MLB Changes 2015

[Tigers6884]

Giants are set to announce this tomorrow, but thought I'd leave this here...

worst world series champs jersey yet

These are undoubtedly the best:

[guest23]

I so wish they would wear those for just one game...

[BBTV]

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.

I don'tk now if it's a "lot" of pride, but 1) it's synonymous with our city history so "city pride" == "revolutionary role" (sorta), and 2) even being the 4th biggest city/area in the US (and growing), we're sandwiched and many times overshadowed by NYC and DC, so it's one of those "at least we got that going for us" kind of things (to some people - not to me.)

As far as Arizona being part of Mexico, Texas not deveoping the same way, etc., maybe in this alternate history, Mexico becomes a major power due to it's ability to control what is now the western states. Things could have unfolded a million different ways and I'm not educated enough to speculate on what could have been - just that if I was a kid in Utah, I might have a hard time understanding how Paul Revere has anything to do with me.

Anyway, that's for another thread (or not). I'll get back on topic now...

[guest23]

Growing up out west, our US history curriculum did an absolutely thorough job of emphasizing the role of the northeast and the role colonies & framers. From what I remember it was to the point where we spent a way disproportional amount of time learning the minuscule details of the formation of the union as opposed to balancing things out a bit more so we could actually learn something about the country's history post civil war.

Conversely I could argue that northeast culture is much more provincial and so narrow focused they are somewhat ignorant of the rest of the country's history.

Back to sports. At what point did fans start thinking that a franchise's history was somehow more beholden to a municipality or the fans? The whole point of a franchise is that it's a single private entity with it's own lineage that is continually adding to it's history independent of location of new fans being born and old fans dying off.

[FiddySicks]

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.

OF COURSE people in the west who are into history care about Washington and Franklin and the likes. Even if they were thousands of miles away, they basically laid the foundation for how the western states came to be in the first place. I'd even argue that in some ways, the history of the founding fathers and the dawn of the country are even more important to learn out west because we're not surrounded by it like those in the east coast are. It may be a bit harder to grasp, and that's why every history class I ever took, even while getting my history degree in college from a western school, put such a strong emphasis on it.

One thing the west really puts a strong emphasis on, though (and I'm assuming everywhere does this), is the history of the states and the surrounding area. It's interesting because it's SO different from the rest of the country, and there aren't many people who really know some of the stories that led to the creation of the west. For example, growing up in the Sierra Nevadas the focus was always on guys like Kit Carson, John C Fremont, the Donner Party, Mark Twain, and others who contributed to the westward movement of the country both literally and culturally. Arizona focused on strong historical figures like.... I dunno, Berry Goldwater, I guess?

Point is, early US history is very important to the west because it's what led to the very existence of western US history.

[BBTV]

Growing up out west, our US history curriculum did an absolutely thorough job of emphasizing the role of the northeast and the role colonies & framers. From what I remember it was to the point where we spent a way disproportional amount of time learning the minuscule details of the formation of the union as opposed to balancing things out a bit more so we could actually learn something about the country's history post civil war.

Conversely I could argue that northeast culture is much more provincial and so narrow focused they are somewhat ignorant of the rest of the country's history.

Back to sports. At what point did fans start thinking that a franchise's history was somehow more beholden to a municipality or the fans? The whole point of a franchise is that it's a single private entity with it's own lineage that is continually adding to it's history independent of location of new fans being born and old fans dying off.

That is not an inaccurate statement.

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.

OF COURSE people in the west who are into history care about Washington and Franklin and the likes. Even if they were thousands of miles away, they basically laid the foundation for how the western states came to be in the first place. I'd even argue that in some ways, the history of the founding fathers and the dawn of the country are even more important to learn out west because we're not surrounded by it like those in the east coast are. It may be a bit harder to grasp, and that's why every history class I ever took, even while getting my history degree in college from a western school, put such a strong emphasis on it.

One thing the west really puts a strong emphasis on, though (and I'm assuming everywhere does this), is the history of the states and the surrounding area. It's interesting because it's SO different from the rest of the country, and there aren't many people who really know some of the stories that led to the creation of the west. For example, growing up in the Sierra Nevadas the focus was always on guys like Kit Carson, John C Fremont, the Donner Party, Mark Twain, and others who contributed to the westward movement of the country both literally and culturally. Arizona focused on strong historical figures like.... I dunno, Berry Goldwater, I guess?

Point is, early US history is very important to the west because it's what led to the very existence of western US history.

I hadn't thought of it like that. I look at them only in the revolutionary sense, not so much for manifest destiny and for providing the framework that allowed the west to develop as it did (though I figured that was much later... but all I know about is the northeast!)

[Jungle Jim]

Giants are set to announce this tomorrow, but thought I'd leave this here...

worst world series champs jersey yet

These are undoubtedly the best:

Sorely lacking in the modesty department. Make no mistake, WE ARE THE WORLD'S CHAMPIONS!

[Tigers6884]

Giants are set to announce this tomorrow, but thought I'd leave this here...

worst world series champs jersey yet

These are undoubtedly the best:

Sorely lacking in the modesty department. Make no mistake, WE ARE THE WORLD'S CHAMPIONS!

