Worst MLB Uniforms

[SilverBullet1929]

If I'm not mistaken the Rays fauxback jerseys have had 3 different versions correct? 

 

[SFGiants58]

Boston Red Sox road uniform, 1979-89

 

A boring navy-only block script and the lack of the McAuliffe/Red Sox number font easily make this the worst look in team history. At least the 2009-13 road uniforms used the correct fonts.

 

Cincinnati Reds, 1999-2006 (after "Big Road Machine" atrophy)

 

Way to mess up your color distribution there, guys. Also, the drop shadows kind of blew.

 

Anything the Mariners wore from 1981-86

 

Double outlines without necessity, massive stripes, powder blue for some of that period, and the ugliest cap logo in the sport's history all come together for a truly hideous set.

 

 

 

The Mets in their black phase, 1998-2011 (2013, if you count alternates)

 

It was a look most unbecoming of the team. Drop shadows paired with scripts and fonts that were never meant to handle them, the corruption of a fantastic color scheme that didn't need black, and the pairing of black caps, sleeves, and socks with the non-black uniforms are all points against this set. Throw in a cream pinstripe uniform at the end of the set's life, and you've got a noxious stew going.

 

The Pirates' various combinations, 1977-1986

 

The quickest way to develop cataracts, in uniform form! At least the A's had the good sense to use vests to limit the amount of gold on their uniforms, while rarely donning the gold and green pants in their post-1971 combos.

 

The South Texas Railmen Houston Astros, 2000-12

 

I chose a picture of their home uniform to point out the painful incongruity between the team name and the rest of their visual identity. If the Astros wanted to pursue this identity, they should have either changed their name to the "Railmen" or something similar (maybe they could do something with the Colts name, in a non-gun context). While their current look may be boring, at least they're wearing their traditional navy/orange color scheme and paying some small lip service to the Tequila Sunrise sets.

 

Chicago White Sox, 1983-1986 (and identity confusion 2013-present)

 

Winning ugly, then losing ugly, then getting co-opted by Adidas for college baseball uniforms, and finally being tossed into the White Sox's identity crisis (in the process maligning a fantastic uniform set) has been these uniform's trajectory. Say what you want about the circus set, at least those uniforms had actual white socks (both stirrups and sanitaries, not just sanitaries).

[Matito]

2 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

If I'm not mistaken the Rays fauxback jerseys have had 3 different versions correct? 

 

Just two.

 

The navy jersey with Columbia blue sleeves, which has been worn for four or five years (I love this one)

 

And the Columbia blue jersey with yellow sleeves, which was worn just once at Wrigley during their 100th anniversary 80s throwback day (and I hate this uniform)

[SilverBullet1929]

Oh my mind was remembering a third, a reverse of the top one. Like a navy collar, shoulders, and sleeves over a Columbia blue torso. Guess not. 

[Matito]

12 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Oh my mind was remembering a third, a reverse of the top one. Like a navy collar, shoulders, and sleeves over a Columbia blue torso. Guess not. 

I actually made a concept for the Rays based on these uniforms, and made the away jersey exactly like that.

[Rebuy]

The Rays need to go with the fauxback permanently. It's a perfect balance of retro and futuristic. It's one of the best uniform sets I've ever seen. I'm not a Rays fan but I love the navy jersey.

 

In MLB, the most offensive current jersey to me are the Marlins. The Florida Marlins had a beautiful, unique, timeless and classic look and they traded it in for the awful set they wear now. Hopefully one day they go back.

 

I hate the current Diamondbacks set even though it's a step in the right direction from the debut of the Sedona Red. The Diamondbacks should not be red. Purple,teal and black were perfect for an Arizona baseball team. Diamondbacks fauxback idea  They're another team that could go the fauxback direction and make it look really cool.How much better is that poster's look than the current uniform?

 

To me the Angels badly need a navy hat, at least for road games.

 

 

[chcarlson23]

On 3/16/2017 at 11:00 PM, Ark said:

I don't know how you can include the best road and the best script in all of baseball, in the worst uniforms... 

[tubby34]

10 hours ago, Rebuy said:

The Rays need to go with the fauxback permanently. It's a perfect balance of retro and futuristic. It's one of the best uniform sets I've ever seen. I'm not a Rays fan but I love the navy jersey.

