MLB Changes 2017

[Matito]

5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Every time I see it, the Marlins gray jersey gets closer and closer to becoming my favorite of theirs. It's just sharp looking. It's the right balance of them wanting to use black and wanting to be colorful because the gray is a perfect base for that. The white wordmark is a fabulous touch. You'd never think a white wordmark would work on a gray jersey but this one shows it can. Makes me wonder if any other teams could do it. 

I think white can look really good on a gray uniform when used correctly, and Miami does a good job.

 

I forget who, but a while ago, I saw someone in the Concepts forum who had a concept for a baseball team whose main color was white, using just a dash of blue and red as accents, and it was really well done. I'd like to see someone embrace it like that.

[daveindc]

7 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Why are the Mariners using the slogan True To The Blue if they use 2 shades of blue and their most recognizable color is teal? I dunno, I know it still fits but out of all teams that wouldn't have been the team that I'd expect to use that slogan. Maybe the Dodgers, Royals or even Cubs. 

 

 

I think the Mariners would benefit from switching to a lighter shade of navy throughout their set. At this point all they need to do is lighten the letters and wear the lighter shade of navy cap like the Padres and Rays wear. The navy they have now to me just seems unnecessarily dark and stale. The lighter shade brightens up the overall look, with the teal continuing to pop.

[Around the Horn]

20 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

Even though I yearn for the days when the Marlins wore teal, I really do like their current road greys. The white wordmark on a grey uniform really works for me here. 

Swap out the black piping and NOB in their uniform set for their shade of light blue (or teal?) and this is one hell of a jersey...

[TheOldRoman]

4 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

 

 

I think the Mariners would benefit from switching to a lighter shade of navy throughout their set. At this point all they need to do is lighten the letters and wear the lighter shade of navy cap like the Padres and Rays wear. The navy they have now to me just seems unnecessarily dark and stale. The lighter shade brightens up the overall look, with the teal continuing to pop.

 

1) I disagree with you. The lighter shade of navy is bad. Also, as far as I know, the teams wearing the lighter navy hats still use the same dark navy on the jerseys. If anything, they should lighten up the teal a hair.

 

2) This picture show how crappy the matte helmets are. They're two weeks into the season and the helmets are already scuffed up with glossy marks on them. Shiny helmets masked scuffs much better.

[joey joe joe jr. shabadoo]

On 4/15/2017 at 4:54 PM, Brandon9485 said:

Jackie Robinson deserves celebration, but I am against league wide number retirements. I wish they had left 42 alone and made every player wear it on April 15th.

 

The NHL should unretire 99 as well. Let Edmonton, Los Angeles, St. Louis, and the New York Rangers retire it if they want to. 

 

No single player is bigger than the game. No numbers should be taken out of circulation in an entire league. Not Gretzky or Robinson

 

Plus Gretzky was more linked to his number (which was unusual at the time) while Robinson for what he endured and the courage and grace that he showed in paving the way. But 42 isn't iconic in any way outside of baseball...99 is sort of inseparable from Gretzky. 

 

That said as a Met fan I can tell you there are still many MANY Mets fans that, while very appreciative of Robinson, feel that the entrance to their stadium should not be a shrine to Jackie Robinson & the Dodgers. That when entering the stadium...things still don't quite feel right.

[SilverBullet1929]

Are we positive the Mariners use the darker navy? I feel like I know they do but I just watched the Marlins play three games at Safeco Field, which I never do as the Marlins haven't played there since 2011... but I couldn't stop thinking how light the navy looked in every single use of it. I just kept thinking that their navy looks way more like the Rays navy than the Yankees navy... so what's the problem? I think the pics above show this too. Am I wrong? Anyone else ever noticed this?

[The Golden One]

A's President on AMA just mentioned this about next year...

" We have one throwback this year and next year to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the club in Oakland we are going to go wild with throwback nights! "

[WSU151]

5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Are we positive the Mariners use the darker navy? I feel like I know they do but I just watched the Marlins play three games at Safeco Field, which I never do as the Marlins haven't played there since 2011... but I couldn't stop thinking how light the navy looked in every single use of it. I just kept thinking that their navy looks way more like the Rays navy than the Yankees navy... so what's the problem? I think the pics above show this too. Am I wrong? Anyone else ever noticed this?

 

I have a hat, and it's definitely the darker navy.

[Quillz]

I really hope at some point the Dodgers fix their back numbers. They are too thin! Either go back to the (standard) thicker variant (as seen on the Royals and some other teams), or go back to having a barely-visible white outline. This seriously irks me and I can't stop seeing it.

