MLB Changes 2017

[SilverBullet1929]

How many times do we need to go clarify that every red in MLB is exactly the same shade with the exception of the DBacks Sedona red? 

[Sport]

If anything DC works better for Washington than TC does for the Twins because "Dee See" is accepted as the abbreviated shorthand for that city. Nobody says "Tee See" when talking about the Twin Cities, which is why I wouldn't be too upset if the Twins went back to these caps

 

 

[SFGiants58]

2 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

If anything DC works better for Washington than TC does for the Twins because "Dee See" is accepted as the abbreviated shorthand for that city. Nobody says "Tee See" when talking about the Twin Cities, which is why I wouldn't be too upset if the Twins went back to these caps

 

 

 

Sure, but there's a better color balance and letter form that doesn't look nearly as dated.

 

 

The "M" from that beautiful "Minnesota" road script in white, outlined in red. It's unique (cursive cap letter M), and it looks good!

[SilverBullet1929]

Sorry but count me in the unpopular camp of liking the current Nationals set more than their previous one.

 

I like the curly W for its simplicity, I wouldn't call it generic. Even the Walgreens quirk doesn't bother me.

 

Their previous set was just too blocky and clunky for my liking, it just seemingly was there for the purpose of taking up space.

 

And that beveled W is just as blocky and stiff and to me is more generic than anything. And the lower center point makes the W to me look like a hand doing the thumb and first finger out surfer style I love you hand signal. Just an odd look to my eyes.

 

I enjoy the curly W and the uniform changes to me to focus on that W were a positive especially since the team seemed to enjoy that W so much and really that W was out of place in their previous blocky monument look so if they wanna emphasize the curly W then might as well drop the blocky stuff and go full on with the curly W. 

 

Like I said I know this is an unpopular opinion. 

[msu]

 

9 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Sorry but count me in the unpopular camp of liking the current Nationals set more than their previous one.

 

I like the curly W for its simplicity, I wouldn't call it generic. Even the Walgreens quirk doesn't bother me.

 

Their previous set was just too blocky and clunky for my liking, it just seemingly was there for the purpose of taking up space.

 

And that beveled W is just as blocky and stiff and to me is more generic than anything. And the lower center point makes the W to me look like a hand doing the thumb and first finger out surfer style I love you hand signal. Just an odd look to my eyes.

 

I enjoy the curly W and the uniform changes to me to focus on that W were a positive especially since the team seemed to enjoy that W so much and really that W was out of place in their previous blocky monument look so if they wanna emphasize the curly W then might as well drop the blocky stuff and go full on with the curly W. 

 

Like I said I know this is an unpopular opinion. 

I agree with you. I like the Nationals current look much better than the beveled gold era. They just need to get a new number font, which is a little out of place in the current look. But all in all it's a pretty solid look I think.

 

Plus the curly W makes for a pretty nice pretzel:

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Bevelling sucks for any logo.  That and the other monstrosity of faux-3D, the drop shadow, make us forget that two dimensions is all you need for a good logo.  But the bevelling is particularly bad for that DC logo.

 

 

There is no light source that could make the shadow effect produced by the bevelling on the C.

The DC logo is much better when it's produced in clean two dimensions.

 

 

...except that the lines of the letters should be completed so that the two letterforms are complete, as they are in the (otherwise awful) stars-and-stripes version.

 

 

 

 

At any rate, all of these logos pale in comparison to the curly W.  It's hard to understand how there could be opposition to such a cool-looking logo.  Even though that logo dates only from the early 1960s, it has the look of a logo that could go back to the early part of the century, one that compares nicely with the iconic logos of the Tigers and Red Sox, a logo so cool that it now appears on the team's jerseys -- home and road -- as well as on its hats.

The Nationals have a superb look with their home whites and road greys.  This...

 

 

...is what a baseball uniform looks like.  The hats compliment these uniforms perfectly.  

 

The Nationals shouldn't change anything substantial.  The only change they should implement is to use the DC logo (2-dimensional style) as a sleeve patch in place of the roundel.  Likewise, that was the best use of the Twins' TC logo.

[OnWis97]

Regarding the "TC," my traditional sensibilities tell me that the Twins should have an "M" hat.  You could then argue that the Nats should have a "W" hat.  But "DC" does better represent the place (Washington, used interchangeably even if not 100% correct) than "TC" does Minnesota (TC a region within Minnesota).

 

However, I've had two thoughts on why the Twins use "TC." I'd always assumed it was because an "M" could have been perceived as being for "Minneapolis" and there was a pretty big effort not to marginalize either city.  But at some point on the boards here, I feel like I heard that the original idea was to call the team the Twin Cities Twins (vetoed by the American League) and that the "TC" cap was designed with that in mind and then not changed (because of time?  Or maybe the Minneapolis reason).

 

If the "TC" was meant to be for "Twin Cities Twins," that's one of those classic quirky stories that makes we want to keep the TC.  Of course I've been a Twins fan for over 30 years and don't actually know the answer...so even if it's true, it may not be widely known enough to matter.

