Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

Has this ever been brought up? Recently I've noticed how horrible the number 4 looks in the Washington Nationals number font. Seems like every other number is ok, even though some have an awkward shape as well, but the 4 is atrocious when you look at it during a game, that rectangle at the bottom needs to go, it just looks like a smudge and makes the bottom of it hard to make out. You can barely see the two notches that cut into the bottom piece. This is now one of those uncomfortable details that I can never unsee whenever I watch the Nats play. Am I wrong here?

pmlb2-12931881dt.jpgth?id=OIP.M85b07f827cf88e46bb9aa00c90031

 

This is an ugly rendering but I did this quickly to show what my mind now sees whenever I see that 4...

Nats4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

That's their blue and red cream day alt with camo. and it looks ugly...

 

It's not - at least the pants aren't from their alt.  Their cream pants have striping on the sides.  Those don't.  The jersey might be the same though.  Also they wore black socks.  A total disgrace not only to themselves but also to the people they're "honoring".

 

5 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Has this ever been brought up? Recently I've noticed how horrible the number 4 looks in the Washington Nationals number font. Seems like every other number is ok, even though some have an awkward shape as well, but the 4 is atrocious when you look at it during a game, that rectangle at the bottom needs to go, it just looks like a smudge and makes the bottom of it hard to make out. You can barely see the two notches that cut into the bottom piece. This is now one of those uncomfortable details that I can never unsee whenever I watch the Nats play. Am I wrong here?

 

 

This is an ugly rendering but I did this quickly to show what my mind now sees whenever I see that 4...

 

 

The serif goes with the rest of their numbers.  It's not that bad IMO, it's still easily recognizable as a 4.  Their numbers suck all together - they should have just kept the Montreal numbers -  but that 4 isn't an issue.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Has this ever been brought up? Recently I've noticed how horrible the number 4 looks in the Washington Nationals number font. Seems like every other number is ok, even though some have an awkward shape as well, but the 4 is atrocious when you look at it during a game, that rectangle at the bottom needs to go, it just looks like a smudge and makes the bottom of it hard to make out. You can barely see the two notches that cut into the bottom piece. This is now one of those uncomfortable details that I can never unsee whenever I watch the Nats play. Am I wrong here?

pmlb2-12931881dt.jpgth?id=OIP.M85b07f827cf88e46bb9aa00c90031

 

This is an ugly rendering but I did this quickly to show what my mind now sees whenever I see that 4...

Nats4.jpg

 

Do you have trouble deciphering what it is?  From top to bottom:  "Looks like a four...looks like a four...oh %^&!, now I have no idea if it's a four..." :) 

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Has this ever been brought up? Recently I've noticed how horrible the number 4 looks in the Washington Nationals number font. Seems like every other number is ok, even though some have an awkward shape as well, but the 4 is atrocious when you look at it during a game, that rectangle at the bottom needs to go, it just looks like a smudge and makes the bottom of it hard to make out. You can barely see the two notches that cut into the bottom piece. This is now one of those uncomfortable details that I can never unsee whenever I watch the Nats play. Am I wrong here?

pmlb2-12931881dt.jpgth?id=OIP.M85b07f827cf88e46bb9aa00c90031

 

This is an ugly rendering but I did this quickly to show what my mind now sees whenever I see that 4...

Nats4.jpg

From a design perspective, could the horizontal crossbar not be moved up slightly? It would shrink the size of the "triangle" a bit, but perhaps a happy medium that allows a tiny bit more space between the horizontal crossbar and the bottom serif would help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mitch B said:

 

I'm a Anti-Yankee fan, but I love everything about that photo.  Awesome uniform ?

I think in general, baseball uniforms were at their peak aesthetically in the 60's. By that I mean they were worn perfectly, not necessarily that they were all better designs. Pants were worn high but well below the knee; Stirrups weren't the skinny strips they would become in later years, and perfectly balanced with the pants length; and uniforms were athletically form-fitting with sleeves at mid-bicep length. If only we could get back to this. Classic.

20 hours ago, Paul Lucas said:

That is exactly what the Yanks should look like on the road. Maybe they can find a way to get that material Missouri uses. Also, they should get rid of the white outlines...and whatever that is on their sleeves.

 

16 hours ago, oddball said:

I've never understood the hatred for the white outline and the sleeve striping on the Yankees roads. I'm not saying that this look is superior to what the Yankees currently wear, but it is not superior by any means. I think both the current look and this look are equally nice. Then again, I grew up watching the Yanks with the white outline, that may be why I don't find the earlier versions superior. *shrug*

To be honest, I'm really torn between these two. On one hand I love the road uniform as is, white outlines included. It's hard to believe that these have been around for nearly fifty years, because the classic flannel-era non-outlined "NEW YORK" uniform was worn for a little over fifty years as well. Either way, loads of history behind them. On the other hand, I would love to see a return to the non-outlined/sleeve cuff look. However, I don't think it can work without having a faux flannel material (something I would be interested in seeing.) My only fear would be that it would come across as a gimmick. There's something about double-knit uniforms that doesn't always translate over well without having outlines. Sometimes they tend to look a bit too blank, and I think a light flannel pattern could improve that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I hate the non-swirl version of the Phillies P. I like the 1987-91 version the best. 

 

2. I can find no evidence that the Phillies actually wore that cap in regular season games. 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good find.  I searched for a while and couldn't come up with anything.  It clearly wasn't worn often.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything about the throwbacks with last night was great, except the pillbox cap.  They just didn't fit with the Phillies and the stripes just added clutter.  While I prefer the current look, specifically the cream alternate, they should use this or the 1960s uniform on Fridays home games.  Just to add variety of course and to use this more often because it looked really nice out there.

29uxdh0.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They weren't even real pillbox caps.  Too unstructured - just like goofy-shaped regular caps.

 

Also while I didn't get a real good look, it didn't appear that the pinstripes were red like they were on the pre-87 home uniform.

 

Also, for much of that era, the NOBs were vertically arched.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2016 at 9:18 AM, OnWis97 said:

Funny; I was going to say the opposite.  The cuff striping looks so 1980s.  I suppose you could argue the same about the white outlines, but for some reason I find it less egregious.  Because it's the Yankees, they probably should remove both, but I could deal with keeping the outline.

 

That's where I stand.  The problem with the Yankees sleeve stripes is that they don't work with the rest of the uniform. There are no stripes anywhere else on the uniform, so they're just hanging there in isolation.  They're an odd pairing with button-down jerseys, belts, and stripeless collars and pants.

 

USATSI_7402433_149008644_lowres.jpg

 

Teams that had sleeve stripes in the 70s and 80s also had pullover jerseys with stripes around the neck and beltless pants with stripes around the waist, so there was a theme and there was balance.  Don't get me wrong, today's Yankees look better than those teams from the 70s and 80s, but they have unnecessarily forced a 70s-80s design element onto an otherwise traditional uniform.

 

al_1977_minnesota.gifnl_1977_stlouis.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of flip-flop on the idea of faux-flannel for the Yankees. Sometimes, I think it's an excellent way of preserving the vintage character of the old road uniforms. At other times, it seems more like a gimmick that a team of the Yankees' stature should ignore. I wouldn't mind seeing somebody use faux-flannel road grays, but only as an alternate (so we can asses the quality of Majestic's version of the fabric).

 

I would recommend that the Yankees either add a matching pants stripe or dump the sleeve stripes, for consistency's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.