MLB 2016 Changes

[Gothamite]

Pretty sure mlb merchandise money is divided the same way. But with so many home games, the ballpark stores become more important than other sports.

[Bmac]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

[WavePunter]

That would have been gorgeous.

+1

I actually like the Sedona red, simply for its uniqueness and it actually looks good with the turquoise, but being a turquoise/black/copper team with red accents would be better than black/red/sand with turquoise accents

[Sodboy13]

Theres no real reason to worry about sales at all. Such BS

Hi! Sports is a business!

[Gothamite]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

Yeah, not buying that. They wear the throwbacks often enough, and the baseball with gold stitch hardly reads as a baseball, certainly not enough to confuse a batter.

[Bmac]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

Yeah, not buying that. They wear the throwbacks often enough, and the baseball with gold stitch hardly reads as a baseball, certainly not enough to confuse a batter.

Right, the rule is that no team can introduce a new cap with a baseball in the logo. Throwbacks are grandfathered in, which is one theory as to why things are the way they are for the Brew Crew.

That's not necessarily my opinion, just a theory based on what I've been told in the past.

[Gothamite]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

[jrodsep]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

[Hrundi V. Bakshi]

I no longer want the Rockies to get a redesign. Yikes.

This has been my concern with a potential Rockies redesign. Their current unis are a bit boring and derivativte of the White Sox but who knows what they'd do with a serious overhaul? All they need is a little more purple and maybe a few font changes but they've been bad enough recently that management might think a Dbacks-style cry for attention is necessary.

And these Dbacks unis truly are horrible. The look that Nike has unfortunately introduced to football should never play any part in a MLB uniform.

[Gothamite]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

[Bmac]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

[2001mark]

Wait... what is MLB's reasoning for no 'baseballs' on their 'baseball' caps?

[Anubis2051]

I once heard the Brewers were kind of stuck trying to move forward because MLB won't let them use the BiG logo straight up as a primary logo, because there's that rule about not having a baseball in the cap logos. Same reason Toronto's current logo doesn't feature a baseball on the cap. Seattle is the only team that gets away with it currently (excluding BP and throwbacks).

The rule says "on the uniform" and there's plenty of teams that break it, including the newly added dbacks uniforms.

[Discrim]

A few things I'm thinking re: the Padres and D-backs...first, we see the Fathers taking their historical color indecision to its logical conclusion: navy/gold/white at home, navy/white on the road, and brown/gold as alts. And in all honesty, the brown/gold set is damn beautiful. Just needs more friar. The new camouflage set suffers from the same problem their last one had: said camo does its job too well in relation to the numbers.

Now Arizona...some would consider this damning praise, but the diamond patterned sleeves and sides seem like something I'd have tried eventually. A bold move, but one I think can stick around for a good while, if they let it. Their new lettering is an upgrade over those from the old set, and I like that they brought back turquoise. Kinda wish they'd done more to differentiate the same-colored caps from each other, but I really like what the D-backs did, overall.

[Sodboy13]

Is that Mets jersey on the right a counterfeit? There are some pretty stark differences between the two sleeve patches.

[BBTV]

There's never been a rule about baseballs on a cap. There used to be about baseballs on a jersey, and that's why the phillies had different Ps on their caps vs jerseys from around 70 - 87 when they were allowed to use the swirl on the jersey p too (the swirl was too much like a baseball or something like that).

[WSU151]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

[Hrundi V. Bakshi]

I saw a pic of the charcoal jerseys against a light background, and the names and numbers aren't quite as unreadable as I first thought. Really, I don't mind a darker shade of gray. I actually kind of liked when teams had various shades of gray, or even powder blue. Just like some teams have cream homes rather than white, I see no reason why teams can't use dark grays rather than light grays.

I personally far prefer a dark shade of gray for road unis but the Dbacks's new roads are, like the rest of this set, over the top IMHO.

Here's a nice comparison photo emphasizing the striking dark Mets and Dodgers grays compared to the relatively pale Phillies gray. The Cardinals road is also clearly darker than the Phils' but that more standard shade of road gray still isn't dark enough for my tastes. Some of the differences here might be lighting but lighting wouldn't account for this much difference in such a small space:

This new Dbacks gray OTOH looks more like a college football team chose charcoal as their primary color and made a head to toe home alt with the color. I suppose that's fitting with all the other modern college football touches they've incorporated into the rest of these unis.

[Hrundi V. Bakshi]

I gotta think that the 14 uniforms are just an underhanded way of telling Sony/SCEA to add more uniform slots in MLB The Show. and on the flip side, the game designers are probably thinking "holy s***."

That we're probably gonna get recreations of every single one of these piles of garbage when The Show already fails to include several classic unis (including TBTC unis from the current year) is rather irritating.

[BBTV]

I cannot believe they're not allowed to go back full-time. That just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah. It's kind of idiotic both ways. On the MLB side, the baseball in the logo is so small on the cap that it doesn't even look like a baseball. On the Brewers side, just drop the baseball line and make it a yellow or white circle.

If that was really the issue, dropping the gold line wouldn't make any difference. Even a white circle could be confused for a baseball under that logic.

But that's beside the point, because it's not really an issue.

Was it the NHL or MLB that said no old school logo can be brought back exactly as it was? I thought one of the leagues had that rule to promote new merchandise or something. I think it was the NHL, but from a business standpoint I could see MLB taking that stance as well.

The NBA definitely has a rule where all throwback logos are sent to to the Hardwood Classics vault, and new logos cannot be a direct copy of any HWC logo.

I've heard this forever, but any idea how old this rule is? When the Sixers changed from the Iverson set to their fauxbacks in '10 or '11, they brought back the ball logo directly from the vault (though it was placed inside a square for the primary logo, it was used unaltered for the secondary.)