2012 MLB & Logo Changes

[Lights Out]

What's wrong with color vs. color matchups in baseball? White vs. gray looks boring and doesn't have as much contrast.

[The_Admiral]

If anything, the contrast problem exists on jerseys like Atlanta's navy blue shirts, where you can't see the number and thus cannot identify the player. You need contrast on the jersey itself rather than between the players, since it's hard to mistake a batter or a baserunner for a fielder. Names and numbers often jump out the best against white and grey.

[NYYNYR]

Yes, there was a time when teams didn't always have white and grey jerseys. It wasn't a particularly good time. There was Astroturf, concrete donuts, low attendance, cocaine, just kind of an all-around slump. Classic white and grey look good on everyone.

Oh, also, regarding Houston altogether dropping grey, Oakland could get away with not having white or grey because it was so audacious to wear kelly green uniforms at the time that nobody else had even thought of doing it. The A's don't even do it now. The Astros can't exclusively wear red on the road because so many other teams like to wear red at home, and baseball has finally cracked down on that.

They have? You see color vs. color all the time. They didn't raise a finger when we had black vs. dark navy (Twins and Chi Sox). Why would you believe baseball is cracking down on this at all?

Because they are cracking down on it, which is why you see the Astros in gray when they play the DBags in their red... er, brick, er... whatever.

Ok, so what the F is the rule, man? Do 2 teams have to actually have the same shade of brick red before someone says -- Hey, maybe we should have some differentiation here!!!

So if I understand you ok...you can have TB in their blue vs. Minnesota in their blue because they are not the same shade of navy / blue. You wouldn't see Minnesota vs. Seattle because their colors are fairly close / almost identical . But you could have any dark navy uniform (Indians / Minny / Seattle ) play the Chi Sox in black ?

How in hell could you codify that ? The answer is -- you really can't. They may have something, but it's not enforced. Face it. It's a joke. So, I say just rip up the rule if no one is really going to follow it. ST should show you that they have no concerns over this. The Braves / Yankees played in navy, if memory serves me...these are MLB-sanctioned games...What am I missing ?

We're all skirting around the surface, trying to make up answers, and I'm telling you that no one really knows the rules or follows them. You can keep trying to prove this to be untrue, but it's not going to hold up if put to the test.

[BBTV]

Yes, there was a time when teams didn't always have white and grey jerseys. It wasn't a particularly good time. There was Astroturf, concrete donuts, low attendance, cocaine, just kind of an all-around slump. Classic white and grey look good on everyone.

Oh, also, regarding Houston altogether dropping grey, Oakland could get away with not having white or grey because it was so audacious to wear kelly green uniforms at the time that nobody else had even thought of doing it. The A's don't even do it now. The Astros can't exclusively wear red on the road because so many other teams like to wear red at home, and baseball has finally cracked down on that.

They have? You see color vs. color all the time. They didn't raise a finger when we had black vs. dark navy (Twins and Chi Sox). Why would you believe baseball is cracking down on this at all?

Because they are cracking down on it, which is why you see the Astros in gray when they play the DBags in their red... er, brick, er... whatever.

Ok, so what the F is the rule, man? Do 2 teams have to actually have the same shade of brick red before someone says -- Hey, maybe we should have some differentiation here!!!

So if I understand you ok...you can have TB in their blue vs. Minnesota in their blue because they are not the same shade of navy / blue. You wouldn't see Minnesota vs. Seattle because their colors are fairly close / almost identical . But you could have any dark navy uniform (Indians / Minny / Seattle ) play the Chi Sox in black ?

How in hell could you codify that ? The answer is -- you really can't. They may have something, but it's not enforced. Face it. It's a joke. So, I say just rip up the rule if no one is really going to follow it. ST should show you that they have no concerns over this. The Braves / Yankees played in navy, if memory serves me...these are MLB-sanctioned games...What am I missing ?

We're all skirting around the surface, trying to make up answers, and I'm telling you that no one really knows the rules or follows them. You can keep trying to prove this to be untrue, but it's not going to hold up if put to the test.

IIRC it's not an official rule - more of a guideline. I don't think they have anyone on site approving what the teams take the field in. Navy vs black really does suck too though.

