FiddySicks

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

 

You are wrong.  They change every 3 years.

okay, i just thought those they have now had lasted longer than they used to do.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

1996 feels like a long long time ago. I'm 25 so of course I would feel that way. I don't remember much of anything when I was 6, except playing Madden '97 on Playstation. That was great.

 

For me 1996 seems so recent.  I am still at the same job that I had then -- which is a good thing, as all my bosses have been excellent.

I am a big Kiss fan, so the biggest memory for me from 1996 is the original-lineup reunion (which, from the musical standpoint, I wasn't too happy about, considering how great the lineup with Bruce Kulick and Eric Singer was).  I remember marvelling that Kiss was the top-grossing concert act of 1996, and that this happened 20 years after their first heyday around 1976.  And now it's 20 years past that.  Unbelievable.  The period from 1976 to 1996 seems many, many times longer than the period from 1996 to now.

The 1996 season was also the last year that I followed baseball. I got lucky that the Yankees sent me off with a championship.  After that, I became strictly a historical fan.

 

It's worth noting that the Yankees' "Lean Years", the period into which I was born and became a fan, lasted only the 11 seasons between their pennants in 1964 and 1976.  This period shaped the consciousness of every Yankee fan who grew up then; it made the 1976-1981 run sooooo beautifully sweet.  (And it contributes to why I don't like today's insufferable and jerky Yankee fans.)  Then there was an even longer gap between pennants that ran the 14 seasons from 1982 through 1995, which set up the joyous 1996 victory.

 

When the Mets won the pennant last year, and I read that it was their first pennant in 15 years, I was shocked to realise that this was longer than the Yankees' Lean Years, and that it was just as long as the second Yankee gap.  Hell, the Mets' two World Championships were only 17 years apart; and those victories seem like they belong to two entirely separate eras.  By contrast, that annoying Subway Series of 2000 feels like it was just yesterday.  (That Series was annoying because it came too late, in the interleague era after the term "Subway Series" had already been debased.  A Yankee-Met clash in the World Series would have been meaningful if it had occurred at some point between 1985 and 1988.)

Share this post


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

 

For me 1996 seems so recent.  I am still at the same job that I had then -- which is a good thing, as all my bosses have been excellent.

I am a big Kiss fan, so the biggest memory for me from 1996 is the original-lineup reunion (which, from the musical standpoint, I wasn't too happy about, considering how great the lineup with Bruce Kulick and Eric Singer was).  I remember marvelling that Kiss was the top-grossing concert act of 1996, and that this happened 20 years after their first heyday around 1976.  And now it's 20 years past that.  Unbelievable.  The period from 1976 to 1996 seems many, many times longer than the period from 1996 to now.

The 1996 season was also the last year that I followed baseball. I got lucky that the Yankees sent me off with a championship.  After that, I became strictly a historical fan.

 

It's worth noting that the Yankees' "Lean Years", the period into which I was born and became a fan, lasted only the 11 seasons between their pennants in 1964 and 1976.  This period shaped the consciousness of every Yankee fan who grew up then; it made the 1976-1981 run sooooo beautifully sweet.  (And it contributes to why I don't like today's insufferable and jerky Yankee fans.)  Then there was an even longer gap between pennants that ran the 14 seasons from 1982 through 1995, which set up the joyous 1996 victory.

 

When the Mets won the pennant last year, and I read that it was their first pennant in 15 years, I was shocked to realise that this was longer than the Yankees' Lean Years, and that it was just as long as the second Yankee gap.  Hell, the Mets' two World Championships were only 17 years apart; and those victories seem like they belong to two entirely separate eras.  By contrast, that annoying Subway Series of 2000 feels like it was just yesterday.  (That Series was annoying because it came too late, in the interleague era after the term "Subway Series" had already been debased.  A Yankee-Met clash in the World Series would have been meaningful if it had occurred at some point between 1985 and 1988.)

