MLB Changes 2017

[BBTV]

12 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

I thought that's what they were throwing back to.  Small picture on my phone. 

 

I'm with you - the maroon pinstripes were the best.  Whether they went full throwback with the Swirly P or a modified Whiz Kids logo, the maroon color is a must. 

 

Easy mistake, since they went with buttons rather than zippers. 

 

They got got noticeably darker when they switched the pinstripes to maroon in 87, but at least they were consistent rather than being unable to make up their mind. There were times that they wore red helmets with the 70-86 set, and Darren daulton wore red catchers gear while others wore maroon. When I was a kid, I had a bright red cap with the swirl p. 

 

The late-80s jersey P was a big improvement too. Again, consistency. 

 

 People need to keep in mind, that these uniforms were worn skin tight, and with the racing stripes and 70s style lettering, they  where at home on Astroturf field in concrete donuts or domes, but would look silly in today's retro parks. 

 

  The modern (baggy) cut of the throwbacks looks a little bit better in today's era, but the overall design, especially with the thick stripes on the shoulder and side, just  seems to clash with the modern game.  I hated these as a kid. While I am no fan of the current WordMark or current P, I was really excited when they switched to something that looks like more of a traditional baseball uniform.  Of course now I'm bored to death with that, so I guess I'll just never be happy. 

[Gothamite]

We see the same thing with the Mets' racing stripes, when they wear them today; they were designed for a sleek, streamlined uniform and not the billowy, flowing jerseys and pants of today. Totally inappropriate on a modern cut. 

 

I really think the Phillies best option would be to return to the 1950 uniform, and darken the red just a bit to their later maroon.  

 

 

The look was nearly perfect on its own, and works with a modern template; adding a distinctive color would put it over the top, on par with the Yankees and Dodgers as eternal classic.

[Digby]

That Marlins concept is a reminder of how the current look purported to take inspiration from South Beach Art Deco, but wasn't super successful. That concept wordmark nails it much better (and hopefully would be paired with a better jersey number font too.)

 

and I always love that shade of blue... unique in baseball and perfect for Miami also.

[AnPheitseog]

10 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

See, this is an example of why I so dislike the critique "dated". Just because a logo shows evidence of when it was created, this does not mean that it is inappropriate for subsequent eras. For example, the Tigers' D logo "screams 1920s" to the same extent that this Phillies P logo "screams 1970s". But both are logos that, once established, could stand indefinitely.

 

Fortunately, the Tigers have had the good sense to leave the D logo untouched, while the Phillies foolishly messed with perfection. And, in a strange irony, the Phillies replaced a strong logo whose origin is obviously in the 1970s with a logo whose origin is obviously in the 1950s, but a weaker one which has aged much less well, and which could more reasonably be called "dated". (A similarly misguided logo change was just undertaken by the Toronto Maple Leafs.)

 

But, again, I reject the validity of "dated" as a criticism, or at least as a primary criticism. (There are people on this board who have called the Yankee logo dated!) Critiques of a logo ought to be based primarily on an analysis of the logo's aesthetic characteristics, and should not consist simply of naming the period from which the logo dates. You acknowledge that this is a good logo. A good design does not become less good over time.  

 

I'd call this P logo superior to the current P logo because it is more cleverly designed and because its shape is more aesthetically pleasing (not because one of these logos was created in the 1970s and the other was created in the 1950s).

I do quite agree that dated us a terrible criticism. 

 

That said, I love the Phillies current set, and would make no design changes. 

 

Only thing I'd do is have the pinstripes sewn on. 

[Surf]

6 hours ago, jmac11281 said:

I've always liked the Baseball Giants and the Mets interlocking NY logos more than the Yankees NY logo.

Giants logo is okay, but for someone unfamiliar with baseball  and the logo, i think it can be hard to decipher

 

 

Look at this long enough and your eyes/mind will play tricks on you,  even focusing on the negative white spots

[Gothamite]

I think the current one is easier to read, with the scalloped sides and serifs. 

 

 

But I think he was talking about the Giants' "NY" logos.  I'm partial to their old asymmetrical one:

 

[Ray Lankford]

This is perfect:

 

 

The Marlins do not need to look any further. 

[Gothamite]

Color-wise, I couldn't agree more. 

 

Even paired with orange, nobody's ever going to mistake that for the Mets. 

[FinsUp1214]

11 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

This is perfect:

 

 

The Marlins do not need to look any further. 

 

C'mon, Marlins:

 

[OnWis97]

Just went down to the Twins tent sale and picked up a game used 1960s design from 2014.  Josmil Pinto.  Chose that style because no names on back.  Numbers and script still had two layers...I think it was 2016 or so when the went one -layer and those seemed like replicas. Disappointing.  It was fun kinda going through the recent history of Twins uniforms.

 

Sorry for the lazy, quick sideways photos.  Anyway...75 bucks for this is better than anything current.

