Worst MLB Uniforms

[OnWis97]

On 3/18/2017 at 9:08 PM, 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!

Hmm...I've never really thought a lot about the underline...specifically that nobody else really uses it.  I still think it's OK.

 

Quote

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.

I can give the TC a pass because it has an interesting history.  I don't know this for sure, but given how the Twins were the first major team named after something other than a city, it shows that a lot of care was taken not to show preference to Minneapolis or St. Paul (particularly the latter, smaller, city).  I'd suspect that if the location (i.e., state) did not start with the same letter as one of the cities, this would not have happened.  So the "TC" is one of those historical quirks...take into account the fact that the "Minnesota" name was new and strange, the mindset was probably still that this is the "Twin Cities" team and not Minnesota's.  I generally agree with you that a letter on a cap should represent the location name, but this is a unique case and far better than the Rockies "CR" or the old Brewers "MB."

 

Quote

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.

I have no problem with that approach, but I don't know that I buy it as having replaced the team's best ever look.  That uniform was brought in with Target field.  The home uniform stayed roughly the same (with the updated wordmark, which I feel was an improvement). I'd argue that the road uniform was an upgrade because 1) twenty-three years of road pinstripes was growing kinda stale and 2) The underline is a match with the home uniform.

 

Quote

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.

Two things about this. First, I think the 2009 home wordmark change was, while subtle, a really nice upgrade.  The original wordmark was, for lack of a better term, clunky.  After the new wordmark came about, I could not un-see that clunky "s" on the original wordmark.

 

Second, given what you said about the current road uniform, I'm surprised you like 1987 at all...the home wordmark had a floating underline as well.

 

I'm not really a homer when it comes to uniforms.  I think what they have right now, for example, is a mess. And I don't think they've ever quite gotten it right.  The 1960s home look was terrific, but the road look just used the same wordmark.  The red cap days were awful.  1987 was a welcome change and I recall loving it, but the "M" just got stale...actually, I never thought it was more than an average cap in MLB.  I think 2009 was an upgrade with the home wordmark (as mentioned), ditching the road pinstripes (as mentioned), and the death of the nameplates on top of pinstripes. But the TC logo does have one flaw (see below).

 

Now?  Now they are a disaster.  Gold at home and not on the road.  Removing the pinstripes.  Wearing the throwbacks (which are great but pick a look).  Primary home cap goes with alternate home uniform and vice versa.

 

And the one thing about the TC that I cannot defend is that the red "C" contrasts poorly with the blue cap and is hard to see in some light/angles.  I've always thought it should essentially be modeled after the blue Cardinals cap...red letters with white outline.  That would make a great logo idea much better in practice. 

 

The 2009 Twins had average to slightly above average uniforms.  The current Twins are below average.

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

25 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Second, given what you said about the current road uniform, I'm surprised you like 1987 at all...the home wordmark had a floating underline as well.

 

A couple of people have mentioned this as a supposed contradiction.  But let me point out that the current road script which elicited my complaint about the disconnected underline is in cursive.  

 

Cursive letters are made out of one continuous stroke (more or less, if you discount crossed T's and dotted I's).  So in this case the underline feels like it should be a continuation of that one stroke; it feels like it should be a tail connected to the A.  The failure to make this connection makes me itch. 

 

Whereas, the 1987 home wordmark is not cursive; so there's nothing for the tail to connect to. The letters are all separate strokes; and the underline is just an additional stroke which gives the whole wordmark balance. For this reason, that underline strikes me as just a design element, and an attractive one at that.

[OnWis97]

39 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A couple of people have mentioned this as a supposed contradiction.  But let me point out that the current road script which elicited my complaint about the disconnected underline is in cursive.  

 

Cursive letters are made out of one continuous stroke (more or less, if you discount crossed T's and dotted I's).  So in this case the underline feels like it should be a continuation of that one stroke; it feels like it should be a tail connected to the A.  The failure to make this connection makes me itch. 