[piratesfan16]

When I see a ST game featuring two teams that have similar color uniforms (Royals vs. Dodgers for example. In this case, the Dodgers were the home team), the home team would wear their white home jersey while the away team would wear a full color jersey.

[McCall]

You can't really use Spring Training as an example for the regular season. Nobody really cares too much in ST or so many teams wouldn't wear BP jerseys. In the regular season, sometimes now teams aren't allowed to wear similar jersey colors. Seems sometimes this falls through the cracks, but it is being enforced more than before and hopefully will soon be fully enforced.

[marlinfan]

Re: Marlins 2012

Most of the marketing for the new ballpark has the blue on the right:

[Anubis2051]

Re: Marlins 2012

Most of the marketing for the new ballpark has the blue on the right:

Great, two teams in Florida with baby blue unis.

[LetsGoOakland9]

IIRC last year the A's and White Sox played in which both teams wore black jerseys

[Bouj]

Yes, there was a time when teams didn't always have white and grey jerseys. It wasn't a particularly good time. There was Astroturf, concrete donuts, low attendance, cocaine, just kind of an all-around slump. Classic white and grey look good on everyone.

Oh, also, regarding Houston altogether dropping grey, Oakland could get away with not having white or grey because it was so audacious to wear kelly green uniforms at the time that nobody else had even thought of doing it. The A's don't even do it now. The Astros can't exclusively wear red on the road because so many other teams like to wear red at home, and baseball has finally cracked down on that.

They have? You see color vs. color all the time. They didn't raise a finger when we had black vs. dark navy (Twins and Chi Sox). Why would you believe baseball is cracking down on this at all?

Because they are cracking down on it, which is why you see the Astros in gray when they play the DBags in their red... er, brick, er... whatever.

Ok, so what the F is the rule, man? Do 2 teams have to actually have the same shade of brick red before someone says -- Hey, maybe we should have some differentiation here!!!

So if I understand you ok...you can have TB in their blue vs. Minnesota in their blue because they are not the same shade of navy / blue. You wouldn't see Minnesota vs. Seattle because their colors are fairly close / almost identical . But you could have any dark navy uniform (Indians / Minny / Seattle ) play the Chi Sox in black ?

How in hell could you codify that ? The answer is -- you really can't. They may have something, but it's not enforced. Face it. It's a joke. So, I say just rip up the rule if no one is really going to follow it. ST should show you that they have no concerns over this. The Braves / Yankees played in navy, if memory serves me...these are MLB-sanctioned games...What am I missing ?

We're all skirting around the surface, trying to make up answers, and I'm telling you that no one really knows the rules or follows them. You can keep trying to prove this to be untrue, but it's not going to hold up if put to the test.

IIRC it's not an official rule - more of a guideline. I don't think they have anyone on site approving what the teams take the field in. Navy vs black really does suck too though.

There has been codification. Teams are strongly discouraged from wearing similar color alternates. Similar colors are: navy/navy (any shade), black/black, navy/black, brick/brick, brick/red, brick/orange, and royal/(one of TB's alt colors) (not sure about that one, since KC wore their royal alt in TB & TB did wear an alt).

And since the beginning of last season, it has been usually enforced. Almost everyone follows the rules now. The exception in 2010 was Chicago (notorious rule breakers) blowing off the rule in Oakland. Teams prior to 2009 used to skirt the rule all the time (I am looking at you, Braves, White Sox, Rockies, & Padres).

And Spring Training doesn't count. Teams aren't following normal uniform regulations anyway. They're wearing BP jerseys. OK, Baltimore does that in the regular season, but no one else does anymore.

[ctk]

What's wrong with color vs. color matchups in baseball? White vs. gray looks boring and doesn't have as much contrast.

this. you can essentially describe every game as the white team versus the gray team. there is no life with white and gray and with the pace of the game being leisurely at best the boring uniforms don't help the popularity of the game. while i am pretty much interested in only my team, if i could get all the alternates of the teams that had them, i would, and i couldn't say that about any other sport.

there is no reason to not have color on color in these days of high definition 3d televisions. you could understand why they did it in the old days. with black and white tvs and black and white photographs in the daily papers, why bother with wearing a bunch of colors. baseball is the only team sport that i can think of where the color uniform the players wear have zero effect of determining who is a teammate and who is not during regular play. and it isn't as though more colors is going to hurt the game. i like what the astros have done the last few years and i hope they continue to wear brick red when they play arizona.