 

[SFGiants58]

51 minutes ago, Surf said:

 

 

 

The whole 1983-93 Giants identity is one of my least favorite in all of sports, for both aesthetic and for team-based reasons. Going for a curve-heavy font engendered some pretty bland/generic wordmarks and logos. When looking at the Giants' visual history, the font felt so "wrong" compared to the other fonts from team history.

 

 

 

...and that atrocious number font (that somehow survived to 1994-99):

 

 

It also doesn't help that this uniform set's run coincided with several crappy seasons, the 1989 "Earthquake" World Series, and the team's near-relocation to Tampa Bay. Heck, that set even had a "Tampa Bay" wordmark at the ready in that font style:

 

 

The Giants' current road alternate is a nice way to pay tribute to that period, but it's as far as the team should go. That home uniform in particular should never see the light of day again.

[Gothamite]

On my way home from Yankee Stadium - there were a pretty good number of Brewers fans out to watch their team in the Bronx today.  And even though I know anecdotal evidence is not evidence, couldn't help but notice that almost every single one was wearing a variation of the classic BiG cap.  

 

Some were wearing the alt 59fifties, some '47 Brand, most in royal blue but some in athletic gold.  I saw one navy BiG alternate cap, and a grand total of one person wearing the primary cap.  Was really quite striking. 

[BBTV]

I think 'dated' is perfectly valid criticism of a design.  To me, it's the opposite of "timeless".

 

THe example given of the Tigers isn't good, because that style is like a navy pinstripe suit - it was in style 150 years ago, 50 years ago, today, and 100 years in the future.  

The Phillies 70s-80s set is totally dated.  Just like a lot of 90s looks are (not so much in MLB, but in other leagues.)

 

Dated doesn't in any way automatically mean it was a bad design for its time.  Not every situation calls for a "timeless" design.  In fact, most don't.  What is always bad, is when a design with a finite expiration date continues to be used past that, without any modifications or changes.  Dated design is like milk.

[daveindc]

Just a quick comparison of the Marlins' blue and orange to the Mets' blue and orange, for those who say they look too close to each other for the Marlins to adopt a blue jersey:

 

 

The Marlins' blue and red-orange are both different enough from the Mets' colors that nobody will ever confuse the two.

[Gothamite]

Just saw those All-Star jerseys in the Yankee Stadium shops.  The blue is really quite electric, not like anything else I've seen.  It's a great color and should absolutely be the Marlins' primary color.  

 

I'm even good if they pair it with orange and black; that color scheme was drab and awful for the Mets, but that's because they used royal blue.  This shade of brighter blue totally redeems the color scheme. 

[Around the Horn]

31 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Just saw those All-Star jerseys in the Yankee Stadium shops.  The blue is really quite electric, not like anything else I've seen.  It's a great color and should absolutely be the Marlins' primary color.  

 

I'm even good if they pair it with orange and black; that color scheme was drab and awful for the Mets, but that's because they used royal blue.  This shade of brighter blue totally redeems the color scheme. 

I'd prefer just the bright blue and the red-orange, no black. perhaps use that nice shade of yellow on the M logo a tad.

[Gothamite]

I think the black actually provides a touch of balance to the two bright colors.  On their own, they're overwhelming, too much.  But with a little black to set them apart, it's perfect. 

 

I'd actually prefer them to adopt a policy close to what NYCFC has - their colors are sky blue, navy and orange, but the sky blue and orange are almost never allowed to touch.  For the exact same reason.   Using navy to set off the brighter colors works wonders and keeps the color scheme from being too garish. 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 7/8/2017 at 10:49 AM, Lights Out said:

It would also be nice if they started actually wearing white socks. Not only does it match their team name, it's also a good look for them anyway.

 

With the sock starting at the top black and striping down to white in a pattern similarly to the 70's Red Sox sock, it could work.  I don't think the transition from white pant to white sock looks as good.  Looks like a printing error.

 

On 7/8/2017 at 0:42 PM, Gothamite said:

An uncanny similarity, considering that, like the Yankees, the Sox had just about the perfect home uniform and have made small changes that downgraded it. 

 

What tweaks are you referring to with the Yankees home?  Save for the change to the current uniform NY and the all navy pinstripes, I'm not sure what changes have been made that haven't been league-wide.

 

On 7/8/2017 at 1:23 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Those Padres uniforms may look terrible, but the lack of the Taco Bell cap (as seen with the helmets) takes them from an F to a solid C. They still have a pointless accent color (orange) and a dated font, but at least the headwear looks better and the brown/yellow is still fun.

 

I think it's pretty certain that they need to just go ahead with the current alt.  No uniform that takes any influence from any previous unis is going to have full support.  People are entrenched in each differet identity.  At least with brown and yellow, you can get the most people on board, with the brown/yellow/orange people standing it, although the navy and orange crowd will be upset.

 

13 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

And it's such a great logo.

 

While I appreciate the fact that the current logo and wordmark resemble the ones from the 1950s, this P logo is so much better. It's such a beautiful baseball mark, one which works equally well as a cap monogram and as a jersey logo.

