MLB Changes 2017

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, Quillz said:

I actually think it'd be cool for every team to wear their league's shield. Maybe on the side of the caps or something.

Nah, that's overkill with the MLB logo already on hats and jerseys.

 

I think for the American League's 100th anniversary, the eight charter franchise (Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Tigers, Indians, Athletics, Twins, Orioles) wore the AL shield, or some kind of AL patch. Maybe in due time their NL counterparts (Cubs, Braves, Reds, Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Pirates) can do something like that.

[BadSeed84]

On 10/12/2017 at 7:23 PM, Quillz said:

Yes, that is odd. Although blue has been a Phillies team color for a long time, right? So maybe that's why.

 

There is also a sort of in-between option, where the squatchee is a different color from the rest of the cap, which is otherwise one color. Such as how the Dodgers have a white squatchee on an otherwise blue cap. This usually matches the logo color. Not my favorite style, but I think it's better than the above, where you've got basically three mismatched colors.

 

I think it looks fine since it is just trying to be like the wordmark where the blue is only used to dot the I's as stars.

 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

I think for the American League's 100th anniversary, the eight charter franchise (Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Tigers, Indians, Athletics, Twins, Orioles) wore the AL shield, or some kind of AL patch. Maybe in due time their NL counterparts (Cubs, Braves, Reds, Phillies, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants, Pirates) can do something like that.

 

Every AL club wore an anniversary patch in 2001. 

 

 

The Charter Members wore a slightly different one. 

 

 

The Yankees don’t recognize the Orioles history as theirs, so they wore the standard patch. 

 

[Noir]

 

4 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's too bad that the leagues no longer exist, having been abolished in 1999.

 

The league offices were abolished in 1999. The Leagues themselves are still in existence.

[Gothamite]

His point is that there are no longer independent leagues, but now two conferences in all but name.  They no longer have the administration or autonomy they used to have.

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

I think it looks fine since it is just trying to be like the wordmark where the blue is only used to dot the I's as stars.

 

 

Little touches of color are great, until you start picking them up in other uniform pieces. 

 

Its like the Dodgers’ red front number.  On its own it’s a quirky and wonderful little detail that sets them apart. But if the team added a red squatchee or red stripes on the socks it would suddenly become profoundly stupid.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 hours ago, Noir said:

14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It's too bad that the leagues no longer exist, having been abolished in 1999.

The league offices were abolished in 1999. The Leagues themselves are still in existence.

 

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

His point is that there are no longer independent leagues, but now two conferences in all but name.  They no longer have the administration or autonomy they used to have.

 

Right. 

 

Major League Baseball (usually referred to through the late 1960s / early 1970s as "Organised Baseball") was an umbrella entity set up by agreement between two leagues. Regulation of rules and other playing standards lay with those two leagues. Each league hired its own umpires; and each had its own administration. The final arbiter in disputes in each league was the league president. (Such as when Lee MacPhail got it wrong in 1983.)

 

The leagues had different rules on various matters, such as on suspended games (no curfew in the N.L.) on tiebreaker playoffs (best-of-three in the N.L. before 1969), and on visits to the mound by position players (the A.L. allowed fewer players to gather). And, of course, there eventually was the designated hitter, on which each league voted separately and reached differing decisions.  

 

The leagues also made their own scheduling rules, with the American League going to the balanced schedule in 1979, while the National League continued to play more games against each divisional opponent until the 1993 expansion.

 

And that expansion was the first time that there had ever been a Major League expansion draft; before then, each league conducted its own expansion draft for the rounds of expansion in both leagues in 1961-62 and in 1969, and in the American League in 1978. 

 

Now Major League Baseball is the league, and the American League and the National League no longer exist as legal entities. Those names are used merely as labels; the American League has no greater existence than does the American League East.

[SCalderwood]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Little touches of color are great, until you start picking them up in other uniform pieces. 

 

Its like the Dodgers’ red front number.  On its own it’s a quirky and wonderful little detail that sets them apart. But if the team added a red squatchee or red stripes on the socks it would suddenly become profoundly stupid.

