking at what Arizona is doing, if the Giants or Orioles wanted to wear the old stripes, they'd just break them out. There's nothing stopping teams from just wearing what they want. This... this is what they want. Which comes into this... They do. They all do. They all have, like, half a dozen options at least, including generic stripes and solids. Teams chose what they're wearing. One interesting thing is the more insane outlandish designs are staying off field. The rainbow socks were shown either, but these... Also saw practice, but not gameplay. At least the Astros seem to be keeping them just as practice wear. On a side note, I haven't gotten to say so far... I'm really digging the Brewers' socks. The look has become really drab over time, but this adds a little more to the look and breaks things up. It's something new, and a little more color, even if it looks really dark in this shot. I also think the look looks good on the A's, as their thing is busy designs. Although I do agree with Fernando that the perfect look for them is green stirrups over yellow. I'd say with a logo over the ankle. On the stirrups debate, it's a classic look. It doesn't work for everyone, but if a team is wearing a classic look, wearing throwbacks, or can benefit from different-colored sanitaries. Less than helmets, I'd compare it to belts. Belts are completely unnecessary, and can be replaced with either a drawstring or 80's style elastic waistbands. They were even ditched for a bit, but we moved back because we decided we just liked the way this looked better. What? What do you mean connected?
  14. Day 3 and it looks like we've now seen socks from every team. Overall, it's been fairly conservative. So much so, the Giants dropped stripes. Meanwhile, the Diamondbacks found them. I just realized that a photo I'd posted earlier that I thought was a far-off shot of the Giants in their black socks with orange stripes were actually the Diamondbacks in black with red. They wore these black with red-bordered teal stripes socks with the teal alts. I really like them. They look pretty good. The A's are pretty outlandish, but that's to be expected. Looking back, every pic I'm seeing of that pair are Khris Davis, with another shot showing plain dark green. But they were one of the pioneers of everyone wearing mismatched socks. I'm stuck in a catch-22 here as I wonder whether or not I want baseball to bring the hammer down. I want them to make uniformity in socks mandatory... but only if the one they choose is the good option. Can I trust teams to do that? On the plus side, the Rangers don't all seem to be going with the insane Texas socks. Also, it looks like they're going to be a red team this year. Seriously, any rhyme or reason to scheduling, or this gonna just be a red year? My favorites are the stirrups I saw on Miller. I also noticed Lindor wearing stirrups with the team's stripe pattern they wore last year (while I saw other Indians in plain navy socks). Are these actual stirrups, or faux stirrups from Stance as I originally thought. If they're Stance, than good on them. If they're just unmarked socks they're bringing to the park (which it was said was possible when the deal was first announced), I wish we could see more. But, again, overall the Stance movement seems to be all right. We'll see, as the season continues, if teams remain looking dignified. It might even take until next year before we see where the sport is going to lie.
  15. Which, again, I don't friggin' understand. They brought out the block C on the road to limit Wahoo's presence on the road, but then they started wearing the navy alt more and more on the road and now they've made Wahoo road only on the navy alt? Crazy. All good news, although I'm surprised they didn't go with the Pirates who already wear the appropriate uniforms in their rotation. Not that I'm upset about it. That's gonna be a good-looking matchup. And that's a relief about the A's. They'll probably break out the old greens with the sunny elephant on one sleeve and the Jackie Robinson patch on the other. Aww... The Teal Monster. It's a shame no homage to this made its way into the new park, even if just the clock somewhere. Unless it's hiding in the tunnels somewhere like the old Busch Stadium II scoreboard does inside Busch Stadium III.