TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

Recommended Posts

Had a little debate with someone recently, figure you guys would be the best source for confirmation...

 

To the best of my knowledge, all reds in MLB on caps and jerseys CURRENTLY are the exact same shade of red with the exception of obvious examples such as the DBacks' sedona red and the dark red shading inside the Angels' A logo... is this correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. 

 

New Era offers a pretty limited range of colors to most clubs.  For example, all teams with royal blue use one of two shades - the Dodgers and Rangers use the darker of the two, the Cubs and Mets the lighter.  All the red caps are the same red (Angels, Cardinals, Reds, Indians and more). 

 

Sometimes a club comes along with a color scheme that forces New Era to step outside that standard palette, like the Marlins with their red/orange.  But the vast majority hew to New Era's hues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

Yep. 

 

New Era offers a pretty limited range of colors to most clubs.  For example, all teams with royal blue use one of two shades - the Dodgers use the darker of the two, the Cubs and Mets the lighter.  All the red caps are the same red (Angels, Cardinals, Reds, Indians and more). 

Thanks.

 

Off the top of my head I believe there's one red, two royal blues, three navy blues, two oranges, one purple (could be two if we count the DBacks throwback), not sure about the yellows as I've never checked on that but I believe there's only one yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the Third navy?  I only know the light navy (Brewers, Padres, Rays) and the midnight navy (Yankees, Red Sox, Mariners). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

What's the Third navy?  I only know the light navy (Brewers, Padres, Rays) and the midnight navy (Yankees, Red Sox, Mariners). 

I have no proof, just from my best recollection, but I think the Indians and cardinals and braves use the third navy which isn't quite as dark as the midnight navy? 

 

I could be wrong though. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going be the New Era custom site, below are the standard colors I can see.

 

- Scarlet (Phillies, Cardinals, Angels)

- Cardinal (D-Backs I think)

- Maroon (no one currently, except for maybe throwback Phillies)

- Kelly green (no current, but probably St Patricks Day caps)

- Dark green (A's)

- Blue azure (kind of royal blue, but lighter)  I think its the Threshers former blue cap here

- Dark royal (Rangers, Dodgers)

- Light royal (Mets, Cubs)

- Dark navy (Braves, Yankees, Boston)

- Light navy (Rays, Brewers, Padres)

- Purple (Rockies, D-backs throwback)

- Black (Pirates, Orioles, Giants, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

Going be the New Era custom site, below are the standard colors I can see.

 

- Scarlet (Phillies, Cardinals, Angels)

- Cardinal (D-Backs I think)

- Maroon (no one currently, except for maybe throwback Phillies)

- Kelly green (no current, but probably St Patricks Day caps)

- Dark green (A's)

- Blue azure (kind of royal blue, but lighter)  I think its the Threshers former blue cap here

- Dark royal (Rangers, Dodgers)

- Light royal (Mets, Cubs)

- Dark navy (Braves, Yankees, Boston)

- Light navy (Rays, Brewers, Padres)

- Purple (Rockies, D-backs throwback)

- Black (Pirates, Orioles, Giants, etc)

 

Plus we've seen northwest green used for the Mariners, virbrant orange/red-orange for the Marlins, teal for the Marlins, and mustard used for the Pirates (and maybe they wore a classic yellow gold hat as well, but I think that was just batting helmets?)

 

There might be two purples now that the Rockies switched shades.  

 

Minor leagues may have a couple extra shades too, but for the most part, MiLB hats fall in the standard spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

I have no proof, just from my best recollection, but I think the Indians and cardinals and braves use the third navy which isn't quite as dark as the midnight navy? 

 

I could be wrong though. . .

 

I own all of those and they're the exact same shade as the Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

What's the Third navy?  I only know the light navy (Brewers, Padres, Rays) and the midnight navy (Yankees, Red Sox, Mariners). 

Hmm,

 

My brain wants to say there's light and midnight and a regular navy that's in between but now I'm not so sure of myself so I could be wrong especially because I can't remember any examples of a third navy.

 

It's probably two.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jp1409 said:

 

I own all of those and they're the exact same shade as the Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees.

I believe you, but that surprises me because sometimes I thing the Yankees blue looks damn near black. I've never thought the Cardinals navy hats looked that dark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jp1409 said:

 

I own all of those and they're the exact same shade as the Red Sox, Tigers and Yankees.

 

I thought the Indians used the more purple shade of Navy that the Brewers/Padres use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Well it's already been shown that it could have been moved 20-30 more feet, but also I'm struggling to believe that in a city as sparsely populated as Houston, there wasn't a larger plot of land to work with.  

