SFGiants58

Members
  • Content Count

    6,408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

Everything posted by SFGiants58

  1. Gotta go with the 1957 Braves. They had the perfect color balance on display, what with the striped socks and the contrast-colored tomahawk. Just ignore the "screaming savage" patch, and you'd be a-ok. The 1967 Cardinals also qualify, for going all-in on the red cap (navy cap only works with a red bill). The Rawlings' Block NOB's (like what the Orioles currently use) also helped the look: As for other sports, I'd argue that the 1970-71 Bucks, 1973-74 Nets, 1988-89 Flames, and the 1966-67 Maple Leafs won big with their best looks.
  2. Not really. “Failed expansion” means that the team never existed. The Pilots did exist, but Missouri Senator Stuart Symington :censored:ed them over by forcing the AL to expand in 1969 instead of the planned 1971, lest he threaten baseball’s anti-trust expemption. Source for this claim. So, if Symington was a little more patient, the Pilots might have stuck around.
  3. Sure, but they've won a bunch of titles with navy in their color scheme, and most of them have come with navy as a dominant color in part of their identity. Navy is almost as important to their aesthetics and history as red. I'll give you that one, due to the history of black within the identity and their navy almost looking black in vintage photographs. It wouldn't make sense to change now (especially seeing the team "white flight" away from Atlanta proper - where the black/red Falcons and Hawks play - to the suburbs), but it would've worked in 1966. Cue @crashcarson15 doing his whole rant about how the Indians have had navy since the 1900s and red since the 1930s. They could have switched things up during their redesigns throughout the "dark times" of 1955-early '90s, but it didn't happen. Now, the team has had to play it safe with what they do change in their identity, trying to tone down/remove Wahoo while alienating as few people as possible. Accusing navy/red of being boring/lazy is a bit of a step too far. It's more that the teams were concerned with preserving their traditional color schemes way back when, sticking with them to the point that they're integral to the fans' identity. I would object to new teams adopting navy/red, but the teams that have navy/red already should simply take little steps to differentiate themselves.
  4. As @Gothamite has written in the past, it's one of three prototypes. Here are the other two: Of course, there are also logos that get lost when relocations fall through, such as the (ugh) "Tampa Bay Giants" redesign: The wordmark on the far left wouldn't be bad for the Rays, given the similarity to their current font.
  5. 2010 Giants: Even the alt that year looked fab:
  6. That had the potential to be a fantastic look for them. A slightly cleaner script (with a better “C” and no “White Sox” lettering) and black replacing royal would make push it over the top. It also helped that this specific uniform had WHITE SOCKS. The powder blue base is Chris probably misinterpreting the Cooperstown Collection graphic.
  7. I’ve long proposed a way for MLB to diversify (for some teams): Red Sox: Forest Green/Red (simple color swap, no red caps after Bucky Dent killed them) Cleveland: Navy/Light Blue, Maroon/Orange, etc. Twins: Forest Green/Light Blue Rangers: Brick Red/Slate Blue Braves: Black/Red Phillies: Maroon/Light Blue accents Royals: Purple/Yellow Of course, a lot of these identities are too set in stone now to really change. The rest of the majors should have followed Charlie O’s example in the 1960s. If navy/red can’t go, color distribution, accent colors, and fonts will work well enough.
  8. Yeah, without an appropriate emoticon and with a surface-level reading, anything can seem genuine. Poe’s Law is a pain in the ass.
  9. It’s a joke at the logic used by the dboi types, who assume that people who don’t like things that they like are “nostalgia-blinded.” It’s overly-simplistic logic that misses a bunch of nuances. I liken it to the phrase “EDUCATED STUPID,” made memetic by conspiracy theorist Gene Ray of Time Cube. I’m normally more tactful in my jabs. I apologize, as I was venting a little this morning.
  10. You’re forgetting that plenty of people grew up with the Padres in brown. Because they grew up with it (and it’s not some new, “scary” design like the Marlins or Diamondbacks), that makes it OK. Nostalgia and hipsters can fuel it.
  11. Chris, instead of writing all of these silly pieces, you could focus on updating some of the baseball sections with the new Cooperstown Collection materials (e.g., A’s, Phillies, Reds, etc.) or fixing obvious errors (e.g. that rotated Minnesota Wild logo people complain so much about). Just a thought. I know, I shouldn’t complain. The website isn’t behind a paywall and Chris is just one guy, etc. However, it would be nice to see @CC97 here every once in a while instead of his news bot.
  12. I'm... not even going to dissect this statement. It's not worth it.
  13. Dont you mean to split it between Clark and Calvin Griffith? The latter moved the team after the former died. Either way, you’ll get no argument from me about the racism of the Griffith family. I still find it icky that the Twins thought it was OK to put up a statue of Calvin Griffith. It’s important to look at figures like Yawkey with nuance and an understanding of different moral values over the decades. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t shame certain historical actors for the harm their attitudes caused. Adding a line about Moses Fleetwood Walker on Cap Anson’s plaque would be a good idea.