 

13 hours ago, rxmc89 said:

It is a good logo, but it's pretty dated.  It just screams 1970s/80s.

 

12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

See, this is an example of why I so dislike the critique "dated". Just because a logo shows evidence of when it was created, this does not mean that it is inappropriate for subsequent eras. For example, the Tigers' D logo "screams 1920s" to the same extent that this Phillies P logo "screams 1970s". But both are logos that, once established, could stand indefinitely.

 

Fortunately, the Tigers have had the good sense to leave the D logo untouched, while the Phillies foolishly messed with perfection. And, in a strange irony, the Phillies replaced a strong logo whose origin is obviously in the 1970s with a logo whose origin is obviously in the 1950s, but a weaker one which has aged much less well, and which could more reasonably be called "dated". (A similarly misguided logo change was just undertaken by the Toronto Maple Leafs.)

 

But, again, I reject the validity of "dated" as a criticism, or at least as a primary criticism. (There are people on this board who have called the Yankee logo dated!) Critiques of a logo ought to be based primarily on an analysis of the logo's aesthetic characteristics, and should not consist simply of naming the period from which the logo dates. You acknowledge that this is a good logo. A good design does not become less good over time.  

 

I'd call this P logo superior to the current P logo because it is more cleverly designed and because its shape is more aesthetically pleasing (not because one of these logos was created in the 1970s and the other was created in the 1950s).

 

1 hour ago, DiePerske said:

I do quite agree that dated us a terrible criticism. 

 

That said, I love the Phillies current set, and would make no design changes. 

 

Only thing I'd do is have the pinstripes sewn on. 

 

"Dated" may be a term that is overused and incorrectly used to the point that it feels like it doesn't have a real meaning, but it is certainly a valid criticism, specifically, if it's used to refer to something that doesn't hold up.  Old sword and sandals pics or epic westerns are of their era, but they're still masterful.  The Las Vegas sign and most of Tomorrowland evoke a certain time period, but they still look good.  These are timeless.  Meanwhile, 75% of the fashions of the 80's are just dated.  Red on blue without a lighter in between is dated.  Incredibly baggy uniforms and 

 

I can't say those uniforms aren't beautiful, but I've always found that P logo to be horribly dated.  The incredible thickness that varies throughout, the abstract lineweight to create the ball, it's all incredibly 70's-80's.  It's like the cartoonish logos of the 60's football teams.  I equate it with these logos.

 

 

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I think 'dated' is perfectly valid criticism of a design.  To me, it's the opposite of "timeless".

 

THe example given of the Tigers isn't good, because that style is like a navy pinstripe suit - it was in style 150 years ago, 50 years ago, today, and 100 years in the future.  

The Phillies 70s-80s set is totally dated.  Just like a lot of 90s looks are (not so much in MLB, but in other leagues.)

 

Dated doesn't in any way automatically mean it was a bad design for its time.  Not every situation calls for a "timeless" design.  In fact, most don't.  What is always bad, is when a design with a finite expiration date continues to be used past that, without any modifications or changes.  Dated design is like milk.

 

Son of a...  This is what I get for falling asleep halfway through writing this post.  Beat me to it.

 

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The whole 1983-93 Giants identity is one of my least favorite in all of sports, for both aesthetic and for team-based reasons. Going for a curve-heavy font engendered some pretty bland/generic wordmarks and logos. When looking at the Giants' visual history, the font felt so "wrong" compared to the other fonts from team history.

 

 

 

...and that atrocious number font (that somehow survived to 1994-99):

 

 

It also doesn't help that this uniform set's run coincided with several crappy seasons, the 1989 "Earthquake" World Series, and the team's near-relocation to Tampa Bay. Heck, that set even had a "Tampa Bay" wordmark at the ready in that font style:

 

 

The Giants' current road alternate is a nice way to pay tribute to that period, but it's as far as the team should go. That home uniform in particular should never see the light of day again.

 

The Giants look their best now.  In imagining the team's best look years ago, when it came to thinking of a primary logo, the best from the stuff they've ever had is this roundel.  Yes, we have too many roundels, but it looks better than any primary they've ever used.  Their primary game has always just been... bleh.

 

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I think the black actually provides a touch of balance to the two bright colors.  On their own, they're overwhelming, too much.  But with a little black to set them apart, it's perfect. 

 

I'd actually prefer them to adopt a policy close to what NYCFC has - their colors are sky blue, navy and orange, but the sky blue and orange are almost never allowed to touch.  For the exact same reason.   Using navy to set off the brighter colors works wonders and keeps the color scheme from being too garish. 

 

It's the opposite of the Indians cap.  The two lighter colors need a dark color in between.  Otherwise, you end up with a washed out pastel.

[MJD7]

As much as I promote that I'd like the Marlins to revert back to teal, I must admit...

 

...That shade of blue looks absolutely beautiful.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Weren't the Indians supposed to be wearing the red caps with the blue alts this year? Watching Sunday Night Baseball and it's the same combo as last year.