MLB Changes 2017

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 1/29/2017 at 2:36 PM, SFGiants58 said:

@Ice_Cap, I'm pretty sure things like this will easily be worn during a regular season game, and even then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Maybe it "compromises" their uniform, but no team should be above having a little fun every once in a while. It's 162 games a season, and a few dates of not wearing the full uniform shouldn't be a problem. It's not as massive a problem as the Bills' monochrome. Some people are quick to apply "slippery slope" logic in places where it doesn't need to be applied (although I can see the desire to apply it to baseball, given the bits of blurring between practice and regular gear that occasionally happens).

 

As for the second bolded point, it doesn't hurt to experiment every once in a while. Those 162 games allow for a lot of possibilities, and if you're wearing your standard set for 150+ of them (something I wish more teams did), a small alt cap shouldn't be a problem. Granted, this cap isn't exactly the best thing I should use to make my case, but I still see the merit of it. 

 

I'd read this, and was gonna make an argument, but McCarthy beat me to it.

 

7 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I hate the Yankees and their pinstripes are one of sport's great uniforms. Any change to their uniform, even for a single game, would be detrimental, even if it's just a "practice" cap. I'll bet dollars to donuts it shows up in a regular season game because that's what teams do these days. 

 

The next time I go to Yankee Stadium will be my first. When I go I want them to be wearing their classic look. I'll be very disappointed if they're in one of these silly one day caps the league does now. 

 

Joe DiMaggio said he played every day the best he could because he didn't know if it was the first time some kid in the stands was seeing him.  Someone goes to the Stadium for the first time, they should see the Yankees as the Yankees should be... in their best and most famous look.  Honestly, as I think about it more, if your primary is considered so great... why would you ever take a couple days off to look inferior?  That's a logical flaw in the whole alternate idea what I never actually thought of until just now.

 

As for this being a Yankees thing, it isn't.  The Cubs never wear their blue alts in Wrigley anymore, because when you go to Wrigley, you should see the team in their pinstripes.  In fact...

 

19 hours ago, daveindc said:

But none of these discussions reach the levels it does with the Yankees. No other sports franchise is kept on a pedestal by the fans like the Yankees are, and it's a joke. Non-Yankees fans constantly submit to the perceived superiority. That goes for their team, and their uniforms.

 

Eh.  I'm a Yankees fan, and I consider them #1, but I definitely don't consider them miles above everyone else, whether for iconic-ness or pure aesthetics.

 

Teams I would put into the same tier as the Yankees based on their two primary uniforms: Mets, Red Sox, Athletics (prior to the recent cap change), Cubs, Cardinals, Pirates, Blue Jays, Orioles, Tigers, Phillies, Dodgers, Royals, Nationals, Astros, White Sox, Mariners, and Braves.  I feel a number of those teams have some tweaks they should make to their alts (no silver for Mets blue away, piping for Red Sox navy, more teal for Mariners), but they've got clean, beautiful uniforms.  I love them all.

 

And it's not even the Yankees team that consider their uniforms so important.  As I mentioned before, the Cubs' current management keeps their alts out of Wrigley.  The Tigers dabbled in alts once, and have never again.  Same for the Dodgers.  The Cardinals also eschewed alts for the longest time, being very careful in introducing one, which was a very safe uncolored one.  And I think all of these are the best choices for these franchises.

 

On 1/29/2017 at 2:36 PM, SFGiants58 said:

I too am a bit of an odd mix. I like integrated umpire crews, video replay, and the pitch clock; yet I prefer the two division format, the older model of interleague (all at once, not spread out - abandoning it altogether is just silly and too traditionalist for my tastes), and for everybody to go high-cuffed (with full socks, not stirrups, as stirrups were a stop-gap until safer dyes came around).

 

I'm not even all gung-ho about sabermetrics, either. I think they're excellent when they're balanced with traditional stats (i.e. walks/hits per innings pitched, on-base percentage, and batting average with runners in scoring position). Ultimately, they're extra quantifiers for obvious things (such as Mike Trout being the best overall player in the American League and Tim Raines being a deserving Hall of Famer). 