 

But the blue squatchee can be the Phils' quirk.  It's not like they are letting blue take over their uniforms.  They are still unquestionably a red team.  The Phils using a blue squatchee is even less of a noticeable and talked-about quirk than LAD using red numbers, which actually makes it more quirky.

 

I think the blue squatchee for the Phils looks fine, or even good.  Their overall uniforms and identity are so boring.  Let them have a little (or a tiny, barely noticeable) something.

[Gothamite]

The blue squatchee or the blue stars might be a decent quirk.  Together, it feels over-designed and forced.  

 

I admit that their uniforms are pretty bad.  But that’s one of the things that makes them so.  Like the similarly over-designed numbers and cap logo, trying too hard to be matchy-matchy with the wordmark. 

[Quillz]

I really wish the Phillies would modernize their maroon uniforms. I just preferred everything about it, especially the color and cap logo. 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 10/14/2017 at 8:32 PM, insert name said:

So why do the Cubs wear an NL patch logo on their sleeve? They're the only team that does this and it's been bugging me my whole life. 

 

On 10/14/2017 at 11:36 PM, the admiral said:

They're the oldest team in the National League. The real question is why it's on the other sleeve.

 

On 10/14/2017 at 11:58 PM, Brandon9485 said:

This isn’t true. The Reds are the oldest NL team.  

 

On 10/15/2017 at 12:13 AM, the admiral said:

Actually, it turns out the Braves (1871) are older than the Cubs (1874) and the Reds (1882), but the Braves have obviously not operated in one city since then, so I guess you can argue "Chicago, National League" is the oldest designation for a sports franchise or something. I don't know. The Cubs are old. The NL logo makes sense.

 

In 1869 the Cincinnati Red Stockings were the first ever professional baseball team.  They disbanded in 1871, a chunk of their members and executives forming the Boston Red Stockings, who became the Braves.  Another team formed in 1875 and lasted for five years until they got kicked out of the American Association for selling beer and playing on Sundays.  The current Reds replaced them and eventually moved over to the NL in 1890.  The current Reds claim that history, though, and like to call themselves the oldest team.

 

On 10/15/2017 at 12:37 AM, Quillz said:

I actually think it'd be cool for every team to wear their league's shield. Maybe on the side of the caps or something.

 

The Cubs are wearing the "old" logo, though. Since roughly 1998, there have been simplified versions for both the NL and AL. I don't know how often those get used, though. I've only seem there here on the mothership, and never in actual real-world use.

 

Did they ever modernize for the new 15 star pattern?

[jerseyjunk]

17 hours ago, the admiral said:

Nah, that's overkill with the MLB logo already on hats and jerseys.

 

 

Right, but it  would still be 100 times better than the New Era logo  

[Gothamite]

Yes. But that will never be the trade off. 

[Ray Lankford]

3 hours ago, jerseyjunk said:

Right, but it  would still be 100 times better than the New Era logo  

 

Would it? With how detailed the league logos are, the patch would have to be pretty big on the side of the hat, which seems like it would absolutely take away from the overall look and way more than the fairly small New Era logo.

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

The blue squatchee or the blue stars might be a decent quirk.  Together, it feels over-designed and forced.  

 

I admit that their uniforms are pretty bad.  But that’s one of the things that makes them so.  Like the similarly over-designed numbers and cap logo, trying too hard to be matchy-matchy with the wordmark. 

 

The blue squatcho (screw your squatchee) sucks, and has since day one (I got one of the caps literally the day it was released, and thought it looked stupid back then too.  

 

1. It's lost in the red.  You can maybe do red on blue, but not blue on red.

2. It requires context to work.  Often, caps are worn without jerseys or other team apparel, so it just doesn't make sense.  It needs the stars on the wordmark to make any sense.

 

Unpopular opinion - while I'd prefer a script more similar to the 50s or even late 40s, I would at least like to see a concept of a script kinda similar to their current one but italicized.  Make the letters less "bubbly" and thick, and make the numbers more like the old 50s ones (no need for the numbers to be slanted.)  It could accomplish a similar effect to how the Steelers changed their numbers to something a little more contemporary, which IMO (I know - unpopular) made a big improvement to their classic, yet "old" uniform.

