TVIXX

MLB Changes 2017

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, phutmasterflex said:

The trim (or no trim for the Tigers) probably was the first thing I see that helps me easily distinguish 

cabrera-tigers-homer-apjpg-0653fe8feb9b8

04212015-mariners36-1560x1040.jpg

 

The differences are more obvious now that they tweaked their outlines, but before that, the only differences from the rear were a slightly different variation of the block font and the subtle teal outline. I can see how someone could confuse them at a quick glance from this angle.

 

91124776.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, phutmasterflex said:

The trim (or no trim for the Tigers) probably was the first thing I see that helps me easily distinguish 

 

04212015-mariners36-1560x1040.jpg

 

The new trim reminds me of the old Marlins uniforms 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2017 at 2:28 PM, aawagner011 said:

The low crown has been an option for a while, but I think we've only recently begun to see them easily accessible at retail. I think they used to be sold on an MiLB site and occasionally in shops but they were hard to find. Now they are very easy to acquire.

 

I believe they've been an on field option for a very long time. One of the most notable to wear them is Ichiro.

 

The design of the cap is 100% the same but the fit is much better (at least for me). Much more comfortable and feels less like it's squeezing my noggin. There also isn't an extra inch of air between my head and the crown.

 

It's all personal preference but I've found I can't go back to high crown 5950s. Low crown is the only way I'll do fitted New Era now.

I personally prefer the 3930 to the 5950, for much the same reasons (lower crown, stretch fit). But this low crown 5950 seems to be a good in-between. If I ever see one, I'll have to buy one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Quillz said:

I personally prefer the 3930 to the 5950, for much the same reasons (lower crown, stretch fit). But this low crown 5950 seems to be a good in-between. If I ever see one, I'll have to buy one.

From my experiences, it seems to have somewhat of the comfort and fit of the 3930 but more of the traditional baseball cap shape to it (but yet not the boxy flat bill 5950). Granted, they are still sized to your head so not the flex fit S/M or L/XL you see with 3930, but it's a very good in between. Bill comes somewhat precurved and just fits totally different. Based on your comments, I bet you'd find that you like them quite well. You can easily get them online (and I've found the sizing to be more consistent than the normal high crown 5950s) and sometimes in stores, too. Lids often has them in stock in their retail stores.

Share this post


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

But how is that not OR?

 

I was in the process of trying to think of ways that one could come to that conclusion, and was going to write them out, but decided to just cut to the chase and ask.  How so?

 

There.  That's so much easier.  XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Speaking of socks, I'm going through the photos from the month of April to get a sense of team's habits so I can get the Wikipedia images right and give a full appraisal of the Stance movement.

 

Why exactly wouldnt that be OR?

 

Quote

all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.

 

Any research you do, looking through photographs and drawing conclusions from them, is by definition original research.  You'd need a published article from a reliable, verifiable, published source like the teams' style guides.

 

Wikipedia only works, to the extent it does, because every assertion needs to be supported. Editors can challenge and verify content by checking the support.

 

The system is kind of set up precisely to avoid the very scenario you posit, where a single editor researches and makes his own conclusions, conclusions which are then granted the imprimatur of legitimacy via their inclusion in an article (instead of the other way around).  No matter how much esteem I have for that editor. 

Share this post


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

Any research you do, looking through photographs and drawing conclusions from them, is by definition original research.  You'd need a published article from a reliable, verifiable, published source like the teams' style guides.

 

Wikipedia only works, to the extent it does, because every assertion needs to be supported. Editors can challenge and verify content by checking the support.

 

The system is kind of set up precisely to avoid the very scenario you posit, where a single editor researches and makes his own conclusions, conclusions which are then granted the imprimatur of legitimacy via their inclusion in an article (instead of the other way around).  No matter how much esteem I have for that editor. 

 

Son of a whore.  Chrome crashed and I lost my first draft.

 

Anyway, that was a heck of a lot easier than attempting to divine your meaning as I was originally trying to do.  I completely understand your point.  Sourcing is important to articles, even if the policy can be problematic in rare cases.

 

However, images are not handled the same way as article text does.  They are attributed to creator and licensed correctly, but not always sourced.  Generally they are judged on their veracity the same way we would challenge an images veracity in this community.  Sure, famous images may have third person sources describing them, but the majority would be harder to find.  Especially since a number of images are photos taken by the uploader.