 

My "stagnation" comment comes from my distaste for those who despise any change in the game. The people who are anti-NOB, anti-alternates of any kind, and anti-scheduling/playoff alterations aren't my cup of tea. I get where they're coming from, but they simply seem stuffy and prone to the "ruined forever" and "kiddie stuff" logic. That's why I quoted that specific Hockey Week post, even if I don't agree with the example he used. While I'm not too keen on manufacturers' logos in easily seen places, I understand why they're there and I'm happy that they're as limited as they are. As long as it's not straight-up ads, I'm largely OK with it. I hardly manufacturers' logos as the absolute dealbreaker that some do. Besides they're easy enough to take off of authentics (seam-rippers do the job just fine).

 

I think everyone is an odd duck.  Anyone who does any sort of reasoning on their own and sees the grays in the world rather than unilateral ideals that they hold despite the results is like that, I think.  I'm an anti-NOB, pro-Anaheim, anti-November baseball, pro-two wildcards, pro-DH always for AL, pro-replay, pro-collision, pro-white vs. gray, pro-simultaneous interleague weeks, pro-socks showing, pro-racing stripe guy.  I don't know how many are solely pro-tradition or solely anti-tradition.

 

On 1/29/2017 at 2:36 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Sports are supposed to be casual fun, and a little silliness every once in a while doesn't hurt that. 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Lights Out said:

IMO, the Yankees don't even have the best pinstriped uniforms in New York. Of course, it's hard for anyone to compete with these:

 

 

With that said, ignoring the tradition and just focusing on aesthetics, the Yankees still have a very good look themselves. The only thing that bothers me about their identity is all the different NY monograms they use.

 

 

I wish they would just pick one and use it across all applications.

 

Eh.  Different things work for different applications.  At least, that's true for the first two.  The cap logo is thinner and looks good at such a small scale.  If it were blown up on the chest, it would look too narrow and the negative space would be huge.  Therefore, you have the thicker version that's more square and fills in more space.  This is the exact same principle as the Tiger's

 

The print logo's additional detail an assymetry (especially on the bottom) wouldn't work under both of those situations.  But it is attractive.  I'm kinda partial to it just because of this application:

 

 

But I fully admit that's fully nostalgia.  Same with the helmet logo.  I like the thicker version just from seeing it over the years.  Although I have more affinity for the version that's a little... rounder.  I've learned now as I look that this logo is the most inconsistent of all of them, as bad as logos used to be in the early 1900's.  Almost like they had each individual player draw them on themselves without looking at a reference.  I remember a version with rounded ends that were a little thicker, almost bubbly.  Can't find it, though, although I definitely have fond memories of it, sometimes chipped on the heads of players.

 

Also, yeah.  Mets are one of the best looks in sports, and given the extra color I could see someone preferring them.

 

4 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

The Yankees have worn BP hats in games before, I think the pinstripe brim looks better than plain white.

 

Ugh.  The uniform is the only positive in that picture.

 

3 hours ago, jws008 said:

This picture should remind us all that Babe Ruth never wore the NY logo on his jersey -- that's something that was added to the home uniform after Ruth.  Proof that in those days, they weren't worried about changing an "iconic" look.

 

Yeah... but at the time the Yankees were laughingstocks who'd never worn a pennant until Ruth came along.  They didn't hold a candle to perennial winners like the Red Sox, Cubs, and Athletics.  They meant nothing.  It was the next forty years that made them what they were, 24 of which they'd spend with the interlocking NY on their chest.

[daveindc]

1 hour ago, dsaline97 said:

New version seems to be the one on the left. I don't know how I feel about the more lavender-y shade...

 

I love it. I thought adding more purple was needed to make it stand out more, but a brighter shade of purple might be the answer. It never entered my mind that they would actually change the shade of purple, but this will end up popping a lot better against the black.

[SilverBullet1929]

5 hours ago, hawk36 said:

Grey vs white looks great. Grey vs color looks great. Color vs white looks great... I wish the MLB would implement rules that prevent alt color vs alt color uni match ups, not great. 

 

Just curious if you're OK with color vs color in spring training games?

[coco1997]

9 minutes ago, daveindc said:

 

I love it. I thought adding more purple was needed to make it stand out more, but a brighter shade of purple might be the answer. It never entered my mind that they would actually change the shade of purple, but this will end up popping a lot better against the black.

