MLB Changes 2017

[HighCheese]

13 minutes ago, Brummie said:

The Mariners just posted this picture of a 40th anniversary patch the team will wear on their uniforms next season. No clue where on the jersey it will go. Thoughts?

The "TH" looks like a TM ™

[Brummie]

And here's the Sunday alternates patch for the Mariners.

[PoppersPop]

On 10/31/2016 at 10:29 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The Chiefs, who once had a headdressed mascot riding around on horseback, are wise enough nowadays not to use any other Native imagery apart from the arrowhead.  So they escape scrutiny.  If we don't hear from Natives on the matter, then it's best to leave the whole thing alone. 

Regarding the the Braves, who until recently had Chief Noc-a-Homa and the Tomahawk Chop, we have heard plenty of protest, especially during the 1995 and 1996 World Series.  So we cannot honestly make the assertion that Natives are cool with this.  Still, I doubt that the Braves will change their nickname, though they will no doubt eventually drop the tomahawk (which will be sad from a purely aesthetic perspective -- a perspective that I have already acknowledged as being an inappropriate one to take in these matters).

Still, I think it's safe to say that no new teams could consider any of those names.

 

While it's commendable/smart for the Chiefs and Braves to dismiss the overtly offensive imagery from their branding, I still see them opening a window for fans to behave disrespectfully by retaining an association with First Nations/American Indian cultures. The Tomahawk Chop persists. Fans arrive at the gates with warpaint and head dresses. Like others have mentioned, the invisibility of First Nations/American Indians in the mainstream American consciousness is exacerbated when their culture and identity is reduced to mascot status and costuming, further dehumanizing them. While some strategies are more sound/respectful (Spokane Indians) than others, it's probably safest to just vacate that realm when it comes to sports branding.

[bosrs1]

22 hours ago, larrypep said:

Ah, how about them Padres unis, any updates?

 

Seems pretty clear they're still going to be blue and yellow. Which frankly with all the changes the team made to Petco Park and their other more permanent fixtures adding yellow it should have been a foregone conclusion. Just a question of how they'll present it. I for one am glad they'll have at least stuck with a decent combo.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

Whew.  Was waiting a few days for continuation on the Indians debate in the 2016 thread.  Didn't realize someone had apparently started this up months ago.  I expected to see this pop up after tomorrow's game.

 

It took hours, but I've binged on this topic.  Finally gotten caught up.

 

On 9/16/2016 at 8:29 AM, McCarthy said:

Baseball needs a 5 year rule like some of the other sports have. The Padres would be forced to commit themselves to a lasting identity, not these one, two year looks that get replaced by an alternate because it tested better. 

 

NOOOOOO!!!

 

1) That's how we get the Rams trapped in an identity they and their home don't want.

 

2) Then if the Padres screw up and come out with an identity like this last one, we'd be stuck with it for FIVE YEARS!!!  Same for the Diamondbacks.  I'd rather have the flexibility to make the necessary changes.

 

On 9/29/2016 at 1:22 PM, Around the Horn said:

I loved the Torre era dugout jacket because it harkened back to DiMaggio but I guess thats just me. (EDIT Gothamite beat me to it)

 

Speaking of which, these dugout jackets need more stripes at the bottom and around the neck.

 

I have one of the championship patch jackets in that style.  That added fabric is amazing.  It's the most comfortable coat ever.

 

On 9/30/2016 at 0:00 AM, LMU said:

I'm presently sitting in Petco Park and from looking around the crowd the Padres had better knock their latest rebrand out of the park because this is the most disjointed fan base that I have ever seen.

 

Even the ads for auditions for their 2017 "cheerleaders" show girls in multiple era jerseys.

 

On 9/30/2016 at 4:50 AM, Ben in LA said:

As for the Padres, that's what happens when you keep changing your uniform.  Thankfully yumwomt see that at Dodger or Yankee Stadium.

 

On 9/30/2016 at 6:47 AM, EddieJ1984 said:

That sounds boring to me, thinking of a yankees game and how the fans look.

I'm a Phillies fan, so going to games while its mostly red, its great to also see maroon and light blue too.

 

I dunno about that.  Singular identity doesn't affect the uniformity of a crowd.  Thanks to the vast amount of fashion options and the destination aspect of the team/park, this is what our crowds look like, and this is the home of the more hardcore fans.

 

 

And, wait, did you just say cheerleaders?  I thought the Marlins were the only baseball team that would go there.

