MLB Changes 2015

[rxmc89]

MLB should have a rule - no alternate jerseys on opening day.

[Cujo]

The D-Backs are going with matte helmets for 2015.

[jrodsep]

MLB should have a rule - no alternate jerseys on opening day and more than twice a week.

FYP

[jp1409]

MLB should have a rule - no alternate jerseys on opening day and more than twice a week.

FYP

This...

[sportstar1212]

Yeah, the trend of alts has gotten completely out of control in baseball. It ain't an alternate if it's worn just as often- if not more than the primaries.

[aawagner011]

I dig the Pirates new lids but don't like those DBacks ones.

[jrodsep]

MLB should have a rule - no alternate jerseys on opening day and more than twice a week.

FYP

This...

And special occasion uniforms (Throwbacks, Negro Leagues, Fauxbacks, Heritage, etc.) only once a month.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

It's a matter of the magnitude of the franchise. The Giants, with eight World Championships in their history, now can say that only two teams (the Yankees and the Cardinals) have more titles. That's a huge point of pride. And the team dates back to the 1880s; again, a huge point of pride. The Braves recently showed a similar pride when they unveiled some logo item (I forget exactly what it was) that alluded to the franchise's founding in 1876.

To my mind, this tendency to embrace the entire history of the team is 100% laudible; there's no balancing act at all. The Giants are an old team with many World Championships; and acknowledging this is the right thing to do. It's right from the standpoint of history; and it's right because it increases the prestige of the team.

Actually it's 3.. A's have 9 championships

Oops! How could I have overlooked that? Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, the larger point stands: that there is a growing sense of embracing of the team's entire history on the part of the Giants. The Giants are one continuous entity, as are the Braves and the A's; each of those teams is one entity every bit as much as the Yankees and the Cardinals are, notwithstanding any moves.

Of course no one around today rooted for Christy Mathewson. That isn't the point. The point is that, when you have a culture in which the importance of history is acknowledged, a young kid who has become a Giant fan and who then learns about Matty and about John McGraw will understand that those guys belong to his team.

When I as a Yankee fan growing up in the 1970s began learning about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, I felt that I was learning the history of my team, that these were "my guys". This, despite the fact that the Babe came to my team before my parents were born, and before my grandparents had even arrived in this country. It still was my team that I was reading about. Every Giant fan deserves to feel that same pleasure of discovery in getting to know the long, rich history of his/her team, that same pleasure that we Yankee fans felt as we got to know the history of ours.

It's not necessary for a person living now to have been there personally to see the historical events in question; and it's not necessary for the team to have played in its current town. When a respect for history is transmitted as a cultural value, a young fan internalises it; the historically-minded fan then understands that the things that happened before his/her lifetime are important. For the Yankees and their fans this is second nature; the Giants seem to be understanding this more and more, and to be promoting this view of the team.

Do people from Western states go around thinking that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are irrelevant to them because their states weren't part of the U.S. at the time that these men lived? Of course not.

So, just as a person from California can regard Washington and Franklin as important figures in the history of his/her country, so can a Giant fan regard Carl Hubble and Frankie Frisch as important figures in the history of his/her team. Kudos to the Giants for promoting this view.

[Sport]

Another reason matte finish sucks - the color is often not quite right.

Those are DIamondbacks helmets are f******* red.

[TheOldRoman]

It's actually a beautiful and classic wordmark that goes back to the 1940s.

The Giants have always been great at acknowledging the entire history of the franchise. First, they put "NY" for Christy Mathewson and Mel Ott alongside their retired numbers. And the recent spate of World Championships has seemed to deepen the organisation's sense of its own history, as evidenced by the trips to New York as part of the tours of their World Series trophies.

The team's use of its classic wordmark on this uniform clearly arises from the same praiseworth impulse to span its whole grand history. This pleases me as a historically-minded person and as a New Yorker.

That said, I think that the wordmark should be in the team's normal colours, not in gold.

I know that logo dates back to New York, but the only time it was used on their jerseys, to my knowledge, was in the '70s. It's fine on its own, but it's a downgrade from their traditional wordmark. Furthermore, the current wordmark is a modified version of the one they used in New York, so it does far more to pay homage to their history than a wordmark which only appeared on their uniforms for a few years in San Francisco.

