FiddySicks

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The bit about the series in Montreal was just a flight of fancy; I don't actually expect them to do that.  (Though I do think that such an event would be a sellout, and would cause a media frenzy that would bring the franchise a great deal of goodwill.)  But a Canada Day game at Toronto, wearing Expos uniforms, is eminently doable. 

 

Yeah, no. If anything, it puts salt in the wound, reminding most of the Expos' fanbase (who mostly live outside of Quebec, thank you Bill 101) of what they lost. This is why the Rangers only threw back to the Senators twice before the Nationals arrived, and did so against a team that had no significant connection to the old Senators (the A's).1 If the Rangers had worn Senators throwbacks against the Orioles (when they were the only Beltway/DC Metro Area team), then it would be the same difficult situation of the Nationals dressing up as the Expos in Toronto for Canada Day.

 

1 William F Henderson, “Texas Rangers,” in Game Worn Guide to MLB Jerseys: (1970-­‐2015) Seventh Edition, 7th ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Aardvark Publishing, 2015), 2070-71.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2016 at 7:18 AM, AusGiant said:

They've been pretty inaccurate regarding All-Star game unis for a while now. Check out this trailer for the 2012 game. It shows a majority gold Uni for the National League for the 2012 all star game in KC, something that never existed outside of the game. 

 

I think the trailer shows an early build of the game which would make sense that MLB didn't have a style guide ready for the ASG at that time.

 

Here's a gameplay from the final build, shows accurate jerseys of the 2012 BP jerseys:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WSU151 said:

I noticed this the other day, when the O's were playing the Red Sox.  I thought it might be the shadows or the lighting...but indeed it was matte.  But I think it's only Adam Jones' helmet that is like this.

 

The person tweeting it (Phil Hecken and Paul Lukas retweeted it also) said that Johnathan Schoop was wearing one also. It looks like Jones wore one a couple days ago too. 

 

CefhoPGW8AAHqK3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Still seeing many empty seats up top...

 

The Nats have washed their hands of the non-supportive baseball fans of Montreal -- and quite frankly, I'm glad they have.

 

I've been to every single Jays exhibition game in Montreal the past few years, there isn't a single empty seat in the entire stadium.  Those seats you see in the top ring are just closed off.  They sell out in minutes.

 

The problem with Montreal was the horrible ownership, not the fans.  Many years of bad management and horrible trades left a bad taste in fans' mouths and they stopped going to games.  Look at what is going on in Tampa.  If you don't spend any money on the team, fans will stay away.  It's still pretty sad that the Nats have basically tried to sweep the fact that the Expos even existed under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DAKINS24 said:

 It's still pretty sad that the Nats have basically tried to sweep the fact that the Expos even existed under the rug.

 

Wait, what?

 

2010-08-10-dawson-cloth-comes-down-500x3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I like that. The numbers should have stayed retired, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was done 5 years after the franchise moved to DC and the numbers were un-retired.  It should have been done day one if it was meant to honour the Expos properly.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/5/9/2161786/why-doesnt-nationals-park-recognize-the-expos-all-that-much

 

" There's absolutely no other way a young Nats fan can learn a bit about the NATIONALS history other than seeing the four names in the ring of honor above the grandstand, which still barely depicts the Expos fame. There are more Washington Senators paraphernalia in the ballpark than Expos, which is a legitimate problem. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And an occasional throwback would be excellent!  I was asking for it only once!

 

 

I always agree with you on history vs. fudging history.  And I like history of teams like the Expos to be remembered. 

 

But I do want to be careful not not tell a team exactly how to handle it.  And my thought is that weather to wear throwbacks or honor retired numbers is entirely up to them.  Would it be cool to see them wear Expos throwbacks?  Hell yeah!  But I think to a degree, we have to let the team decide how or if they want to honor their pasts.  

 

For me there is only one thing that's non-negotiable and that's pretending.  The Twins, Brewers, etc., while not honoring their pasts do not do things that pretend those pasts never existed.  "EST. 1905" kinda does that.  (And why 1905, anyway?)

 

The second thing I'd really like is numbers to remain retired.  Someone like Tim Raines should have a retired number and it's his misfortune that it was retired by a team that did not make it.  I appreciate the names being on the facing of the upper level (and the logos).  So I don't think it's fair to say the Nats have uniquely abandoned their past; they do more than the Twins.  Again, I am not sure how much right I have to say anything, but I would like those numbers to be out of circulation.  But since they chose not to do that, I can accept how they've handled it.

 

One thing I have to accept is that most people fans are just not that interested in the full story.  They don't care if we push franchise histories around.  I'd bet you almost everyone in Charlotte likes the retroactive history-shuffle.  And I'd be most people in New Orleans and the rest of the country don't even care.  "Fans only care what happens in their own city" is probably favored over "reflect the true history" by a fair margin.  It's funny; I think there is at least one Expos fan here who has said he'd be upset seeing Expos history with the Nats.  I am the opposite in that I like see the Stars honor their North Stars history.  I also would prefer the Twins do a better job of acknowledging their roots, but my feeling is that I am in the mintoriy...most people probably just feel the, um, "franchise" started in 1961, at least in a defacto way.

