MLB 2016 Changes

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 9/4/2016 at 3:52 PM, WSU151 said:

I never understood the reason why the Twins had to add gold.  

 

They didn't.  

 

On 9/4/2016 at 10:52 PM, jp1409 said:

What about pinstripes? It would be a great way to seperate themselves from the Tribe and the other navy and red teams...

 

If we're working off the premise that this is the reason for the gold, then I think this would definitely work.  It was said that the pinstripe look is distinctly Thunderdome, and... that's true.  The last set of uniforms and the dome kinda go hand in hand, and they don't jive as much with Target Field.  However, that's the set with the pinstripes and red lettering.

 

 

However, if they brought the pinstripes back now, it would be under the new navy lettering with red background.  This has a much more classic look to it that fits their new home.  After all, that's what they wore in their inaugural year, long predating the dome.

 

 

Of course, I think the gold was brought in not to differentiate themselves, but to bring in some color from Target Field, mimicking the limestone.  I don't think the jerseys are bad at all, but I agree with the earlier comment that they look better in the sun.  I never realized that, but it's true.  In sunlight, the gold is brighter and disappears somewhat.  Under the lights, it doesn't shine, instead becoming a thick, hanging mustard akin to when the Brewers' gold goes wrong.  Then again, maybe that says something about my feelings on the gold where I like the version where you can't see it as much better.

 

My biggest problem with the identity is the cap.  The idea that the home cap is an alt has confused and upset me since the inception, but they took one of the simplest, cleanest, most beautiful caps and thickened it unnecessarily.  It's a shame.

 

On 9/5/2016 at 7:45 PM, uuh70 said:

I don't know why they're trying to distance themselves from the dome era so much.   I believe the Metrodomd era uniforms were their best.  I personally loved the road pinstripes and the infamous Dairy Queens. (Possible unpopular opinion on both fronts)

 

Those are nice.  I like them too.  I think that if they were brought back in this current alt-crazy climate, they'd be much more well received.

 

On 9/6/2016 at 10:34 AM, SFGiants58 said:

I've said it before, but the only way I like the Cardinals' road cap is with a red bill, like the 1940-55 cap. The red bill gives it a nice injection of color, something largely absent from the all-navy cap:

 

If it doesn't have the red bill, then I prefer the Cardinals wearing red caps and belts on the road. Heck, the sentiment that you have to "darken" your look on the road) has led to the creation of a lot of unnecessary caps:

 

   

The Cardinals helped to start this crummy trend of teams "darkening" their caps on the road, and it's a trend I'm glad they're now avoiding.

 

 

The red breathes some life into the road uniform, which is why they wisely ditched the all-navy cap in the 1960's. If they have to "darken" their set on the road, at least have the decency to stick a red bill on the cap.

 

I disagree with the premise that the Cards' navy hat lacks color.

 

 

Due to the nature of their cap insignia, there's a lot of color here.  The linework for the lettering is thicker than Atlanta, Washington, and even some parts of Oakland.  The insignia itself is more densely packed, with more lines intertwining.  Then, you have the additional white outline, which not only provides more color than that Braves cap, but avoids the trap of the Nationals and new Athletics cap by using white as an outline rather than a color.  Those color outlines just don't contrast well against the crown (in the case of Washington) or the lettering (in the case of Oakland).  

 

This all leads to a huge splash of color on the cap.  Adding a red bill to that feels like it would just be overkill.  I'd love to see someone more talented photoshop a photo of this cap to see how it comes out.

 

Now, you'll notice that I didn't mention the old A's road cap.  That's because I love that cap, and wish they'd stayed with it.  The new cap is a mess.  The outline blurs with the lettering, and it makes a big smudge.  When it was originally revealed, people discussed that white lettering doesn't fit well with their away uniform because it contains no white, and it does look weird.

 

The Cards with red on the road have never looked right to me.  From one standpoint, it is because of what I'm used to my entire life.  Everyone has those biases.  I see them and think they just look like the Reds or Phillies now, and I'm usually the guy who argues that people complaining that there are too many red-white-blue teams is stupid because anyone with half a brain will never mix them up.  

