ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Mitch B said:

 

Adding a new jersey whose¬†primary color is not a team color ... what a great idea. ūüėú

 

Peeps have wanted¬†a Nats' script jersey for years, but why bother introducing one in white, red or blue? ūüėú

That's a navy blue jersey, which is a team colour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

That's a navy blue jersey, which is a team colour. 

 

I stand corrected ... Thanks. ¬†ūüėé

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mitch B said:

 

I stand corrected ... Thanks. ¬†ūüėé

If it can look black, it's way too dark of a blue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Still, even after Williams and Ramirez, a player wearing no. 99 or any number in the 90s had been pretty rare. But that number coming to the Yankees takes it to, as Keegan-Michael Key used to say, the HNL. I have the sinking feeling that, on account of no. 99 being worn by a Yankee, we're now on the way to numbers in the 90s becoming commonplace.

 

I think it will have more to do with players born in the 90s making their way to the majors.  Those 1999 babies are now just turning 18, so we’ll see them hit the show en masse in a couple years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 9:51 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I would say that Ramirez is much more strongly associated with no. 24. (Which is kind of annoying, because the real Red Sox no. 24 is Dwight Evans.) 

 

 

 

 

Good point about Mitch Williams, who got the idea of wearing no. 99 from the movie character.

 

Still, even after Williams and Ramirez, a player wearing no. 99 or any number in the 90s had been pretty rare. But that number coming to the Yankees takes it to, as Keegan-Michael Key used to say, the HNL. I have the sinking feeling that, on account of no. 99 being worn by a Yankee, we're now on the way to numbers in the 90s becoming commonplace.

To which I ask... so? Numbers are numbers. I've seen a few times now people bringing up this idea that higher numbers shouldn't be worn for some vague reason, and I never understood why. If someone wants to wear 91, 93, 99, 75, 86, etc, I'm not seeing the issue. I know there are certain unwritten "rules" in baseball, like pitchers generally not wearing single digit numbers, and I find those stupid as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Quillz said:
On 23/12/2017 at 12:51 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I have the sinking feeling that, on account of no. 99 being worn by a Yankee, we're now on the way to numbers in the 90s becoming commonplace.

To which I ask... so? Numbers are numbers. I've seen a few times now people bringing up this idea that higher numbers shouldn't be worn for some vague reason, and I never understood why. If someone wants to wear 91, 93, 99, 75, 86, etc, I'm not seeing the issue. I know there are certain unwritten "rules" in baseball, like pitchers generally not wearing single digit numbers, and I find those stupid as well.

 

It's a simple matter of aesthetics. This just looks bad:

 

gOtsUva.jpg

 

I suppose that a number in the 90s might look better than a number in the 70s. But any number above the 50s will always feel more than a little wrong on a baseball uniform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It's a simple matter of aesthetics. This just looks bad:

 

gOtsUva.jpg

 

I suppose that a number in the 90s might look better than a number in the 70s. But any number above the 50s will always feel more than a little wrong on a baseball uniform.

How can numbers look bad?

 

The font can, the combonation of nulbers can look bad. BUt the number itself?

 

(not disagreeing, per say, but just something that seems weird)

 

Share this post


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

 

It's a simple matter of aesthetics. This just looks bad:

 

gOtsUva.jpg

 

I suppose that a number in the 90s might look better than a number in the 70s. But any number above the 50s will always feel more than a little wrong on a baseball uniform.

It's funny that you would single this jersey out because Zito picked that number because he thought it looked good, specifically in the back. He said it created a platform for his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of it is that for many of us who grew up in the 80s / 90s and before, it was so rare to see a high number that it's still a little shocking and anti-tradition.

 

The other thing, IMO, is that if you have 24 players wearing #s 1-55 (so the average difference between players would be <3) and then one wearing 99, it's almost like that one is separating himself from the team.  It's kind of a way to just stand out and get attention.  Obviously that's not everyone's motive, but I'm sure it's some.

 

Some team had a rule where no player could take a number unless it was within 9 of another player's number just so no one player is standing out.  I want to say it was the early Devil Rays, but I could be mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a savvy uniform policy of an expansion team to issue no number until the prior number has been issued. I'm surprised the Army Stong team in Nevada didn't do it. Maybe they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally went into Lids today and checked out the new BP caps for myself. The plastic 3-D like logos look worse than I had anticipated. The material the cap is made of reminds me of a swimsuit. Disappointing for sure since New Era has been the standard for fitted caps, but this change will save me money as I will not be purchasing anything from this model set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

I finally went into Lids today and checked out the new BP caps for myself. The plastic 3-D like logos look worse than I had anticipated. The material the cap is made of reminds me of a swimsuit. Disappointing for sure since New Era has been the standard for fitted caps, but this change will save me money as I will not be purchasing anything from this model set.

I bought one sight unseen and thought the shipping came from China. Rough spandex material, wet cardboard brim, and plastic logos. Not to mention they run more than game hats. The only saving grace was I had expiring lids rewards and got it for $18...which was a stretch for that price. Do yourself a favor and save your money. I have over 500 hats and this is on par for a kids day giveaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

I finally went into Lids today and checked out the new BP caps for myself. The plastic 3-D like logos look worse than I had anticipated. The material the cap is made of reminds me of a swimsuit. Disappointing for sure since New Era has been the standard for fitted caps, but this change will save me money as I will not be purchasing anything from this model set.

