ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, tohasbo said:

So....


I just caught a quick glance at ALL of the 2018 MLB Postseason logos and I have to say that these look awful.

Scratch the clean right out.  A huge disappointment in my eyes.  Bevels and a flat-ish 3D look too.

 

Bevels? Mercy. I was hoping the bevel moment had passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, tohasbo said:

FjpXuQK.png
 

 

I imagined worse... It's basically a 3D rendering of the metallic patches. If it was flat it would look a lot better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tohasbo said:

FjpXuQK.png
 

 

It has a very modern, Hollywood-summer-action-movie feel to it.  Perhaps a modified Eurostile bold font?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, tohasbo said:

FjpXuQK.png
 

This would look good if they were making a superhero or action movie about the MLB Postseason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Griffinmarlins said:

This would look good if they were making a superhero or action movie about the MLB Postseason.

 

Haha pretty much.

I have no clue what the rest fully look like but I am assuming that they would all look similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, insert name said:

What is this idea that division titles mean squat now? I was at Shea when the Mets clinched the East in 2006 and that was the closest to a World Series celebration I’ve ever been to. People were going nuts. Even my grandmother started giving people high-5’s. Then in 2015, some fans traveled all the way to Cincy just to see them clinch.

To say division championships aren’t a big deal today as it was back then is such an over exaggeration. 

 

6 hours ago, WSU151 said:

Division championships are great if you only win them every 10 years or aren't expected to win them.  But the Dodgers have won five NL West titles in a row, so there is a declining rate of importance to them.  They're expected to win the division now.  The pennant was great, and was far more important than winning the West.  Now the next big celebration will be a WS ring.

 

As @WSU151 indicated, the scarsity isn't there anymore.  Granted, if a team wins one after not having won in a while, such as the Mets in 2006 (first one since 1988) and 2015 (first one since 2006), then fans will be excited.  But it becomes routine for some teams, like the Dodgers.

By comparison, in the four-divison days, every single divisional title was special. @Jungle Jim mentioned the Reds-Dodgers battles in the old N.L. West. The Reds won a lot of them; but these were never routine.  I am sure that he can tell you that each one was a hard-fought title, a real championship.  It just cannot be that significant any more, as evidenced by the N.L. Central in 2001, when (if I may remind you) the Astros and Cardinals tied, but no playoff was played because both teams were in the playoffs anyway.  

 

 

6 hours ago, WSU151 said:

The main argument is you can't throw around words like "championship" and "title" without the division and league modifiers.  By themselves, the words imply WS wins.

 

Not always -- as that wise old sage Buck Martinez has demonstrated.  Mock him if you want; but what he said in his address (that the 1985 Jays were Toronto's "first championship team") was entirely uncontroversial.  Until this thread, I would not have dreamt that anyone could take issue with that simple statement of fact.

When @Whitesox572 reports the hugeness of the 1983 White Sox' divisional championship, people need to listen to that.  The wait since 1959 was over.   And those people who were whooping it up for the 1984 Cubs (including Chuck Thompson and Harry Caray) were very clear that they were celebrating a championship, the team's first since 1945.  (Not a World Championship, but still a championship.  Words have meanings.)

 

Furthermore, please realise that neither the Sox fans nor the Cub fans were referring to World Series wins when they were talking about the teams' previous championships. So, depending on the context, it is possible to use the terms "title" and "championship" to mean something other than winning the World Series -- sometimes it means a pennant, and sometimes it means a divisonal title.

 

 

Stepping back for moment, let's remember that the argument started over the value of the 1982 and 1986 divisional titles to the legacy of Gene Mauch as an Angels manager after I asserted that those titles made him worthy of having his number retired.  I hope that we can agree that Mauch's two divisional titles from the four-division period mean far more than, let's say, Don Mattingly's three divisional titles in the current period. This fall in value of the divisional title is simply a function of the ballooning of the playoff field from four to ten teams.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1stAndPhoremost said:

Will MLB Shop (or anyone else on planet Earth) have low-crown versions of the new BP caps? I haven't been able to track one down yet

Not sure.  I hate the boxy look on all the hats nowadays.  New Era, Nike hats, Reebok hats...you name it.  They all look too boxy.  Hell even the flexfit hats in the largest size possible are too small now.  It's really aggravating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With proper context, "championship" can mean any type of recognized championship - division, league, whatever.  