 

Whereas, the 1987 home wordmark is not cursive; so there's nothing for the tail to connect to. The letters are all separate strokes; and the underline is just an additional stroke which gives the whole wordmark balance. For this reason, that underline strikes me as just a design element, and an attractive one at that.

Sorry if I missed that being addressed.

 

I'll buy that as viable.  I guess I don't necessarily agree with it (particularly the criticism of the usage on the road) but I see the distinction.

[lahaye7]

On 3/16/2017 at 6:12 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I liked it.

me two, just a little too much navy. 

[CON40]

On 3/16/2017 at 3:41 PM, Yippy said:

 

 

More to come, but this look was absolute trash

 

This was the best road jersey the team has had in modern times.

 

It was understated, but unmistakenly "Boston" with the proper number font on back. The red is intentionaly played down so it only appeared in three places on the Uniform: The "B" on the cap, the logo on the sleeve, and of course, the red socks.

 

It provided the perfect balance to the home team's colors on the field. Pure, simple and brilliant.

[SilverBullet1929]

9 hours ago, San Diego said:

I actually liked these when I first saw them... then I actually educated myself about uniform aesthetics and I realized what a mess they are. 

[wcaxberg]

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A couple of people have mentioned this as a supposed contradiction.  But let me point out that the current road script which elicited my complaint about the disconnected underline is in cursive.  

 

Cursive letters are made out of one continuous stroke (more or less, if you discount crossed T's and dotted I's).  So in this case the underline feels like it should be a continuation of that one stroke; it feels like it should be a tail connected to the A.  The failure to make this connection makes me itch. 

 

Whereas, the 1987 home wordmark is not cursive; so there's nothing for the tail to connect to. The letters are all separate strokes; and the underline is just an additional stroke which gives the whole wordmark balance. For this reason, that underline strikes me as just a design element, and an attractive one at that.

 

I think that particular underline serves a purpose as well. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but it underlines 'win' which nods to previous logos/sayings etc 

  

[WSU151]

7 minutes ago, wcaxberg said:

 

I think that particular underline serves a purpose as well. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not but it underlines 'win' which nods to previous logos/sayings etc 

  

 

I've never noticed this, but now I wonder why the stars above the i's in the old logo are different sizes.  

[Yippy]

1 hour ago, CON40 said:

 

This was the best road jersey the team has had in modern times.

 

It was understated, but unmistakenly "Boston" with the proper number font on back. The red is intentionaly played down so it only appeared in three places on the Uniform: The "B" on the cap, the logo on the sleeve, and of course, the red socks.

 

It provided the perfect balance to the home team's colors on the field. Pure, simple and brilliant.

The bosox are not the Yankees. Here is their proper road uniform 

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

I've never noticed this, but now I wonder why the stars above the i's in the old logo are different sizes.  

I never noticed that either.  Then again, it's not like it was designed to look terribly formal, so maybe it was intentional...or even something that just happened arbitrarily in the first draft and there was no desire to correct it.  It's not clear, but I am thinking the second "n" may be a bit bigger too...

...or are both the same size and our eyes being fooled by the background/outline?

 

Regarding the underline, once it hit me that it underlines "win," I've always assumed it was intentional, but I don't know that it's ever been confirmed.

 

[Ark]

2 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

I actually liked these when I first saw them... then I actually educated myself about uniform aesthetics and I realized what a mess they are. 

 

This is a terrible way to think. It's how the Carolina Hurricanes went from their wonderful original look to being an Original 6 wannabe. 

[flyersfan]

On March 16, 2017 at 11:26 PM, Germanshepherd said:

This one has a Times New Roman number font and is somehow still around. 

 

You have light blue and yellow to work with and your main alternate uniform is dark blue for a team named after the sun. 

And I appreciate the ambition, but no. No to everything about this. 

Love the times new roman don't personally.... I think the Brewers need a new update, and not go back to their old stuff. Go ahead and hate me for it

 

[ScubaSteve]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 0:17 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

The South Texas Railmen Houston Astros, 2000-12

 

 

 

I have no idea why but I love these uniforms. It doesn't make any sense though on paper but something about the combination of everything really does it for me.

