Arena Rafters & Banners

[RedSox44]

They don't look different to me.

Something about tall, serifed type looks so early '90s to me. Like Onyx, though that's not Onyx.

I know what you mean, though I'm not sure how to explain it.

[Vash131]

....Well look who back, so nice to see these banners again.

[ltjets21]

Do the Marlins have world series banners/flags at their new park? I know the SF Giants have flags but I didn't see any banners there other than the World Series Champs on the wall because I went during their reign as champs.

[cmm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A__5dRUnYkg

[ltjets21]

Must be weird for the clippers to play in an arena with lakers banners everywhere, at least when the Jets have a home game its all Jets, you couldn't even tell the Giants played there.

[njmeadowlanders]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A__5dRUnYkg

Flags in a stadium that will be domed 90% of the time? What a great concept.

Must be weird for the clippers to play in an arena with lakers banners everywhere, at least when the Jets have a home game its all Jets, you couldn't even tell the Giants played there.

And it must be weird for the Lakers to play in an arena with Clipp--er, nevermind...

(Yes, pun intended).

[dfwabel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A__5dRUnYkg

Flags in a stadium that will be domed 90% of the time? What a great concept.

That was ceremonial. The intent to have larger banners made out of aluminum installed later this season.

[Anubis2051]

It appears the Blue Jays have replaced their banners over the years. Compare the original early 90s ones:

To the new, lighter ones in my sig. It's not just the lighting, many older pics have the WC banners as navy; now they're a lighter shade.

The first couple photos you posted are from a video. It's distorted and fat looking.

The colour point is is debatable, but I am certain that those dimensions are different. The video can't distort the dimensions like that.

...Yes it can. Take it from a broadcast engineer, it can. Looks like they stretched a 4:3 image into 16:9 - your TV might do this if you watch SD content on it in "Stretch" mode, it makes people look fatter/shorter than they really are. That's clearly what happened here. Unless you can explain the Blue Jays using their logo that was always a circle as an oval.

Also there are two 1992 banners in the first image, suggesting that this is from sometime in 1993. But, more importantly, you might be seeing the color difference because one is an AL champs banner - which is powder blue, rather than the Navy of the WS champs banners.

The typeface is certainly different, so they have been replaced. (Why, Times New Roman!?)

No, it isn't. Exact same font.

[BigBubba]

That video is from 1992, the second after they hung them. With regards to the colour, the Blue Jays never wore navy, so either 1) The colours were wrong and they have since fixed it or, more likely, 2) It's just the camera/video, since the white banners are much darker than white in both the 1992 pic and the 2000s pic. But I do remember them being much darker than they are now. Hmm...

And yes, the font is exactly the same. No idea where the notion it was different came from.

Oh, and they can take the All-Star Game banner down. Like now.

Edited May 13, 2012 by BigBubba

[Anubis2051]

That video is from 1992, the second after they hung them. With regards to the colour, the Blue Jays never wore navy, so either 1) The colours were wrong and they have since fixed it or, more likely, 2) It's just the camera/video, since the white banners are much darker than white in both the 1992 pic and the 2000s pic. But I do remember them being much darker than they are now. Hmm...

And yes, the font is exactly the same. No idea where the notion it was different came from.

Oh, and they can take the All-Star Game banner down. Like now.

I can't speak to the color, I'll leave that to your better judgement, but I can say without any doubt in my mind that is a stretched video clip.

[SLAM]

The numbers are different. (1992, 1993)

[BigBubba]

You are correct. So let's get this straight:

• The banners have been replaced
• Dimensions were not changed
• The font was changed
• The colours probably weren't changed

[maz]

Went to the Pirates game tonight. Saw that this past offseason they added World Series banner signs under windows on the front of the pressbox behind home plate. Similar to those in the outfield in Atlanta.

Also, I forgot to mention earlier that, like since the park opened, the pirates' retired numbers are on signs on the front of the upper deck behind home plate.

Years later, I find a picture.

[sorcerer77]

Went to the Pirates game tonight. Saw that this past offseason they added World Series banner signs under windows on the front of the pressbox behind home plate. Similar to those in the outfield in Atlanta.

Also, I forgot to mention earlier that, like since the park opened, the pirates' retired numbers are on signs on the front of the upper deck behind home plate.

