Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

What bugs me about that uni is how the pinstripes are purple, while the hat has a black crown with a teal bill. That breaks two of my "rules": 1) The pinstripes and cap should be the same color, and 2) Two-tone caps shouldn't be worn with a pinstriped jersey.

The wordmark, however, is fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bugs me about that uni is how the pinstripes are purple, while the hat has a black crown with a teal bill. That breaks two of my "rules": 1) The pinstripes and cap should be the same color, and 2) Two-tone caps shouldn't be worn with a pinstriped jersey.

The wordmark, however, is fantastic.

Yeah. There's still a whole bunch going on, and I agree with both your stipulations. But I do like that set, however. And for better or worse, it's the best the team has looked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Turner Field patch the Braves wlll wear.

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.

That's roughly what I was going to say. That short time frame really jumps out there.

How about they combine the two ballparks and say:

"50 Years (or 51 Seasons) in the City. 1966-2016"

Then next year they can have "Greener Pastures: The 'Burbs, 2017 and beyond"

Link to comment
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.

This is a very good post. But I just meant that, in 1991 the Marlins and Rockies debuted their new colors where they paired black with teal and purple respectively. In 1995 (the year Arizona firstly unveiled their logos, uniforms, etc) the Diamondbacks debuted their purple and teal color scheme. Yes the colors looked good and had solid reasons for their use but they clearly took the same two main colors of the two expansion teams before them. What the Marlins and Rockies did with teal and purple after 1995 is irrelevant to the point that the Diamondbacks took their two colors, making it not as unique as some think. I never said anyone would confuse any of the 3 teams in appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bugs me about that uni is how the pinstripes are purple, while the hat has a black crown with a teal bill. That breaks two of my "rules": 1) The pinstripes and cap should be the same color, and 2) Two-tone caps shouldn't be worn with a pinstriped jersey.

The wordmark, however, is fantastic.

Suggestion, what if the pinstripes were black and the wordmark lost the drop shadow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideal Nationals set would have been the beveled scripts in navy and the DC monogram on navy. No one else in the National League wears navy and red with a heavy emphasis on navy, plus metallic gold jumps off a base layer of navy better than it does red. The park's proximity to the Navy Yard makes an emphasis on navy blue make even more sense. Yes, the Capitals and Not Bullets are red-based, but that's all the more reason not to be: you're not part of their parent company; don't let people get away with wearing the same gear to Nats games that they'd wear to Caps games.

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.

I like the TC cap for the Twins, and the DC cap for the Nats. The US capital hasn't legally been "Washington" since 1871. It's just "District of Columbia."

So just name them the District of Columbia Nationals.

I'm only half kidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Gone. . . For the most part.

Purple, Teal, Copper, & Black all making a return?

I would be beyond ecstatic if this is true!

I should say the sand is still there, but more for logos. As for the colors, black is still a staple in the color scheme. . . however, of the three remaining, one will return.

I doubt that they'd use copper and sand in the same set, so it's probably going to be black/sand/teal or black/sand/purple. Either would be an improvement.

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.