[AstroCree]

More of a reason they should've kept the orange bill. The hats are too similar to each other.

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Wow.  Bronchitis, a sick grandfather, and a sudden trip to South Carolina really got me behind here.  Time to catch up.

 

On 4/9/2017 at 9:55 AM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Without disagreeing with this, you're speaking from the stance of uniform and logo buffs like us. The general public doesn't care that the Marlins use too much black, the Miami Heat use black and people here love it and nobody minded the Marlins using black before this rebrand either. People also don't hate the use of orange, they just prefer teal because it's what the Marlins embraced for a time and it's the recognizable color of the team before 2012. Also the Dolphins and the Hurricanes use orange down here as well. And the team not being as colorful as they said they'd be is not why people down here don't like the look as most here were shocked that the logo was so colorful and were fearing a rainbow uniform set. While you and I would love if they went with more blue than black if you asked the general population down here in South Florida they'd be skeptical of the thought of the team using even more colors. 

 

With that said, I believe we're giving two different sides of the same debate (uniform lovers vs South Florida sports fans)... and my only original point was that for all the shock it caused at the time of its unveiling, the Marlins rebrand is not as extreme as many made it out to be. 

 

I wasn't arguing the idea that they seem less extreme now, especially compared to the things that have come since.  I was arguing about your statement that any hatred of the rebrand came from only the logo or a nostalgia for the previous identity.

 

On 4/10/2017 at 11:55 AM, aawagner011 said:

 

What I find odd is the pattern they chose to go with.  It looks like it's crocheted.  What about this pattern screams "Braves"?

 

On 4/10/2017 at 10:04 PM, kroywen said:

I think the best "policy" for the New Era logo, if it has to exist, is for the logo to match the primary color of the monogram on the front of the cap. So, for instance, on the Cards' red caps, it'd be white (since the StL is primarily white), while on the Cards' blue caps, it'd be red. Having a New Era logo that doesn't match the primary color of the monogram is just jarring. For teams that wear logos on their caps, use the primary color of the logo.

 

The problem is that half of the time the outline is there to better contrast the cap.  The primary color may not look right straight on the crown color.  In the end, either way looks wrong for multi-color teams.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 0:48 PM, BJ Sands said:

Other than one or two throwback games, the Cubs haven't worn blue at home since the Ricketts family bought the team. For them to raise the banner in anything other than white uniforms with blue pinstripes would have been wrong. 

 

For them to win the banner in a colored alternate uniform would have been wrong.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 1:49 PM, aawagner011 said:

They've done this for a few years now, but why do the Braves get stuck with a headspoon and sleeve trim that they don't actually wear on any of their normal uniforms? From what I can tell (unless I'm missing a team), everyone else gets treated like their normal uniforms.

 

I think the piping comes from the fact that the braves alt without the tomahawk only has single piping.  Thus, when the template got taken to other uniforms, this piping became the norm instead of the standard piping.

 

Or it could just be simplification to keep the color palate small.  Everyone with double/triple piping has just single now.  See the Twins, Angels, Nationals, etc.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 4:45 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

The HR derby caps, I love the simple black caps with orange logos, nothing wrong there. The floral pattern underbrim and socks will make me poke my eyes out with a broomstick. Chris Creamer said the pattern is very Miami Marlins. Tell me where the Marlins use this gaudy garbage on their uniforms? The Marlins imply a strong use of colors but there isn't this trash bag full of colors anywhere on them but suddenly it's on these socks and caps. 

 

 

On 4/11/2017 at 4:45 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Also, one video I saw said the lightweight material is to combat the hot Miami weather, which is nice in theory but the ASG is being held in an air conditioned retractable roof ballpark so that thought goes right out the window. 

 

I'm expecting they hope that they're going to open the roof and windows for such a big showcase of the facility, let in that Miami in July air.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 9:14 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

So the Brewers wear Milwaukee at home and Brewers on the road.  To quote a professor of mine from long ago 'da hell?'

 

I wish I had that professor.

 

On 4/12/2017 at 7:57 AM, VDizzle12 said:

I would hope so. It's probably the best selling hat they have, which is why they tried to force it with the navy alts.

 

Hopefully they can add another alternate uniform next season to use it with. Maybe a red jersey or something it fits better with.

 

Maybe just go with the Cardinals method?  Red caps on Sundays over the home whites with red accessories?  I don't know about a red alt.  That would necessitate a white or navy wordmark, and neither of those feel right.  Maybe with a navy C on the chest, but then you look too much like the Twins' alt.  Of course, I'd rather the Twins wore their Dairy Queens.