[The_Admiral]

there is no reason to not have color on color in these days of high definition 3d televisions.

1) It doesn't look very good

Also, you just argued in favor of not needing colored uniforms.

[ltjets21]

I heard the Indians might change their name to "suck"

I heard that also, but major league baseball found that name racist against prostitutes

[yauger72]

I heard the Indians might change their name to "suck"

I heard that also, but major league baseball found that name racist against prostitutes

Sigh.... thanks guys...

[McCall]

What's wrong with color vs. color matchups in baseball? White vs. gray looks boring and doesn't have as much contrast.

this. you can essentially describe every game as the white team versus the gray team. there is no life with white and gray and with the pace of the game being leisurely at best the boring uniforms don't help the popularity of the game. while i am pretty much interested in only my team, if i could get all the alternates of the teams that had them, i would, and i couldn't say that about any other sport.

there is no reason to not have color on color in these days of high definition 3d televisions. you could understand why they did it in the old days. with black and white tvs and black and white photographs in the daily papers, why bother with wearing a bunch of colors. baseball is the only team sport that i can think of where the color uniform the players wear have zero effect of determining who is a teammate and who is not during regular play. and it isn't as though more colors is going to hurt the game. i like what the astros have done the last few years and i hope they continue to wear brick red when they play arizona.

So white vs gray looks bad. White or gray vs color is boring. But brick red vs brick red looks good?

[oddball]

I heard the Indians might change their name to "suck"

I heard that also, but major league baseball found that name racist against prostitutes

No you're wrong. The Indians can't change their name to suck because baseball already has two teams that have trademarked that name. One in Kansas City and one in Pittsburgh.

[ctk]

So white vs gray looks bad. White or gray vs color is boring. But brick red vs brick red looks good?

i didn't say red v red looks good. i said more color looks good. in that argument i said red v red didn't matter because teams wearing the same color doesn't affect gameplay in the least. are you also against interleague play and the wild card as well or does colored uniforms offend your baseball purities that much more? perhaps you also want to mandate all players have some sock showing too.

@the admiral

i did not argue against white v gray and then for it, i would like to see where your logic went when you made that statement.

[McCall]

So white vs gray looks bad. White or gray vs color is boring. But brick red vs brick red looks good?

i didn't say red v red looks good. i said more color looks good. in that argument i said red v red didn't matter because teams wearing the same color doesn't affect gameplay in the least. are you also against interleague play and the wild card as well or does colored uniforms offend your baseball purities that much more? perhaps you also want to mandate all players have some sock showing too.

@the admiral

i did not argue against white v gray and then for it, i would like to see where your logic went when you made that statement.

You said you'd like to see the Astros continue to wear brick red in Arizona (which they don't really do unless the D'Backs aren't wearing it). I don't care if the colors have no effect on distinguishing players, seeing 2 teams wearing the same color is the most boring out of any scenario. I don't care if it's color vs color as long as the colors are far apart. As I mentioned, it's not to seperate players but rather to break up the dullness that would be one color for both teams. But I also don't want to see them being used every single game nor a team having 3 or 4 different alts, some being the same color with just different words on the front. And yes I'm a traditionalist. Interleague play could go away and I wouldn't care. Wild Card isn't a big deal, but I'm not for adding a 2nd WC team as is being discussed. And I never want to see the DH in the National League. And guess what, I still have a reasonable opinion on this subject, too. Not only modernists can weigh in here.

[The_Admiral]

@the admiral

i did not argue against white v gray and then for it, i would like to see where your logic went when you made that statement.

baseball is the only team sport that i can think of where the color uniform the players wear have zero effect of determining who is a teammate and who is not during regular play.

So then it stands to reason that it's not necessary to have red shirts against blue shirts, and as such it's just fine to have ballplayers wear the traditional and aesthetically pleasing white and grey.

I don't mind the occasional colored alternate, but only in small doses, and not for every team.

[loogodude90]

I don't mind the occasional colored alternate, but only in small doses, and not for every team.

I agree... they are called alternates for a reason. White versus gray does get boring, but alternates get boring too if they are worn too often.