Silent Wind of Doom

Huh. I didn't even think there was that strong a relationship as I just grasped at straws. It does make sense to go nautical, but... If there's one thing we've learned looking at this whole project it's that we have absolutely no idea what teams will pick as the theme they use to rep their city.

Hmm... Is this a common format on Twitter or used by the team? Or can something be gleaned from this? Any chance they're tapping into their old days as the Capital's team by leaning into a military aeronautics theme? Are there other aeronautics links in Maryland? Or are they just being silly?

Oh yeah. I forgot my planned response to this when I finally had a sec so I just focused (not quick enough) on the other question. But you can see it with the Rockies. The license plate was the main vision, but it wasn't just about the license plate. Where the "My Oh My" is on the Seattle jersey, we see a reference to welcome signs. They took a ski slope sign and added it, but it also works as a colorful insurance sticker I think if Boston had stuck to the color scheme, they could have slipped in additional references to the city and even the entire region given the strong, united market New England (save for half of Connecticut) is. But, in the end, they were the first, and I can see them not fully going for the gusto or really fully having a sense for what the project could be. The newer ones have had a lot more depth.

Catchphrase of the voice of the team from inception to 2010 Dave Niehaus. Their equivalent to "Hey, hey/Holy cow!/How about that?/It's time for Dodger baseball/You can put it on the board yes!" EDIT: Curses. Ninja'd. This is what happens when you spend time looking for a good clip.

I absolutely hated these originally. But more and more hearing the reception... Even the ones I think are objectively terrible are absolutely beloved by the fans of those teams. So... it's hard to hate them when they're succeeding so much at that. When I say, "That sucks" and the people say "This isn't your team and this isn't for you, so go away." That being said, I absolutely don't want it for my team. Would love doing a copy of what happened with Turn Ahead the Clock and they could just go "Hey, yo, this is our culture." Also, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Boston seem to all fail hard either way. Boston's is beloved, but it feels way too narrow in what it's going for. It's literally based on one singular day and draws from that and that only. Fortunately, since the win streak they went on with them they seem to have relegated them to a few days here and there every couple months and marathon weekend. Then again, my team plays in a division with only one team doing them, and it's one of the ones I don't like, so it may be a function of them being a far-off mythical thing. Also, it's one alt and I would not want it to go beyond where it is, but I can see the fear of this being a slippery slope. But besides those three teams, everything seems to either fit as a throwback alt (Atlanta, Miami), fit as a regular alt (Anaheim, Arizona, Chicago A.L., Milwaukee), express local culture in a way the fans seem to love (Colorado, Houston, San Diego, Texas, Washington), or just be inoffensive (Chicago N.L., Kansas City).

They wore the navy Nationals alt for a series against the Orioles. It was the first time they'd worn an alt besides their City Connect all season. I mentioned it, looking for insider information on whether or not they'd been completely dropped, but didn't hear anything. It's now been a few more weeks and the New York Mets and San Francisco Giants have also only wore their home and away uniforms (save for the Giants wearing their City Connects one night). It's almost like they took the 4+1 rule to cut out their cruff. The Mets black isn't being sold as authentic on their team shop, which I know was mentioned earlier as a big reason for people to follow the rule/a way to get around it by simply wearing a uniform they can only sell as Cooperstown Collection. Oh, never mind. The Giants just broke out their orange alts finally Friday night. It's their second Friday home game, with the other being opening day, so perhaps they just wore their creams for the special occasion? It took me actually saying out loud "All I can see is an R" to realize "Oh. Duh. That makes sense because it's the first letter of their name."

I was going to comment on the Phillies alt, but realized in the midst of working on a public speaking engagement that I'd forgotten they not only did wear the red jerseys previous in the season, but they wore them in a series I'd watched. It had been later enough and two other conversations exploded that I didn't want to respond to both, but also didn't want it to look like I was ignoring your points, especially since someone had earlier made the same reference without a response, which I didn't respond to because the first time I didn't think it had anything to do with the discussion. You more explained the point rather than just saying "What about those two years?" But I thought you might have been being disingenuous. Nevertheless, I didn't make the comment anyway and forgot because of how busy I was. But if you're having your house fumigated and you stay at your nephew's house it doesn't become your home. Your home is your home. They played there, but I don't think anyone involved considered it to be their home. I'm sure someone can search the origins of the "Bronx Bombers" moniker and if it was used during their two years playing games in Queens. But I just got done with a large project and I am going to turn my brain off.

Let me add to my previous list of ways nothing said during this celebration is technically incorrect, zeroing in on the phrase you're stuck on... 2. It's 100 years that they've called 151st and River their "home". 4. It's 100 years since they moved out of the Polo Grounds where they were a tenant of the Giants into their own "home" ballpark. 5. It's 100 years that they've called the Bronx their home, which is a large part of their identity (as shown in the accompanying hashtag). Most would say it's the 100th anniversary of *the* Yankee Stadium. I think anyone in-the-know about the two ballparks doesn't look at that and think they're trying to trick people into thinking the parks are the same building. It more shows how important the old building was and why they'd celebrate a century since its opening. It was so key to the team's identity that they tried to rebuild it. But, again, in the end, this is all reaaallly over-thinking. It's not like most anniversaries celebrated in the sport. They had a social media post, probably did some stuff before the game (I thought I'd get to see it, but for some reason the pre-game didn't record for me), and then the next day it was normal business. They didn't even wear a patch on their jerseys.

In the end, you're vastly overthinking it. The old stadium is in the logo. Some social media person stitched together a photo of the two stadiums to show that the old one's look and meaning were emulated in the building of the new one. They basically wanted to build a new one across the street (with many more money-making amenities).