 

On 10/17/2016 at 0:41 AM, What Can Brown Do For You said:

Maybe it's a combination of both, but I heard that MLB told DBacks to change because they didn't want more than one purple team in the division, and Rockies had it first (also could make sense for them pushing Padres to go brown)

 

On 10/17/2016 at 7:19 AM, WSU151 said:

I really don't think MLB cares about what teams have similar colors within the division.  The Braves and Nationals have the exact same colors in the NL East.  They're more worried about sales and presentation.

 

The mention of the Rockies made me realize something: If the Diamondbacks were pushed by the league to avoid overloading on purple because it sells well, that WOULD give some explanation to the Rockies hitting black as hard as they do.

 

On 10/18/2016 at 5:14 PM, hawk36 said:

If true, that's another HUGE FAIL by the team. The "sand" color is drab, muted, cold, nothing San Diego about it (except for the name of the color). This, to me, would be the worst news possible. Really disappointing.

 

Umm...  I...  What?  You know that that is the color OF THE BALLPARK, RIGHT?!?!

 

 

On 10/19/2016 at 1:47 AM, What Can Brown Do For You said:

I don't think whether the sand represents San Diego or not should be the point. If anything it should be what represents the team name, and that's brown more so than anything. Until we're names the San Diegans it should go along with the Padre/friar theme 

 

Then the Yankees uniforms should be red/white/blue, the White Sox should have... white socks, the Cubs should be brown or black, the Tigers should be black/orange, the Diamondbacks should be... this color, the Marlins should be navy/royal/yellow, and the Indians should be... let's leave that for later.  I support the brown, but the colors of the uniform aren't necessarily beholden to either the name or home.

 

On 10/28/2016 at 8:08 AM, kroywen said:

It's amazing to me how the Spokane Indians, a single-A franchise, absolutely nailed how to do Native American imagery tastefully, while looking great, while the Cleveland Indians have an offensive logo and an identity crisis. I can't get enough of Spokane's script wordmark, and their logo is one of the best roundels in all of baseball.

 

FWIW, I don't think the Indianapolis Indians' identity is well-designed or attractive looking at all, but I'll give them this - they also manage to be mostly unoffensive about incorporating Native imagery as well:

 

 

Wow.  I actually love that lettering and the color combo.  That's a color scheme baseball could use (on a team that's not the Reds).  It works so well in basketball and hockey.

 

On 10/28/2016 at 3:39 PM, hawk36 said:

Here is the tribe's seal. Not that they'd ask to use this but maybe use elements as inspiration?

 

 

Huh...  I know there's a lot of roundel hate due to its overuse and status as a lazy alternative people just slap together, but I'd really like to see that central part simplified into a roundel logo with "Cleveland Indians" around it.  I think that would look great.

 

On 10/31/2016 at 0:02 AM, HighCheese said:

So far if the logo has any trace of white then yes. So of course dodgers or blue jays, but even a white outline like texas and boston

 

but for teams with no white like the giants and mets they use the logo color. In their case, orange

 

I... honestly think this is for the best.  There's a bit of a weird situation here, because the logo can't be the same as the cap insignia when there's an outline.  The logo is simply a simpler entity.  To match better, I think it's best to use whatever color touches the crown fabric in the cap insignia.  Try mocking up the different caps with different colors.  As I do it in my head, I feel like putting a red NE on a Red Sox cap will clash.  This, of course, is besides the fact that we've seen how drab and bleedy the Indians' C looks straight on the crown without an outline.  A red logo would have the same issue.

 

Now we come to the thorny part.  There's a lot of discussion, so lemme try organizing quotes by topic.

 

On 10/31/2016 at 0:03 PM, McCarthy said:

I was thinking about this yesterday as I watched the Bengals play the Redskins and then later when the Indians played the Cubs - what do the actual players think of this issue? They're the ones who are forced to wear the mark as part of their work attire. What would happen if a player took a stance that they'd refuse to report to a team where they were forced to play as a Redskin or wear a cap with Chief Wahoo? What would happen if a member of the Indians refused to wear the jersey if Chief Wahoo is on the sleeve? I think that might be the step that needs to happen for the leagues to take action. 

 

If an Indians player protested by refusing to play, it would be a large issue and become problematic for the team.

 

If a Redskins player refused to play, they would be cut and thrown out on the street.

 

So is the difference between baseball and football.

 

On 10/31/2016 at 7:23 AM, Ice_Cap said:

I say that defending the Braves' name and identity, but they really do need to stop the Tomahawk chop and chant.  

 

The Seminole Nation has an agreement with Florida State, even granting them the Seminole warrior mascot.  The originated the use of the chant and chop in sports, and the Seminoles haven't stopped them yet.  I'm not saying it's right or wrong.  I'm just saying that the Seminole tribe don't seem to have a problem at all.

