Bucfan56

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

To be fair, those pictures are from a different time and some may argue that the NOB today are more professional. I for one, don't really mind jerseys with names or ones without the names in general, but some teams look better with the names and some look better without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, as a value-conscience fan; wouldn't you rather have a nameless jersey that can be worn for years without looking outdated? For the Yankees, if I had a Mariano Duncan jersey 20 years ago it turned into a Scott Brosius jersey, then a Johnny Damon jersey, or a Hiroki Kuroda jersey, and now a Didi Gregorius jersey. Just for arguments sake, how many Mets fans bought a Jason Bay jersey and are embarrassed to ever wear it again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gehrig27 said:

Plus, as a value-conscience fan; wouldn't you rather have a nameless jersey that can be worn for years without looking outdated? For the Yankees, if I had a Mariano Duncan jersey 20 years ago it turned into a Scott Brosius jersey, then a Johnny Damon jersey, or a Hiroki Kuroda jersey, and now a Didi Gregorius jersey. Just for arguments sake, how many Mets fans bought a Jason Bay jersey and are embarrassed to ever wear it again?

Any Mets fan with half a brain never bought a Jason Bay jersey to begin with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Any Mets fan with half a brain never bought a Jason Bay jersey to begin with...

LOL, true...I did say for arguments sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of Yankees fans wearing jerseys with names on the back. That looks unprofessional...on a yankees jersey. Everyone looks unprofessional without one. 

 

This is baseball's gray facemask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll toss my opinion into the slowly-forming maelstrom here...

 

I like both NOB and non-NOB styles, but I think non-NOB needs some kind of qualifier for existence. The team has to be: A. Old enough, B. Have a look that has barely changed from the 1950's or 1960's, C. Understand that numbers must be re-sized in order for the look to work. The Yankees, Red Sox (home), and Giants (home) meet all these qualifiers, and I would like it if more "classic" teams properly did the non-NOB on their home uniforms (like the Cubs and the Dodgers). It looks wrong for any of the 1990's expansion teams or teams with more modern-looking uniforms (i.e. Blue Jays, Nationals, Padres, etc.) to do non-NOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

I'll toss my opinion into the slowly-forming maelstrom here...

 

I like both NOB and non-NOB styles, but I think non-NOB needs some kind of qualifier for existence. The team has to be: A. Old enough, B. Have a look that has barely changed from the 1950's or 1960's, C. Understand that numbers must be re-sized in order for the look to work. The Yankees, Red Sox (home), and Giants (home) meet all these qualifiers, and I would like it if more "classic" teams properly did the non-NOB on their home uniforms (like the Cubs and the Dodgers). It looks wrong for any of the 1990's expansion teams or teams with more modern-looking uniforms (i.e. Blue Jays, Nationals, Padres, etc.) to do non-NOB.

I would say that the Blue Jays would look better, or at least very good, with NNOB. My reasoning for this is is that they have the history for it, starting in the 1970s, and also that it removes the contract between single layer names and the white interrupted numbers on back.

 

In general, I'm a fan of NNOB at home and NOB on the road. Also, I think either style works as well as the design is done well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see NNOB, I think High School/College/Minor League team that can't afford to put NOB or uses the same jerseys every year without getting new ones. I'm perfectly fine with a few professional teams going NNOB, but not all of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gehrig27 said:

Plus, as a value-conscience fan; wouldn't you rather have a nameless jersey that can be worn for years without looking outdated? For the Yankees, if I had a Mariano Duncan jersey 20 years ago it turned into a Scott Brosius jersey, then a Johnny Damon jersey, or a Hiroki Kuroda jersey, and now a Didi Gregorius jersey. Just for arguments sake, how many Mets fans bought a Jason Bay jersey and are embarrassed to ever wear it again?

