TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

2,871 posts in this topic

There is definitely a lighter navy used by the Rays and Padres, which the Indians previously used. Then there's the darker navy used by Seattle, Atlanta, and the Indians currently. The question is, is the Yankees, Red Sox, and Tigers navy darker than the dark navy of Seattle, Atlanta, and Cleveland. I think most of us want to think it is darker but I'm not so sure of that. It could also have something to do with the helmets because I'm like 99% positive that the Red Sox, Tigers, and Yankees have helmets that are darker than their caps. So it's possible that all the dark navy caps are the same but it's the helmets that have multiple shades of dark navy.

 

This is my theory on the thing, I'm sure this can be proven or disproven with pics. Anyone wanna chime in on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can guarantee there are only two shades of navy caps produced by New Era for Major League Baseball. Individual teams may have different shades of navy in their branding guides but they must chose between the two shades New Era offers.

 

From what I understand, Majestic has basically switched to two shades of navy as well.

 

The batting helmets are always the darker navy I believe.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JustABallCoach said:

Yes Houston is much less dense. That doesn't mean there were other better options downtown for the ball park. Downtown and Houston city limits are two different things. 

 

The only thing that really matters though is that we are quite happy with our ball park in Houston. 

 

Youre right - at the end of the day that's what matters most. 

 

Doesn't mean we outsiders can't point out and discuss its flaws though!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2017 at 11:22 PM, NYCdog said:

 

IMO, a solid continuous arched wall would've looked worse, even if they integrated an out-of-town scoreboard. Id imaging it would've been similar to the old Busch Stadium double-deck corners, spanning all of left field. Guess you could've had standing room areas but that's it.

 

The short porch was the better option. 

 

10_old_busch_stadium_right_field_corner.

 

 

 

I miss that stadium. The current Busch is fine, but the previous one was better. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

I miss that stadium. The current Busch is fine, but the previous one was better. 

 

Likewise, I miss it, and I never saw a game live there.  So it might have been a complete dump (I dunno), but it always looked cool on television, especially the changes that were made when it went to natural grass.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

Likewise, I miss it, and I never saw a game live there.  So it might have been a complete dump (I dunno), but it always looked cool on television, especially the changes that were made when it went to natural grass.

 

Yep by all accounts I've read and seen it was the one concrete donut that didn't suck. And that alone made it unique.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

There is definitely a lighter navy used by the Rays and Padres, which the Indians previously used. Then there's the darker navy used by Seattle, Atlanta, and the Indians currently. The question is, is the Yankees, Red Sox, and Tigers navy darker than the dark navy of Seattle, Atlanta, and Cleveland. I think most of us want to think it is darker but I'm not so sure of that. It could also have something to do with the helmets because I'm like 99% positive that the Red Sox, Tigers, and Yankees have helmets that are darker than their caps. So it's possible that all the dark navy caps are the same but it's the helmets that have multiple shades of dark navy.

 

This is my theory on the thing, I'm sure this can be proven or disproven with pics. Anyone wanna chime in on this?

There are only 2 shades of navy for jerseys and hats, the regular navy that the rays and padres got, and the midnight navy that the tigers, and Yankees use. The Red Sox are a strange case though because they use the midnight navy for the caps, but the regular navy for their jerseys. I'm not sure if there are different shades of helmets but they will almost always look darker because their are only so many colors you can make from the injection molding so it's hard to color match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dont care said:

There are only 2 shades of navy for jerseys and hats, the regular navy that the rays and padres got, and the midnight navy that the tigers, and Yankees use. The Red Sox are a strange case though because they use the midnight navy for the caps, but the regular navy for their jerseys. I'm not sure if there are different shades of helmets but they will almost always look darker because their are only so many colors you can make from the injection molding so it's hard to color match.

 

IMG_3406.JPG

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2017 at 10:07 AM, McCarthy said:

Exactly. They invented a problem for themselves so they could solve it with purposefully quirky dimensions. I liked that center field was so deep because somewhere in the park needed to be a tough home run, but the hill was the worst contrivance of them all. It was built in a time when quirky dimensions were all the rage and that stadium has more quirky dimensions crammed into it than any of them. I'm glad the Reds don't have to go there for 9 games a year anymore. Left field is the cheapest home run in baseball. 

 

"there is a city street lined by trees"

So you move the city street and the trees. It's a major league baseball team, not me trying to get a permit to put an extension on my house. 

 

Eh.  People have gone back and forth about the reality of their predicament.  The building on the corner does look old, but I can't find anything on it save one of the tennants.  It's come to a bit of a stalemate.

 

I gotta stop for a second there about that last part, though.  The cheapest home run in baseball?

 

x8qcKfa.png (The red line is the old Stadium's wall.)

 

Dsc_6431_Pesky's_Pole.jpg

 

3_heading_into_the_seats_07_16_12.jpg

 

dsc_0202.jpg

 

3 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Yep by all accounts I've read and seen it was the one concrete donut that didn't suck. And that alone made it unique.

 

Does it count if the donut had a bite taken out of it?  Because there's a lot of love for Shea, although I think a good amount of that was fan atmosphere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Shea was an anomaly.  A multi-purpose park that was actually a great place to watch a ballgame.  I spent plenty of time in the nosebleeds, and there really wasn't a bad seat in the house. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, Shea was an anomaly.  A multi-purpose park that was actually a great place to watch a ballgame.  I spent plenty of time in the nosebleeds, and there really wasn't a bad seat in the house. 