 

16 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I think that's really telling about how our society still feels about Native Americans, and how invisible they are to us.

 

If this was the logo of a club, nobody would suggest that there are more important things than getting rid of it:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

But in pushing First Nations farther and farther to the fringes of our society, we really don't seem to give them the same consideration we afford to other human beings.

 

15 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I can remember a conversation that I once had with a former friend, a guy with whom I had grown up, but who got increasingly difficult to be friends with as we got older and older.  At the time of this conversation, we were about 18 or 19.  During the conversation (the topic of which I have forgotten), this guy said, as an analogy to some point he was making, the old phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian".  I chided the guy; but his response to my sharp rebuke was: "What's the problem? They're extinct."

While this guy (who had embarassed me many times before and would do so again after that, until I finally ended the "friendship" a few years later) was on the extreme end of the stupid/ignorant scale, his comment differed from mainstream Americans' unconscious perceptions of Natives only in degree, not in kind.  To very many Americans, the category "Indians" essentially names an exinct group, in the same way that "Trojans" or "Romans" or "Vikings" does.  To this way of thinking, these names just represent characters from history that have no actual relevance to today's world; so the imagery associated with these groups can be freely mined for logos, for Halloween costumes, or for rhetorical flourishes as metaphors.

 

By contrast, we can be sure that no American has the perception that black people are extinct; and this is why the caricature that you presented above strikes people in the U.S. very differently from the caricature of Chief Wahoo.  Decent people are disgusted by that black caricature; racists are tickled by it; in either case, all people seeing that caricature understand that it depicts an existing people.  It thus has a vibrancy, and elicits some sort of an emotional response.

 

I thought long and hard (It sure was long.  It's taken me nearly half an hour to wade through my post and put it together).  I do see a difference, but why?  Lemme attempt to get to the heart and figure out what I see when I look at Wahoo.

 

At first, I thought it was intent.  The Indians' identity has always meant to be honorific, with the name itself chosen to honor a member of the team.  The black imagery was meant to dehumanize and mock people.  As Fernando mentioned, racists giggle at that imagery, but do any actual racists get any mileage off of Wahoo?  I'm sure some use it now that minorities have expressed displeasure with it.  It's the same effect as hanging out with your school friends.  Don't mention something annoys you, because chances are they will haunt you forever about it.

 

But, still, intent doesn't necessarily hold up.  Something could inadvertently be offensive.  People could be well-meaning racists.  After those black images were brought into the public consciousness, there were many that enjoyed it sincerely and with no racist feelings.  But that last thought, the thought that racists in a vacuum wouldn't get much mileage out of Wahoo made me finally realize one of the big differences I see between the two.

 

The black minstrel imagery is based around exaggerating features of the person.  Large white patches around the eyes are to show a wide-eyed ignorance and a vast contrast between white eyes and coal black skin.  Speaking of which, the skin is darkened, generally to a color that is inhuman.  Then they are giving huge, exaggerated lips.

 

 

When I look at Wahoo, I don't see this.  The exaggerated features, the eyes, smile, and ears aren't inherently stereotypes of the native peoples of America.  The Simpsons did a joke involving Wahoo many years back, but as I thought back to that series, I realized that I'd seen these same features in the same series: in Smilin' Joe Fission and the Happy Little Elves.  This is just an attempt at making a fun/cute mascot.  Bomani Jones wore a shirt that was a version of Wahoo that was a white guy as commentary on this.  You could use Wahoo's exaggerated features for any race or ethnicity, and it wouldn't look weird because these are not Native features.

 

 

The headband, part, and feather featured in the logo mimic the style actually worn, as one can see from portraits of Sitting Bull.  The color is a big problem, but I don't think this was done to poke fun at "redskins".  The prototype of this logo was in a tone that's about as close as they were going to come to legitimate Native skin in that era (about that time a tiger was the same color, so I forgive a little color irregularity).  The skin color was chosen because it just so happened to be the team's colors.  So, I look at the Indians logo and... I just don't see a racist caricature of a Native American.  That is the difference between the two.  That combined with, I'll admit it, the everpresence and history of it causes me to just not feel anything negative towards him.

 

I kind of question the same thing with the Braves logo that was almost on the BP caps.  It was a human head.  It wasn't a caricature.  It was a human being doing a war cry, which was a real thing (the Confederates patterned their Rebel Yell after it).  I don't really see what the inherently racist thing in that logo was.

 

It's 2:13AM and that was a slog to try and put together.  I hope it was coherent and covered everything.  We'll see.

 

Now, onto lighter things...

