• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by SFGiants58

  1. Zaza: Zaza, please get off of this team I kind of support. Is it bad that Team Four Star’s interpretation of Vegeta fits the Warriors to a T?
  2. Ah, it seems that New Historicism has found its way into sports discussions. I’m all for it! It’s an important literary theory that works for so many artistic and athletic applications. People are too willing to ignore or downplay the historical context of a work within critical fields. That’s how you get stupid comparisons between players who played in wildly different eras or comments like “if (insert modern logo here) came out in the ‘70s, you’d consider it a classic!” Here’s a car video, explaining it in more detail:
  3. I’ve found that there are some subsets within the A’s fandom that hate the Giants for different reasons: a. There are those who hate the Giants from stopping their move to San José (yes, A’s fans who wanted their team to leave Oakland). b. A few fans try to claim that all Giants fans are bandwagoners who don’t know anything about the game compared to A’s fans (that bandwagon thinned these past few years). c. Some just take potshots on every move the Giants make, even inconsequential ones. There’s obviously some overlap, but yeah, many A’s fans got really toxic towards the Giants since 2010. They were my AL team for some time, but I lost interest after I moved away for undergrad. It’s kind of sad seeing them try to brand themselves as the anti-Giants, given that the team in Chavez Ravine does a much better job at it.
  4. Most relocated teams do that.
  5. I’d say it’s excusable, given that maroon/powder is such an excellent color combination that’s underused in North American sports.
  6. Given that the photo day photos are used by most media outlets (e.g., Twitter, broadcasts, and official MLB publications) for player portraits, it could be Cleveland’s way to phasing out the last few bits of Wahoo’s presence in their media package.
  7. I'm not dismissing Ruth at all, but rather pointing out a potential point against him (e.g. Bonds and the steroid era, Aaron and the early expansion teams, etc.). He's probably the most important player for the sport in both strategic and promotional areas. His popularity enabling the majors to recover from the publicity nightmare that was the Black Sox scandal, and his clout fostered the international growth of the game. Read any number of the stories about Ruth's impact on the game in Japan, and it's a testament to his power.1 1Robert K. Fitts, Banzai Babe Ruth: Baseball, Espionage, and Assassination During the 1934 Tour of Japan (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2012).
  8. Ruth and Hutson played in smaller leagues and before integration. That's a notable point against them, compared to Gretzky (who played in the liveliest period of NHL scoring).
  9. I really wish the pants stripes were red/gold/red. While that’s inconsistent with the sleeve stripes, it at least gets some gold on the design outside of the helmet.
  10. I feel sorry for Nike on this one. They're clearly having to tow a line behind their (excellent) identity package from a few years back and Fleck's odd, self-aggrandizing demands. It's like dealing with an out-of-touch relative who is trying to "be cool" for his kids by copying outdated slang and playing pop music from five-ten years ago. Nike was put in a no-win scenario, and they did what they could with this doofus' demands and the university's athletic branding standards. I expect they'll be gone once Fleck is fired.
  11. I like your work, but I’m not pretentious about it. You’re just doing a good job promoting a sports team that identifies with the city of Miami, not making some profound statement about the nature of a bunch of football fans and their team of choice. It’s aesthetically pleasing, but don’t kid yourself about some “greater importance.” A “brand” may be a set of beliefs, but it’s ultimately a mission statement designed to sell a product. As for the boldest point, “chasing style” is starting with something, namely “someone did something, let’s imitate it while being ignorant of the circumstances that made it work.” History might revolve around ideas circulated by individuals and groups, but I’d hardly frame it as the creation of “brands.” Symbolism and imagery, maybe, divorced from the economic/marketing implications that the word “brand” conjures. I’m sorry that I’m not letting you off easy here, but everyone needs to have their convictions challenged once in a while. You’ve done it for me, and I thank you for it. Just don’t be flippant about professing “everything is branding,” ok?
  12. Sparking discussion is all well and good (seeing as how we're doing it now), but you didn't answer my question. Do you acknowledge that equating "branding" and nationalism has some unfortunate implications, and do you see history as more than just "branding?" Don't blow it off with some smiley. That's a little condescending to people who disagree with you.
  13. Meh, I guess it's ok to have a little fun in this regard. Just as long as you don't reduce the complex history to just "branding" and think critically about the implications of equating nationalism and branding, you should be good. Please tell me that you acknowledge some of the unfortunate implications of equating those two.
  14. It’s kind of a dangerous way of interpreting history, when you think about it. Reducing the founding of the United States to “creating a brand” is just equating nationalism and marketing. By that logic, you could argue that all sorts of nations “created a brand” through ideas, such as the oppression of minorities, physical territories, and religious ideologies. That’s a silly extension of “branding theory.” We historians have to take it seriously, and saying things like that misses so many nuances (e.g., the founders were hemorrhaging money from failed land speculation ventures and facing insurrection from urban workers). When people hear “creating a brand,” they will probably ignore the troubling undercurrents that brand may have. I really don’t want to bust your balls over this (you’re a really talented guy, and you’ve done wonders with the Dolphins’ branding and media presence), but ideas like the ones above are both flippant and a little anti-intellectual.
  15. So, in other terms: I like your work, but believing in a statement like that set you up perfectly for a Rick & Morty copypasta. You may think Bryan was being insightful, but I think it's cheesy and a little insulting to the nuances of the history. But that's just me as a historian.
  16. That would be @McCarthy's logo. It would be wise to ask him for permission first.
  17. Am I the only guy who thinks that this helmet should have been given the time of day for an ultra-modern redesign? I prefer the traditional white helmet, but this would have been a good way to mix things up.
  18. I’m a Sharks fan, and I believe that they’ve never had a top-notch look. While I like the first jersey set and color scheme (while also maintaining a soft spot for the fin set), I’ve never liked any of their logos. They’re either too cartoony, too dull, or just off-putting.
  19. Perfection! It’s generic trash, and I love generic trash more than something that’s quirky and fits with the team’s retro brand! Also, don’t forget that the Jets have to have the 1980s logo. We have to memorialize the look they wore when they were irrelevant/beyond terrible.
  20. The Spurs’ look depends on minimalism in the color scheme, with the black/silver/white color scheme. Dumping a bunch of pastels in it seemed like a half-hearted attempt at putting some “local color” into their look. It totally goes against the organizational philosophy under Popovich as well.
  21. Here’s the Diamondbacks’ 20th anniversary patch, with throwback dates!
  22. Striping consistency matters only when we say it matters. If the hegemon doesn’t want it, the hegemon will criticize it. Don’t you know we can’t stand consistency if we didn’t grow up with it?
  23. To be fair, Target Field is in Minneapolis. It kind of makes sense for the team to wear the road jersey of the St. Paul Saints while playing in Minneapolis. It’s still silly, but a little less silly when considering the nature of the Twin Cities and the historical Millers-Saints rivalry.