 

Sans context, "championship" means the biggest one, so for baseball that's the WS.  If you're on a specific team's message board, then they know what you mean by "championship."  If you're addressing a certain fanbase, then they know what you mean.  Other than that, the modifier is helpful, not because it isn't a championship, it's that colloquially "champion" means the champion, not a champion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

It has a very modern, Hollywood-summer-action-movie feel to it.  Perhaps a modified Eurostile bold font?  

 

Looks like good ol' Bank Gothic to me.

 

1 hour ago, 1stAndPhoremost said:

Will MLB Shop (or anyone else on planet Earth) have low-crown versions of the new BP caps? I haven't been able to track one down yet

 

https://www.lids.com/batting-practice/low-profile-59fifty

Share this post


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

(This is the slowest offseason ever.)

 

What is this idea that division titles mean squat now? I was at Shea when the Mets clinched the East in 2006 and that was the closest to a World Series celebration I’ve ever been to. People were going nuts. Even my grandmother started giving people high-5’s. Then in 2015, some fans traveled all the way to Cincy just to see them clinch.

To say division championships aren’t a big deal today as it was back then is such an over exaggeration. 

 

Bull.  Back in 1982, if you won a divisional title in the 7-team AL west, you only had to win three more games to make it to the World Series.

 

In 2017, if you win your five team division, you still need to go through two more rounds and win seven games to make it to the Series.  It's completely different and more watered down.

Share this post


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

 

 

As @WSU151 indicated, the scarsity isn't there anymore.  Granted, if a team wins one after not having won in a while, such as the Mets in 2006 (first one since 1988) and 2015 (first one since 2006), then fans will be excited.  But it becomes routine for some teams, like the Dodgers.

By comparison, in the four-divison days, every single divisional title was special. @Jungle Jim mentioned the Reds-Dodgers battles in the old N.L. West. The Reds won a lot of them; but these were never routine.  I am sure that he can tell you that each one was a hard-fought title, a real championship.  It just cannot be that significant any more, as evidenced by the N.L. Central in 2001, when (if I may remind you) the Astros and Cardinals tied, but no playoff was played because both teams were in the playoffs anyway.  

 

 

 

Not always -- as that wise old sage Buck Martinez has demonstrated.  Mock him if you want; but what he said in his address (that the 1985 Jays were Toronto's "first championship team") was entirely uncontroversial.  Until this thread, I would not have dreamt that anyone could take issue with that simple statement of fact.

When @Whitesox572 reports the hugeness of the 1983 White Sox' divisional championship, people need to listen to that.  The wait since 1959 was over.   And those people who were whooping it up for the 1984 Cubs (including Chuck Thompson and Harry Caray) were very clear that they were celebrating a championship, the team's first since 1945.  (Not a World Championship, but still a championship.  Words have meanings.)

 

Furthermore, please realise that neither the Sox fans nor the Cub fans were referring to World Series wins when they were talking about the teams' previous championships. So, depending on the context, it is possible to use the terms "title" and "championship" to mean something other than winning the World Series -- sometimes it means a pennant, and sometimes it means a divisonal title.

 

 

Stepping back for moment, let's remember that the argument started over the value of the 1982 and 1986 divisional titles to the legacy of Gene Mauch as an Angels manager after I asserted that those titles made him worthy of having his number retired.  I hope that we can agree that Mauch's two divisional titles from the four-division period mean far more than, let's say, Don Mattingly's three divisional titles in the current period. This fall in value of the divisional title is simply a function of the ballooning of the playoff field from four to ten teams.
 

 

 

This man gets it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Division titles are important and should be celebrated upon clinching and teams should put up a banner or flag or what have you, but I agree with BBTV, using "champion" is all about the context. If somebody asks me how many championships the Angels have won, I would say one, not 10. The Angels as a franchise have one championship and nine AL West championships. 

 

My real problem is how many playoff shirts and locker room celebrations there seem to be now. Clinched a playoff spot? Here's a t-shirt and a beer party in the locker room. Clinched the division? Here's another t-shirt. Won the Wild Card game? Here's a different t-shirt and more beer. Won the Divisional round? More shirts for everybody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see a few more new things before the season starts. It's been months since I've seen the retail guide but I believe there are at least two more alternate uniforms on the way and a few new hats (I seem to recall more patch hats than what we've seen so far). Some fun throwback stuff is on the way for Oakland.

 

It's also worth noting that the new BP caps are intended to be used as alternate caps and worn during regular season games by a number of teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 1stAndPhoremost said:

Will MLB Shop (or anyone else on planet Earth) have low-crown versions of the new BP caps? I haven't been able to track one down yet

I’d say eventually.  The DE BP caps were high crown at first and then the low crowns eventually were released 

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