 

Um...Houston is the 4th largest city in the nation. Bigger than Philly. Reminds of being in Philly and an Uber driving saying "So uh, Houston, is that like a big city too?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Anubis2051 said:

 

I thought the Indians used the more purple shade of Navy that the Brewers/Padres use?

 

They switched navy shades a few years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JustABallCoach said:
19 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Well it's already been shown that it could have been moved 20-30 more feet, but also I'm struggling to believe that in a city as sparsely populated as Houston, there wasn't a larger plot of land to work with.  

 

Um...Houston is the 4th largest city in the nation. Bigger than Philly. Reminds of being in Philly and an Uber driving saying "So uh, Houston, is that like a big city too?"

 

Houston is sparsely populated compared to the other large American cities.  New York has about 18,000 people per square mile; Chicago and Philadelphia have about 11,000; Los Angeles has almost 8000.  Houston has 3400.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2017 at 8:35 PM, dont care said:

Yep clearly enough room to expand on the other side 

IMG_3397.PNG

 

On 2/27/2017 at 7:51 AM, Bouj said:

 

They only could have expanded to the trees.  There is a city street there lined by the trees.  Yes, they could have done that at the expense of parking, but parking was already at a premium with the park was built.

 

And before anyone asks about all the empty-appearing area around the park, this is an old photo, and the team doesn't own that land.  The area across the street from the left field wall is townhouses/condos now, the area across Texas St has long been developed or it is owned by the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, and most of the other areas that could be for parking have been developed as well.  There is more parking across US Highway 59, but it butts up against the Dynamo's park.

 

9 hours ago, Bouj said:

 

As others pointed out above, that's an outdated photo.  I was just down there for the Winter Invitational.  The condos behind LF aren't in that pic.  They've been under construction since before the 2015 playoff run.  The construction crane at that site collapsed on the day the ALCS began in 2015 (Had the Astros not lost to KC, it...wouldn't have affected them at all because they would have been in TOR for G1).

 

And I'm not saying it was a good idea to not move the park to the tree line.  I'm just explaining the reasoning.  They were tied up by the desire to keep Union Station (to house the team's offices) and the train track (a contrivance for certain).  But the field dimensions are not substantially different than Fenway.  The wall is shorter, but the distances are similar.  For all the complaints about "cheap offense", it's really a falsehood perpetuated by the team's poor pitching in 2000 and during the lean years of the early 2010's.  When the Astros' staff is decent-to-good, it's a middle-of-the-pack offensive park (according to MLB Park Factors).

 

Since this question has been asked multiple times, Minute Maid Park could not shift closer to the street along the first base side. While you may a see a parking lot in the foreground, there's an existing structure that's blocking the roof rail by the RF corner. 

 

In short, Minute Maid was hemmed in on both sides of the site, and its design is a byproduct of its site restrictions ...ya know, like Fenway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYCdog said:

 

 

 

Since this question has been asked multiple times, Minute Maid Park could not shift closer to the street along the first base side. While you may a see a parking lot in the foreground, there's an existing structure that's blocking the roof rail by the RF corner. Even though the Google Earth sceencap is outdated, I believe that building is still there. 

 

In short, Minute Maid was hemmed in on both sides of the site, and its design is a byproduct of its site restrictions ...ya know, like Fenway. 

Ever hear of eminent domain. I'm sure they could have bought out the owners for that small buildings land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dont care said:

Ever hear of eminent domain. I'm sure they could have bought out the owners for that small buildings land

 

Oh I've heard of it. 

 

I don't know what the situation was here but if they didn't subject the land owner to eminent domain proceedings, that's a rare positive move in the sports industry.

 

Sports teams shouldn't be using eminent domain to build a damn palace to entertain the rich.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Houston is sparsely populated compared to the other large American cities.  New York has about 18,000 people per square mile; Chicago and Philadelphia have about 11,000; Los Angeles has almost 8000.  Houston has 3400.

 

Yeah. I saw a map that showed how big Philadelphia would be if it was as dense as other cities. For some of the dense Asian cities and NY it was half or less of its size. 

 

For houston, it was around 5x as big or something because of how sparse Houston's population is. Comparing areas like Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix to east coast cities is silly, and there's really no point. City lines work totally differently, and density isn't even close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Houston is much less dense. That doesn't mean there were other better options downtown for the ball park. Downtown and Houston city limits are two different things. 

 

The only thing that really matters though is that we are quite happy with our ball park in Houston. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anubis2051 said:

 

I thought the Indians used the more purple shade of Navy that the Brewers/Padres use?

 

The Indians have used both the light and dark navy, sometimes at the same time.  IIRC, when they introduced the "C" cap it was midnight navy while wahoo was the lighter navy.   But I'm pretty sure they've moved to just one navy since then.  

Share this post


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