 

Some of the back rows in the lower bowl were pretty bad. I remember being able to see the players but any ball hit in the air was obstucted by the overhang of the second deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, Shea was an anomaly.  A multi-purpose park that was actually a great place to watch a ballgame.  I spent plenty of time in the nosebleeds, and there really wasn't a bad seat in the house. 

 

We'll have to disagree. Shea was poorly maintained and far too vertical. It may have been a decent place to watch a game, but it was a dump even before they decided to junk it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, Shea was an anomaly.  A multi-purpose park that was actually a great place to watch a ballgame.  I spent plenty of time in the nosebleeds, and there really wasn't a bad seat in the house. 

 

IMG_0234.JPG

20 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

We'll have to disagree. Shea was poorly maintained and far too vertical. It may have been a decent place to watch a game, but it was a dump even before they decided to junk it.

Yeah, I loved that place and have a lot of great memories of going to Shea. But it was a dump that smelled like pee. They should have brought over the multi-colored seats to the new place, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cmm said:

 

IMG_0234.JPG

 

Okay, one. :P

 

Still, the worst sections at Shea were better than the worst sections in any of the 20-odd other ballparks I've been to.  I'm not saying it wasn't old and poorly maintained, I'm not even saying that it shouldn't have been replaced, only that it was a better ballpark than many of its peers. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Likewise, I miss it, and I never saw a game live there.  So it might have been a complete dump (I dunno), but it always looked cool on television, especially the changes that were made when it went to natural grass.

 

The (baseball) Cardinals did a great job of dressing up Busch II after the (football) Cardinals left.  The batters eye and extra large upper deck scoreboard made it look much less sterile . . .  as did the natural grass, of course.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experiences with Shea were weird, mostly because I was young and it was the first ballpark I ever went to that wasn't my home park.  I spent most of my first trip talking about how surreal it was.  I stood in the parking lot, looked straight ahead, and saw... sky.  Sky?  This wasn't the City.  This was a sea of parking lots.  I remember yelling about this for years.

 

Of course, I don't even think I was a teenager at the time.  My dad remarked about how clean it was when he went with my uncle.  I was a bit distracted with the strange surroundings and the incredibly tight turnstyles.  One thing I never liked was the incredible openness in the outfield.  I think this is a problem shared, or even exacerbated by Citi Field.  Citi Field is incredibly open in the outfield, but is closed enough that you can no longer see the chop shops, meaning that all there is is sky.  It looks like there is literally nothing out there.  I don't like ballparks that look like you can just slap a skybox around them in a video game and be done with it.

 

From what I've heard, it was an electrifying place.  But most of the time that I went down there, it was during low points in the franchise's history, so I didn't really get to see that.  Hence my mentioning that the place's reputation may have been mostly based on that, although I didn't have enough personal knowledge while I was old enough to pay attention to really comment, so I figured I'd open it up to people who knew better.

 

One thing I'll definitely say.  The reaction people had to Citi Field is a testament to the quality of Shea.  

 

site14_pic.jpg

 

I'd had season tickets in the upper deck down the right foul line at Yankee Stadium.  And I'd been going since I was eight.  I knew that if you're in the upper deck in the outfield, you're going to lose the corner below you.  In fact, most places in the upper deck meant you were losing a portion of the field.  If a ball went there, you waited for the reaction of the crowd, and if everyone cheered, you knew it was good.  Ball comes out, it bounces around against the wall.  Ball doesn't, home run.

 

People lost their minds about the sightlines in Citi Field.  There was a great amount of fan revolt.  When photos actually came out and I listened to my uncle's rants, I realized that the problems were pretty much the same as what I'd considered normal for over a decade.  Heck, people were complaining about having to look through the plexiglass at the bottom of rows to see portions of the field.  They were unhappy to look through something that was clear.

 

But, I realized that this was just a testament to how good Shea's sightlines were.  Except for the very ends of the upper deck, seats which usually stood empty unless the place was packed and of which there weren't many to begin with, you could see every bit of the action from every angle.  Hence Gothamite's statement about there not being a bad seat in the house.  And for such a large place, that's pretty impressive.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to the New Era hat logo or things like this (company brands on basketball jerseys) or other things coming down the road...it's marketing dollars and it has to be accepted. It's strange to hear people fuss about NE, when people don't really complain about Nike or Adidas. Is it because you feel those brands have brought something to the table? This is the same thing. It will be seen in the same light...status quo...a non-topic really. As a college coach for many years, you'd hear your players happy about Nike or Adidas uni's, but if the uniform budget wasn't there in a certain year and you went a lesser route (even looking sharp)...then the players were disappointed because THAT NAME/LOGO wasn't somewhere on the uniform. A baseball player will feel that way about the NE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheRealCoachCarter said:

When it comes to the New Era hat logo or things like this (company brands on basketball jerseys) or other things coming down the road...it's marketing dollars and it has to be accepted. It's strange to hear people fuss about NE, when people don't really complain about Nike or Adidas. Is it because you feel those brands have brought something to the table? This is the same thing. It will be seen in the same light...status quo...a non-topic really. As a college coach for many years, you'd hear your players happy about Nike or Adidas uni's, but if the uniform wasn't there and you went a lesser route (even looking sharp)...then the players were disappointed because THAT NAME/LOGO wasn't somewhere on the uniform. A baseball player will feel that way about the NE. 

 

It's because baseball caps have been brandless forever. And that's the way they should be

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does New Era use the same shade for the orange Astros caps as they do the Marlins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now