[BC985]

The embossed league logos on the 2016 Spring Training caps were a nice yet subtle touch (at least I thought so).

[SilverBullet1929]

12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

Right. 

 

Major League Baseball (usually referred to through the late 1960s / early 1970s as "Organised Baseball") was an umbrella entity set up by agreement between two leagues. Regulation of rules and other playing standards lay with those two leagues. Each league hired its own umpires; and each had its own administration. The final arbiter in disputes in each league was the league president. (Such as when Lee MacPhail got it wrong in 1983.)

 

The leagues had different rules on various matters, such as on suspended games (no curfew in the N.L.) on tiebreaker playoffs (best-of-three in the N.L. before 1969), and on visits to the mound by position players (the A.L. allowed fewer players to gather). And, of course, there eventually was the designated hitter, on which each league voted separately and reached differing decisions.  

 

The leagues also made their own scheduling rules, with the American League going to the balanced schedule in 1979, while the National League continued to play more games against each divisional opponent until the 1993 expansion.

 

And that expansion was the first time that there had ever been a Major League expansion draft; before then, each league conducted its own expansion draft for the rounds of expansion in both leagues in 1961-62 and in 1969, and in the American League in 1978. 

 

Now Major League Baseball is the league, and the American League and the National League no longer exist as legal entities. Those names are used merely as labels; the American League has no greater existence than does the American League East.

Man I want most of this back. With all of the merging between the leagues there's so much less differentiation of the leagues, the teams and the players now. I'm still perplexed when I hear commentators today say things like "this player is switching leagues" or "let's check out this players numbers against american league pitchers" and things like that. They're virtually meaningless now. Leagues now are just the way we list teams for the sake of the standings but there isn't much more to it than now. And there's plenty of things I do like about the leagues being more together now but I think there's still a place for their differences in today's game. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

28 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Man I want most of this back. With all of the merging between the leagues there's so much less differentiation of the leagues, the teams and the players now. I'm still perplexed when I hear commentators today say things like "this player is switching leagues" or "let's check out this players numbers against american league pitchers" and things like that. They're virtually meaningless now. Leagues now are just the way we list teams for the sake of the standings but there isn't much more to it than now. And there's plenty of things I do like about the leagues being more together now but I think there's still a place for their differences in today's game. 

 

Right.  Whenever I found myself in conversations about the designated hitter, I would assert that the best thing about it is that one league has it and the other does not.  (I also debunked the silly allegations about the DH removing strategy from the game by noting that it allows managers greater freedom to pinch-hit for other players and to use pinch-runners. But that's another story.) 

I was a strong supporter of the DH; but I never wanted the N.L. to adopt it, because I also always appreciated the non-DH style. I found it fascinating how the appearance of the opposing pitcher at the plate could sometimes put extra pressure on a pitcher due to the fact that the pitcher batting was expected to be an easy out. More important, I wanted to preserve the distinction between the leagues.  I will mention that interleague play is the thing that drove me away from following baseball (though I remain interested in baseball history and, of course, in the uniforms).  So the death of the leagues and the merging of the umpiring staffs are things that I really don't like.  (Pictures of Joe West umpiring a game between two American League teams make me twitch.)  It is kind of ironic that the distinction on the question of the DH persists even long after the leagues themselves have died.  One wonders how long that will last.

[SilverBullet1929]

29 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It is kind of ironic that the distinction on the question of the DH persists even long after the leagues themselves have died.  One wonders how long that will last.

Not for long I say. Like you I love that the DH is in one league and not the other but it makes too much sense from a business perspective to eventually have the DH in both leagues and sadly that day will come sooner than later because baseball is still a business at the end of the day.

 

Unlike many though, Interleague play doesn't bother me. I see more positives to it than negatives and it also isn't going anywhere. I also think there are ways that interleague play could work (or could have worked) even if the leagues were still different/apart. 

[jerseyjunk]

4 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

 

Would it? With how detailed the league logos are, the patch would have to be pretty big on the side of the hat, which seems like it would absolutely take away from the overall look and way more than the fairly small New Era logo.

That is true,   but the New Era is truly a pain in the ass, the on field caps now look like fashion caps