  14. I just wish they had redesigned the lighthouse to make it more crest-like, with the "NY-stick with four stripes" as a shoulder patch. Speaking of 1990s logos for classy teams, I wish the A's kept these versions of the elephant logo around. I'd replace the grey with white (John McGraw didn't call the Athletics a grey or a green elephant), but they make for a fantastic modern interpretation of the classic logo. If they needed some whimsy (like the vintage/current crest), I'd suggest using a sun-free version of the Spring Training variant. An elephant wearing sunglasses is both whimsical and cool!
  15. If you want to take that a step further, you could follow @the admiral‘s suggestion by using Penumbra semi-serif instead of the rounded sans-serif. I rather like your latest updates. The Bulls redesign is maybe the best version of the logo I’ve seen (thank you for not giving it a septum ring). The Huskies’ uniform could use a little work, but the identity is stellar. I like it more than the claw-ball Raptors. The only suggestion I have would be to replace the black alt with a purple/red one (no black), just to pander to Raptors fans. I do hope you make the Timberwolves look different enough from the Huskies for them to coexist.
  16. I’d argue that these logos are “different” in their goals from the Seahawks one. However, some of them pull off their thesis a little more than others. The Wally Bird logo is maybe the best cartoon bird ever (and one of my favorite cap logos in baseball), the Penguins strike a good balance between cartoony and striking, while the Hawks’ logo is rather minimalist. The only one that’s similar to the Seahawks is the Blue Jays, which makes sense given the teams’ similar ages. However, the Jays handled their recoloring far better than the Seahawks did.
  17. I’ve got a soft spot for that logo, but I do think a blue or grey facemask would be better. White just draws the eyes away from the insignia.
  18. I can smell the confirmation bias oozing off of your soul.
  19. Why not stick the Peace Tower in ani “O,” like several people have done here? (by @hockey week) (by @mcrosby) (by me) It's a crest design that combines the nickname, the history of hockey in Ottawa, and adds a little modern flair.
  20. All very true. What I'm proposing is doing away with the name but keeping the colors. Those colors (navy, anyway), predate the Indians name. Besides, it's a way to soften the blow. North Dakota kept kelly green and black, while Marquette is still blue/yellow and Stanford maintains red/white (with green and black accents). The name can change, but the colors should remain. Teams don't usually throw away nearly a century of color continuity.
  21. I'd like a whole rebrand too, but I'm worried that changing the color scheme along with the name would alienate more people. Navy has been a part of the team's identity for almost 120 years, with red hanging around for 80 of them. I'd much rather see them put an accent color with the navy and red. Metallic gold, tan, silver, and light blue are all options. I'm going to disagree on two points. I think the outline is needed for a little added definition. I also maintain that navy caps and accessories should be reduced to alternate status, with red caps, socks, and accessories on the road. I never liked how Cleveland opted to drab up their colors on the road. Heck, red on the road is a fantastic look for them, and would look fantastic against fellow navy/red opponents like the Red Sox and Twins. I'd even advocate for dumping navy jerseys in favor of red ones, with the navy cap only coming out as a "clash kit" when they play the Angels or have interleague with the Cardinals, Nationals, Reds, and Phillies. The Indians are like the Cardinals in that their red options look so much more engaging than their navy ones. I get that the Indians have a huge history with being navy-centric/navy-red split, but going for more red with less navy would be a good way to break away from the past. I even suggested the red-centric (with navy secondary and light blue as an accent) in a redesign I did a while back. Those have key differences. The Yankees, Tigers, and A's use white logos on dark backgrounds. The Mets and Tigers can get away with non-outlined cap logos because of color theory. Since orange is on the opposite side of the color wheel from blue, the brain automatically separates the two shades. White outlines clutter the separation, as the Tigers and Mets found out. vs. The Indians' cap logo doesn't have these benefits (red isn't an opposite of navy on the color wheel), therefore it needs a white outline on a red background and a almost certainly a navy one as well (might make an exception).
  22. I'm implying a more thorough homage, with the double striping and maybe a Tuscan "Mets" script: Slap a white outline on the cap logo and you'd have my preferred Indians cap for both the home uniform and a redesigned road uniform. Let the Twins and Red Sox be the navy/red teams with navy caps, while Cleveland and the Angels rock the red. It's not like navy would be going away, as it'd still have a prominent role in the design (enough to differentiate them from the Reds).
  23. I'm not keen on the Mets ever entertaining the thought of black again. If they have to have an alternate, I wouldn't mind seeing the snow whites return: Those uniforms don't have the same appeal as the pinstripes, but they're a good "once in a while" set. Blue is fine by me for the Mets, but I wouldn't mind them adopting a version that had orange logos/lettering without outlines. It would be a better match for the cap logo. Heck, just stick the "NY" on the chest, and you'd be done. There are also several acceptable New York Baseball Giants/Brooklyn Dodgers uniforms they could imitate (in royal/orange, of course):
  24. Also, when dealing with 3-layer numbers, either use single-color NOB letters or a 3-layer condensed font. Drop shadows, on the other hand, should be left off most NOB’s: It just makes things look messy, even with a condensed font.
  25. Side note to the squatchee rule: it shouldn’t be a color that appears nowhere else on the cap. Compare the modern Phillies’ cap with the vintage ones.