 

On the other hand, I think I just figured out one of the other major problems I have with it.  Except for the gray, the Cardinals look 100% the same at home and away.  I don't remember if it was in this thread or last year's where we'd discussed the St. Louis wordmark and discussed how terrible sales must be for the away given how pointless buying them would be.  Their gray doesn't even feel as blue as it used to be.  Maybe that's a matter of perception due to the different cap.  Maybe it's an actual change in fabrics.  Either way, the gray looks really warm, and I've actually seen pictures and highlights where I couldn't tell if they were home or away.

 

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

That ad sums it up perfectly. It's like if they don't realize that the two color schemes are not the same. As if they're "close enough so who cares."

 

Edit: Went and looked at all 30 of those Respect the Color ads and it's kinda interesting for us uniform and color junkies to see what choices were made for each team. It's interesting how teams with the same color schemes were differentiated and also to see how some teams included their "rare or unused" colors like the Yankees and their red.

 

 

I like it.  The color scheme looks real darn good.  I hope they continue getting away from using gray as their third color.  That's too drab.  This pops more.  Just ask Atlanta, Minnesota, Cleveland, and the old road Cardinals.

[Wally1912]

Red Sox completely missed the coloring of the piping on the 1936 road uniforms. Other than that they look good.

Padres made no effort to match font for numerals or the proper color socks.

 

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

3 minutes ago, Wally1912 said:

Red Sox completely missed the coloring of the piping on the 1936 road uniforms. Other than that they look good.

 

The Sox should be wearing those socks with their whites and grays.

[FGM13]

Ummm, the Yankees jersey in the Respect the Colours ad has a name on the back...

[Thomas]

10 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

 

 

 

I like it.  The color scheme looks real darn good.  I hope they continue getting away from using gray as their third color.    Just ask Atlanta, Minnesota, Cleveland, and the old road Cardinals.

How could they possibly do that ? Only red they ever had on the jersey was the red MLB logo.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

49 minutes ago, Thomas said:

How could they possibly do that ? Only red they ever had on the jersey was the red MLB logo.

 

In one of these threads (don't remember which), I'd talked about the Yankees and their merchandising colors.  I don't want red anywhere on the uniform (unless their primary logo were to appear somewhere for some reason).  I just prefer in merchandising they use the Navy-White-Red color scheme as opposed to the Navy-White-Gray scheme.  Are either red or gray in their uniforms?  No.  When we talk about color schemes, I think we can all agree that we don't count he white and gray of the home and road.  But at least the red appears in their primary logo.  They got away from using red, instead using a dark gray in marketing about the same time they started focusing on their print logo instead of their primary.  It's just kind of drab.

 

I'm glad they haven't completely expunged their primary, and that we're seeing a little splash of red even if it's in a small way.  I hope they accentuate it more.  It just looks darn good.  I was worried when we moved across the street we'd lose the primary from all signage.  I was glad to see the awnings outside all around.

 

[Ben in LA]

6 hours ago, FGM13 said:

Ummm, the Yankees jersey in the Respect the Colours ad has a name on the back...

I noticed that as well.  Oops!

[Cujo]

6 hours ago, FGM13 said:

Ummm, the Yankees jersey in the Respect the Colours ad has a name on the back...

 

Yankees fans don't know the difference.

 

 

[Gothamite]

Considering you can't buy tshirts without names on the back, you can't exactly blame the fans. 

[Cujo]

[kroywen]

9 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

The Sox should be wearing those socks with their whites and grays.

Absolutely. And they should be wearing blue undershirts as well. Those socks, combined with blue undershirts, look tremendous with their blue caps.

 

Both of those 1936 uniforms were things of beauty, though I'm disappointed that the Sox completely whiffed on the piping color.

[VikWings]

16 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

I disagree with the premise that the Cards' navy hat lacks color.