 

In MLB, the most offensive current jersey to me are the Marlins. The Florida Marlins had a beautiful, unique, timeless and classic look and they traded it in for the awful set they wear now. Hopefully one day they go back.

 

I hate the current Diamondbacks set even though it's a step in the right direction from the debut of the Sedona Red. The Diamondbacks should not be red. Purple,teal and black were perfect for an Arizona baseball team. Diamondbacks fauxback idea  They're another team that could go the fauxback direction and make it look really cool.How much better is that poster's look than the current uniform?

 

To me the Angels badly need a navy hat, at least for road games.

 

 

I hated the marlins set from 2003-2011, in happy with what they have. For the most part it has colors in it. The old set pretty much morphed into the Rockies and white sox. 

[Ray Lankford]

I'd like the Rays' fauxback better if it wasn't just a ripoff of the Padres' actual throwbacks. 

[Rebuy]

9 hours ago, tubby34 said:

I hated the marlins set from 2003-2011, in happy with what they have. For the most part it has colors in it. The old set pretty much morphed into the Rockies and white sox. 

 

I agree that adding more teal to that set would have been good. I don't see how anyone could view the current set as an upgrade but the difference of opinions are what make it fun.

[Ray Lankford]

It's interesting that the Marlins went from a fishy aesthetic to a city aesthetic. I suppose that does come down to personal preference but I think switching teal for orange is a clear downgrade. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

21 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

On 3/17/2017 at 0:00 AM, Ark said:

I don't know how you can include the best road and the best script in all of baseball, in the worst uniforms

 

This uniform gets points for the contrasting front number.  But it loses all those points, and many more, for that stupid floating underline that is not connected to anything.  That looks sloppy.  Connect that damn thing to the stroke coming out of the A, so as to make a proper tail! 

 

And all Twins uniforms that use the TC as a cap logo have to get many, many negative points. The cap insignia should have an initial or initials that represent(s) the team's actual name.  In this case that means an M, which, as the keen-eyed observer will note, is the first letter in the word "Minnesota".  The TC logo was alright as a secondary mark worn on the sleeve; but, unless the team's locality designation were "Twin Cities", that logo does not belong on the cap.

 

Also, while this set on pure aesthetics is not as bad as some of the others seen in this thread, such as the dreadful 1980s Red Sox road uniform or any Mets, Reds, or Royals uniforms inappropriately containing black, the reality is that nothing can ever be evaluated in a vacuum.  So, for this reason, this Twins set -- home and road -- must get negative points for its context, namely, for having replaced the team's best-ever look.

 

The Twins got it right in 1987:  the home uniform (with no names on the back), the road uniform, and the cap were perfect.  There was no need ever to make another change.  That set could/should have gone a century untouched. Every alteration since then has represented a downgrade.

[SCalderwood]

22 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This uniform gets points for the contrasting front number.  But it loses all those points, and many more, for that stupid floating underline that is not connected to anything.  That looks sloppy.  Connect that damn thing to the stroke coming out of the A, so as to make a proper tail! 

 

And all Twins uniforms that use the TC as a cap logo have to get many, many negative points. The cap insignia should have an initial or initials that represent(s) the team's actual name.  In this case that means an M, which, as the keen-eyed observer will note, is the first letter in the word "Minnesota".  The TC logo was alright as a secondary mark worn on the sleeve; but, unless the team's locality designation were "Twin Cities", that logo does not belong on the cap.

 

Also, while this set on pure aesthetics is not as bad as some of the others seen in this thread, such as the dreadful 1980s Red Sox road uniform or any Mets, Reds, or Royals uniforms inappropriately containing black, the reality is that nothing can ever be evaluated in a vacuum.  So, for this reason, this Twins set -- home and road -- must get negative points for its context, namely, for having replaced the team's best-ever look.

 

The Twins got it right in 1987:  the home uniform (with no names on the back), the road uniform, and the cap were perfect.  There was no need ever to make another change.  That set could/should have gone a century untouched. Every alteration since then has represented a downgrade.

 

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but regarding the floating underline on the primary road jersey, I can only guess they have it like that because the primary home jersey also has a floating underline (and has for at least the past 30 years, I think).  So maybe they wanted to be consistent in that regard... but then again, the home primary jersey does not have a cursive script like the road primary does.  So who knows.  Maybe I am trying to make sense out of something that does not make sense.