 

On 10/31/2016 at 1:52 PM, DiePerske said:

The only way that the Redskins can save the name is if they destroyed all Native imagery and went to a redskin potato mascot. Which would be quite entertaining, having a NFL team names after a potato. 

 

Hail to the Redkins!

Hail victory!

Fresh from the garden,

Fight for old D.C!

 

Run or pass and score

We want a lot more!

Bake 'em, mash 'em, touchdown!

Let the points soar

 

Fight on!  Fight on, 'til you have won,

Spuds of Waaaashiiington!

Rah!  Rah!  Rah!

 

Hail to the Redkins!

Hail victory!

Fresh from the garden,

Fight for old D.C!

 

PS. Seriously, though, we need more talk on this: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/white-soxs-request-to-alter-new-fields-negative-logo-was-denied-224816811.html

 

What the heck are they gonna do about the U.S. Cellular logo etched into the glass at the entrance?  I see the rendering shows the back of the park, but not the front.  Weird.  And why did U.S. Cellular not renew?

[Ray Lankford]

I don't know how much can be read into this but the best selling Padres hat on the Lids and New Era websites is the 90s navy and orange one. It's a small sample size but it does make me wonder if nostalgia for Padres fans is moving away from brown, which only the oldest of millenials can remember, to navy/orange. And actually, the Padres Twitter account has recently wished a happy birthday to Bip Roberts and Fred McGriff, who aren't exactly Padres legends but did wear the navy/orange look. I was surprised that they didn't bring it back last year, though I wonder if the Astros and Marlins scared them off. 

 

All of this is my roundabout way of asking when the style guide comes out.

[BadSeed84]

3 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

What the heck are they gonna do about the U.S. Cellular logo etched into the glass at the entrance?  I see the rendering shows the back of the park, but not the front.  Weird.  And why did U.S. Cellular not renew?

 

Connie Mack Stadium just put a black rectangle over the old shibe park inscription. So who knows what they;ll do today.

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

The Indians' identity has always meant to be honorific, with the name itself chosen to honor a member of the team.  

 

That's not actually true.  That story first surfaced in 1948, well after the fact.  The team itself appears to have been named after the Boston Braves, at the time a powerhouse club.

 

This cartoon ran in the Cleveland Plain Dealer the day after the new name was announced.  Had Louis Sockalexis featured into the decision at all, it would certainly have been referenced.

 

 

 

That story persists because it would be awfully convenient for the team's defenders if they could tie it to a genuine honorific.  Sadly, it's not.

 

8 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

The black minstrel imagery is based around exaggerating features of the person.  Large white patches around the eyes are to show a wide-eyed ignorance and a vast contrast between white eyes and coal black skin.  Speaking of which, the skin is darkened, generally to a color that is inhuman.  Then they are giving huge, exaggerated lips.

 

 

When I look at Wahoo, I don't see this.  The exaggerated features, the eyes, smile, and ears aren't inherently stereotypes of the native peoples of America.  The Simpsons did a joke involving Wahoo many years back, but as I thought back to that series, I realized that I'd seen these same features in the same series: in Smilin' Joe Fission and the Happy Little Elves.  This is just an attempt at making a fun/cute mascot.  Bomani Jones wore a shirt that was a version of Wahoo that was a white guy as commentary on this.  You could use Wahoo's exaggerated features for any race or ethnicity, and it wouldn't look weird because these are not Native features.

 

You seem to be missing the most significant exaggerated racial feature, aside from the appaling red color (which is exactly like the minstrel's blacker-than-pitch blackface).   Something... big.  

 

Something as plain as the nose on his face. 

[SilverBullet1929]

Serious question... does Wahoo have a mustache? Sometimes I see the smile lines as a mustache because of its thickness. Anyone else ever see this?

[The_Admiral]

23 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

During the conversation (the topic of which I have forgotten), this guy said, as an analogy to some point he was making, the old phrase "the only good Indian is a dead Indian".  I chided the guy; but his response to my sharp rebuke was: "What's the problem? They're extinct."

 

Your friend sounds like Christopher Moltisanti.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Your friend sounds like Christopher Moltisanti.

 

Looking that up, I see that it's a character from The Sopranos. However, I never watched that show; I avoided it for the same reason that I stopped going to family gatherings: namely, a revulsion at hearing stupid Italians display their racism.

But I would bet that the comparison is a good one. This ex-friend was indeed Italian; and he was definitely an ignorant loudmouth. I mentioned that he often embarassed me; my embarassment was certainly linked to the perception that his unselfconscious stupidity and unrepentant racism caused people to have of my ethnic group.  

