Jump to content

MLB Changes 2017


TVIXX

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ray Lankford said:

He also said he's not a fan of all the different uniforms the Padres have and that the team is going to do new research.

 

It does seem like he's wearing down.

This comes after someone, not sure if it was him, said that they were tired of all the changes and wanted the 2017 jerseys to stick around for consistency and so that the next championship Padres team can happen in these uniforms. Even when they make sense, they barely make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Ohh wow didn't know that, didn't even realize there was a black band there.

I just looked back at the articles around the time these uniforms were introduced and it looks like the red and black undershirts were options for both home and away but that the red ones were meant to be worn at home.  So maybe it was intended for the black ones to be worn on the road.  I remember the replica jerseys from that set had black sleeves on the home faux vests and red ones on the roads.  When the road uniforms were paired with the red undershirts, the black arm band became more noticeable and served as a nice throwback to the 50s.  

 

Image result for frank robinson redsImage result for 1999 cincinnati reds road jersey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

This comes after someone, not sure if it was him, said that they were tired of all the changes and wanted the 2017 jerseys to stick around for consistency and so that the next championship Padres team can happen in these uniforms. Even when they make sense, they barely make any sense.

That was the other owner and in his defense, the gist of the entirety of his quote was basically "That's not my department and I don't really care." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Trying to search if the black Reds every took on the black Blue Jays and I found this other monstrosity that did happen... Apparently one St Patrick's Day the Toronto Black Blue Jays became the Toronto Green Black Blue Jays of Dunedin, Florida...

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Good Lord my eyes.

I'm kinda surprised the Blue Jays were the team in green in that one since the Reds have a St. Patrick's Day tradition...

 

5) The Cincinnati Reds debuted the first St. Pat's Day uniforms in front of a pissed-off George M. Steinbrenner in 1978.

This New York Times article says it all.

 

 

The Reds gave birth to tradition on March 17, 1978 when they trotted out wearing green-clad uniforms for their exhibition game against the New York Yankees in Tampa.

 

 

George M. Steinbrenner III is quoted as saying "I think the green uniforms matched my complexion after seeing the inadequacies of the team that is supposed to be world champion."

 

1978_REDS

 

That note and article is courtesy of Todd Radom.  Wanted to give proper credit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jch said:

 

The irony is that the pinstripe vest was their uniform in one form or another from 1958-1966.  So it was part of their historical identity and not some random choice.  

 

yeah but by 1993 going with a vest and white hat full time was a sort of wacky choice. The safe choice would've been the 1970 uniforms. That's what everybody else was doing. They probably thought the 1970 WS uniforms were a little too plain to wear again. Now though, with the proliferation of alternate uniforms they could wear the throwbacks full time and have a more modern alternate for games so they can sell both. 

 

I guess I just want them to look like grownups again. Their current uniforms are a little too "cutesy old timey 1870's baseball theme park" for me. They can even keep the black if they just lose the name and number font. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jch said:

 

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Ohh wow didn't know that, didn't even realize there was a black band there.

I just looked back at the articles around the time these uniforms were introduced and it looks like the red and black undershirts were options for both home and away but that the red ones were meant to be worn at home.  So maybe it was intended for the black ones to be worn on the road.  I remember the replica jerseys from that set had black sleeves on the home faux vests and red ones on the roads.  When the road uniforms were paired with the red undershirts, the black arm band became more noticeable and served as a nice throwback to the 50s.  

 

Image result for frank robinson redsImage result for 1999 cincinnati reds road jersey

 

 

That black band was put there in memory of manager Fred Hutchinson, who died in 1964.  I had no idea that the Reds later took that memorial and turned it into a design element!  Terrible move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

yeah but by 1993 going with a vest and white hat full time was a sort of wacky choice. The safe choice would've been the 1970 uniforms. That's what everybody else was doing. They probably thought the 1970 WS uniforms were a little too plain to wear again. Now though, with the proliferation of alternate uniforms they could wear the throwbacks full time and have a more modern alternate for games so they can sell both. 