Dangit. This is what I get for deciding to just go with it instead of making sure. I always forget, but was sure I remembered it correctly. At least it doesn't get me in trouble as much as that I keep forgetting if my home address is 137 or 147.

1. It's 100 years since Yankee Stadium I opened. 2. It's 100 years that they've called 151st and River their "home". 3. It's 100 years that they've played in a ballpark named "Yankee Stadium". Like I said, as far as I've seen words from official sources never seem to phrase it in a way that explicitly say their current building is 100 years old. The celebration is of the anniversary of their move into their own ballpark and their standing on their legs as a franchise.

They never in anything I've ever seen explicitly state they're trying to pretend they're the same park. But it was a very, very, very important year in the history of the club. So, they celebrated it. They did everything they could in building the new house to homage the old one, including the same name and address. The post shows off the emulation, but they never actually say it's 100 years of their current facility. One could say they're being weasel-y in their wording, but I've not seen anything phrased in a way that is not at least technically correct, the best kind of correct.

Next in the lengthy list of reasons why the loose leash on uniformity in the sport is a bad things, some of the Marlins have stuck with the black socks with the Friday throwback alt. Their teammates keeping the look up.

I don't believe it. Next you're going to suggest Korea doesn't look like hills of scrub brush on Century Ranch. Well... a "panther" is just the family of big cats that include lions, tigers, jaguars, and leopards. So there's a 1-in-4 chance it's a gryphon.

It's all understandable. Just craving... something. The Mississippi and Minnesota rivers in homage to the old logo? An M and StP? Just the road cap M? Some pattern (akin to the bricks in the Brewers' Wisconsin patch) that's culturally relevant to the cities/state? Something to break up the solid shape. San Francisco would like a word. (I also think the choice of grey for Washington is a miss, but everything besides SF and LA seems to either objectively look good or really hit with the locals and catch the culture) Maybe it's fitting that the old rivals share this link.

Eh... It's the MLB thread, so it's all fair game. I think overall it's more empty than clean. But I already said when they were released that while I think most of the set is perfect, I think the wordmark should have an outline. As with everything, it will likely all become the norm with being used to it. But the only other failing I find is this patch. It goes past empty to sterile, and as my years-long call that the Cleveland C cap needed an outline, red and navy do not stand out enough against each other. Looking at pics, I think the old patch reads, but it's also a major part of the identity. It's a logo used elsewhere in the park and other places. Whereas I don't understand why they'd just put the shape of the state on the home uniform. Seems like a City Connect move. The TC or even the flags would have probably been better, but I imagine they avoided the TC because they would have had to either change the colors or add an outline. Although the TC is in those colors on the batting helmet, so it would be fine.

The aesthetic I think of when seeing this set: It evokes to me the aesthetic of westerns from the 60s-90s, the tones and fonts of old tattered maps in the Old West. I like the aesthetic. I like the theme they went with a lot and all the individual pieces. The pants do seem odd. I think it would be better in all cream and wonder if it's just a move to differentiate themselves from other teams with similar standard color schemes (Giants home, Twins alt, Padres/Orioles/White Sox if you open your parameters).

Then that sounds like the rendition is lacking. I looked at it and the discussion and was like "Yeah, they're going for a more retro look, so things are going to be less detailed", but Minnie and Paul are retro. It's more a clipart approach to modernity. Compare with the Brewers' Wisconsin patch that has some kind of detail. While a lot of his criticism is over-the-top, I can't say I disagree with the "blue blob" terminology. Yes, it's shaped like Minnesota. Yes, the red dot is a tiny star. Doesn't mean those descriptors aren't what anyone sees from more than six inches/six feet away.

Don't mind me. I didn't look back, and remembered it using the TX Texas logo that they've cleared out of their identity this year. Sounds like I was mistaken. It's early and it's been a while.

I can see where they're going. Although it feels more San Antonio than Metroplex. But I think we can officially say (after the find of the Mariners cap in the colors of those Orioles socks seemed to strongly suggest it) that the sock leak was nothing to do with City Connect.

Do people really not think that sleeve patch objectively sucks? I thought when this set was released everyone agreed on that. Just a solid dark shape of the state with a small dot in it? When the Minnie and Paul logo was already Minnesota-shaped, making the difference look even more lacking? I'm just surprised by the push back at the suggestion that it's bleh when I thought that was the common consensus.

Thank you, @maxwasson! Here ya go!

Sorry. Was a bit busy with the Wikipedia MLB uniforms. Do... you... happen to have a pic of the trophy for the Women's NIT? I can't find it.

You get the show! So... they're going to try again at the City Connect uniforms after the initial botch and box? Looking at it, I get more 70's fast food taco that was still open in the 80's and 90's without rebranding and abandoned and overgrown before the new millenium. I've gone through the Getty Images for the games to make sure of the details to update the uniform images for Wikipedia. A few observations and questions. While the talk of flipped patches has been very big on here, the Royals, Twins, Rangers, Cubs, Dodgers, and Giants are not flipping their patches. In fact, the Giants are wearing their usual sleeve patches on one sleeve and a memorial patch on the other sleeve. Are these teams not planning on getting sponsors in this season? Do the swapping teams already have sponsors lined up and are just waiting to finalize the deal, so they already have their uniforms ready? The Nationals, Giants, and Mets haven't yet worn a non-City-Connect alt. Is this a quirk of the schedule? The article on changes said that the new rule meant the Mets have dropped their away blue uniform, but don't know if there's been news on any of the other jerseys of these teams (besides the ongoing discussion of the Phillies alts)? Also haven't seen the Cards' powder blue. The Rangers are back to flipping red and blue with their home whites again, huh? Any rhyme or reason? Pitcher's choice?