Bucfan56

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

They weren't enormous. The letters were pretty condensed, and the arching at the bottom meant even less real estate for lettering. I thought they were great.

Curly W was fine for the interregnum between the end of the Expos (RIP) and the announcement of the Nationals, but should have been retired or demoted to BP/ST thereafter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The curly W hat should always be the Nationals' hat. It trancends the team and links them to their city's history, just as does the Mets' use of the Giants' NY cap logo.

If I am not mistaken (and I may be), I thought the curly W was only related to the second edition of the Senators (i.e., the 1961 expansion team that became the Rangers). The original team that became the Twins did not wear it. I think.

If so, then that W was only around for about 10 years before the team moved to Texas. Looking at "Dressed to the Nines" it appears that they adopted it in 1963. They moved after the 1971 season, so that logo was around for nine years. It was not attached to the longer-running franchise that won a World Series and included Walter Johnson. I guess Ted Williams did wear it, though.

Technically, I suppose you are right; it links them to the City's history. Just not much of it. A better link would be a boring "W" sported by the first franchise. Though I am not advocating that.

I kinda like the DC idea; it's something people refer to the City as...a more obvious meaning than the Twins "TC" (which I also like). I don't hate the Walgreens W, but I certainly don't think it's a key link to Washington DC.

Tangent: I remember when "Cooperstown Collection" memorabilia became big. The biggest draw in Minnesota was the Curly "W" hat. This is pre CCSLC, but I somehow eventually came to realize that the logo was not associated with the franchise I suspected most of these fans were trying to nod to with that hat; I always had a little chuckle seeing that hat. One did not need the internet to be a smug uniform geek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think even the second Senators initially used the boring block W that the first Senators used, which no one seems to remember fondly. In fact, the whole pre-Twins franchise is a black hole of branding, even for the 1950s.

Incidentally, I know the Washington [independent?] Baseball Team went by both Senators and Nationals for a time, but how? I mean, weren't teams originally called Nationals or Americans in newspapers as shorthand for National Leaguers and American Leaguers (e.g., Boston)? It was never an NL team!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they aren't the "DC Nationals". So no "DC" cap logo is appropriate. As long as the locality name is "Washington", then the cap logo should be a W.

Isn't this line of thinking rather facile? As erstwhile board superstar BallWonk was fond of pointing out, there is no legal incorporated City of Washington, just the District of Columbia which is informally called "Washington, D.C.," so there would be nothing wrong with the DC monogram.

It makes no difference whether "Washington" is the name of an incorporated city, or whether it is just a name that has come about informally. There's no incorporated city called "Tampa Bay", either.

What matters is that "Washington" is found in the name of the team. To ask that the cap initial reflect the team's name is entirely appropriate.

And, as I said, the DC monogram would do just fine as a sleeve patch. It just shouldn't be on the cap.

The curly W hat should always be the Nationals' hat. It trancends the team and links them to their city's history, just as does the Mets' use of the Giants' NY cap logo.

If I am not mistaken (and I may be), I thought the curly W was only related to the second edition of the Senators (i.e., the 1961 expansion team that became the Rangers). The original team that became the Twins did not wear it. I think.

If so, then that W was only around for about 10 years before the team moved to Texas.

Looking at "Dressed to the Nines" it appears that they adopted it in 1963. They moved after the 1971 season, so that logo was around for nine years. It was not attached to the longer-running franchise that won a World Series and included Walter Johnson.

Technically, I suppose you are right; it links them to the City's history. Just not much of it. A better link would be a boring "W" sported by the first franchise. Though I am not advocating that.

I kinda like the DC idea; it's something people refer to the City as...a more obvious meaning than the Twins "TC" (which I also like). I don't hate the Walgreens W, but I certainly don't think it's a key link to Washington DC.

You are right that the curly W is only from the Sentators/Rangers franchise (the 1961 expansion team), not from the Senators/Twins franchise (the original American League team). So its roots don't go as deep as those the Giants'/Mets' NY logo.

Still, despite the fact that the curly W dates "only" to the 1960s rather than to the early part of the 20th Century, this is long enough for the logo to be considered untouchable. And it is beautiful in its own right as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Yeah. The Cleveland Naps did the same thing as a nod to Napoleon LaJoie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start a franchice, or in this case move a franchise and want to build a fanbase you don't change the logo so soon into the new place. This is why the Nationals, Marlins, Rockies, Diamondbacks, and others all kept their main logos for so long (some still have them). So the idea of starting in DC with the curly W and then changing it a few years later doesn't compute with me. Whether the logo is liked or not I don't blame the decision makers of that team for still sticking with that logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Yeah. The Cleveland Naps did the same thing as a nod to Napoleon LaJoie.

When nicknames are largely unofficial, you can change them year-to-year.

My favorite is still "Brooklyn Bridegrooms" after a couple players got married in the offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purple and teal gets plenty of love and looked good but its so overrated as a color scheme in baseball. I don't get how it's uniquely their own if all they did was grab the two unique colors of the two previous expansion teams (Colorado and Florida) and just mash them together. Total rip off to me.