 

I guess I just want them to look like grownups again. Their current uniforms are a little too "cutesy old timey 1870's baseball theme park" for me. They can even keep the black if they just lose the name and number font. 

I actually think the opposite works. Dump the black but keep the unique font. It seems like baseball in general has left the non-descript font to the Yankees road uniform and I think it's  better that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But are we sure the Frank Robinson black bands were actually black? I found other pics, not sure of the years, where the bands and other what we thought were black elements actually looked navy blue. Were they still black and the coloring is just off on these pics? Anyone know more about the Reds using navy blue instead of black? 

Image result for frank robinson redsImage result for frank robinson reds

 

Edit: On second look it's pretty certain the arm band was black especially if it was honoring someone's death but the other elements definitely seem navy blue in the above pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Trying to search if the black Reds every took on the black Blue Jays and I found this other monstrosity that did happen... Apparently one St Patrick's Day the Toronto Black Blue Jays became the Toronto Green Black Blue Jays of Dunedin, Florida...

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Good Lord my eyes.

 

 

They've done it more than once. 

 

1991:

 

the-blue-jays-needed-more-than-green-st-patricks-day-hats-against-the-picture-id502502943Related image

 

Last Season:

 

Image result for blue jays st patricks day 2016

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

I think the Reds, Dodgers, Yankees, and White Sox can get away with specifically saying white is a team color. Maybe the Royals too. Seems weird but one of my little tests on this is, you know the generic idea of a super fan painting their face to go to a game? The one that splits their face in two halves and colors one side of his face one team color and the other side the other team color? What two colors would be used for each team? If white makes sense then I'd say it's a viable choice as an actual team color.

 

6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That is a worthwhile test.  

It's interesting that New Jersey Devils superfan David Puddy used red and green, even though the team's current colours (as shown by his jersey) were red and black.

wearethedevils.jpeg

 

I think that a Padres superfan would probably use brown and yellow.  So green is to the Devils as brown is to the Padres -- namely, the team's true colour that the current management is foolish in ignoring.

 

Excellent point by Silver (not dissimilar to my own way of thinking) and great analogy by Ferdinand. Agreed on all counts, except I think the Royals' secondary should be periwinkle/powder blue/baby blue/whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Trying to search if the black Reds every took on the black Blue Jays and I found this other monstrosity that did happen... Apparently one St Patrick's Day the Toronto Black Blue Jays became the Toronto Green Black Blue Jays of Dunedin, Florida...

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Image result for blue jays reds 2006

Good Lord my eyes.

If an actual leprechaun saw this matchup, he wouldn't have time to say, "They're after me Lucky Charms!" before he started spewing gold coins and whiskey from his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

But are we sure the Frank Robinson black bands were actually black? I found other pics, not sure of the years, where the bands and other what we thought were black elements actually looked navy blue. Were they still black and the coloring is just off on these pics? Anyone know more about the Reds using navy blue instead of black? 

Image result for frank robinson redsImage result for frank robinson reds

 

Edit: On second look it's pretty certain the arm band was black especially if it was honoring someone's death but the other elements definitely seem navy blue in the above pics.

 

You're right - those elements are navy.  Black wasn't introduced until the 1990s. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2017 at 4:18 PM, LMU said:

The Cards aren't an one-off in honoring drunk drivers.

 

On 2/11/2017 at 6:19 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

The Flyers did it too when Pelle Limberg died from a drunk driving crash.  THat was the early '80s - I don't know if drunk driving was taken as seriously then as it is now.

 

They pulled 31 from circulation, but never retired it or honored him.

 

At least with these cases they didn't take anyone with them.  I can even feel sympathy for cases in which a person's demons catch up to them, like Billy Martin and Randy Savage.  Less so with Tavares, who murdered his girlfriend.  It's hard to feel him deserving of any memorial.  We'll probably never know what happened with Fernandez, though, so for all se know he was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.  I'll give the Marlins this one.

 

15 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

Then everyone has white as a secondary color, which means nobody does.