 

Regardless, I'm not sure how anyone can have super-strong feelings either way about that road Twins jersey.  It looks to me about as generic and middle-of-the-road as a baseball jersey can look.  It's got boring, generic colors, boring, generic numbers, and a boring, generic script.  There's nothing wrong with that, at all, and I think it looks fine, but I don't know what's so good about it or what's so bad about it that it should be classified as "best" or "worst."  It looks like a uniform that, at a quick glance, could be mistaken for a few other teams in MLB.  Is it the navy wordmark outlined in red that makes it so special?  I don't see what else makes it stand out.

[oldschoolvikings]

The "TC" logo is one of my favorite cap logos of all time.  The fact that it stands for "Twin Cities" is what makes it so awesome. 

 

I get that the rule of thumb is that cap insignias should have an initial or initials that represent the team's city.  But rules all have built in exceptions. Oakland's "A" and Minnesota's "TC" are two exceptions, and they should NEVER change.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

The "TC" logo is one of my favorite cap logos of all time.  The fact that it stands for "Twin Cities" is what makes it so awesome. 

 

I get that the rule of thumb is that cap insignias should have an initial or initials that represent the team's city.  But rules all have built in exceptions. Oakland's "A" and Minnesota's "TC" are two exceptions, and they should NEVER change.

 

 

Bad comparison.  The A's cap logo is not in the same category as the TC, because A is the initial of part of the team's name -- in this case the nickname rather than the locality name.  Likewise the Mariners' trident logo, the Dodgers' spring cap logo, and the Orioles' "O's" cap logo.  

 

Then there is the practice of representing both the locality name and the nickname together, as the Rockies do with their CR monogram.  The Rangers once had a TR monogram which I think appeared on their helmets. Not my favourite practice, but it is at least defensible because it uses actual initials.

 

None of these justifications apply to the TC logo.  That cap logo is a remnant from a previous plan, in which the transferred Washington Senators were going to be called the "Twin Cities Twins".  When that plan changed, the associated cap logo should have changed as well.

 

So for me this bad cap logo mars any uniform that it is paired with.

 

[chcarlson23]

6 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Bad comparison.  The A's cap logo is not in the same category as the TC, because A is the initial of part of the team's name -- in this case the nickname rather than the locality name.  Likewise the Mariners' trident logo, the Dodgers' spring cap logo, and the Orioles' "O's" cap logo.  

 

Then there is the practice of representing both the locality name and the nickname together, as the Rockies do with their CR monogram.  The Rangers once had a TR monogram which I think appeared on their helmets. Not my favourite practice, but it is at least defensible because it uses actual initials.

 

None of these justifications apply to the TC logo.  That cap logo is a remnant from a previous plan, in which the transferred Washington Senators were going to be called the "Twin Cities Twins".  When that plan changed, the associated cap logo should have changed as well.

 

So for me this bad cap logo mars any uniform that it is paired with.

 

It's a stronger, and more recognizable logo than the "M" on the caps... Just because it isn't officially part of the team name doesn't mean it doesn't work. Sports aesthetics can sometimes break unspoken rules...  The TC works, because it represents all of the Twin Cities, not just Minneapolis. Now I understand that the "M" stands for Minnesota, but given the fact that the team plays in Minneapolis, it seems a little odd. Their first logo was Minne and St. Paul shaking hands, so the TC works better than the M... 

 

Oh, and the "M" also has a floating underline!

[oldschoolvikings]

And the most important point of all is the "TC" is awesome looking.  The "M" is... well, it's a decent looking "M", I  suppose.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

And the most important point of all is the "TC" is awesome looking.  

 

The TC is weird looking, as the dark red C tends to disappear against the blue cap. (Of course, this didn't prevent me from getting an FC cap in the same style from the Rochester ("Flower City") Red Wings.)  From any distance, the TC logo just looks like a broken T.  Better they just should use the T on its own.

[jujubeans]

The Twins current whites are honestly the worst uniform they've ever worn. Hideous top to bottom.

 

The TC is much more distinctive than the generic M, and is the only logo used unchanged and uninterrupted for the entire history of the franchise in Minnesota.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

 

The Twins' M logo is not generic. The M logo that is generic is the Milwaukee Braves' cap logo, also used by the Brewers in their first several years.

 

The Minnesota M is from the same custom font from which the "Twins" wordmark comes. That's why it goes so beautifully with that uniform.