There exists in the U.S. the stereotype of the "liberal Jew". This stereotype is founded on the actual existence of many Jewish people who are fervently committed to progressive social change, to anti-racism, and to general ethical conduct.  Of course, it should go without saying the spectrum of Jewish people, like that of all other people, has its ugly end; I certainly have had plenty of battles with racist Zionists!  Still, the point is that the "liberal Jew" stereotype definitely has a basis in reality.  Well, you'll notice that there is no "liberal Italian" stereotype! The stereotype of my people in the U.S. is linked instead with some very ugly social attitudes.  It's painful to acknowledge that that stereotype, too, has a firm basis in reality.

 

So I have to understand why certain people might be leery of me when they see me or when they hear my accent.  I am proud to be Italian; and I am even more proud of my New York accent; I make no effort to hide or to downplay either one of these things.  But, thanks to my experience with that ex-friend and with my foul relatives, I am also aware of the connotations that these traits have in many people's minds.  These people are not wrong to have their defences up; the the sad truth is that the assumptions that they make will in too many cases be valid.  A guy like that ex-friend of mine just makes me have to work a little harder in order to make clear what I am about and what I stand for.

All people are products of their environment. This goes even for those individuals who have rejected the norms of their community. So, in the end, influences such as that embarassing ex-friend and my awful relatives probably helped me by providing me something to define myself against.  This has allowed me to channel my Italian exuberence and my New York arrogance in a way that is in accordance with my ideology, thus becoming the lovable opinionated blowhard that I am.

[The_Admiral]

"You said you wanted to make her scream like an Indian!"
"I was TRYING to say something POSITIVE, 'cuz she's your friend."

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Looking that up, I see that it's a character from The Sopranos. However, I never watched that show; I avoided it for the same reason that I stopped going to family gatherings: namely, a revulsion at hearing stupid Italians display their racism.

 

Congratulations on sitting out one of the best TV shows of all time and disowning your family, by the way, well played all around.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

Congratulations on sitting out one of the best TV shows of all time and disowning your family, by the way, well played all around.

 

Works for me.

[The_Admiral]

I won't watch The Wire because they say the N-word. I've also stopped wearing fabric and eating food. Here are 2,000 words on the topic.

[The_Admiral]

3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

This admiral kid, he's got his head up his ass. This is a great gladiator movie? Look at Kirk Douglas's hair. They didn't have flat-tops...IN ANCIENT ROME!!!

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

Criticise and mock all you like.

 

But it's very bad form to misattribute quotes.  Don't do it.

[Thomas]

Does not like the Sopranos due to "stupid Italians".... then you will hate the episode were they mistake Chechnyans for Czechoslovakians.

That reminds me, any interior decorators on this forum?

 

[hawk36]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's not actually true.  That story first surfaced in 1948, well after the fact.  The team itself appears to have been named after the Boston Braves, at the time a powerhouse club.

 

This cartoon ran in the Cleveland Plain Dealer the day after the new name was announced.  Had Louis Sockalexis featured into the decision at all, it would certainly have been referenced.

 

 

 

That story persists because it would be awfully convenient for the team's defenders if they could tie it to a genuine honorific.  Sadly, it's not.

Whether true or not what seems to be true is:

1. Louis Sockalexis was Native American

2. He was one of the first Native Americans to play in the Majors (arguably the first)

3. He played for the Cleveland Spiders

 

"The name "Indians" originated from a request by club owner Charles Somers to baseball writers to choose a new name to replace "Cleveland Naps" following the departure of Nap Lajoie after the 1914 season. The name referenced the nickname "Indians" that was applied to the Cleveland Spiders baseball club during the time when Louis Sockalexis, a Native American, played in Cleveland."

 

So I'd say whether they really named the team after him or not, now 100+ years later, it would be nice to officially give him the honor and work toward a respectful identity to honor him with.

[The_Admiral]

28 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Does not like the Sopranos due to "stupid Italians".... then you will hate the episode were they mistake Chechnyans for Czechoslovakians.

That reminds me, any interior decorators on this forum?

 

 

TONY: ay what'sh da line on dish redshkins game

PAULIE: Careful, T! You can't say dat word no more. 

SILVIO:  they don't like it. 

PAULIE: Course, I always found it to be. a misnamer. To me. deyr skin looks more brown...den anyting!

CHRIS: Who caaaares, Puaulie, they're extinct!

SILVIO:  i don't know about that 

TONY: dish ish all ridiculoush, dish whole...cultchuh today! can't shay dish, can't shay dat, it's deezh kidsh...dey're too shawft!

PAULIE: You said it, T. If dey had a team, called da Italians? I'd be proud!

CHRIS: What, like the New Jersey Guinea Wop Dagos?

PAULIE: watch it chrissy