 

 

Due to the nature of their cap insignia, there's a lot of color here.  The linework for the lettering is thicker than Atlanta, Washington, and even some parts of Oakland.  The insignia itself is more densely packed, with more lines intertwining.  Then, you have the additional white outline, which not only provides more color than that Braves cap, but avoids the trap of the Nationals and new Athletics cap by using white as an outline rather than a color.  Those color outlines just don't contrast well against the crown (in the case of Washington) or the lettering (in the case of Oakland).  

 

This all leads to a huge splash of color on the cap.  Adding a red bill to that feels like it would just be overkill.  I'd love to see someone more talented photoshop a photo of this cap to see how it comes out.

 

Now, you'll notice that I didn't mention the old A's road cap.  That's because I love that cap, and wish they'd stayed with it.  The new cap is a mess.  The outline blurs with the lettering, and it makes a big smudge.  When it was originally revealed, people discussed that white lettering doesn't fit well with their away uniform because it contains no white, and it does look weird.

 

The Cards with red on the road have never looked right to me.  From one standpoint, it is because of what I'm used to my entire life.  Everyone has those biases.  I see them and think they just look like the Reds or Phillies now, and I'm usually the guy who argues that people complaining that there are too many red-white-blue teams is stupid because anyone with half a brain will never mix them up.  

 

On the other hand, I think I just figured out one of the other major problems I have with it.  Except for the gray, the Cardinals look 100% the same at home and away.  I don't remember if it was in this thread or last year's where we'd discussed the St. Louis wordmark and discussed how terrible sales must be for the away given how pointless buying them would be.  Their gray doesn't even feel as blue as it used to be.  Maybe that's a matter of perception due to the different cap.  Maybe it's an actual change in fabrics.  Either way, the gray looks really warm, and I've actually seen pictures and highlights where I couldn't tell if they were home or away.

 

Here's one of their BP caps. This is basically what it would look like except with a white outline instead of navy and it wouldn't be Diamond Era.

 

[AnPheitseog]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Considering you can't buy tshirts without names on the back, you can't exactly blame the fans. 

Not to mention, all replica jerseys from majestic come with names on them. A place in Buffalo does it themselves without the name, but that's the exception

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 hours ago, Wally1912 said:

Red Sox completely missed the coloring of the piping on the 1936 road uniforms. Other than that they look good.

 

 

Very interesting!  The Dressed to the Nines database shows red piping for the period 1933 through 1937.   Here is the depiction of the 1936 uniform:

 

 

11 hours ago, Wally1912 said:

 

 

Ted Williams!  I assume that the teams paid some homage to Ted, who was on the 1936 Padres team.

I didn't know that Ted wore no. 19 with the Padres.  This provides a great link to Tony Gwynn.

  

 

Here are the two legends talking at length on a Bob Costas radio show.
 

 

 

[Wally1912]

34 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Very interesting!  The Dressed to the Nines database shows red piping for the period 1933 through 1937.   Here is the depiction of the 1936 uniform:

 

Todd Radom posted an old newspaper article describing the uniform changes the Red Sox were making for the 1936 season. It clearly describes blue lettering and piping on the 1936 road uniform.

 

 

Also of note from that article was that the light colored stripes on the stirrups were actually gray for the road uniform. An example of those can be seen here:

[Thomas]

Ugh, Colorado wear that awful black vest far too often. Wear the white or purple jersey at home, please !

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Wally1912 said:

 

Todd Radom posted an old newspaper article describing the uniform changes the Red Sox were making for the 1936 season. It clearly describes blue lettering and piping on the 1936 road uniform.

 

 

Also of note from that article was that the light colored stripes on the stirrups were actually gray for the road uniform. An example of those can be seen here:

 

Wow, very cool.  

Weirdly, that newspaper article refers twice to piping on the pants; but clearly the jersey piping would match the pants piping.

Anyway, thanks for providing this evidence.

[WavePunter]

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

 

Violates one of my cardinal design rules (sorry, couldn't resist). 

 

The squatchee must always match the contrasting bill.  Always. 

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, WavePunter said:

 

Ç'est Magnifique! Slap a red squatchee on it, and you'd have the perfect Cardinals road cap.