 

But MLB, you are the North American Sport of History.  Keep doing it the way you've been doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DAKINS24 said:

 

I've been to every single Jays exhibition game in Montreal the past few years, there isn't a single empty seat in the entire stadium.  Those seats you see in the top ring are just closed off.  They sell out in minutes.

 

The problem with Montreal was the horrible ownership, not the fans.  Many years of bad management and horrible trades left a bad taste in fans' mouths and they stopped going to games.  Look at what is going on in Tampa.  If you don't spend any money on the team, fans will stay away.  It's still pretty sad that the Nats have basically tried to sweep the fact that the Expos even existed under the rug.

Not even. The 1994 strike is what killed the Expos. First place in the league when the season ended. After the strike the fans left and never returned.

 

They could have won it all and still be here in a baseball specific park. They were even in the planning stages of one back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two, even.

 

lead_large.png

 

That would have been gorgeous.

 

32 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

The second thing I'd really like is numbers to remain retired.  Someone like Tim Raines should have a retired number and it's his misfortune that it was retired by a team that did not make it.  I appreciate the names being on the facing of the upper level (and the logos).  So I don't think it's fair to say the Nats have uniquely abandoned their past; they do more than the Twins.  Again, I am not sure how much right I have to say anything, but I would like those numbers to be out of circulation.  But since they chose not to do that, I can accept how they've handled it.

 

That's the way I feel about it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Not even. The 1994 strike is what killed the Expos. First place in the league when the season ended. After the strike the fans left and never returned.

 

They could have won it all and still be here in a baseball specific park. They were even in the planning stages of one back then.

 

There's no getting around that the 1994 strike was bad for the Expos.  It's one of the greatest "alternate histories" to consider.

  • Did the strike, when the Expos finally looked so good, turn the City off enough to hasten the issues?
  • Had the strike not happened, would the conclusion of the season, and the likely excitement therein, have created momentum for a ballpark?  Or at least more of a sustained following?  And how much success would have been needed?
    • Just being in the race well into September?
    • Making the postseason?
    • Getting to the World Series?
    • Winning the World Series?

For all we know, they'd have won the World Series and would still be the Washington Nationals.  But I really wish 1994 would have played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

For me there is only one thing that's non-negotiable and that's pretending.  The Twins, Brewers, etc., while not honoring their pasts do not do things that pretend those pasts never existed.  "EST. 1905" kinda does that.  (And why 1905, anyway?)

 

The original Senators officially adopted the name "Nationals" in 1905. It was just a nod to the original Washington Nationals brand. Nobody is trying to rewrite history. It's not that serious. That's like saying they shouldn't use the Washington Nationals name at all. Next people will be saying they should have called themselves the "Montreal Expos of Washington"! lol

 

I understand this forum is a place for uniform fanatics, and certain people here would get a kick out of the Nationals wearing Expo throwbacks, but lets not get carried away with this nonsense about the Nationals not honoring Expos history because that is a flat out lie. The Nationals might indeed wear some Expos throwbacks some day. Right now there is no pressing need for it from other than some baseball history buffs. Nats fans aren't looking for it. Neither are Expos fans in Montreal. They just want baseball back in their city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying the 1905.  Since the original franchise started in 1901 (or earlier?) I did not understand that.  I suppose this "softens" the notion that they are trying to re-write history.

 

However, regardless of whether they are trying to re-write history, the "Est. 1905" brings about a point of confusion. And, yeah, it is serious.  It looks as legitimate as other logos using actual established years.  There's nothing particularly "jokey," "campy," or otherwise un-serious about it.  It's factually incorrect without the huge stretch of "the name, not this team, was established then."  I guess, at best, it's trying to represent the team and DC baseball history.  I think it does a poor/confusing job.

 

The rest of what you say I generally agree with. I have no idea whether Expos fans want to see throwbacks, but all baseball fans can live with or without them.  The Nats do honor the Expos to a roughly appropriate degree and my nitpicking about the numbers is too minute to be an issue.

 

I know history did not change and I know it may be silly to nitpick the 1905 thing, but where else, besides this board, would one do that?  If we can spend 50 pages discussing which Bucanneers logo is better, even if "regular" fans probably don't know the difference, then we certainly can discuss the merit of what a logo's text means vs. what some people could infer from it.  I am fine with the name and with their treatment of the Expos.  But I stand by the idea that "Est. 1905" should not be on any official logos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

 

 

There's no getting around that the 1994 strike was bad for the Expos.  It's one of the greatest "alternate histories" to consider.

  • Did the strike, when the Expos finally looked so good, turn the City off enough to hasten the issues?
  • Had the strike not happened, would the conclusion of the season, and the likely excitement therein, have created momentum for a ballpark?  Or at least more of a sustained following?  And how much success would have been needed?
    • Just being in the race well into September?
    • Making the postseason?
    • Getting to the World Series?
    • Winning the World Series?

For all we know, they'd have won the World Series and would still be the Washington Nationals.  But I really wish 1994 would have played out.

