Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Arent their horns outlined with black? Also, if your face mask isn't gray, then it's a team color. 

 

I kinda think that's the case even w gray but that's for a different thread. 

 

Yes, but I didn't mention that because it falls under what I was talking about with the logo, just so happens to be the helmet/alternate logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HighCheese said:

image.pngimage.png

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry but this looks awful especially on TV. usually i'm a supporter of experimentation when it comes to baseball jerseys because so many teams tend to look the same in the MLB, but this is making me re-think that position. The shoulders, under-arm side panel area, and bottom of the pants all look like some sort of mistake that happens when you wash white & red clothes at the same time. the piping only going half-way on the pants and arms is so stupid, it just makes it look cheap. The font looks like a poorly rendered Michigan State ripoff.

 

The d-backs have something with the bright teal that they introduced in other uniforms. I like the dark grey jersey with the teal, other than the fact that you can't read the numbers on TV. they should start from scratch with this re-brand and base it around the teal. I suppose that ship has already sailed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

I've unofficially kept track of the DBacks uni choices and so far I'm pretty sure they've only worn the gradient caps only twice, possibly three times. Hopefully that's a sign that they're unliked by the players and they'll be the first aspect of their hideous mess to go away.

 

Hopefully. This is absolutely horrible...

 

9241360.jpg

DFV160409_0875_Cubs_at_Dbacks.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh.  Is that the first time they've worn the D cap?  I think they've only gone with the A so far.  At least, this is the first time I've actually seen them wear it.

 

On 4/27/2016 at 0:30 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

You bring up a good question... Is red a Yankees color... yellow for the Braves... red for the Pirates... gold for the Royals... light blue for the Padres... green for the Orioles... there's quite a few logos that make you question a team's "official colors."

 

I think the obvious answer would be yes they are official colors but there's gotta be a line drawn when you're, say, wearing your team's colors. Like I don't think it makes sense for a Yankee fan to be decked out in all red on Opening Day and be like "Yeah I'm supporting my Yankees today!" So I think that's how you gotta look at it.

 

I have to admit, though, I do miss the old version of the team's branding.  It used to be that everything focused on the bright red/white/blue color scheme, like my old trash can.

 

261987158471_1.jpg

!Bt!N9YQEGk~$(KGrHqYOKjIEvO+VTWcNBL6HgEFil_570xN.656296384_fs70.jpg

 

But in the new Millennium, the team focused on navy and brought gray in a LOT, portraying it as one of the team's primary colors.

 

$_35.JPG

 

It's so dreary.  I miss the brightness of the 90's.

 

10 hours ago, soxkrazy said:

I definitely remember reading somewhere that the Sox brass wanted the return to red letters on the road with no piping to create consistency with the home jersey.

 

 

Well, then why the crap didn't they bring the plack piping over?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Thomas said:

Why not ? It appears to be correct in this case at least.

 

No, it's not.  It's wrong in this case. 

 

It's what some fans think are the actual colors, not what the teams' style guides say.  Missing the Giants' gold trim shade.  

 

Wikipedia should only be used as a place to find directions to a legitimate source.  Never cite it directly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is a perfectly cromulent source, exceedingly reliable and accurate.  Myriads of people watch like hawks and ensure the accuracy and sourcing of the information.  Sometimes, the tightness is almost a detriment.  It's not the wild frontier it probably originally was, and it's definitely not the punchline it still seems to be in most people's minds.

 

Unfortunately, this is a blind spot.  The infoboxes are rife with de facto information, and this includes the colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

The infoboxes are rife with de facto information, and this includes the colors.

 

Is this an auto-correct error for "inaccurate information"?  Because that would make sense.

 

It also puts the lie to "exceedingly reliable and accurate."  Many of your hawks are only looking out to protect their own pet inaccuracies.  Especially anyone who tries to claim ownership of an article, in word or deed. 

 

Do not believe anything on Wikipedia that doesn't have a link to a solid, unbiased source.  And then cite that source, not Wikipedia. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yankees are a weird case where they're not really a team-colors sort of team. The pinstripes are the primary identifier more than colors themselves. The uniform elements are midnight blue, the Stadium has always been more of a medium blue, the primary logo is RWB, I appreciate the way it's all over the place like that. Like the old Yankee Stadium being a shoddy dump in the Bronx, it humanized the Yankees.

 

I've never felt the emphasis on grey as a team color rather than what color the road uniforms happened to be ('80s Phillies syndrome?) suited them well. Cynically, I figured concentrating on midnight blue and grey was meant to unify their brand with the Dallas Cowboys, with whom they have some sort of powerful joint venture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Is this an auto-correct error for "inaccurate information"?  Because that would make sense.

 

It also puts the lie to "exceedingly reliable and accurate."  Many of your hawks are only looking out to protect their own inaccuracies. 

 

Don't believe anything on Wikipedia that doesn't have a link to a solid, unbiased source.  And then cite that source, not Wikipedia. 

 

We just spent a page arguing the meaning of "team colors" without coming to any kind of consensus.  Unless we've got an infographic that people do nowadays to explain the meaning behind each color, then really where do we draw the line on what is and what isn't an official color?  We can take the official pantones off the color guide, but we've already had over a dozen examples crop up on the stupidity of including yellow, "flesh", and green/sand for the Braves, Vikes, and O's.  The listed colors are the colors most used in the teams' identities, on their uniforms and in their merchandising, so yes, I'd refer to that as de facto.  It's unsourced, and it's not something you can prove or disprove, so I'm going with "de facto".