 

Articles must pass the notability test, but images need not.  They need only be free, although people can challenge the necessity of an image and put it up to discussion.  A goodly amount of images in the sports world are unsourced as there are few places other than here that would write an article about them.  Sadly, Fearless Leader has not written about the Stance options.  In fact, I was hoping to post soon my observations about prevailing patterns in design use.

 

Are the style guides open to the public?  I thought there were a select few around here that had access to them.  If everything's there, then I'd love to point to it, although I know that a number of inaccuracies and outdated information tend to plague them.  That's how we got the Brewers webbing, no?  And I'm sure it would just show the various options available if they're in there, not what's actually worn by the team with each uniform.  And that doesn't address the people who just bring whatever they want and wear it.

 

In the end, I'm trying to show the most accurate thing to what's on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that. And I respect it.  But I still think it's problematic.  

 

Images are subject to the same restriction on original research.  Your point about bad images being out there is an excellent one, and demonstrates why graphics need also be sourced, lest Wikipedia spread (and authenticate) bad information.

 

Again, I trust your work.  But Wikipedia has been responsible for spreading inaccurate information in the past, and lending it the sheen of truth, which is why the system is supposed to prevent one editor from making the value judgments you describe.  

 

Maybe we can get Paul to write a piece on the socks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rockies in purple vs Cubs in blue is nooooooot good. That's one of the worst matchups I've seen so far this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Rockies in purple vs Cubs in blue is nooooooot good. That's one of the worst matchups I've seen so far this year.

 

It looked fine with the Rockies new shade of purple (click to play video):

 

 

Share this post


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

 

It looked fine with the Rockies new shade of purple (click to play video):

 

 

 

Love the new Rockies purple. 

 

BUT the Cubs should've gone with the road grays.... c'mon now... Do we really need NFL style rules where one team MUST wear white or gray or can common sense rule the day and not wear red vs red, blue vs blue etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, KGeeX5 said:

 

Love the new Rockies purple. 

 

BUT the Cubs should've gone with the road grays.... c'mon now... Do we really need NFL style rules where one team MUST wear white or gray or can common sense rule the day and not wear red vs red, blue vs blue etc...

 

I don't think common sense will ever rule the day so I think either we need a rule that says only one team can wear a non gray or white shirt in a game which I would be fine with, or institute a Uniform Czar whose job is to make sure teams like the Cubs aren't in Denver wearing blue while the Rockies have a previously scheduled purple jersey day.

 

Soccer kind of has this where a blue shirt can play a red shirt, but if the blue shirt is travelling to play a black shirt someone tells them they have to wear a clash kit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it!

 

also Rays should totally bring back the plaid!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a cool uni related thing happen yesterday. I went out to a sports bar to welcome our new colleague from Lebanon. I wore my (new shade) purple Rockies hat to the bar. The game was being replayed because the Cubs are the most popular team in N Indiana. My new colleague knows nothing about baseball but at one point he looked up at the TV looked at my hat and said "Is that your team playing?" 

 

I dont think that that would have happened with any other team in the league. I also don't think it would've happened with the old shade of purple. If someone who has never lived in this country and knows nothing about baseball can instantly recognize my hat as being that team's hat that is huge. The Rockies REALLY need to embrace the purple it's a very powerful branding tool.

Share this post


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

 

It looked fine with the Rockies new shade of purple (click to play video):

 

 

 

The Rockies look great, don't get me wrong. It's not their fault. 

 

Purple vs. Royal Blue just shouldn't happen regardless of who's wearing it. The Cubs should've worn their road greys for this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aawagner011 said:

These kinda remind me of the Rays plaid caps.

 

 

 

ah yes, the MD state flag aka Teutonic Knight Taxi Co. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aawagner011 said:

These kinda remind me of the Rays plaid caps.

 

 

any idea if itll be a black(or grey) underbrim, or just the MD flag underbrim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aawagner011 said:

These kinda remind me of the Rays plaid caps.

 

 

 

They gave away a cap almost identical to that last year*, but I didn't think it would actually see the field.

 

* -- My wife's version is in the back of my car as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

They gave away a cap almost identical to that last year*, but I didn't think it would actually see the field.

 

* -- My wife's version is in the back of my car as we speak.

theyre going to be paired with the flag jersey giveaway on that day

 

it's a shame really. Both games im going to(that day and the day before), i wont see the regular home hats.

Share this post


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