Years later, I find a picture.

Nice work, I plan on catching another game at PNC Park later this season. The odd thing about the World Series titles which may not be known even among Bucs fans is how high that total is in context with the rest of MLB. In fact, among current teams, only the Yankees, Cardinals and Bosox have won more for their individual cities. Just goes to show, when a franchise struggles, losing tends to take over the narrative. The Baltimore Orioles, NFL Miami Dolphins or Cleveland Browns are in a similar boat. The nice thing about stadium/arena banners is the fact they provide a big picture view of the whole reality of a team in the city where those memories occurred.

[maz]

The Pirates are unique in that way. Much of their long history is either painfully average or straight up bad, despite their relatively high amount of world titles. The 19-aughts and 70s were the only decades of consistent competitiveness and success. Then there were a couple good years in the mid-20s and early-90s, and a major cinderella fluke in 1960.

[sorcerer77]

The Pirates are unique in that way. Much of their long history is either painfully average or straight up bad, despite their relatively high amount of world titles. The 19-aughts and 70s were the only decades of consistent competitiveness and success. Then there were a couple good years in the mid-20s and early-90s, and a major cinderella fluke in 1960.

You're absolutely correct about the mediocre and bad years, when a club exists for so long, those are practically impossible to avoid. The 19-aughts and 70s were outstanding, each decade had more achievement than the histories of many clubs today. From 1901 to 1992, the Bucs were winners roughly 66% of that span, an impressive record. The club also has the most batting champs in MLB history, and more primary hall of famers than teams like the Red Sox. Overall, even with the difficult times like the 1950s and the current losing streak, this is a storied franchise with a winning tradition. In the context of other MLB teams, it's accurate to place the Bucs about in the top third in overall franchise achievement.

[MadmanLA]

The Pirates are unique in that way. Much of their long history is either painfully average or straight up bad, despite their relatively high amount of world titles. The 19-aughts and 70s were the only decades of consistent competitiveness and success. Then there were a couple good years in the mid-20s and early-90s, and a major cinderella fluke in 1960.

You're absolutely correct about the mediocre and bad years, when a club exists for so long, those are practically impossible to avoid. The 19-aughts and 70s were outstanding, each decade had more achievement than the histories of many clubs today. From 1901 to 1992, the Bucs were winners roughly 66% of that span, an impressive record. The club also has the most batting champs in MLB history, and more primary hall of famers than teams like the Red Sox. Overall, even with the difficult times like the 1950s and the current losing streak, this is a storied franchise with a winning tradition. In the context of other MLB teams, it's accurate to place the Bucs about in the top third in overall franchise achievement.

Even despite the consective years of losing, the Pirates still have a winning record overall (9940-9803, .503 as of today). The team has shown some competitiveness in the last couple of years, and if they can keep it together down the stretch, they could finish at least .500.

[maz]

The Pirates are unique in that way. Much of their long history is either painfully average or straight up bad, despite their relatively high amount of world titles. The 19-aughts and 70s were the only decades of consistent competitiveness and success. Then there were a couple good years in the mid-20s and early-90s, and a major cinderella fluke in 1960.

You're absolutely correct about the mediocre and bad years, when a club exists for so long, those are practically impossible to avoid. The 19-aughts and 70s were outstanding, each decade had more achievement than the histories of many clubs today. From 1901 to 1992, the Bucs were winners roughly 66% of that span, an impressive record. The club also has the most batting champs in MLB history, and more primary hall of famers than teams like the Red Sox. Overall, even with the difficult times like the 1950s and the current losing streak, this is a storied franchise with a winning tradition. In the context of other MLB teams, it's accurate to place the Bucs about in the top third in overall franchise achievement.

Hence why I call them "The Shining Example of a Has-Been Franchise"

Forgive my negativity. It's difficult not to feel so jaded when such a storied franchise hasn't had a winning season in your lifetime.

[marlinfan]

Marlins replaced their banners. (Ignore the scoreboard, this was after Giancarlo Stanton pelted it with a grand slam that was a missile.

[DaytonBlue]

Interesting how those banners avoid the issue of putting the old logo on them or the new one. I guess I'd rather see something like that than banners with the new logo recognizing achievements won with the old logo.