 

What's wrong with repping your favorite player anyways? I swear this board gets really weird about wearing jerseys in public. It's an odd phenomenon. No one cares if you wear a jersey with a name, without a name, with a shirt, without a shirt, doesn't matter. Although I will personally admit that I almost bought a Jamarcus Russell jersey years ago. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

 

What's wrong with repping your favorite player anyways? I swear this board gets really weird about wearing jerseys in public. It's an odd phenomenon. No one cares if you wear a jersey with a name, without a name, with a shirt, without a shirt, doesn't matter. Although I will personally admit that I almost bought a Jamarcus Russell jersey years ago. :mad:

Nothing at all. What I meant was that with the prices of jerseys being what they are, in my opinion I would think people would like the fact that a NNOB jersey has more legs so to speak in who you're representing; whether that's a favorite player or a big-time free agent bust, because it can transfer over to any player (in some cases multiple favorites) wearing that number.

 

I have nothing against NOB, I am not repulsed or sickened at the sight of them in any way. My personal preference however, is for NNOB, but I understand the arguments for both sides. As has been suggested before; I wouldn't mind seeing classic franchises with NNOB at home and NOB on the road...It just has to be done properly and would at least be the best of both worlds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:
Exactly.  Any softball or little league team can get names printed up on a t-shirt.

Very true, but 99% of them don't.. That requires additional funds, forethought, planning, coordination, cooperation, and time to accomplish the task of uniformly adding NOB to an entire little league team or rec softball team, which is why most just choose not to do it.. Professional teams have the resources available to do it chocolate to do it properly.. For me, growing up, I always saw rec league teams, middle school teams, high school teams, small college teams, and even some big college teams all going NNOB out of necessity (low funds, no turnaround time, reusing jerseys year-to-year), so it always looked cheap(er) to me.. You turn on the tv to watch a major college team our professional team, and they usually have NOB, because they have the resources to do so.. 

For this reason, NOB will generally always look more professional to me than "NNOB" (I'll buy the "team over individual" argument when star players start demanding salary cuts so everyone on the team makes the exact same amount of money).. Sure, for a team like the Yankees, NNOB is probably the way to go, but those instances are few and far between imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never understood the argument that NOB is unprofessional because any softball or little league team can get names printed on a shirt.

 

Any little league, softball, or beer league team can get a Yankee logo printed on a t-shirt so is that now an unprofessional logo?

 

Is anything that a little league team can buy or pay to have done considered unprofessional for a major league sports team?

 

Please explain that logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 The fact of the matter is that names come off as a classless celebration of self when compared to the cleanness of no name.

 

This is absolutely 100% an opinion, there isn't a single way to prove this. And just to be clear, I love that you have this opinion and this is the beauty of this board. But with that disclaimer let me proceed...

 

One can also argue that NNOB is a classless demeaning of a player's personality and individuality. Players in a sport are not meant to be duplicates of each other. Different positions, different skills, different roles, different contributions to the success of the team. I see the idea of NNOB meaning you are part of the team and not an individual more like the branding of cattle, like a barcode on an item on the grocery store shelf, even to the tattooing of numbers on Holocaust victims (with all due respect)... like if the individuality of the player doesn't matter one bit. Like if team owners said "Ahh, it doesn't matter what your name is! Just hit the ball! Nobody cares who you are!"

 

To me, for a uniform to be a classless celebration of the player, the player would have to have their name across the front of their uniform and the team name on the back or nowhere at all. There's a reason the team name and/or logo is across the chest and the name is on the back: team name comes first and player name comes second. I don't see how having NOB suddenly puts the player before the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a team from the olden days wears NNOB with a classic uniform, it looks classic and timeless. If, say, the Marlins were to suddenly go NNOB, or if the D-backs' new set was NNOB, it would make their looks cheap and minor-league. It's all mere perception and context, and any garbage about NOB being a "classless celebration of self" is best left for the Murray Chass crowd, never meant to be read in a digital medium.

 

By the way, Major League Baseball has no interest whatsoever in you being a "value-conscious" consumer. That's why Yankees jerseys get the unnecessary NOB - planned obsolescence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NNOB looks unprofessional if the number is in the same place that it would be if there was a NOB.