 

On 4/12/2017 at 7:30 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Do world series winning teams usually give rings to their tv broadcasters?

 

I've never heard of this practice.  I don't think John and Suzyn have rings, and... I kinda feel okay with that.

 

On 4/12/2017 at 7:44 PM, Bucfan56 said:

So, they made 2016 World Series rings for Ron Santo and Ernie Banks? Why? 

 

The same reason fans left jerseys on gravesites.

 

On 4/13/2017 at 0:20 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Anyway, we are discussing not the wordmark but only the crooked C hat, which would be appropriate with the current uniform.  In 1973 the crooked C cap logo replaced the wishbone C, which was identical in shape to the Reds' logo, and which had been worn since the mid-1930s.  If the crooked C had been left in place, it would today have been on the cap for longer than the wishbone C was; and absolutely no one would be characterising it as offensive in any way.  Also, the Wahoo logo would never have experienced the elevation in status that it received in 1986 when it became the cap logo for the first time in team history; and that logo might conceivably have been retired by now.

 

I will agree that the block C is the worst cap logo in the Majors.  It's barely appropriate for a beer league team; for a Major League team it's an embarassment. 
 

For so many reasons, the crooked C is the answer.

 

On the subject of the old C, a lot of people take issue with the disparity of elements in that idea.  The C in the old cursive wordmark was never really anything special or celebrated in the hearts of fans.  I wonder how it would look if you switched them.  Then you could put that on the road and the identity would be unified.

 

On 4/13/2017 at 1:53 PM, hjwii said:

The answer is simply a plain, blue cap. Can't offend anyone if there's nothing there.  Besides, way back when the Cleveland Baseball Club (don;t want to use that "I" word) wore a plain, blue cap, so it's historically accurate.

 

The Browns of baseball.

 

On 4/14/2017 at 0:29 AM, schtee said:

I realize that Cleveland's block "C" has historical precedent from the 1910s and their 1920 World Series, but not only is it lifeless it looks too much like the "C" on Cal Berkeley's baseball caps. Slight difference in the serif on the upper right.

 

To me it looks more like the original White Sox logo.  

 

 

On 4/14/2017 at 10:22 AM, WSU151 said:

The green walls are awesome, and a fish tank in the outfield would be incredibly similar to the Rays' tank at the Trop.

 

I hate those walls.  Not only does the green look more like the produce section at your local grocery store or a placeholder to be green-screened in later.  Meanwhile, the team's got half a dozen colors and they had to bring in a completely different color not anywhere in their pallette for the walls?  Their old teal (a throwback to their original home) or their new blue would have both been so much better.  I would have taken orange.  Why not a traditional Caribbean pastel blue?

 

This is made more jarring by the old giant walls that, rather than being made of the material of other walls in the park, were made the same color as the fences, but were huge swaths with nothing breaking them up.

 

 

I'm glad the above pictures of the updated park show a much more reserved use of this green.  Yes, I understand the level system the park has.  The lower floor is green.  But it was just too much of a bad color.

 

On a side note, while looking for the above picture, I found that apparently the original concepts showed a more traditional green wall color.

 

On 4/14/2017 at 10:21 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Very few people would contend that the Indians' name is what is offensive.  (And no one in the present discussion has done so.)  Despite its origin in error, the term "Indian" has become entrenched; and most Native groups refer to themselves as Indians. Even though no new team could justifiably take that name, Cleveland's use of the name is not the thing that typically comes in for criticism.  The problematic part of the Indians' identity is the awful Wahoo logo.

 

While I do agree with you, reasoning on the names of older organizations quickly becomes a slippery slope.

 

On 4/14/2017 at 10:21 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

(What is ironic is that the Washington Redskins, a team whose name is offensive, have a logo that is relatively benign.  If the Indians had the Redskins' logo instead of Wahoo, we can imagine that the team would probably be held up as an exemplar of a dignified portrayal of Natives.)

 

Oh...  Oh good lord.  Now I'm picturing a team with the name Redskins and the Wahoo logo.  The horror.  The horror.

 

On 4/14/2017 at 10:43 PM, Solaris said:

If you have such an issue with Indians being made as a logo, why aren't the Blackhawks being given a hassle about their logo? Oh, that's because it's "dignified". If I remember correctly, the people who were protesting the home opener had signs that read, "We are not characters".

 

I think people need to move past this issue. What's interesting is that the fans are not being listened to, it's people who have zero interest in baseball and the Cleveland Indians who are telling the organization to change.

 

Again, I'm not necessarily arguing for or against Wahoo, but this argument kinda falls apart quickly.  Nobody says that outsiders should have considered the feelings of those who were fans of minstrel shows before arguing they were unacceptible.

