TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

4,760 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

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

 

randmid_1322764501_pohladgriffith.jpg16forfeit.190.jpg

 

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.

 

Hmm...  I suppose that understandable to some, although I greatly more agree with Daveindc's appraisal.  Then again, I'm one of the people who prefers cities bring back identities that have been abandoned.

 

4 hours ago, daveindc said:

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 back was justice.

 

Yeah.  Screw those guys.  Baseball is back in the capital.

 

In the end, though, I know it's a touchy subject, especially since the Nationals have two 

 

(Side note, when I called the curly W "consistent", I was referring to a stark contrast of the wildly varying and splotchy thicknesses of that Twins logo on the wall.)

 

I do agree that DC is a good mark and fits in the vein of the Twins' TC.  I'd be all for the team having a different logo and cap insignia.  In fact, I've been greatly disappointed by this sport going towards the NFL practice of having them be the same.  What if this were their identity?

 

Primary:d38jzhp0vrfzodnsfehpfd29x.gifCap: zhwd0skhafeh6k5zyl8sr3ptt.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20170706_233219.thumb.png.c9a17141e61206e196c6c249d1285e57.png

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially hot take, I really like those M Twins hats.

 

Heck I find the pinstriped Metrodome jersey set to be a great look.

8 people like this

Share this post


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

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:

 

NationalsPrototypeFront.jpg

 

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.

 

I'll second this since the Walgreens W isn't going anywhere.  That is an absolutely beautiful jersey.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bmac said:

20170706_233219.thumb.png.c9a17141e61206e196c6c249d1285e57.png

 

I'm excited to see it return, but slightly worried that it just says "caps". They'd better be wearing the whole throwback and not just the cap.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bmac said:

20170706_233219.thumb.png.c9a17141e61206e196c6c249d1285e57.png

 

Excited for this hat to come back for a game.  Hope the patch isn't ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 7/6/2017 at 11:51 AM, OnWis97 said:

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.

 

I can see where you're coming from. But my interest in baseball in general, and the Twins in particular, began in 1987. It was the year I saw my first live game, the year I first played Little League ball, so I have no context prior to that. I'm aware of the pullover era that preceded it, but never felt connected to it. That uniform change that year also allowed me to discover that this was a subject I found interesting, marking that as the obvious starting point for my obsession with sports uniforms — another reason I prefer that uniform set for nostalgia reasons. I guess at age 11 I wasn't yet design-savvy enough to critique the logo for its flaws. It's one of those instances where the fog of nostalgia has allowed me to ignore imperfections. 

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

 

I'm excited to see it return, but slightly worried that it just says "caps". They'd better be wearing the whole throwback and not just the cap.

 

 

There will be a 30th anniversary patch on the sleeve of the jerseys, but no word on what jerseys they'll be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

 

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 back was justice.

 

washington-dc-mayor-anthony-williams-loo

washington-dc-mayor-anthony-williams-c-t

 

 

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.

 

 

 

When you put it like that, the "curly W" doesn't sound so bad. It's clearly been "reclaimed" and "redeemed" because of its association with the return of baseball to the District of Columbia. It's kind of like the Mets using the baseball Giants' "NY" logo format. Also, the Nationals reverse-engineering their identity around the logo really did help it out (it'd be even better with that usused "Nationals" script).

 

I suppose this is what happens when you don't know the inner workings of a fanbase. You've changed my mind somewhat in regards to the logo. 

3 people like this

Share this post


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

20170706_233219.thumb.png.c9a17141e61206e196c6c249d1285e57.png

 

also a slight dig at the outcome of the '87 ALCS.... Bastards ;) 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the curly W for the Nats. It doesn't knock it out of the park (no pun intended) or anything, but it works well enough. But their current home set is absolutely AWFUL. The W doesn't work as a chest logo at all, and it's such a major cop out using that rather than designing something nice to go along with it. 

 

In fact, now that I really think about it, I kinda find the Nats entire identity to be a bit of a cop out. I get that the curly W has history, and it's not a bad logo per se, but they made such a HUGE deal out of having a new name and not being Senators 3.0, yet they still swiped their old logo, and then immediately mashed it together with a set that didn't fit at all and was, IMO, FAR superior to what they abandoned it for. The Nats original look is one of my favorite looks of all time, and had they paired it with the DC cap logo from the start, it would've probably been my favorite look of all time. What they've reverted to now is just so generic and boring. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

I don't mind the curly W for the Nats. It doesn't knock it out of the park (no pun intended) or anything, but it works well enough. But their current home set is absolutely AWFUL. The W doesn't work as a chest logo at all, and it's such a major cop out using that rather than designing something nice to go along with it. 

 

In fact, now that I really think about it, I kinda find the Nats entire identity to be a bit of a cop out. I get that the curly W has history, and it's not a bad logo per se, but they made such a HUGE deal out of having a new name and not being Senators 3.0, yet they still swiped their old logo, and then immediately mashed it together with a set that didn't fit at all and was, IMO, FAR superior to what they abandoned it for. The Nats original look is one of my favorite looks of all time, and had they paired it with the DC cap logo from the start, it would've probably been my favorite look of all time. What they've reverted to now is just so generic and boring. 

 

I'm not usually one to question anyone's opinion*, but . . . really?!?!?!?!

 

* -- At least not tooooo harshly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bleacher Report is doing some just for fun articles on 15 ways to make baseball more fun and one talks about redesigning uniforms and they chose 5 teams to redesign and they included pics of all 5 concepts. 4 of them are either pretty bland or are just common recolorations that we've already seen, such as making the Padres brown and yellow. But this one really stood out to me and I wanted to know what you all thought about this idea... 