 

If the number is made bigger or raised up, then it looks fine.

 

I typically prefer NOB because I have no idea who 90% of the players that I'm watching are if they don't play for the local team (and this year, I have no idea who 90% of the players on the Phillies even are.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sodboy13 said:

If a team from the olden days wears NNOB with a classic uniform, it looks classic and timeless. If, say, the Marlins were to suddenly go NNOB, or if the D-backs' new set was NNOB, it would make their looks cheap and minor-league. It's all mere perception and context.

165599_reds_marlins_baseball.jpgHanley+Ramirez+Houston+Astros+v+Miami+Ma

1397627081000-6.jpg

 

sports-k_2268_27148027myzU-X5ViHIS6eVbmNw01Gw.jpgMP10001127193_P255075_500X500.jpg

So basically all of these pictures would look bad and/or wrong to all of us because of what we're used to and our perceptions in general. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

NNOB looks unprofessional if the number is in the same place that it would be if there was a NOB.

 

If the number is made bigger or raised up, then it looks fine.

 

I typically prefer NOB because I have no idea who 90% of the players that I'm watching are if they don't play for the local team (and this year, I have no idea who 90% of the players on the Phillies even are.)

 

Yes. I found myself at Jackie Robinson games 3 years in a row and it was so annoying and the jerseys all look goofy without names.  

 

If I go to a minor league game I don't care who the first baseman for the Fort Wayne Tincaps is. The jerseys typically don't have names and that's fine because I'm not there to see players. I'm there to enjoy an afternoon in the sun and catch a game.  If I go to a major league game same thing, but I'm also there to see players and I want to know their names without having to look at a program like it's f****** 1986. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't condemn the celebration of self, nor do I dislike the players who get criticised for that.  When Reggie Jackson came to the Yankees, it was the wonderful (despite the fact that he initially rubbed my favourite player, Thurman Munson, the wrong way).  Reggie was the biggest hot dog, and he got a lot of grief from the backward-minded hacks who wrote for papers. His being a hot dog did not clash at all with his uniform having no name on the back.

ny_top20_openers_12.jpg

 

The whole thing is down to what looks classic.  When you are a kid and you see the old clips, you cannot help but note that Joe D. and Ted Williams had no names on their uniforms.  And then you see the clips from the 60s, and you start to see names appear; so you notice that, from the purely aesthetic standpoint, the NNOB style is clean, while the NOB style is cluttered.  These looks have implications: NNOB is dignified; NOB is crass.  

This perception is furthered when you live through seeing a team ruin its beautiful uniform by adding names, as the Mets did in 1979.  At first they added them only to the road jerseys, in keeping with what was then a National Leauge rule. (The Cubs also had names only on the road at the time, for the same reason.)  Then they put them on at home.   This was after they had already ruined the great jersey seen on Seaver above by changing it in 1978 to a two-button pullover with needless stripes on the collar and the sleeves.

 

0608.jpg

 

Then in 1982 came the epitome of crass, the awful racing stripe and full pullover, which debuted that year on the road uniform and moved to the home uniform in 1983.

 

The Mets went, in just a few years, from looking like dignified adults to looking like children in onesies.  There is no way to deny the plunge in the aesthetic:


 pitcher-tom-seaver-of-the-new-york-mets-   50803929-tom-seaver-of-the-new-york-mets

 

 

The addition of names is part of that plunge, even emblematic of it.  

 

The question has nothing to do with old-fashioned teams versus newfangled teams.  The uniforms of even a latter-day team such as the Blue Jays looked good with no names: 

 

 

doug-rader-of-the-toronto-blue-jays-bats

 

 

So, in the end, regardless of all rationalisations, the NNOB style will forever remain the classic epitome of professionalism, while the NOB style will always come off as cheesy and inelegant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm starting to wonder how much of this debate is simply a matter of age and what jerseys you grew up watching in your youth. Not that I'm a teenager, I'm in my 30's, but age could very well matter in terms of opinion towards NOB or NNOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.