 

On 4/11/2017 at 4:45 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Overall, one thing I'm noticing with these looks is that a lot of these things are great in a vacuum, so basically they're perfect for fans to buy because they'll look cool when you're wearing them on the weekend just hanging out. So what they've basically made here is excellent fan fashion caps and jerseys but are forcing the players to wear them on the field where they'll actually look pretty bad overall. So it's clear to see what this is all about and I don't have to explain that to anyone here because we all know it. These are for the fans and not the players.

 

On 4/14/2017 at 10:58 PM, MCM0313 said:

Those would be good divorced from the tradition-rich history of baseball uniforms in general, and the Giants' uniforms in particular. I think they look pretty solid as a standalone item.

 

This is my constant struggle, especially being a fan of traditional looks and having a traditional team that I never want to change.  I love white and gray, but dangit so many colored alts look good.  Same for some of the Stance socks that shirk already established designs and traditional design, but just kinda look cool.  I actually do dig the All-Star look this year.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 6:14 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

They were thinking "these look great".  And they were correct.

 

Well, they were correct insofar as the stirrups are concerned.  Those stripes above aren't helping.

 

But I don't care whether the stirrups are real or fake.  They look like stirrups; so they're good.  Likewise, I wouldn't really mind if a pullover jersey had a false front of buttons, as long as it preserved the appropriate look.

 

Fake stirrups or two-in-ones are perfectly fine.  Seeing them in action still fills me with the same apprehension I had when I first saw them.  Those stripes across the ankle ruin any attempt to try to look like stirrups for me.

 

At least they're halfway decent from the side.  More like stirrups with high-top shoes.

 

When the month is over, we should have seen all combinations and teams that aren't going to constantly switch things up anyway.  I'll have to put together a report card on how everything looks.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 11:18 AM, Brandon9485 said:

I am not a fan of this Twins uniform. The Rangers already can't decide if they're a blue team or a red team. I think the Twins could be starting down that road. 

 

The Red Sox, Orioles, Rays, Astros, Athletics, Mariners, Nationals, Marlins, Braves, Pirates, Giants, and Rockies all wear regular colored alts of their two primary non-white colors, and others have done it in the past.  It's a common practice.  Not really anything to worry about.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 5:22 PM, Brandon9485 said:

I know Buster Olney was championing 21 for Roberto Clemente (and I understand why), but where does it end? That's why I don't like league-wide retirements. It starts a league down a slippery slope. 

 

Yeah.  Once you introduce the possibility of there being more than one league-wide retiring, the floodgates do open, even though I think Clemente well worth it if it was.  Then you'll have the arguments for 44, 3, 4, 24, 9, 34, 6, or even... *shudder* ...14.

 

On 4/15/2017 at 9:32 PM, Dolphins Dynasty said:

I bet in 100+ years, teams are going to start running out of available numbers.

 

I feel you.  Our top new guy is wearing 99.  We're already out of single digits.

 

Although we all know that a thousand years from now it's the Mets that will be in trouble.  (I dig that the racing stripes will eventually come back.)

 

On 4/16/2017 at 11:18 AM, Brandon9485 said:

Dear Minnesota Twins, 

 

I'll give you some credit for trying to switch things up and add gold to your uniforms. Truth is it's a disaster, and you already had a great home uniform. Time to cut your loses and revert back to this beauty full-time. 

 

That text is so wonky.  I'd rather they put pinstripes on the current navy outlined in red wordmark and modernize it.  Drop the gold.  It would look good and differentiate from the Homerdome style, which they can save for Friday nights or something.

 

On 4/17/2017 at 4:15 AM, batman1211 said:

I think a "TC" logo is fine if they want to be the Twin City Baseball Club. Right now it is just ridiculous. "Twins" is okay if you want to be the Minneapolis & St. Paul Twins. If you are Minnesota,  then find a mascot that represents the whole state.  I think their whole identity and logo is a hodge podge of confusion. IMO, figure who you represent then create any identity around that. Right now they don't know if they represent the state, or two cities within.  I think they have the weakest identity in any major sports league. 

 

There's three reasons for wearing a name other than your city's.