 

@davidrpaige did a fantastic Rockies concept that demonstrates just how much better the black works with a brighter shade of purple:

 

 

[daveindc]

1 minute ago, coco1997 said:

 

@davidrpaige did a fantastic Rockies concept that demonstrates just how much better the black works with a brighter shade of purple:

 

 

 

Nice. I also like the sleeve stripes added to the purple alt.

[SilverBullet1929]

At first glance the shade of purple is an upgrade because it's brighter and is clearly purple and not dark blue or indigo but at the same time I wonder if it's too pale, too flowery for me. Maybe it'll look better in person and on tv but I'm not sure what to think yet. Then again that one pic is just that, one pic, and I also know I can't base my opinion on just that one pic.

 

With that said did anyone read the mlb article on the color change? I love how they explained it as realizing the color was different across multiple platforms whether it'd be jerseys, caps, jackets, tv, print media, merchandise, etc etc and wanted to make a change for uniformity and consistency and to make one coherent color across all uses of the color. They also said it wasn't a rebrand because they know purple is their color and they wanted to correct the problem without reinventing the wheel.

 

UMMMM HELLO PADRES AND BREWERS AND OTHER TEAMS I'D RATHER NOT NAME RIGHT NOW!!!!!! Why can't more teams think like that? If the Padres and Brewers thought like the Rockies were thinking about this change this thread would be a lot less stressed out. Lol 

[FiddySicks]

That new shade of purple is gross. The more blueish shade is MUCH nicer, and could've stood on its own without black. The new shade probably contrasts better with the black, but, YUCK. That's a gross shade. They look like Barney the dinosaur now. Even though they have a cheesy dinosaur as a mascot, that's still not a good look. 

[Old School Fool]

Purple is my favorite color so it's great to see the Rockies finally make it look good. It was always too dark and it annoyed me.

[damnyoutuesday]

8 hours ago, Rj0498 said:

Agreed. Funny thing is that they are the most simplistic and yet, they are probably the best. The only roads I can think of that match them are the cards or the giants

Oakland's roads are among the best imo... Giants would be better if they used their road alternate instead

[SilverBullet1929]

A thought on the Rockies purple shade, I'm more intrigued about if this will actually make the purple pinstripes on the home jersey actually look purple instead of black. Probably not because they're the same thickness but I can't wait to find out. 

[KittSmith_95]

That shade of purple looks washed out & is a giant NO from me. It's going to look bad on the field.... it's much too soft for a jersey. For a shirt/blouse, it'd look great.... but just wait until we see it on the field.... ya'll be cringing. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, KittSmith_95 said:

That shade of purple looks washed out & is a giant NO from me. It's going to look bad on the field.... it's much too soft for a jersey. 

 

Kind of funny, because it looks to be the same shade as you use on your fantasy team.

[KittSmith_95]

30 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Kind of funny, because it looks to be the same shade as you use on your fantasy team.

 

Something I didn't notice, actually. The Krewe of the AFA isn;t a fantasy team, just the team I root for in the AFA, Veras's concept league. 

[Gothamite]

Ah, gotcha.  My mistake.

[Pauly]

17 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Just curious if you're OK with color vs color in spring training games?

I have mixed feelings about color vs color in the spring.It is of course spring training,preseason if you will but it can be a bit too much at times.Now if the Colorado Rockies could only come up with a decent logo to wear on their caps................Something,anything, a scripted C, maybe the old Colorado Rockies NHL logo. It's just that C/R is too dated.

[WSU151]

15 minutes ago, Pauly said:

I have mixed feelings about color vs color in the spring.It is of course spring training,preseason if you will but it can be a bit too much at times.Now if the Colorado Rockies could only come up with a decent logo to wear on their caps................Something,anything, a scripted C, maybe the old Colorado Rockies NHL logo. It's just that C/R is too dated.

 

Please...it's already sort of back in the NHL...no more.  