I could live with the Giants putting that wordmark on the BP jerseys as they have done, but since it's a downgrade from the current stuff and doesn't match the current set, it shouldn't appear anywhere on their game uniforms. The Giants didn't put it on their orange jerseys to pay homage to the New York years (or even the '70s), they did it because they had already sold a bunch of orange alternates and wanted to sell a bunch more with a different wordmark on it. My point was however you feel about the opening day jerseys, I don't think claiming they used that wordmark to honor the past while celebrating a year in which they didn't wear that wordmark holds water.

[Gold Pinstripes]

It's a matter of the magnitude of the franchise. The Giants, with eight World Championships in their history, now can say that only two teams (the Yankees and the Cardinals) have more titles. That's a huge point of pride. And the team dates back to the 1880s; again, a huge point of pride. The Braves recently showed a similar pride when they unveiled some logo item (I forget exactly what it was) that alluded to the franchise's founding in 1876.

To my mind, this tendency to embrace the entire history of the team is 100% laudible; there's no balancing act at all. The Giants are an old team with many World Championships; and acknowledging this is the right thing to do. It's right from the standpoint of history; and it's right because it increases the prestige of the team.

Actually it's 3.. A's have 9 championships

Oops! How could I have overlooked that? Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, the larger point stands: that there is a growing sense of embracing of the team's entire history on the part of the Giants. The Giants are one continuous entity, as are the Braves and the A's; each of those teams is one entity every bit as much as the Yankees and the Cardinals are, notwithstanding any moves.

Of course no one around today rooted for Christy Mathewson. That isn't the point. The point is that, when you have a culture in which the importance of history is acknowledged, a young kid who has become a Giant fan and who then learns about Matty and about John McGraw will understand that those guys belong to his team.

When I as a Yankee fan growing up in the 1970s began learning about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, I felt that I was learning the history of my team, that these were "my guys". This, despite the fact that the Babe came to my team before my parents were born, and before my grandparents had even arrived in this country. It still was my team that I was reading about. Every Giant fan deserves to feel that same pleasure of discovery in getting to know the long, rich history of his/her team, that same pleasure that we Yankee fans felt as we got to know the history of ours.

It's not necessary for a person living now to have been there personally to see the historical events in question; and it's not necessary for the team to have played in its current town. When a respect for history is transmitted as a cultural value, a young fan internalises it; the historically-minded fan then understands that the things that happened before his/her lifetime are important. For the Yankees and their fans this is second nature; the Giants seem to be understanding this more and more, and to be promoting this view of the team.

Do people from Western states go around thinking that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are irrelevant to them because their states weren't part of the U.S. at the time that these men lived? Of course not.

So, just as a person from California can regard Washington and Franklin as important figures in the history of his/her country, so can a Giant fan regard Carl Hubble and Frankie Frisch as important figures in the history of his/her team. Kudos to the Giants for promoting this view.

Respect your opinion, but since we're all Americans, folks from the western states will automatically embrace our political figures, sports are different because of the many rooting interests. Yes, if a younger fan takes the time, they can learn about an historical player, but it's still different when it's not the same city or area. Carl Hubble and Frankie Frisch just don't have anything to do with the SF Giants, and I've never seen any data to suggest interest in obsolete teams surge as the years go by. It simply isn't happening, and we won't be seeing those throwback jerseys in SF anytime soon. Never said a person had to actually see all the historical events themselves, but baseball is a generational sport, and those stories are passed down in that particular region. Legions of young St. Louis fans have a connection with Stan Musial in this way, and it's a 180 difference in San Franscico and Mel Ott. The NY Giants aren't irrlevant, just a separate entity to the SF Giants, it's one of the costs of relocation. Continous teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Reds, Pirates, etc. just have more tradition than the SF Giants, and legions more fans with that historical connection, it's not even close.

I would agree with you the city/region is not important when those names aren't linked with teams, but that day will never arrive. Respect your NY area Yankee history, but we are comparing apples to oranges here, and the number of NY Giants followers will inevitably decrease in time. The small number of San Francisco fans will a generational NY Giant link will also inevitably decrease as the years roll by. And if it wasn't for Willie Mays, the level of interest would be even smaller in the late NY Giants. We just can't suggest transplanted teams with different experiences, different areas, and different fans have the same tradition as continous teams.