I don't feel they were ripoffs at all. Firstly, Florida was a teal-then-black team (later, black-then-teal), and Colorado has never really embraced purple at the forefront save for an occasionally worn alternate, thus a black-purple team (sometimes even even appearing to be a black-silver-then purple team). Arizona, in thier inaugural days (I'm referring to before the black sleeved and capped road uniform), owned purple and balanced thier other colors around that. Florida took the foot off the teal pedal and Colorado's still snoozing on purple, and especially did at a time when they probably could have and should have embraced it back then. So Arizona never looked like either of them thier first couple of seasons. When they played Florida and Colorado from 1998-2000, there was never any mistaking who was who. Ever. We're thier colors similar to them put together? Sure. But they used them in thier own way and took advantage of what the other teams didn't. Nobody ever faulted the Astros for wearing similar colors to the Tigers, did they? No, because they utilized them differently then and still do. There's never any mistaking the two, and they have a look of thier own that way separate from Detroit.

Now for the colors themselves?

Purple is a great for Arizona, with it being the traditional Suns primary color (always thought it meshed well with the Suns when Arizona wore it), and for being a pretty prominent color in cultural art (and MAN do Arizona sunsets have an amazing purple color).

Turquoise? Another great cultural art color.

featurenative.jpg

Southwest-Indian-Art-Fair-2013-720x710.j

Copper? The state's copper industry, as well as seen by both ASU and Arizona using it occasionally for special uniforms, show that it's a good "Arizona" color. And it sure worked well with the Purple and Turquoise.

Black was probably just a good background color choice, but worked well for what it was.

So all in all? It was a perfect color scheme for Arizona regardless of what other teams looked like. I really feel like even if Florida and Colorado never existed or if they had completely different identities than what they had, Arizona still would've looked exactly as they did on day one. I don't consider it to have ever been a 90's fad or a Florida/Colorado merger ripoff, cause they looked like Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of the colors individually worked well for Arizona. I think there were just one too many of them. Four colors is just too much, and it led to their original uniforms being disjointed - mostly purple at home, mostly black on the road.

Black with turquoise and slight copper accents would have been my preferred color scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Did they really use the Robins name throughout the 20s? I thought it was phased out well before 1931.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Early naming of MLB teams is kinda fascinating with deadball-era names changing frequently. New York Highlanders. Brooklyn Supurbas. Pittsburgh Alleganies. Etc.

But I think they did (particluarly in two-team towns?) shorthand with "Boston Americans" etc.

According to this they were officially the "Nationals" for most of their time in DC. But people still tended to call them the Senators (note that the year-by-year history always refers to them as the Senators whereas with other teams they seem to keep up with the deadball-era name changes).

I suspect the "Nationals" moniker matching the "other" league was a coincidence given DC as the one city for which such a moniker would work. Given the NL factor and the fact that Senators is a solid name, I am surprised they messed with it.

Edit: Check out the Dodgers' name history.

The name "Brooklyn Robins" is particularly fun because it came about as a nod to their manager Wilbert Robinson.

Did they really use the Robins name throughout the 20s? I thought it was phased out well before 1931.

Here is a UP story that ran in the Pittsburgh Press in August of 1928 which speculates that Robinson might be fired at the end of his then-current contract in 1929. (He wound up lasting through 1931.) The story uses the name "Robins".

And even after Robinson was fired, an AP story in the Miami News in January of 1932 about Casey Stengel being hired as a coach continued to use the name "Robins".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, as I said, the DC monogram would do just fine as a sleeve patch. It just shouldn't be on the cap.

What's the diff? So can DC represent the team or not? Houston had a star missing a side for about 20 years and no one seemed to mind nearly enough.

I think people could surmise that "DC" represents Washington; no one's going to think the team is the DC Nationals because of the hat, or look at a hat that says DC and yell "I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I minded. I think the Astros have a Much better cap logo now. I like city initials on caps, and yes, I've expressed a wish that the Orioles do something as well, though I know that's an unpopular opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of the colors individually worked well for Arizona. I think there were just one too many of them. Four colors is just too much, and it led to their original uniforms being disjointed - mostly purple at home, mostly black on the road.

Black with turquoise and slight copper accents would have been my preferred color scheme.

Start with this hat and take it from there:

Diamondback2Tone4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the D-Backs should at least keep sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each of the colors individually worked well for Arizona. I think there were just one too many of them. Four colors is just too much, and it led to their original uniforms being disjointed - mostly purple at home, mostly black on the road.

Black with turquoise and slight copper accents would have been my preferred color scheme.

Start with this hat and take it from there:

Diamondback2Tone4.jpg

Absolutely. That's their first road hat, and it's by far the best hat they've worn. Their first road look was the best uniform they've worn.

9_DSC_9897_lg.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the Turner Field patch the Braves wlll wear.

06AFC424-C50F-423A-AD25-ABC01900FE73_zps

You're abandoning a perfectly good stadium after 20 years of use - a symbol of American waste. Would've been best just to not draw attention to it and not use have a logo/uniform patch at all.

Share this post


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