Jump to content

MLB 2016 Changes


FiddySicks

Recommended Posts

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."

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.

Again, the status of the name "Washington" is irrelevant; what matters is that it's in the team's name. That's the reason for a W hat.

If the team were called the "D.C. Nationals", then the cap should have DC. If it were called the "Capital Nationals", then the cap should have a C. If it were called the "Arlington Nationals", then the cap should have an A. If it were called the "Northern Virginia Nationals", then the cap should have NV. And so forth.

The team's cap should reflect the team's actual name. A straightforward concept.

No. Not everything has to be so standardized. That leaves no room for creativity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another example of an unwritten rule in baseball that I don't care for. Older teams have cap logos that reflect the location/actual name, so newer teams think they have to, as well. In fact, I'm in favor of fewer monograms in baseball in general. It's why I like the Blue Jays cap logo so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another example of an unwritten rule in baseball that I don't care for. Older teams have cap logos that reflect the location/actual name, so newer teams think they have to, as well. In fact, I'm in favor of fewer monograms in baseball in general. It's why I like the Blue Jays cap logo so much.

The only reason I don't mind a non-letter cap logo for the Blue Jays is that they've always embraced unconventional design and been able to as a Canadian team playing on carpet. Lettering looks better for the other 29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's another example of an unwritten rule in baseball that I don't care for. Older teams have cap logos that reflect the location/actual name, so newer teams think they have to, as well. In fact, I'm in favor of fewer monograms in baseball in general. It's why I like the Blue Jays cap logo so much.

The only reason I don't mind a non-letter cap logo for the Blue Jays is that they've always embraced unconventional design and been able to as a Canadian team playing on carpet. Lettering looks better for the other 29.

I'll give Baltimore a pass too, but probably only because in my lifetime they've only worn logos on the cap.

Usually, I think mascot-based caps look very amateurish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Twins, Angels, A's and Diamondbacks do not agree.

The nickname is also part of the team name. So the Angels, A's, and Diamondbacks do not disagree, as they all have caps with monograms which reflect their teams' names..

The Twins, however, do disagree. And that's why I hate their hat -- especially considering the fact that they ditched the superior M cap in which the won two World Series (and which matches their wordmark) in order to go back to that crappy TC cap logo.

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."

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.

Again, the status of the name "Washington" is irrelevant; what matters is that it's in the team's name. That's the reason for a W hat.

If the team were called the "D.C. Nationals", then the cap should have DC. If it were called the "Capital Nationals", then the cap should have a C. If it were called the "Arlington Nationals", then the cap should have an A. If it were called the "Northern Virginia Nationals", then the cap should have NV. And so forth.

The team's cap should reflect the team's actual name. A straightforward concept.

No. Not everything has to be so standardized. That leaves no room for creativity.

It leaves plenty of room for creativity. The team can use the locality name as the basis for a monogram. Or it can use the nickname as the basis of a monogram. Or it can use both, as the Rockies do. Or else it could use a graphical symbol on the cap.

Which brings us to...

It's another example of an unwritten rule in baseball that I don't care for. Older teams have cap logos that reflect the location/actual name, so newer teams think they have to, as well. In fact, I'm in favor of fewer monograms in baseball in general. It's why I like the Blue Jays cap logo so much.

The Blue Jays' cap logo is excellent, as is the Orioles'. But I wouldn't want to see too many teams doing that. A few graphical cap logos in the context of the majority monograms is the right mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm trying to think what translates so differently from flat graphics to real fabric, and the only thing I can think of is sublimated designs or shimmer material or things like that. Thins like the Magic's old star uniforms, or the new Hawks.

So we know that the Diamondbacks jerseys will feature the same (or similar) D-BACKS wordmark, but vertically arched. There will be a return of either purple or turquoise to go along with the red and black. My guess is turquoise, only because it goes better.

The questions are how the new color will be used (could be as simple as an outline, or could be more dramatic) and what the "mystery" innovation is. If it's sublimation, then where? It would look silly if on the whole top but not the pants, so I'd wager it's just maybe the sleeves, or maybe on the letters themselves?

Also, if it's sublimation, what is the design? Could it be the snake-head repeated a million times? Or the A logo?

Or... maybe a giant wrap-around snake! I would support that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Padres-if they are in fact going to sport a brown-n-athletic-gold fauxback, I would like to lobby MLB to allow them to play their entire 162-game schedule at home, and only play on the day of the week they choose for Fauxback Day. For example, if they randomly choose to wear them on Home Fridays, then each week they play a sextupleheader that day. That will account for MLB's average of one off day a week, hence six games instead of seven. Both teams can just keep a running batting order, to ease transitions between the six games. Add on the time clock used in MiLB, and we're in business. 2.5 hours or less per game, we're looking at getting the whole week in during that 24-hour period. Start at 12:01 AM that particular day, and even with a random extra-inning game thrown in, we should be good. Pause for high tea at 4:00ish PM. To offset the fact that the Padres will be home team every game, the visitors get to keep half the concessions plus each player gets a commemorative brown Swingin' Friar tee shirt. Sound like a plan? (In all seriousness, long live the brown!)

Diamondbacks-if they incorporate turquoise into their current color palette, I can live with it. Really essential to have that color represented by at least one pro team in AZ, in honor of the Navajo Nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm trying to think what translates so differently from flat graphics to real fabric, and the only thing I can think of is sublimated designs or shimmer material or things like that. Thins like the Magic's old star uniforms, or the new Hawks.

So we know that the Diamondbacks jerseys will feature the same (or similar) D-BACKS wordmark, but vertically arched. There will be a return of either purple or turquoise to go along with the red and black. My guess is turquoise, only because it goes better.

The questions are how the new color will be used (could be as simple as an outline, or could be more dramatic) and what the "mystery" innovation is. If it's sublimation, then where? It would look silly if on the whole top but not the pants, so I'd wager it's just maybe the sleeves, or maybe on the letters themselves?

Also, if it's sublimation, what is the design? Could it be the snake-head repeated a million times? Or the A logo?

Or... maybe a giant wrap-around snake! I would support that idea.

You are so close in so many ways.

Come to think of it, I can't remember sublimation ever being on a baseball jersey before.

Mind = blown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I have at least 1 more season of the current crappy Brewers look.

Afraid so. We need to make our voices heard!

The current set has had a decent run, but it certainly has become stale. Now in complete rebuild mode along with a new GM, now would be the time to change for a fresh start so I guess I'm now hoping for the 2017 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Uni-Watch:

Joey Artigue is “hearing the #Dbacks new uniforms next season will have elements that sport the scale-like print in this image.

CTKAhG-UAAATxmd.jpg

So I guess now we know what the sublimation pattern is.

Yeesh. If this is considered a tweak, I wonder what the radical change would have been.

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.