Wrapping up, we just can't deny these differences exist. Someone is free to say the Giants have "X" titles, but where is the meaning in that statement? The number of historical fans of transplanted teams is tiny, and will continue to go south in time. I would bet everything I own if the fans at the next SF Giants home game took a NY Giants test, they would fail. Ditto for the Braves and A's. There's simply no evidence of a growing embrace from transplanted cities of the old city. The current Giants and Braves are just looking up at more traditional NL teams, and even the hated LA Dodgers have been more successful. The passage of time just isn't kind for these late teams. When you stop playing, all that's left is memories, and those memories are diminished with relocation.

[The SHOW]

I think the alternate should only be worn on Sunday and holidays like Memorials, 4th of July and Labor Day

[phutmasterflex]

It's not that cold.

[Sport]

Posted for those with stirrup hard-ons.

Also, the M's new uniforms looked great on TV.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Watching Diamondbacks-Giants and the first base coach helmet is still shiny. Weird seeing them side by side with the matte.

Looked pink in the pic here, but I guess it looks "right" on TV. I think matte works for older teams like the Pirates -- although wearing them with the black uni so much might negate that.

[Jungle Jim]

The Reds jerseys look pretty good with the All-Star game logo.

I'm not a big fan of the mini ASG logo on the sides of the hats. Will that be there all year? Have past AllStar hosts had the logo on their hats the whole season?

The logos on the caps got old before today's game was even over. Really don't look forward to seeing them for 161 more games. It's overkill, but hey, gotta sell everyone another 59Fifty, right?

Another reason matte finish sucks - the color is often not quite right.

Those are DIamondbacks helmets are f******* red.

I do not like the matte helmets AT ALL. So far, both the Pirates and Dbacks look like they were sprayed with primer and never finished. I hope this is short-lived, but something tells me it will spread to several other teams first.

[altosax29b]

This is off-topic but hopefully an Angels fan or someone else can answer. Can someone explain why the Angels changed from a gold halo to a silver halo on their primary in 1993? I've been trying to find an answer but nothing's coming up. I see people clamor for a return to the gold (which I agree with) but I can't figure out why they changed in the first place.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The old caps that the 1993 unis were paying tribute to used to have large silver halos on them?

[BBTV]

Do people from Western states go around thinking that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are irrelevant to them because their states weren't part of the U.S. at the time that these men lived? Of course not.

So, just as a person from California can regard Washington and Franklin as important figures in the history of his/her country, so can a Giant fan regard Carl Hubble and Frankie Frisch as important figures in the history of his/her team. Kudos to the Giants for promoting this view.

I've never thought this before - but do people who grew up in newer states that weren't a "thing" (sorry!) back in the colonial days really spend as much time learning about those guys, or would it be more about local historical figures that might have more relevance? Obviously there's basic US history that everyone learns, but I've kind of always taken for granted that Ben Franklin and George Washington and those others were always at the forefront of every American's schooling, but honestly does anyone in Alaska really care about Washington crossing the Delaware? Or Ben Franklin for anything other than his inventions? Or Texas, or AZ for example - do people born and raised there really feel any kind of connection to people or events that had no immediate impact on their home regions? Obviously what we know as the United States (including what is now Texas, AZ, and Alaska) would be much different today had the colonies remained under British control, but I doubt anyone in Alaska was even aware that there was a war taking place, and even if they were, I doubt that they thought it impacted them in even the slightest way, and I would expect (possibly incorrectly) that being tought about the US founding fathers would just be another thing you have to learn, not anything that actually resonates, as opposed to learning about them in a former colony or state/territory that was around back then.

[TheOldRoman]

It seems like Philly has a lot of pride about its revolutionary role. Boston too, with the celebration of Patriots' Day among other things. But while the east coast schools might spend a little more time on local history via the revolution, I think Franklin and Washington are revered all across the country. I mean, I'm Chicago-ish, and the city wasn't even formed until sixty years after the revolution. Still, we have the same appreciation of historical significance, I think. Like you said, if not for America becoming a nation, Arizona would still be part of Mexico, Texas may have never gotten independence or developed the same way, and Chicago would have been either Indian or French controlled. As for Alaska, from my experience the huge majority of the population moved there from other mainland states, so I think they'd be in the same boat.