FiddySicks

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

I've come 100% full circle on the Phillies change.  It's a clear cut upgrade.  In every shot, you can now see the stitching detail and the "texture" on the script.  I would never have guessed that fattening it up that little bit would have such a dramatic impact on how it looks on camera.  I'm still more of a fan of the thinner 50s-era script, but evaluating this strictly on a before/after basis, it's definitely an upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

 

I share the idea that a letter logo should represent the team's location, rather than its nickname or a combination of its location and nickname.  This is the reason that I have never liked the Rockies' logo.  

 

But I don't think we can be too absolute on our uniform/logo "no-no's".  They should not be so much rules as guidelines.  For example: I am strongly in favour of teams having only two uniforms, a white and a grey; I dislike coloured jerseys; and I hate pullovers and beltless pants.  Yet the 1972-1980 A's uniform set is one of my favourites despite the fact that it violates all of these principles.  I still hold those uniform guidelines, but I recognise that A's set as being beautiful enough to be an exception.

 

Likewise, the Brewers' ball-in-glove logo is beautiful enough to defy the guideline about the initials, as is the Mariners' trident M. These are works of art that shine.  But the Rockies' CR doesn't come close to that level; it's just a couple of letters in a standard font that are pushed together in a sloppy and uncreative way.  This matter is analogous to grammatical rules and poetry: great artists can dispense with grammatical conventions if they are creating works of transcendent beauty; but ordinary people writing prose should stick to writing grammatically.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

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.

 

This was the state that I was in; it probably took me a full year after the ball-in-glove logo was introduced to notice the letters in it.   It's still an outstanding logo.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

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

Love the barley.

 

f5co1uf5bko4ma5a797y9nqpp.png

 

This logo is not unattractive in its design.  But nothing can be considered in a vacuum; this logo exists in the shadow of the ball-in-glove, as do all other Brewers' logos.  The ball-in-glove has proven to be the team's true representation; nothing will ever beat it.

Also, the colours on this logo are not good at all.  This pukey gold is indefensible.  The comparison to the team's traditional bright yellow only underscores the drabness and the inadequacy of this colour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

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.

 

I feel like a comment at the expense of the Padres/Diamondbacks is necessary here.

 

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

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

 

Yeah.  Pretty much.  Looks clear.  Maybe it's just that the Phillies also employed a simplistic baseball design that it looks pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's not the right way to read it but believe it or not I've always in my mind read the Colorado Rockies' CR as standing for "Colo-Rado"... maybe my mind is subconsciously telling me that the team nickname shouldn't be in the cap logo but for whatever reason that damn logo says Colo-Rado to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could argue that the ball in the Milwaukee glove can be seen more as a tennis ball than a baseball as it doesn't have any stitching on that line that goes through it... but still, I don't think anyone can truly argue that some random person can't make out that it should be a baseball. The random person in question needs to have some context. If someone goes to a Brewers game and sees that logo for the first time ever they'd have to at least apply the context of being at a baseball game with a team that has the initials MB and than from there start analyzing what the logo is. If we're saying this random person is someone who's been living under a rock forever then one can assume that this random person can't decipher MANY baseball logos. And if we wanna throw one out there that's tough to figure out... it's really not that easy for someone not from Minnesota to go a Minnesota Twins game and figure out why there's a TC on the cap of a team who's initials are MT. I'm a baseball fan since childhood and it took me ages to understand what the TC meant. I'd say that logo has some serious 'splaining to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

I feel like a comment at the expense of the Padres/Diamondbacks is necessary here.

 

 

Yeah.  Pretty much.  Looks clear.  Maybe it's just that the Phillies also employed a simplistic baseball design that it looks pretty obvious.

Yeah, to me, that's fairly unambiguously an "M" and "b." This isn't the Expos' "eMb" or anything like that - the M and B come through quite clear in the ball-in-glove logo. And it's quite an attractive design, to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.It's also not a monogram, so failing that test of being both city and nickname shouldn't be an issue.

 

I get that people didn't see that this was a ball and glove slash m and b.  That you may not have gotten it doesn't make it wrong - you may be looking in the wrong place for blame on that issue.

 

As to the Brewers as a whole - yeah, they've muddied the waters.  Other than people near Milwaukee wondering what uniform is their primary (due to not wearing their whites too often this year), I'm not hearing much griping about their uniform choices and/or designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be a monogram, but it's also not a Ball-in-Glove logo in that case.. It's a goofy lowercase M, mashed atop the overly-chubby lower loop of an awkwardly positioned lowercase B, with the center of the lower loop disproportionately crammed to the top of the loop with an odd "S" shape running through it --- all of which to suggest baseball equipment, while subtly doubling as a (ahem) monogram..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thomas said:

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

Taking the history and love for the ball/glove away, yes, I'd agree that this is a better designed logo. That being said, the gold with navy is just boring and bland. Simply using a bright golden yellow instead of the gold would be a huge improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milwaukee should have two hats, the M and the ball in the glove. Both hats are phenomenal but I just want them to return to the classic blue and yellow.

 

Also about the gold on the current look, it looks way better in person on the actual hats/jerseys. It's more metallic and I really was taken back by it when I bought it at the Brewers team store a few years ago because I've always seen it on TV and not in person.