 

The current mountain logo with a C would be a better start.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

17 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Eh.  Different things work for different applications.  At least, that's true for the first two.  The cap logo is thinner and looks good at such a small scale.  If it were blown up on the chest, it would look too narrow and the negative space would be huge.  Therefore, you have the thicker version that's more square and fills in more space.  This is the exact same principle as the Tiger's

 

The print logo's additional detail an assymetry (especially on the bottom) wouldn't work under both of those situations.  But it is attractive.  I'm kinda partial to it just because of this application:

 

 

But I fully admit that's fully nostalgia.  Same with the helmet logo.  I like the thicker version just from seeing it over the years.  Although I have more affinity for the version that's a little... rounder.  I've learned now as I look that this logo is the most inconsistent of all of them, as bad as logos used to be in the early 1900's.  Almost like they had each individual player draw them on themselves without looking at a reference.  I remember a version with rounded ends that were a little thicker, almost bubbly.  Can't find it, though, although I definitely have fond memories of it, sometimes chipped on the heads of players.

 

Oh!  Forgot to mention one little thing.  Despite liking the print logo in certain applications, especially in the backstop, I really wish the team would go back to using their primary logo more.  The print logo gets a lot more play, often in applications where they should use the primary instead.  It's a beautiful logo.  It's the PRIMARY logo.  Let it out of the box a little more.

 

22 hours ago, Rj0498 said:

Agreed. Funny thing is that they are the most simplistic and yet, they are probably the best. The only roads I can think of that match them are the cards or the giants

 

I dunno.  I think the White Sox, Tigers, Orioles, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Braves, Mets, and Phillies are pretty unimpeachable.  I left out the Yankees because I think they're beautiful, but a lot of people complain about them.  Ditto for the Cubs.  The others, despite a possible tweak here and there, I think can be pretty much objectively appreciated.

 

3 hours ago, KittSmith_95 said:

That shade of purple looks washed out & is a giant NO from me. It's going to look bad on the field.... it's much too soft for a jersey. For a shirt/blouse, it'd look great.... but just wait until we see it on the field.... ya'll be cringing. 

 

Honestly... the new purple reminds me of the washed out navy that the Indians used to wear.  It doesn't look like a color that was meant to exist.  It looks like the real uniform was left out in the sun for a year, washed too many times, or worn in the pool over a summer.  That being said, the old purple, which was a good color, didn't contrast against black enough.  I'm excited to see how this looks on field.  It might be an improvement.  I think there are better ways they could have gone about this which would have involved more manipulation of their wordmarks and logos, whether it be switching the black and silver so the lighter color is against the purple or adding outlines to seperate the darker colors and let what's there pop.  But this may work.  I wish they'd show us the primaries rather than just the purple alt.

 

1 minute ago, Pauly said:

I have mixed feelings about color vs color in the spring.It is of course spring training,preseason if you will but it can be a bit too much at times.Now if the Colorado Rockies could only come up with a decent logo to wear on their caps................Something,anything, a scripted C, maybe the old Colorado Rockies NHL logo. It's just that C/R is too dated.

 

You know, given that the ST matchups are generally color vs. color, how do they handle teams that wear the same colored ST uniform?  I've never thought of that before.  Are the pants and/or accent colors considered enough?  Is this a good reason why there's always weird panels or backs, so that two navy or blue uniforms look different enough on the field?

 

And don't wish for a C, any C to replace what you have now.  That's how we got stuck with the Indians' block C.

[Pauly]

Well the Indians seem to be cow towing to the politically correct not using chief wahoo as much as before.The mountains on the cap would be a start for the Rockies.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

1 minute ago, Pauly said:

Well the Indians seem to be cow towing to the politically correct not using chief wahoo as much as before.The mountains on the cap would be a start for the Rockies.

 

The problems with the mountains is that I've never found an application that didn't look far too wide to look good on a cap.  Even the screaming brave at least had most of its mass in centrally located in one spot, so that the assymetrical feather didn't throw it off too bad.

[SilverBullet1929]

25 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Honestly... the new purple reminds me of the washed out navy that the Indians used to wear.  It doesn't look like a color that was meant to exist.  It looks like the real uniform was left out in the sun for a year, washed too many times, or worn in the pool over a summer.  That being said, the old purple, which was a good color, didn't contrast against black enough.  I'm excited to see how this looks on field.  It might be an improvement.  I think there are better ways they could have gone about this which would have involved more manipulation of their wordmarks and logos, whether it be switching the black and silver so the lighter color is against the purple or adding outlines to seperate the darker colors and let what's there pop.  But this may work.  I wish they'd show us the primaries rather than just the purple alt.

Good description.