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

Oh, yeah . . . 14 whole years between pennants/world championships?  Boo-freakin'-hoo!!!!!  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first series this year that the brewers didn't wear the navy and yello walts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 

1996 feels like a long long time ago. I'm 25 so of course I would feel that way. I don't remember much of anything when I was 6, except playing Madden '97 on Playstation. That was great.

 

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

For me 1996 seems so recent.  I am still at the same job that I had then -- which is a good thing, as all my bosses have been excellent.

I am a big Kiss fan, so the biggest memory for me from 1996 is the original-lineup reunion (which, from the musical standpoint, I wasn't too happy about, considering how great the lineup with Bruce Kulick and Eric Singer was).  I remember marvelling that Kiss was the top-grossing concert act of 1996, and that this happened 20 years after their first heyday around 1976.  And now it's 20 years past that.  Unbelievable.  The period from 1976 to 1996 seems many, many times longer than the period from 1996 to now.

The 1996 season was also the last year that I followed baseball. I got lucky that the Yankees sent me off with a championship.  After that, I became strictly a historical fan.

 

It's worth noting that the Yankees' "Lean Years", the period into which I was born and became a fan, lasted only the 11 seasons between their pennants in 1964 and 1976.  This period shaped the consciousness of every Yankee fan who grew up then; it made the 1976-1981 run sooooo beautifully sweet.  (And it contributes to why I don't like today's insufferable and jerky Yankee fans.)  Then there was an even longer gap between pennants that ran the 14 seasons from 1982 through 1995, which set up the joyous 1996 victory.

 

When the Mets won the pennant last year, and I read that it was their first pennant in 15 years, I was shocked to realise that this was longer than the Yankees' Lean Years, and that it was just as long as the second Yankee gap.  Hell, the Mets' two World Championships were only 17 years apart; and those victories seem like they belong to two entirely separate eras.  By contrast, that annoying Subway Series of 2000 feels like it was just yesterday.  (That Series was annoying because it came too late, in the interleague era after the term "Subway Series" had already been debased.  A Yankee-Met clash in the World Series would have been meaningful if it had occurred at some point between 1985 and 1988.)

 

Even though it was when I was young, it STILL doesn't feel that long ago.  Maybe it's because despite generally not knowing where my keys and wallet are I still vividly remember so many things as 4D pictures in my brain.  I don't think this whole "New Millenium"/"21st Century" thing will ever stop feeling new/recent to me.The 90's/1900's always feel like yesterday.  Maybe I was just the perfect age that those sixteen years occurred as I was realizing how fast sixteen years really go.

 

28 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

Oh, yeah . . . 14 whole years between pennants/world championships?  Boo-freakin'-hoo!!!!!  :P

 

Eh.  It really screws with your perception.  Like getting the first free taste of a drug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, leopard88 said:

Oh, yeah . . . 14 whole years between pennants/world championships?  Boo-freakin'-hoo!!!!!  :P

 

Hehe!  Well, of course I know (and always knew) that many teams' fans were waiting far longer than that.  But, by the Yankees' standards, the 14 title-less years from 1982 through 1995 constituted a pretty big deal, as did the 11-year period from 1965 through 1975 that had earned the name "the Lean Years".  Apart from those periods, the longest stretch that the Yankees had ever gone without a pennant was three seasons!

 

Each of those two long non-pennant periods featured a dramatic nadir: last-place finishes in 1966 and 1990.  Also, both of them coincided with up periods for the Mets.  Indeed, my first memories of being a Yankee fan involve being mocked by Met fans who were still gloating about their World Championship 1969 and were about to experience another pennant in 1973.  "Who has won more pennants in the last five years?" was a question that Yankee fans heard a lot in those days.

The second pennant-less period was not as bad as the Lean Years on one score, but worse on another.  