Share this post


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

 

 

 

This logo is not unattractive in its design.  But nothing can be considered in a vacuum; this logo exists in the shadow of the ball-in-glove, as do all other Brewers' logos.  The ball-in-glove has proven to be the team's true representation; nothing will ever beat it.

Also, the colours on this logo are not good at all.  This pukey gold is indefensible.  The comparison to the team's traditional bright yellow only underscores the drabness and the inadequacy of this colour.

But it´s not pukey, it golden, like burley, one of the ingredients in beer. 

You say the gold is pukey, then i say the yellow in the old logo and the new navy blue cap and jersey is piss yellow, something that happens after you had some beer.

 

Gold beats yellow in this beer battle.

Share this post


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

Milwaukee should have two hats, the M and the ball in the glove. Both hats are phenomenal but I just want them to return to the classic blue and yellow.

 

Also about the gold on the current look, it looks way better in person on the actual hats/jerseys. It's more metallic.

 

29v1fmg.jpg

 

Quick sloppy mockup.  I don't know how well the scheme works with the logo, but I don't know if that's a matter of me being used to the current one, or just that it works better with navy.

 

6 hours ago, Thomas said:

But it´s not pukey, it golden, like burley, one of the ingredients in beer. 

You say the gold is pukey, then i say the yellow in the old logo and the new navy blue cap and jersey is piss yellow, something that happens after you had some beer.

 

Gold beats yellow in this beer battle.

 

It's been covered fairly well in this thread that the metallic gold on the cap does look good closeup.

 

milwaukee-brewers-navy-mlb-on-field-game

 

The problem is that the shade of gold they used is a bit too dark.  Most of the time, especially when it's stretched out to cover more surface, and ESPECIALLY when you're living in a bland warehouse, the luster in the above pic is lost.

 

I don't know why, when there's more of it, the fabric doesn't look the same.  Do they just use a different fabric, or does the cap logo have enough texture to it that the light can catch it at the right angles to shine?

 

Milwaukee-Brewers-Gold-Featured.jpg

 

And even then, this would be all good and fine if they wore their standard home and road uniforms, but they mostly chose to wear their alternates.  Instead of bright white, we end up with navy and blah dark tannish.

 

Who-is-Most-Consistent-Player-for-Milwau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Exactly.  The gold on the cap has never been my issue.  The gold looks great on the cap in sunlight; it looks like :censored: in every other application. 

 

Even if they fixed the gold, that M is irredeemable.  Exaggerated angles compete with soft swirls.  The lone whispy thin line can't support the designs weight of all the thicker lines around it.  The motion is emphatic but also scattered and muddied, with too many elements thrusting in too many directions.

 

It's overdesigned and clunky and I can't wait for it to be replaced. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt mixed about the Brewers. IMO, they've never had a bad set of uniforms. Each uniform they've worn has always been "Good" to "Mediocre".

 

 

I honestly don't know what the answer is here for the team.... I like what they have, but it does need come cleaning up along with that shade of gold being changed slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps they could benefit from inverting what the Blue Jays and Rangers have recently done.. Those teams have recently gone "modern retro", and I think the Brewers could actually get away with "retro modern" - essentially taking their current look back in time instead of bringing the BiG to the present.. I think the royal and yellow mockup of the current M-logo is actually decent.. Maybe keeping the navy outline and finding some middle ground between yellow and gold (basically a nice metallic yellow) could create a unique set that still fits the team's identity, and also makes retro/throwback gear less of a reach, while still being a different "brand" (and thus, still separately marketable).. The Blue Jays original colors were more of a power blue with royal trim and red accents, but they updated to royal with navy trim and red accents.. The Brewers were royal and yellow, with a strong use of powder blue.. I think they could essentially do something similar, but adjust the palette to royal and navy like the Blue Jays did, while applying it in a completely different way.. It would be a way to "own" their current brand, tie in their history, and please the throwback-lovers, without jumping ship and half-@$$ rebranding to the BiG (which is bad in navy anyway)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our veterans would be proud

 

CjAbmTAXIAEm4H9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Our veterans would be proud

 

CjAbmTAXIAEm4H9.jpg

David Spade joined the army ?

 

Hope he convinced Adam Sandler to join him too.... since they both know how to BOMB 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just watched the Astros and White Sox play a series this week (a re-match of the 2005 World Series), I have to say that I feel like the entire Astros uniform scheme is a complete fail.  I miss the early-to-late 2000s jerseys.  The uniforms, hats, and color scheme all look terrible compared to the design they had prior to it.  Sorry if this is beaten to death or if I'm on the wrong end of this argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People argue that the Brewers should keep their current colors because it's unique and fits their identity. That may be true, but royal blue and yellow (also part of the Brewers identity) has been forgotten in major sports so long that it looks like it's making a huge comeback. Look at the Golden State Warriors. They're just so fun to watch in those uniforms. Everyone is screaming for royal blue and yellow for the Rams. Now would be the time for the Brewers to own these colors in MLB. They don't have to go back to the old designs completely. A modern retro look would be perfect. When I look at the Warriors, I see a beautiful, classic color combo on a sharp, modern retro design.

 

 

Share this post


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