 

Either way, I've just never liked that "M" hat and I don't know that a better-designed M would do it for me.  I think the TC is part of the team to the point that even if it is, in theory, the wrong approach, it just "feels right."

[chcarlson23]

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Regarding the "TC," my traditional sensibilities tell me that the Twins should have an "M" hat.  You could then argue that the Nats should have a "W" hat.  But "DC" does better represent the place (Washington, used interchangeably even if not 100% correct) than "TC" does Minnesota (TC a region within Minnesota).

 

However, I've had two thoughts on why the Twins use "TC." I'd always assumed it was because an "M" could have been perceived as being for "Minneapolis" and there was a pretty big effort not to marginalize either city.  But at some point on the boards here, I feel like I heard that the original idea was to call the team the Twin Cities Twins and that the "TC" cap was designed with that in mind and then not changed (because of time?  Or maybe the Minneapolis reason).

 

If the "TC" was meant to be for "Twin Cities Twins," that's one of those classic quirky stories that makes we want to keep the TC.  Of course I've been a Twins fan for over 30 years and don't actually know the answer...so even if it's true, it may not be widely known enough to matter.

 

Either way, I've just never liked that "M" hat and I don't know that a better-designed M would do it for me.  I think the TC is part of the team to the point that even if it is, in theory, the wrong approach, it just "feels right."

I 100% agree. The TC logo has come to represent the Twins. The M may be more appropriate from a baseballs aesthetics point, but the TC just fits. It's a small little quirk that you (have to) learn to love... 

[Gobbi]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

There is no light source that could make the shadow effect produced by the bevelling on the C.

 

Wouldn't light coming from the top-right of the C cause that shadowing?

 

 

[Sport]

35 minutes ago, Gobbi said:

 

Wouldn't light coming from the top-right of the C cause that shadowing?

 

 

 

yes. I isolated each letter and used Photoshop's bevel and emboss with the angle coming from the top right. The shadows (represented by the gold), save the bottom right part of the D, match what photoshop's automatic beveling tool did. 

 

 

edit:

 

The mothership has the bottom right portion of the D correctly filled in. The one in the post above is a bad copy. 

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/h6vgi2qzea1kkh1xggzo30k1v/Washington_Nationals/2006/Cap_Logo

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

Hmf.  Well, if the shadowing is consistent, then maybe that DC not worse than other bevelled logos.  It's merely just as bad.

But the point about bevelling is that the whole idea of wondering about an imaginary light source on a logo or wordmark is kind of absurd.  Any logo worth presenting should stand on its own in two dimensions.

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

Either way, I've just never liked that "M" hat and I don't know that a better-designed M would do it for me.  I think the TC is part of the team to the point that even if it is, in theory, the wrong approach, it just "feels right."

 

I've come to love the "M" hat, but purely out of nostalgia. I had just turned 11 when the Twins won the '87 series. As a dumb kid I made myself believe that the reason they went from middle-of-the-pack to champions was because of the uniform redesign. So that cap will always symbolize the period of Twins history I'll cherish the most. As out of place as it may be today, a part of me wishes the "M" hat were still in the rotation, if only so it would be easier to replace my current rapidly aging "M" hat. 

[OnWis97]

7 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I've come to love the "M" hat, but purely out of nostalgia. I had just turned 11 when the Twins won the '87 series. As a dumb kid I made myself believe that the reason they went from middle-of-the-pack to champions was because of the uniform redesign. So that cap will always symbolize the period of Twins history I'll cherish the most. As out of place as it may be today, a part of me wishes the "M" hat were still in the rotation, if only so it would be easier to replace my current rapidly aging "M" hat. 

Funny...I'm only two years older than you but just don't have the nostalgia about that hat.  I remember being so excited to see the updated uniforms* and so glad to see pinstripes and buttons...a more traditional look.  But the underline on the "M"just jumped out at me as bad.   I may have appreciated an "M" more without that underline, as I don't think I'd developed a lot of firm attachment to the "TC" yet.  I just did not like that "M."  A better "M" may have sold me then, but after bring the TC back for this long, it's kinda "what they are" now, so a better "M" would not help me now.

 

*I was so pumped to see the uniforms.  In the mid-1980s, I did like powder blue road uniforms and did not necessarily care about belts vs. elastic.  But I was getting sick of pullovers and felt that the Twins needed a new look.  I remember turning on a spring training game in 1987 to see the Twins wearing their new uniforms hats and batting practice jerseys from 1986.  It was like a rug being pulled out from under me; I was going to have to wait for WEEKS to see the new uniform and when you are 12, that's a tough pill to swallow.

[SilverBullet1929]

4 hours ago, msu said:

 

I agree with you. I like the Nationals current look much better than the beveled gold era. They just need to get a new number font, which is a little out of place in the current look. But all in all it's a pretty solid look I think.

 

Plus the curly W makes for a pretty nice pretzel:

 

 

Umm, that doesn't look like a pretzel to me. Please be sure that's a pretzel before you consume it. Smell it to be sure. 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

How many times do we need to go clarify that every red in MLB is exactly the same shade with the exception of the DBacks Sedona red? 