It was not as bad because there were several quality Yankee teams in there.  The mid-80s was actually a very good period for the Yanks, with pennant races every year (the 1985 race in particular went down to the next-to-last day); and the core of Winfield, Mattingly, Henderson, Guidry, Righetti, etc. were exciting.  Anyone watching those teams got quite a show.  

(Please take special note of my good memories of that period despite the lack of titles.  It is on this basis that I cannot stand today's obnoxious Yankee fans.  People who seriously hold that a season without a World Championship is a failure are absurd. They miss out on a lot of the joy of following a team.  While I would have preferred that Yankees win something in 1985, I still look back on that season very fondly despite the lack of a title.  But the turd Yankee fans of today would just dismiss that highly enjoyable season as a failure.  This is why I am glad that I no longer identify as a Yankee fan.)

However, that second pennant-less Yankee period was worse than the Lean Years because the Mets so dominated the sports pages at that time.  The Mets had gone from lovable challengers in 1984 to outsized celebrities in 1985, and stayed on that level for a while. Their every move was covered in excruciating detail, while the Yankees were all but ignored.  I can remember seething with resentment.  I recently mocked up an imaginary Daily News back page from the period to demonstrate how it looked to a Yankee fan:

1985 daily news mock-up.jpg

 

It was in this period that I really became a Met-hater, which I had never been before.  Even as a Yankee fan, I liked Seaver, Tug, Cleon Jones, Kranepool, and other Mets of the 1970s.  But the mid-80s Mets just stirred my contempt.  Over the next decade Yankee fans would get their revenge by adopting that era's Met legends Strawberry, Gooden, and Cone and redefining them as Yankees.

 



 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

(Please take special note of my good memories of that period despite the lack of titles.  It is on this basis that I cannot stand today's obnoxious Yankee fans.  People who seriously hold that a season without a World Championship is a failure are absurd. They miss out on a lot of the joy of following a team.  While I would have preferred that Yankees win something in 1985, I still look back on that season very fondly despite the lack of a title.  But the turd Yankee fans of today would just dismiss that highly enjoyable season as a failure.  This is why I am glad that I no longer identify as a Yankee fan.)
 

But the mid-80s Mets just stirred my contempt.

I'll second the bolded part wholeheartedly.

 

 

The mid-80s Mets stirred the contempt of a lot of people

Share this post


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

first series this year that the brewers didn't wear the navy and yello walts

And then they beat the hated cubs, hope they learned the lesson, don't use  those new awful BIG jerseys anymore ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, use the old gorgeous BiG uniforms instead. :P

 

Yes...and add a grey road, powder blue alternate, and royal alternate to that set.  And of course bring back a barrelman sleeve patch for a couple of them..  Rebrand complete. Awful current set in the trash forever.  There's no reason we can't make modern retro work just as good as Houston and Toronto have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mjd77 said:

 

Yes...and add a grey road, powder blue alternate, and royal alternate to that set.  And of course bring back a barrelman sleeve patch for a couple of them..  Rebrand complete. Awful current set in the trash forever.  There's no reason we can't make modern retro work just as good as Houston and Toronto have.

 

QF-mother :censored: ing-T. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As great as the classic BiG is, I wouldn't have hated an update to the navy BiG if they had done it right with a full rebrand in one fell swoop as opposed to this half ass introduction of trying to cram three color schemes into one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think any blending of eras is where the brewers are screwing up.. i actually like their current "primary" set, because i feel like it most closely relates to beer/brewing/etc., but i also get the love and nostalgia for the quirky BiG logo and retro feel of that set.. to keep the current set as primary and BiG set as throwbacks is stronger than trying to blend the two identities (which essentially creates 3 separate identities).. i think they could clean up their current set with a few minor tweaks and have something really pleasing to most, and save the BiG for throwback/retro stuff and maintain two streams of revenue.. by going modern-retro with the new alt (and possible "rebrand"), they're essentially eliminating an entire revenue stream by trading 2 for 1.. another half-@$$ed attempt, which makes no business sense, no fashion sense, and no fan-related sense.. if you're going to go BiG, go full BiG rebrand (royal, yellow, powder).. if you're gonna STAY navy/gold, then stay full navy/gold (with script, wheat, etc)... adjusting some fonts here and there, removing an outline or two, etc would clean up the current look without abandoning it, but a semi-rebrand-only-going-halfway-to-BiG-logo isn't the answer..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the BiG glove is hideous for many reasons, but mainly because it's hard to tell what it even is, ask a person who don´t know the Brewers, no way they can decipher what it is supposed to resemble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thomas said:

I think the BiG glove is hideous for many reasons, but mainly because it's hard to tell what it even is, ask a person who don´t know the Brewers, no way they can decipher what it is supposed to resemble.

 

I think this view is in the extreme minority.  I've never met anyone who didn't realize what it was supposed to be.  Seemed pretty obvious.  There are enough little leaguers and softballers out there (across generations) that know it's supposed to be a glove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I think this view is in the extreme minority.  I've never met anyone who didn't realize what it was supposed to be.  Seemed pretty obvious.  There are enough little leaguers and softballers out there (across generations) that know it's supposed to be a glove

 

A glove, yes.  However, some of us (*points to self*) didn't realize it was also supposed to be an MB until many, many years later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I think this view is in the extreme minority.  I've never met anyone who didn't realize what it was supposed to be.  Seemed pretty obvious.

Is this is really obvious for everyone ?: m4r0bevve0valis6ggnyyytak.png

does not look like a  baseball to me , nor a glove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a glove?  Yes, it is. 

 

As a combination "m" and "b"?  That's much less obvious, but I don't see that as being an issue.  It's okay if people don't see that until later, even much later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a quirky logo that is primarily popular for nostalgic reasons, and it was creatively assembled, but it violates one of my uniform/logo "No-No's" by having the location AND nickname referenced in the letter-initials... letters and text should be reserved for the location of a team (unless we're talking about a chest wordmark on a home jersey).. like the KC Chiefs arrowhead.. the arrowhead represents the "Chiefs" nickname, while the "KC" represents the city... it's for this reason that i don't like the mariners' old "trident-M" logo.. i dont like that it was to represent the "M" for "Mariners".. as a trident alone, sure, but allowing it to stand as an "M" bothers me.. i don't like any of the CB logos for the Cleveland Browns either.. for me, the BiG logo would be better suited for a place known as "Mountain Brook" or something where the MB was all location, rather than location + nickname.. quirky, creative, nostalgic? absolutely!... solid logo and branding for a professional identity? no sir... at least not outside of the fact that it resembles baseball equipment for a baseball franchise, but even then, it doesn't lend itself to describing that franchise whatsoever.

Share this post


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

its a quirky logo that is primarily popular for nostalgic reasons, and it was creatively assembled, but it violates one of my uniform/logo "No-No's" by having the location AND nickname referenced in the letter-initials... letters and text should be reserved for the location of a team (unless we're talking about a chest wordmark on a home jersey).. like the KC Chiefs arrowhead.. the arrowhead represents the "Chiefs" nickname, while the "KC" represents the city... it's for this reason that i don't like the mariners' old "trident-M" logo.. i dont like that it was to represent the "M" for "Mariners".. as a trident alone, sure, but allowing it to stand as an "M" bothers me.. i don't like any of the CB logos for the Cleveland Browns either.. for me, the BiG logo would be better suited for a place known as "Mountain Brook" or something where the MB was all location, rather than location + nickname.. quirky, creative, nostalgic? absolutely!... solid logo and branding for a professional identity? no sir... at least not outside of the fact that it resembles baseball equipment for a baseball franchise, but even then, it doesn't lend itself to describing that franchise whatsoever.

Right, like the SJ in the sharks new logo.

 

besides, i think this logo is vastly superior, both design and color choice wise

Love the barley.

 

 

f5co1uf5bko4ma5a797y9nqpp.png

Share this post


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