 

Their currents are better but I wish these still existed in some capacity

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, CON40 said:

 

This was the best road jersey the team has had in modern times.

 

It was understated, but unmistakenly "Boston" with the proper number font on back. The red is intentionaly played down so it only appeared in three places on the Uniform: The "B" on the cap, the logo on the sleeve, and of course, the red socks.

 

It provided the perfect balance to the home team's colors on the field. Pure, simple and brilliant.

Those jersey were terrible and made the Red Sox look like faux Yankees...

 

Case in point... for the longest time as a child I was under the impression that the Mets had beat the Yankees in '86 because I had seen pictures of the game where all the Red Sox in the frame had they back turned or the "BOSTON" on the chest obscured...

[LordBigMad]

On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 0:25 AM, 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.

 

Wrong.

 

The "TC" On the Twins cap stands for the team's name "Minnesota Twin Cities" in the exact same way that "A's" stands for "Athletics".

 

The name "Twins" is simply shortened the same way "Mets" represents "Metropolitans".

 

Therefore, the "TC" logo technically stands for BOTH name and location.

[LordBigMad]

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

and

 

HUGE downgrades from

 

and

 

I STRONGLY disagree with this.

 

I'm not a Minnesota fan by any means. But, The Twins have one of the best looks in all of MLB.

 

Simple, clean, not too busy, the colors are striking, and the uni is nostalgic without being too nostalgic.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

58 minutes ago, GrimlockAutobot said:

The "TC" On the Twins cap stands for the team's name "Minnesota Twin Cities" in the exact same way that "A's" stands for "Athletics".

 

This is incorrect.   The team name was never "Minnesota Twin Cities".  

Calvin Griffith wanted to name the team the "Twin Cities Twins", and devised the TC logo in keeping with that plan. The American League refused to allow the locality name "Twin Cities", but let Griffith keep the TC cap even after he agreed to change the locality name to "Minnesota".

The notion that the TC monogram stands for an abandoned locality name is historical fact.  And it is this historical fact that serves as the basis for my contention that the TC logo does not belong on the cap.

The TC logo was on the sleeve of the Twins' best uniforms; and it was fine there, where it functioned as a secondary logo.  Also, both letters were visible, unlike on the cap.  So the sleeve placement was better for a couple of reasons.

[Yippy]

2 hours ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

I have no idea why but I love these uniforms. It doesn't make any sense though on paper but something about the combination of everything really does it for me.

 

Their currents are better but I wish these still existed in some capacity

Guilty as well. I grew up with the navy and gold era and liked them more than the Nolan era but didn't think they were anything special. When they introduced the western style I fell in love. Sure the theme had nothing to do with the name but the Utah jazz makes no sense either and they looked great while in purple. Now I despise their current look

[hawk36]

On 3/17/2017 at 6:43 AM, insert name said:

 

Those are awesome. Love them.

[LordBigMad]

14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This is incorrect.   The team name was never "Minnesota Twin Cities".  

Calvin Griffith wanted to name the team the "Twin Cities Twins", and devised the TC logo in keeping with that plan. The American League refused to allow the locality name "Twin Cities", but let Griffith keep the TC cap even after he agreed to change the locality name to "Minnesota".

The notion that the TC monogram stands for an abandoned locality name is historical fact.  And it is this historical fact that serves as the basis for my contention that the TC logo does not belong on the cap.

The TC logo was on the sleeve of the Twins' best uniforms; and it was fine there, where it functioned as a secondary logo.  Also, both letters were visible, unlike on the cap.  So the sleeve placement was better for a couple of reasons.

 

Every history of the Minnesota Twins that you look up has some variation of this line in it:

 

"The team is named after the Twin Cities area comprising Minneapolis and St. Paul"

 

Which supports what I said about the team being named "Twin Cities" and shortened to "Twins".

 

You are correct about Calvin Griffith wanting to name the team "Twin Cities Twins". You can clearly see why he was turned down. It's an obvious redundancy because the name would essentially be "Twin Cities Twin Cities“.