 

So do the uniform have different values than the ColorWerx values?  I'd checked with a graphic I made from the ColorWerx values to compare the reds.

 

As for the Nats and Twins discussion, I do like those old monument uniforms, but I also love the current look.  I'd be okay with a few tweaks, a script wordmark here or there a DC logo here and there, but I think they look good.  I agree with someone earlier in confusion over the sudden dogpile on the W.  It's unique, timeless, balanced, and consistent.  Besides the similarity to a grocery chain's logo, what's the problem with it?

 

As for the Twins, I think a lot of different teams have different looks that evoke different times.  I feel that the Twins' TC evokes the 60's so perfectly, which is an aesthetic that I think really fits the team, especially with a new ballpark that has a lot of elements that evoke that same time period: the birth of Minnesota Baseball.

 

P.S. Glad that halfway through everyone finally realized that that prototype cap does have incredibly clear serifs and stopped referring to it as the sans-serif W.

[Jungle Jim]

On 7/3/2017 at 2:08 AM, SilverBullet1929 said:

I'm all for the Braves going back to red bills on the road. It's one of those things where I knew the red bills looked better but I've gotten so used to the all navy cap or at least it just doesn't bother me as much that I stopped worrying about it but seeing the Braves wear the red bills this week flooded all of my mid to late 90s braves memories back and holy hell I want those red bills back on the road asap now. 

 

Agreed.  Some teams absolutely should not have contrasting bills and some absolutely should.  My Reds are an example of a team that should stop doing it.  It's been 18 years since they added the black bill to the red cap, and it looks as out-of-place today as it did then.  The Cubs are another team that needs to never do it again.

 

The Braves, on the other hand, are one of the teams that should always have it, and the Orioles and A's also come to mind.  

[SFGiants58]

2 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

So do the uniform have different values than the ColorWerx values?  I'd checked with a graphic I made from the ColorWerx values to compare the reds.

 

As for the Nats and Twins discussion, I do like those old monument uniforms, but I also love the current look.  I'd be okay with a few tweaks, a script wordmark here or there a DC logo here and there, but I think they look good.  I agree with someone earlier in confusion over the sudden dogpile on the W.  It's unique, timeless, balanced, and consistent.  Besides the similarity to a grocery chain's logo, what's the problem with it?

 

The same as any previous Washington baseball logo, namely its connection with perennial failure and teams that relocated:

 

 

The first Senators team may have had the best pitcher of the pre-WWII era play for their team (Walter Johnson), but his career was a small part of a larger period of terrible teams. It doesn't help that Calvin Griffith (the guy on the right of the left picture) relocated the team because he didn't want African-Americans at his games (I'm oversimplifying a little here). The second Senators team (the source of the curly W) had only one winning season, and their owner performed a big swindle to get them out of the market. If anything, the curly W should be associated with killing baseball in the District of Columbia for over thirty years.

 

The "DC" logo or the sharp-serif "W" logo are both steps in a good direction. They're a sign of renewal, a symbol of real change for baseball in the area. That's the why the curly W, and the block W, should be left in the past.

[daveindc]

On 7/6/2017 at 2:13 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

The same as any previous Washington baseball logo, namely its connection with perennial failure and teams that relocated:

 

 

The first Senators team may have had the best pitcher of the pre-WWII era play for their team (Walter Johnson), but his career was a small part of a larger period of terrible teams. It doesn't help that Calvin Griffith (the guy on the right of the left picture) relocated the team because he didn't want African-Americans at his games (I'm oversimplifying a little here). The second Senators team (the source of the curly W) had only one winning season, and their owner performed a big swindle to get them out of the market. If anything, the curly W should be associated with killing baseball in the District of Columbia for over thirty years.

 

The "DC" logo or the sharp-serif "W" logo are both steps in a good direction. They're a sign of renewal, a symbol of real change for baseball in the area. That's the why the curly W, and the block W, should be left in the past.

 

 

As someone who wasn't alive to see the Senators play, that was my initial reaction to the curly W. For those who were there to root the Senators on before the team was yanked from them, bringing baseball back to DC along with that logo was justice.

 

 

 

I like the curly W because it's fun, not too serious. It's a nice contrast to the outside perception of Washington as a stiff, government town. Some fans initially thought they went overboard with the curly W when they changed the uniforms, but most seem to enjoy them now. You won't find too many people here wanting to change anything about uniforms.

 

 

[Dynasty]

The Nationals really need to either move the front numbers up or get rid of the piping and use that script they almost (but never) used. The cap logo is fine IMO. The DC logo is cool and all, but so is the curly W.

[Gothamite]

The Walgreens W is okay on a cap, but it's a terrible jersey logo. Especially with the imbalanced numbers.  The best jersey logos are roughly symmetrical, and the combination of loopy swirls and italicized angle makes it unsuitable.   The off-center numbers only accentuate its many problems.

 

This would have been so much better:

 

 

Pair that with the loopy W cap on red, and you're good to go.

 

And just as an aside, the Nationals seem to have more than their share of rejected prototypes.  All of which are better than the ones actually chosen.