 

1. You're trying to obscure where you're playing/not alienate a nearby market of another name. (California Angels, Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Rays/Lightning/Buccaneers, New England Patriots/Revolution, Carolina Panthers, Golden State Warriors,)

2. You're the first/only team in the state and want to plant your flag/show that you represent everybody.  (Florida Marlins, Arizona Diamondbacks/Coyotes/Cardinals, Carolina Hurricanes, Colorado Avalanche/Rapids, Tennessee Titans. Utah Jazz)

3. Your name is an established phrase.  (Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies.)

 

The Twins are an example of #1, not #2.  About every team before them wore the name of one of the Twin Cities and failed as they alienated the other.  The Twins decided to avoid this issue, and if I recall correctly they became the first state named team in professional sports in the process.  Almost all Minnesota-based teams followed suit.

 

On 4/17/2017 at 5:53 AM, Ray Lankford said:

The gold on the Twins' jersey is unnecessary but pretty inoffensive considering that you can barely see it from a slight distance.

 

I don't think I will ever get over the fact that they wear an alternate cap as their standard home cap.  It just... turns a rage switch on in my brain.  It feels more against any established tradition or rules than anything the Diamondbacks or Stance have trotted out.

Okay, the soapy teal almost made me rant as much, but the alternate home is still worse.

 

On 4/17/2017 at 0:52 AM, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'd mentioned above my dream vision for the Twins' identity.  That being said, the color scheme of those alts are very unique and sharp.  I'd love to see them on someone, although I'm not 100% sure it's the twins.  Maybe the White Sox should add a splash of red.

 

Now for new business.  Anyone else watching the games/highlights in Pittsburgh?  What's with the helmet being worn by the base coach (not sure what side)?  It's got really complicated vents on it that the players don't wear, and looks nothing like the old vented/two-toned helmets.

[FinsUp1214]

On 4/20/2017 at 7:09 AM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Are we positive the Mariners use the darker navy? I feel like I know they do but I just watched the Marlins play three games at Safeco Field, which I never do as the Marlins haven't played there since 2011... but I couldn't stop thinking how light the navy looked in every single use of it. I just kept thinking that their navy looks way more like the Rays navy than the Yankees navy... so what's the problem? I think the pics above show this too. Am I wrong? Anyone else ever noticed this?

 

The helmets, alt jersey, and catching gear look lighter navy, but the hat at least is definitely the dark navy. I own both a Mariners and Padres cap, and the Padres navy is the lighter of the two.

[Mayor Daily]

Sorta random, but I found this in a Puerto Rican news article about prospect Heliot Ramos, and thought it was an interesting variation on the White Sox set.

[Big Yellow Flag]

Jackie's number should be unretired by everyone but the Dodgers (you could probably make a case for the Mets, too, but I won't like it). Jackie Robinson Day should be a thing, where people where a patch on the sleeves of jerseys with their normal numbers on the back.

 

We're going to be coming up on a time soon when people don't remember Jackie. Old Brooklyn Dodgers faithful are dwindling. Having everyone wear his number and no name once a year will change nothing, and the memory will slowly fade away. Allowing it to be worn (which most still won't, since they're already attached to their numbers) will let kids in 30 years see it on the back of their favorite player, wonder why he's wearing it, and do some research.

 

Also, hope this is okay, I took the TC posted a page or two ago and did a quick mockup of the split color look they have now.

Looks amazing.

[Quillz]

2 hours ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

Having everyone wear his number and no name once a year will change nothing, and the memory will slowly fade away. Allowing it to be worn (which most still won't, since they're already attached to their numbers) will let kids in 30 years see it on the back of their favorite player, wonder why he's wearing it, and do some research.

But if everyone is wearing #42, won't kids in 30 years wonder why this is the case, and do some research?

[Big Yellow Flag]

1 hour ago, Quillz said:

But if everyone is wearing #42, won't kids in 30 years wonder why this is the case, and do some research?

You might be right, we'll find out in thirty years.

[IceCap]

You think we're all going to forget about Jackie Robinson once everyone who saw him play is dead?

 

Historical memory doesn't work like that

[SilverBullet1929]

54 minutes ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

You might be right, we'll find out in thirty years.

I'm saving this post, expect me to reply to it in 30 years. 

[Big Yellow Flag]

25 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You think we're all going to forget about Jackie Robinson once everyone who saw him play is dead?

 

Historical memory doesn't work like that

Who he was won't be forgotten, but his incredible impact very well might be. The average baseball fan (I just asked my friends who are sitting near me, all casual fans) has already forgotten Branch Rickey.

[SilverBullet1929]

17 minutes ago, Big Yellow Flag said:

Who he was won't be forgotten, but his incredible impact very well might be. The average baseball fan (I just asked my friends who are sitting near me, all casual fans) has already forgotten Branch Rickey.

But if they continue having Jackie Robinson day then his impact won't be forgotten. Branch Rickey isn't specifically remembered because they don't have Branch Rickey Day.