 

I bet this is only the beginning for this material.  I'm sure it will be seen in some of the NFL's sideline gear for next season and probably NBA hats as well.  I doubt this will be going away anytime soon. Every brand keeps pushing the ultra high tech / performance fabric these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

The material the cap is made of reminds me of a swimsuit.

 

Now if "Moving in Stereo" can play as you take the hat off in slow motion, you've got something going

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2017 at 2:15 PM, Quillz said:

To which I ask... so? Numbers are numbers. I've seen a few times now people bringing up this idea that higher numbers shouldn't be worn for some vague reason, and I never understood why. If someone wants to wear 91, 93, 99, 75, 86, etc, I'm not seeing the issue. I know there are certain unwritten "rules" in baseball, like pitchers generally not wearing single digit numbers, and I find those stupid as well.

The only reasoning I've ever understood is that higher numbers tend to look like the ones given to Spring Training invitees, whereas lower ones look more "Major League worthy."

 

I agree that a number is a number, though. I've always had some sort of affinity for both 87 and 82, so if I got the chance to use one of those, I might take it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillies are taking 34 out of circulation next year (one guy will have to change numbers now) because of Halladay. I’m now pretty sure that theyll retire it if/when he gets in the HOF, since that’s their criteri for retiring numbers. It’s just a shame that so many people wore it in the years after he left. It’s also a shame that he didn’t win a championship here but will have his number retired, while the guy who was the NLCS and WS MVP (and also threw a no hitter) won’t. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Phillies are taking 34 out of circulation next year (one guy will have to change numbers now) because of Halladay. I’m now pretty sure that theyll retire it if/when he gets in the HOF, since that’s their criteri for retiring numbers. It’s just a shame that so many people wore it in the years after he left. It’s also a shame that he didn’t win a championship here but will have his number retired, while the guy who was the NLCS and WS MVP (and also threw a no hitter) won’t. 

 

What is unfortunate is when a team uses a player's election to the Hall of Fame as a criterion for retiring his number.  These should be two separate things.  A team ought to retire the number of a player or manager based solely on his importance to the club.  The opinon of the Hall of Fame electors is irrelevant to this question, because that's not what they're measuring.

The Yankees retired the number of Thurman Munson, who will never be in the Hall of Fame.  The Mets retired the number of manager Gil Hodges, who likewise will never be enshrined.  The Yankees also retired Phil Rizzuto's number almost a decade before he attained admission to the Hall of Fame.  

The Yankees have probably gone too far in retiring numbers.  Roger Maris's number retirement is questionable; and there is one other one (cough -- billymartin -- cough) that is completely unwarranted.  But the good thing is that the Yankees and the Mets are using their own criteria, and are not basing the decision on anything outside the club.  If the Phillies are taking Halliday's number "out of circulation", then the thing to do is to to just go ahead and retire it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

What is unfortunate is when a team uses a player's election to the Hall of Fame as a criterion for retiring his number.  These should be two separate things.  A team ought to retire the number of a player or manager based solely on his importance to the club.  The opinon of the Hall of Fame electors is irrelevant to this question, because that's not what they're measuring.

The Yankees retired the number of Thurman Munson, who will never be in the Hall of Fame.  The Mets retired the number of manager Gil Hodges, who likewise will never be enshrined.  The Yankees also retired Phil Rizzuto's number almost a decade before he attained admission to the Hall of Fame.  

The Yankees have probably gone too far in retiring numbers.  Roger Maris's number retirement is questionable; and there is one other one (cough -- billymartin -- cough) that is completely unwarranted.  But the good thing is that the Yankees and the Mets are using their own criteria, and are not basing the decision on anything outside the club.  If the Phillies are taking Halliday's number "out of circulation", then the thing to do is to to just go ahead and retire it now.

 

I don't disagree.  It's frustrating because they allow other players to wear numbers until someone is elected to the HOF, then they retire it.  The only exception they ever made was for Richie Ashburn, but they still allowed other players to wear #1 decades after he retired.  I guess the justification is that it takes the subjectivity out of it, and nobody can say "well you retired this guy's number but not that guy's, that's BS".

 

Tons of players - including Pete Rose - wore 14, but when Jim Bunning made the HOF in '96, they finally retired it.

 

They only have 5 retired numbers.  It's not like their franchise has been loaded with amazing HOF players, but there's been more than 5 since the advent of uniform numbers that have meant enough to the team to be considered for the honor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2017 at 2:28 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It's a simple matter of aesthetics. This just looks bad:

 

gOtsUva.jpg

 

I suppose that a number in the 90s might look better than a number in the 70s. But any number above the 50s will always feel more than a little wrong on a baseball uniform.

Double knit Jerseys and Wool Fitted hats are the best part of this picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The descriptions of the feeling of the material of the new spring training caps are what's gonna keep me away from them. I'm such a die hard fan of my team that I've made some questionable cap purchases over the years just to be able to wear an updated logo or just to say I have that cap because I'm a fan of my team...

 

BUT I can't pay money for a cap that feels like a swimsuit or, didn't someone earlier say board shorts? I shudder. I'm done with these things. 

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