 

I consider the nicknames in a similar boat.  They exist, everyone knows they exist, but they're not always able to be found in sources that are considered compliant with Wikipedia's sources.  The old Stadium was "The House that Ruth Built", and over the last eight years it's become clear that the primary nickname for the new Stadium is a carryover from their old home.  It's "The Big Ballpark in the Bronx".  It's been said nearly daily on TV broadcasts, radio broadcasts, and ESPN coverage.  However, I've found it nigh impossible to find one reliable source that refers to the current park as such.  It's de facto information.

 

Meanwhile, the name history, league/division history, retired numbers, ballpark history, and honors are all unsourced in almost if not every team's infobox.  This is why I referred to the infoboxes as a blindspot.  This information is still mostly correct.  It just so happens that the information that was copied over in this instance was the one thing that is... I suppose a matter of opinion more than anything.  This was a mistake, but it does not mean that everything is a wild lawless garbage heap.

 

And I don't even know what "looking out to protect their own inaccuracies" means.  Sabotage is corrected.  Trolls are locked out.  The veracity of information is discussed and consensus is reached to present the best information.  Some may use this for evil, but the system works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, HighCheese said:

image.pngimage.png

 

 

 

I've voiced a multitude of reasons why I can't stand Arizona's new uniforms (the Russell-esque "high school" look, myriad of colors creating an identity crisis, etc.), but that distance shot just chalked up another really bad reason that I'd never thought of till now. You can't see it so much up close, but from a distance, the sedona red patterns look like blood smears. Like, it looks like both Achilles, armpits, and shoulders got slashed or shot on each player. That is really bad. 

 

I never thought I'd miss last last years' uniforms - which I thought were already the worst in the majors then - but the honest truth is, I'd take last years' uniforms 1,000 times over. These bloody spacesuits make last year's set look like they're on Yankees/Blue Jays/Tigers level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

We just spent a page arguing the meaning of "team colors" without coming to any kind of consensus.  

 

"Consensus" is neither a determinant of or substitute for actual fact. Except on Wikipedia, which is one of its great flaws. 

 

Tesms have style guides. If the color's in there, it's an official color. It's not changed if I can recruit ten of my friends to post here how much they agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Some may use this for evil, but the system works.

It only "works" for the self-styled "editors" of Wikipedia. It does not "work" for any serious academic. 

 

Fact is that it is not peer-reviewed work. This "consensus" you speak of is reached by anyone who desires to be an "editor." There is no requirement that any of these people be experts in the fields these articles relate to. 

Which is what Goth is getting at. Consensus only means something when the people reaching it are qualified to make such a judgement. 

 

Goth is right. Wikipedia is a good place to search for decent sources. It is not a source in and of itself. And it won't be. Not unless Wikipedia becomes something fundementally different from what it is now. 

 

As to the subject at hand...

Style guides include team colours. If that includes oddities such as gold for the San Fransisco Giants and "flesh colour" for the Minnesota Vikings? So be it. They aren't prominent team colours, but they're team colours none-the-less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia is good for preliminary searches and finding basic info on a specific topic. It shouldn't be used even as a source on a message board about team colors. Claiming it is anything more than a good place for basic (albeit sometimes really great) information is dishonest. You are an editor if I remember correctly which explains your reaction but it's ultimately unfounded.

 

I'm beating a dead horse here but wow those DBacks uniforms are awful and getting worse every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

We just spent a page arguing the meaning of "team colors" without coming to any kind of consensus.  Unless we've got an infographic that people do nowadays to explain the meaning behind each color, then really where do we draw the line on what is and what isn't an official color?  We can take the official pantones off the color guide, but we've already had over a dozen examples crop up on the stupidity of including yellow, "flesh", and green/sand for the Braves, Vikes, and O's.  The listed colors are the colors most used in the teams' identities, on their uniforms and in their merchandising, so yes, I'd refer to that as de facto.  It's unsourced, and it's not something you can prove or disprove, so I'm going with "de facto".

 

I consider the nicknames in a similar boat.  They exist, everyone knows they exist, but they're not always able to be found in sources that are considered compliant with Wikipedia's sources.  The old Stadium was "The House that Ruth Built", and over the last eight years it's become clear that the primary nickname for the new Stadium is a carryover from their old home.  It's "The Big Ballpark in the Bronx".  It's been said nearly daily on TV broadcasts, radio broadcasts, and ESPN coverage.  However, I've found it nigh impossible to find one reliable source that refers to the current park as such.  It's de facto information.

 

Meanwhile, the name history, league/division history, retired numbers, ballpark history, and honors are all unsourced in almost if not every team's infobox.  This is why I referred to the infoboxes as a blindspot.  This information is still mostly correct.  It just so happens that the information that was copied over in this instance was the one thing that is... I suppose a matter of opinion more than anything.  This was a mistake, but it does not mean that everything is a wild lawless garbage heap.

 

And I don't even know what "looking out to protect their own inaccuracies" means.  Sabotage is corrected.  Trolls are locked out.  The veracity of information is discussed and consensus is reached to present the best information.  Some may use this for evil, but the system works.

 

your name means fart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

No, it's not.  It's wrong in this case. 

 

It's what some fans think are the actual colors, not what the teams' style guides say.  Missing the Giants' gold trim shade.  

 

Wikipedia should only be used as a place to find directions to a legitimate source.  Never cite it directly. 

Sorry to hear that, can you never trust wiki ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.