Screenshot_20170707-151024.thumb.jpg.c346aa2e8b5b31153d8e22ddf6e5aab5.jpg

Their concept was simple, make the unique Marlins blue the primary color, make the red orange a secondary, make the wordmark more of an art deco South Beach look and bring back the same classic fish just recolored. Found interesting they said they weren't too big on the classic 90s teal and black looks. 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

I'm not usually one to question anyone's opinion*, but . . . really?!?!?!?!

 

* -- At least not tooooo harshly.

 

Yes. Without an ounce of shame. The gold bevel look was PERFECT for a D.C. team IMO. 

 

I'll admit this, though. I'm an absolute sucker for teams using metallic gold as an accent color on baseball uniforms. Astros 90s set, old Nats, D Backs old copper, Brewers current look, Royals new alt, etc. I love them all. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The all navy cap, with the white curly-W, outlined in red, is the best cap the Nats ever had

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Bleacher Report is doing some just for fun articles on 15 ways to make baseball more fun and one talks about redesigning uniforms and they chose 5 teams to redesign and they included pics of all 5 concepts. 4 of them are either pretty bland or are just common recolorations that we've already seen, such as making the Padres brown and yellow. But this one really stood out to me and I wanted to know what you all thought about this idea... 

Screenshot_20170707-151024.thumb.jpg.c346aa2e8b5b31153d8e22ddf6e5aab5.jpg

Their concept was simple, make the unique Marlins blue the primary color, make the red orange a secondary, make the wordmark more of an art deco South Beach look and bring back the same classic fish just recolored. Found interesting they said they weren't too big on the classic 90s teal and black looks. 

I like that look for the Marlins, though I'd prefer they bring back teal to pair with the orange.

 

Here is a link to the article, for whoever wants to see the other 4 designs:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2720204-baseball-jerseys-custom-mlb-redesigns

 

Arizona's, with just sedona red and copper, is really interesting... I kind of like it.

IMG_0221.JPG.bbdd27caf60e8a9c13ed7c19eec996e0.JPG

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Potentially hot take, I really like those M Twins hats.

 

Heck I find the pinstriped Metrodome jersey set to be a great look.

 

You know, it's funny ... when the Twins switched from the TC to M caps, I missed the TC hats ... but when they switched back to the TC hats, I now miss the M hats.

 

Soooooooo let's have both?!

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

Bleacher Report is doing some just for fun articles on 15 ways to make baseball more fun and one talks about redesigning uniforms and they chose 5 teams to redesign and they included pics of all 5 concepts. 4 of them are either pretty bland or are just common recolorations that we've already seen, such as making the Padres brown and yellow. But this one really stood out to me and I wanted to know what you all thought about this idea... 

Screenshot_20170707-151024.thumb.jpg.c346aa2e8b5b31153d8e22ddf6e5aab5.jpg

Their concept was simple, make the unique Marlins blue the primary color, make the red orange a secondary, make the wordmark more of an art deco South Beach look and bring back the same classic fish just recolored. Found interesting they said they weren't too big on the classic 90s teal and black looks. 

 

That's really not bad.  Not bad at all.  If we're not going back to teal, we need more of this blue.  The wordmark is really nice and the new colors on the fish look great, although I don't dig the M as much.  It's soo much negative space in the middle.  I think this can work fine with the current shape M, although perhaps a little more vertical like this.

 

As for the others in that article, the Rangers' look is beautiful, but a little too of its time.  I mentioned the Twins evoking the aesthetic of the time, and this does too, but it's a little too of its time.  Too dated.  Specifically that T with its varying widths looks like the logo for a 60's animation company.  I'd prefer the current T in outline on the cap, but this shows how well the wordmark looks today.  Bring back the Rangers name.  This would look great in white at home, but I do think the team can get away with powder blues on the road, even through they're not one of the teams I think of immediately when I think powder blue aways.

 

The Padres uniform is a perfect mixture of uniforms people argue about.  It's an easy fix to make, but I've never seen this combination before.  Bring it immediately.

 

I love the White Sox current look, but that looks just as good, and is a cruelly underutilized color combination.  I'd be fine with them changing to this tomorrow.

 

2 hours ago, MJD7 said:

Arizona's, with just sedona red and copper, is really interesting... I kind of like it.

IMG_0221.JPG.bbdd27caf60e8a9c13ed7c19eec996e0.JPG

 

The color combination is really nice, although I wish they'd given us homes instead of just giving us colored alts for the most part.  That wordmark is entirely too rediculous, and the copper colored alt combined with this makes it look more like what I'd expect a college team to look like.  And the A has been one consistent part of the team's history.  No need to change it, especially given that A's unbalanced look that weakens it when it stands on its own.  That being said, the home may look spectacular.  

 

2 hours ago, kimball said:

 

You know, it's funny ... when the Twins switched from the TC to M caps, I missed the TC hats ... but when they switched back to the TC hats, I now miss the M hats.

 

Soooooooo let's have both?!

 

They used to wear the M's with their navy alts at home and on the road.  They could easily rock both looks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

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:

 

NationalsPrototypeFront.jpg

 

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.

I love this one, and the away as well. 

 

I'm neutral on the curly W, but, the Nationals NEED make this their home, keep the away, and choose a cap logo that flows with their jerseys. 

 

If that's the curly W, then, that's what they need to keep. 

1 person likes this

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