 

For me the most interesting thing about the never-completed 1994 season was whether Matt Williams would have broken Roger Maris's single-season home run record of 61. Williams had 43 homers through 112 games, which is an average of a homer every 2.6 games.  If he had continued at that pace for the final 50 games, he would have ended up with 62.  

 

Only Cecil Fielder in 1990 and George Foster in 1977 had made serious runs at the record in recent years; but those players' chances had faded by game 112: at that point Fielder had 35 homers, and Foster had 38.  Williams's challenge to the record was the greatest since 1969 when Reggie Jackson had 34 homers after 81 games. And even Reggie had fewer than Williams (42) after 112 games.

 

If Williams could have withstood the pressure and could have gone on to actually break the record, it would have changed his career and his life in unimaginable ways.  McGwire and Sosa and Bonds would probably have broken that record a few years later, anyway.  But Williams would still have been propelled into a level of fame far different from the one which he enjoyed as a very good Major League player.

 

What is so admirable about Williams is the fact that he never made a public statement of regret about the strike, despite the fact that it cost him his shot at immortality. Williams's honourable behaviour was reflective of the fact that the MLBPA had such a great sense of institutional memory. The Players' Association had a perfect record of internal solidarity, without a single instance of a member not backing a strike.  All of its members were aware that they were earning their great salaries only because the union had remained united.

 

Indeed, even players who stood to gain little from strikes were always solidly behind them.  At the time of the 1981 strike, Pete Rose was chasing Stan Musial's N.L. hit record and Ty Cobb's all-time hit record. One might expect that Rose would have figured that, at age 40, he needed every hit that he could get.  Yet he was a staunch union supporter.  Likewise Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton, both of whom at 36 were losing time in their pursuits of various career milestones.  

 

In fact, this history of union solidarity even predates free agency and the big money.  In 1969, when the MLBPA staged its first-ever work stoppage and the players did not report to spring training, Mickey Mantle agreed to delay the announcement of his retirement so that everyone would know that he, too, was on strike. 

 

Even after former MLBPA members started acting as scabs in spring training of 1995, only a small handful of active players broke ranks and peformed this act of treachery.  All of this stands in sharp contrast to the shameful display of the NFLPA members in their strike of 1987, when several big-name stars became scabs almost immediately after the strike was called.

Matt Williams gave up his chance at baseball superstardom.  But he was a hero as a person, and he set a great example that should be remembered and celebrated.  This is the most profound legacy of 1994.

Share this post


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

The original Senators officially adopted the name "Nationals" in 1905. It was just a nod to the original Washington Nationals brand.

It said "Established 1905"

It wasn't an attempt to rewrite history (MLB probably wouldn't have let them anyway), but it was an attempt to build themselves up as something they weren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Thanks for clarifying the 1905.  Since the original franchise started in 1901 (or earlier?) I did not understand that.

 

Like I said, the name "Washington Nationals" was adopted in 1905. It was a nod to the creation of the Washington Nationals brand, which was in 1905, not the beginning of the franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

It said "Established 1905"

It wasn't an attempt to rewrite history (MLB probably wouldn't have let them anyway), but it was an attempt to build themselves up as something they weren't.

 

lol. Yeah okay. The patch was created before MLB sold the franchise to the current ownership if I remember correctly. It was a nod to the original Washington Nationals, not to "build themselves up". Nobody is going to forget that they were the Montreal Expos up to the previous year because of a patch. I'm done on this subject. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being facetious but I don't understand why Expos fans didn't show up after 94 regardless of the strike. Why couldn't they keep showing up again in 95 and after? If there was no strike and the Expos hit a rough patch in the playoffs and say they lost in the NLCS, would the fans have not shown up in 95? Did Royals fans not show up in 2015 because they couldn't win the World Series in 2014? I'm sure I'll piss someone off with this one but it sounds to me like the 1994 Expos fans were bandwagon fans who just forgot about the team when 1995 came about. Again, I'm not saying this as a joke so if someone can enlighten me please do. Did it have something to do with the 1995 roster? Or maybe the fans did show up in 95/96 and when the success never came back they trickled away slowly afterwards? Fill me in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Not being facetious but I don't understand why Expos fans didn't show up after 94 regardless of the strike. Why couldn't they keep showing up again in 95 and after? If there was no strike and the Expos hit a rough patch in the playoffs and say they lost in the NLCS, would the fans have not shown up in 95? Did Royals fans not show up in 2015 because they couldn't win the World Series in 2014? I'm sure I'll piss someone off with this one but it sounds to me like the 1994 Expos fans were bandwagon fans who just forgot about the team when 1995 came about. Again, I'm not saying this as a joke so if someone can enlighten me please do. Did it have something to do with the 1995 roster? Or maybe the fans did show up in 95/96 and when the success never came back they trickled away slowly afterwards? Fill me in.

Because baseball fans, as a whole, were angry at the players and the sport for the strike. Attendance dropped almost across the board, and significantly in some cases.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1993-misc.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1994-misc.shtml

STRIKE

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1995-misc.shtml

 

Share this post


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