 

As a Yankees fan who wishes red would come back in their marketing more, I still want it only as a third color, because their secondary color is white.  Same for the White Sox, Royals, Angels, Rays, Blue Jays, Dodgers, Phillies, Padres, and yes, even the current Reds.  And a lot of the other teams DO have white in their color scheme as an actual element, often as a tertiary color: the Orioles, Red Sox, Indians, Tigers, Astros, Twins, Athletics, Mariners, Rangers, Braves, Cubs, Marlins, Brewers, Mets, Pirates, Cardinals, and Nationals.  Yes, that's most of the league, but given the wide variety that takes place between those colors schemes, it's perfectly fine.  It's used and it still counts as a major color in these identities.

 

8 hours ago, jch said:

Although the most memorable set of uniforms (i.e. the Big Red Machine era) had road grays with no white outline around the lettering or the numbers

Image result for 1976 reds

 

Right there.  This is the difference between white being a secondary color and white just happening to be the color of the home uniform.  They're not just flipping all the white to gray on the away jersey.  They've got white stripes on there.  Same with the Yankees, White Sox, and Blue Jays.

 

The only teams I'd say don't white as an actual feature of their on-field identity is the Diamondbacks, Rockies, and Giants.

 

5 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I guess I just want them to look like grownups again. Their current uniforms are a little too "cutesy old timey 1870's baseball theme park" for me. They can even keep the black if they just lose the name and number font. 

 

The thing about the Reds as an organization in the New Millennium lately is that they seem to completely base their entire identity around cutesy old timey baseball.  They laud themselves as the original team, the keepers of tradition who get opening day every year because of it.  Pillbox caps.  Big moustaches.  It's who they are.  I agree they should get away from it, but it's just them leaning into who they want to be.

 

2 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

Excellent point by Silver (not dissimilar to my own way of thinking) and great analogy by Ferdinand. Agreed on all counts, except I think the Royals' secondary should be periwinkle/powder blue/baby blue/whatever.

 

Powder is a part of the team's highest high, and hence has become an important part of their identity.  However, I never want to see them besmirch the perfect, simple home uniforms with it.  Even those 70's-80's teams never messed with it.  Keep powder as an alt (unless you wanna make it the away jersey color full time).

 

273900-8f885.jpg

World-Series-Mets-Royals-Baseball-3.jpg

 

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

You're right - those elements are navy.  Black wasn't introduced until the 1990s. 

 

Huh... that's a weird color to do a memorial stripe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

...

 

Powder is a part of the team's highest high, and hence has become an important part of their identity.  However, I never want to see them besmirch the perfect, simple home uniforms with it.  Even those 70's-80's teams never messed with it.  Keep powder as an alt (unless you wanna make it the away jersey color full time).

 

273900-8f885.jpg

World-Series-Mets-Royals-Baseball-3.jpg

Agreed. I think the best look for today's Royals would be royal blue cap at all times, with current home and road primaries; royal blue home alternate shirt worn with white pants, possibly with minimal powder blue trim on the shirt; and a powder blue road alt with matching pants. I think MLB requires road uniforms to have either grey shirts or grey pants now, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DAKINS24 said:

 

 

They've done it more than once. 

 

1991:

 

the-blue-jays-needed-more-than-green-st-patricks-day-hats-against-the-picture-id502502943Related image

 

 

That pic of Dave Stieb is confusing me.  It looks like it is at SkyDome, which, if true, leads me to ask... 1) Why are the Blue Jays playing at Skydome in the middle of March?    and 2) Why are the Blue Jays wearing gray pants at SkyDome?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SCalderwood said:

That pic of Dave Stieb is confusing me.  It looks like it is at SkyDome, which, if true, leads me to ask... 1) Why are the Blue Jays playing at Skydome in the middle of March?    and 2) Why are the Blue Jays wearing gray pants at SkyDome?  

 

With those walls it could be Yankee Stadium, Tigers Stadium, or Comiskey Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SCalderwood said:

 

But that definitely looks like artificial turf, which means I don't think it could be any of those.

Well, you know the date on which the game was played. Even with the sparse documentation that Spring Training games often receive, you should at least be able to turn up a few more facts with Google's help.

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.