[BBTV]

That's great though - major league baseball has for decades now been rather conservative, with the exception of some of the uniform experimentation of the 70s. I think it could use some outlandish over-the-top stunts like this. Every contest is better when there's a heel - and if one team is wearing uniforms like that, then they're the heel in 29 of 30 cities!

Only thing I don't like is rookies or new players wearing something to represent an accomplishment that wasn't theirs - but I could look past that if it got us jerseys like that.

[The_Admiral]

The problem I have with the Giants' alts is that I don't think teams should render their name in two different uniform scripts. It's the same problem as the Cubs' horrendous road alts.

[Packid]

The problem I have with the Giants' alts is that I don't think teams should render their name in two different uniform scripts. It's the same problem as the Cubs' horrendous road alts.

I completely agree. What do you think about the fact that the main Giants wordmark is in a different typeface than the road San Francisco wordmark?

[johnnysama]

I like how the Angels have ditched the black shoes and belts for red ones. It just looks much better how the team is now color-coordinated.

[jws008]

The problem I have with the Giants' alts is that I don't think teams should render their name in two different uniform scripts. It's the same problem as the Cubs' horrendous road alts.

I completely agree. What do you think about the fact that the main Giants wordmark is in a different typeface than the road San Francisco wordmark?

Actually, the city name on a road uniform and team name on a home uniform have often been in different typefaces. To name two examples, the Red Sox (for much of their history), and the Mets (in their best sets). Heck, you can argue that the Yankees logo on the home pinstripes is a different typeface than the New York on their roads.

[guest23]

The problem I have with the Giants' alts is that I don't think teams should render their name in two different uniform scripts. It's the same problem as the Cubs' horrendous road alts.

I completely agree. What do you think about the fact that the main Giants wordmark is in a different typeface than the road San Francisco wordmark?

Actually, the city name on a road uniform and team name on a home uniform have often been in different typefaces. To name two examples, the Red Sox (for much of their history), and the Mets (in their best sets). Heck, you can argue that the Yankees logo on the home pinstripes is a different typeface than the New York on their roads.

It almost seems more traditional for the road uni to have the city name in a nondescript font. I have to think the origins of said tradition simply being for legibility and a bit of apathy toward the road uniform where team management would use whatever styles the manufacturer had readily available.

[BBTV]

The problem I have with the Giants' alts is that I don't think teams should render their name in two different uniform scripts. It's the same problem as the Cubs' horrendous road alts.

I completely agree. What do you think about the fact that the main Giants wordmark is in a different typeface than the road San Francisco wordmark?

Actually, the city name on a road uniform and team name on a home uniform have often been in different typefaces. To name two examples, the Red Sox (for much of their history), and the Mets (in their best sets). Heck, you can argue that the Yankees logo on the home pinstripes is a different typeface than the New York on their roads.

It almost seems more traditional for the road uni to have the city name in a nondescript font. I have to think the origins of said tradition simply being for legibility and a bit of apathy toward the road uniform where team management would use whatever styles the manufacturer had readily available.

right, but when the home font is so close to the plain road font, they tend to clash.

That's one of the (many) reasons that the Twins look like such garbage now - the home and road are kinda similar, but different.

[sportstar1212]

I'm torn regarding the Giants road wordmark. I would like it to match the home, but at the same time, "San Francisco" is already a bit long and clunky on the jersey, and I feel like the serifs would make it even worse.

Now that I think about it, I'd rather they just go with the road alt, which solves that problem.

[krunyan]

I don't understand why EVERY team needs stripes whenever somebody wants to wear stirrups/socks. A's look awesome with just the green stirrups and gold sanitary socks. Not to mention Hahn(P) is wearing different stripes than already shown Eric Sogard(2b).

Example:

[The Golden One]

Yea, it would be nice with the A's matched. But guess this is what happens when players just get them themselves. Not sure where Hahn got his. But with Sonny's last night. He said Sogard gave them before the season to him and he told them he would wear them for one game. But after the one hitter he will do it again now. Butler also wore them in the bay bridge series over the weekend.

[phutmasterflex]

I wrote a blog post about all the different A's socks that have been worn in the past several seasons

http://butattheendoftheday.com/2015/04/07/a-look-at-the-recent-history-of-the-oakland-athletics-socks/

It's a lot of different options. Standard solid gold, high stirrups, stirrups with logos, mismatching green stirrups and the two we've seen from the past two games.

[The Golden One]

I wrote a blog post about all the different A's socks that have been worn in the past several seasons

http://butattheendoftheday.com/2015/04/07/a-look-at-the-recent-history-of-the-oakland-athletics-socks/

It's a lot of different options. Standard solid gold, high stirrups, stirrups with logos, mismatching green stirrups and the two we've seen from the past two games.

Gotta keep an eye out if Hahn says where he got his. Because Sogard found the the striped socks he and Sonny wore. (Also seen on Billy Butler couple days ago) But I also remember when Rajai started wearing his. I believe he found them and asked the A's to get them for him.