MLB 2016 Changes

[Wally1912]

The Tigers have added one large belt tunnel to the rear of the pants to show off the MLB logo.

 

 

 

[jp1409]

1 hour ago, Bill81361 said:

Take a close look at the numbers and see the sublimated Spring Training logos 

 

I totally hate the direction MLB uniforms are heading. Nearly every single new element for next season is a horrible break from what made MLB the best looking major pro sport by a country mile...

[mjd77]

12 hours ago, TVIXX said:

The Brewers will be going late 90's jerseys on July 30

 

I saw this yesterday.  At the time that set was in use, I didn't really like it much, but now in retrospect, I think that set is better than what they have now.  Still not too crazy about the interlocking MB logo though.

[TheOldRoman]

I like that Brewers set, but think the Brewers should always wear royal blue and yellow. That being said, that set would be improved by using Kelly green instead of forest green.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, mjd77 said:

 

I saw this yesterday.  At the time that set was in use, I didn't really like it much, but now in retrospect, I think that set is better than what they have now.  Still not too crazy about the interlocking MB logo though.

By the late 1990s, though, the MB logo was gone...at least from the hat/uniform.  The basic "M" hat was a thing of beauty.

 

(FWIW, the MB logo was awful...this did not become their best set until it was off the caps).

 

I do have some sentiment to agree with the OldRoman on royal and yellow.  It's not coming back to Seattle and someone ought to be wearing it.  So I could certainly deal with the Brewers being that team.  But in a vacuum, the late 1990s is my favorite.  

 

EDIT: I just saw that the above photo was part of the Brewers tweet about this. So they are going with the "MB" hat for the throwback?  Ick.  They missed a layup with that decision.

[dsaline97]

Here's a decent look at the Padres jersey, plus the Opening Day logo, if we hadn't seen it already, is unchanged. 

[SilverBullet1929]

On 2/15/2016 at 10:55 AM, Silent Wind of Doom said:

As for the Marlins ... When they revealed, they even had a wide array of uniforms, but they narrowed it down to orange and black.

 

Curious what you mean with this line...

 

When they revealed they had a white and a gray uniform along with a black alternate and an orange alternate. To this day they wear all four uniforms. The white probably the most as they use it for all weekday night home games. Last year they wore the road gray as much as, if not more than, the black alternate on the road.

 

The only uniform element they've straight up dropped is the orange cap (and the orange undershirt that was worn at most twice in the inaugural ballpark year).

[BrianLion]

46 minutes ago, dsaline97 said:

Here's a decent look at the Padres jersey, plus the Opening Day logo, if we hadn't seen it already, is unchanged. 

 

that's a bad photoshop job of adding yellow onto their set from last year.  the striping isnt even right. Here;s the actual new jersey from behind

. 

[hawk36]

33 minutes ago, BrianLion said:

 

that's a bad photoshop job of adding yellow onto their set from last year.  the striping isnt even right. Here;s the actual new jersey from behind

. 

I sure hope so. I really don't like the Easterish light yellow on the mock up but the love the stronger yellow seen in the jersey above.

[mjd77]

2 hours ago, TheOldRoman said:

I like that Brewers set, but think the Brewers should always wear royal blue and yellow. That being said, that set would be improved by using Kelly green instead of forest green.

 

The green in that set was kelly green, even though it's hard to tell at a distance.  There was also an alternate for the MB hat that had a kelly green bill.  That said...I also wish the royal/yellow would return full time, with the addition of cream.  If not cream, add some powder blue back into the mix.

 

[BJ Sands]

The White Sox spring uniforms use the 80s throwback font. Yet another sign a rebrand could be coming. 

 

 

 

[JayMac]

Rebrand? I really hope not. I think the White Sox have finally found its permanent look.

[SilverBullet1929]

Yeah there's no reason for a White Sox rebrand. Their look is so them and so solid that it can stay. With that said, their throwback stuff is so fun and quirky in a good way that it's a pretty welcome thing to pop up every now and then like in these ST unis. They kinda have the best of both worlds I'd say.

[FiddySicks]

Yeah, they better not ditch the awesome White Sex logo. 

[BJ Sands]

That logo is also their Twitter avatar and Facebook profile pic. It's getting a lot of push. 

[cmm]

4 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Since the Yankees seem to be prime suspect number one for that argument... I wish there was a way of going to a Yankee home game and polling every fan in attendance to see who can really identify all the players by number alone. I think the results would surprise us.

Especially since they had SIX different guys wear #40 last year.

 

I've said it before, but names and even more so front numbers are extremely useful in IDing players. And before you say you can just check the scoreboard or your phone to see who's on the field, remember people at the park have to ID those guys so the scoreboard and your phone are correct.

[TheOldRoman]

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Yeah there's no reason for a White Sox rebrand. Their look is so them and so solid that it can stay. With that said, their throwback stuff is so fun and quirky in a good way that it's a pretty welcome thing to pop up every now and then like in these ST unis. They kinda have the best of both worlds I'd say.

 

They have no reason to rebrand, but they have been chipping away at the classic uniforms for five years now. At this point I fully expect them to do something stupid like bring back the throwback crap fulltime. Also, the organization has made its fair share of bad decisions the last few years. It wouldn't be surprising to see them change in a desperate attempt to get people to care more about the on-field product after being upset that they had a gaping hole in RF, lots of money to spend, and a great market of available outfielders, but yet still went home holding their hats.

 

Also, those pants look awful. I don't think I'll ever get used to the batterman tramp stamp.

[Gothamite]

On 2/18/2016 at 11:25 PM, aawagner011 said:

IMO, all sports uniforms look better without the player names on the back. Unneeded and probably only there for merchandising.

 

Not originally.   They were designed to make players identifiable on television.  That was Bill Veeck in 1960. The AFL was the first league to institute it across all their teams, the following year.

 

But in baseball, the last teams adopted them in the early 1990s.  And yes, that was all about merchandising, as the jersey market was just beginning to boom.  That's why few teams are willing to take them off now.

[SilverBullet1929]

36 minutes ago, cmm said:

Especially since they had SIX different guys wear #40 last year.

 

Oh man you're so right... completely forgot that jersey numbers can change players in the same season. Even more reason to no longer use the "fans should know the players by their numbers" argument.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

35 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Not originally.   They were designed to make players identifiable on television.  That was Bill Veeck in 1960. The AFL was the first league to institute it across all their teams, the following year.

 

But in baseball, the last teams adopted them in the early 1990s.  And yes, that was all about merchandising, as the jersey market was just beginning to boom.  That's why few teams are willing to take them off now.

 

I have read that the cheapie Yankee t-shirts have the player's name as a means of ensuring that the player gets a cut of the sale revenue.  But I don't know how true that is, because Modell's and other sporting goods stores sell numbered Yankee jerseys with no names, the revenue from which is surely being divvied up appropriately with the players in question according to the agreements in place.

 

The sight of someone wearing a Yankee jersey that says "JETER 2" on the back is bad enough.  But when I see someone wearing a jersey lettered up to read "MANTLE 7" or even "RUTH 3" -- which I have actually seen, believe it or not -- I have to restrain myself from getting all in that person's face.  (If there were a uni jail, then these people would be the first ones thrown into it.)

Then there are the supposedly historic jerseys that are altered by the player's name.  I once saw a Cooperstown Collection Tom Seaver jersey that was meant to represent the 1969 Mets.  Except that it had a name.  Egregious.

And, while I have never followed college basketball, I am pretty sure that Michael Jordan never had his name on his jersey at North Carolina, unlike the blue North Carolina no. 23 jerseys being sold to the public. [EDIT: Yes, he did.  Correction below.]