ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, jerseyjunk said:

Arizona  have the worst uniforms in baseball, all 9 of them!

 

And the worst jersey script as well. Seriously, D-Backs?

 

 

They should just wear their "A" logo on their homes, and "ARIZONA" on their roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bobster said:

 

 

They should just wear their "A" logo on their homes, and "ARIZONA" on their roads.

 

IMO, this wasn't nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

 

067537b975a7fa65b82654051054a08a1a536a88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one don't want the Angels to emphasize blue again. I really like the red-on-red look they've got and they own it, making it somewhat unique. Having them blue again would make them look like every other blue and red team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

I for one don't want the Angels to emphasize blue again. I really like the red-on-red look they've got and they own it, making it somewhat unique. Having them blue again would make them look like every other blue and red team.

I agree.  I think this is their best look ever.  The 1980s California Angels look was not bad, but it was closer to the standard red/blue.  This is a red-dominant team that looks nothing like the Reds or Cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

 

I wasn't a fan, but I don't recall this being scrutinized much back when it debuted. People were mostly indifferent to it iirc

 

Probably because it wasn't quite as bad as their expansion-mates' uniforms:

 

26543006750_5850cb43cd_o.jpg

 

Both were awful, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

I don’t even mind all of the uniforms (I prefer the teal versions). They aren’t perfect, but they are an upgrade over the set they replaced. 

But didn't they just add color grading to the shoulders?

 

And this logo is way to college like

2669_arizona_diamondbacks-alternate-2016

 

This one is way better, a snake head in the form of d and b. and the eyes being inside the d and b.....very clever and underrated logo.

 

tnfhpl6eyhgvcfuhggh3chdje.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Diamondbacks" is the same number of letters as "San Francisco" and only two more than "Cincinnati" and those two names have both been put on jerseys painlessly so why does it have to be DBacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

"Diamondbacks" is the same number of letters as "San Francisco" and only two more than "Cincinnati" and those two names have both been put on jerseys painlessly so why does it have to be DBacks?

 

Part of the reason why I think Arizona's original pinstripe homes aren't bad.  For sure, they are better than the D-Backs crap that has come since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 3:27 PM, Matito said:

Other than the logo, about which I'm upset but not livid, I don't see anything drastic happening. If you look at the team UA dresses in college, none of them look all that outlandish, at least from my brief Google search. South Carolina, Boston College, even Maryland don't look too dissimilar from most baseball looks, even if some of their more out-there designs look like MLB BP jerseys from the late 2000s.

yep, I hope they incorporate the fauxback road gray that some colleges have, Mizzou and Maryland for example. I think the some of the older teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Giants, Pirates) would look great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2017 at 10:27 PM, Matito said:

Other than the logo, about which I'm upset but not livid, I don't see anything drastic happening. If you look at the team UA dresses in college, none of them look all that outlandish, at least from my brief Google search. South Carolina, Boston College, even Maryland don't look too dissimilar from most baseball looks, even if some of their more out-there designs look like MLB BP jerseys from the late 2000s.

They keep things traditional with the big teams but they throw in more accoutrements with teams like Hawaii and Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

They keep things traditional with the big teams but they throw in more accoutrements with teams like Hawaii and Utah.

USF has had a fairly good looking green to yellow "rainbow guts" treatment. I think now that striping is reserved for the sleeves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

"Diamondbacks" is the same number of letters as "San Francisco" and only two more than "Cincinnati" and those two names have both been put on jerseys painlessly so why does it have to be DBacks?

 

Well, look at the fonts those teams use:

 

47oohl8sfcftpmodi0t09f141.gif e0geyz0f0bitgtjzfzpe54re4.gif

 

They're condensed fonts that don't have all that much ornamentation. When ornamentation gets involved, you get messy stuff like this:

 

2khon1i2fejygiiju1vilfm53.gif

(I think the 1994-99 "San Francisco" script looks OK without an outline, but with it's a little too illegible.)

The Diamondbacks have always loved the ornamented fonts, so it'd be difficult to implement the full name in a good-looking way. The stack method makes "-backs" look like an afterthought.

 

There's also the issue of syllable context. San Francisco Giants is six syllables, while Cincinnati Reds is five syllables. Meanwhile, Arizona Diamondbacks is eight syllables. That's kind of a mouthful.

Share this post


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

I would say that the current font is no fancier than Cincy's.

 

Agreed, sans serif fonts would be preferred for something like this, but a seriffed font would be fine if it's not too ornate.

 

I liked the original lettering on the original uniforms when they came out, but the style is just a bit too dated for my liking now.

I also think the original colors would work better if the purple had been a little darker to get a better contrast with the turquoise - especially on the batting helmets.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're telling the Dbacks what to do, I think they should switch to turquoise, black and copper:

 

IMG_2751.thumb.JPG.cdec7680cd68d5bdc01e5e345adc32ed.JPG

 

It's unique, evocative of the area and it looks good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that does illustrate the problem of the name being to long to be displayed in its entirety if the lettering is too big.

 

As for the earlier suggestion to go with black, turquoise & copper - I'm all for it because it includes most of the team's original colors and turquoise and copper are about the "most Arizonan" colors that you're going to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Because Natives aren't mascots to be used by non-Natives.  The only possible way to do this would be in conjunction with local tribes, as the Spokane Indians (Texas Rangers affilliate in Class A Northwest League) have done.  But that is not likely in Cleveland.

 

I'm going to avoid the whole rabbit hole of Notre Dame and how privilege affects the right to get offended and the fairness of privilege and sins of the father being attributed to one, and it ends up as a big spiral that leaves us in the deadlocked state we're in as a society today. 

 

I'm just going to say that in the world we live in right now where every voice we're hearing publicly is railing against only the logo in Cleveland and the name in Washington, an accurate piece of Native imagery is inoffensive.  I've heard little if no complaint about the Braves' name and iconography save for the alternate cap they almost brought back and the Tomahawk Chop.  Of course, the fact that the move was made famous by the Seminoles really... just really makes that whole thing... weeeeeird.  Is the Tomahawk Chop okay if the Seminole Tribe give it the okay?  Can the Braves do it because it's Native approved?

 

Wow.  And that was all from me saying I was going to skip a lot of the controversy to just say that it doesn't appear Ohio has any tribes that can okay the Indians' anything.

 

22 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

That would be Ted Kluszewski.

Related image   Related image

 

Thank you!  That was driving me crazy.  This was the shot I was looking for:

 

Kluszewski02.jpg

 

I think I was just looking for the historical context of sleeveless jerseys, but given the lack of information I found about sleeveless jerseys and vests in general, all I ended up with was that they're not a 90's only invention.  Also, I'd thought it was the pinstriped Reds jersey, but it wasn't.

 

22 hours ago, daveindc said:

Long Wind of Doom, look at the cap...

 

That C was used as their primary logo and on other jerseys as well:

 

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5783481919/Cleveland_Indians/1919/Cap_Logo#logo_timeline

 

Hehe.  All right.  The smudge in the last image of the three is the current C.  Was paying attention to the larger chest logo in this pic.

 

2e6870c5b861e7a879e9b82a0f893bc4.jpg

 

  It was back when they had it in white on a navy, a color scheme that actually contrasts well and gave it a thickness that read better.

 

Ray_Chapman_Baseball.jpg

 

All of this looks a heckuva lot better than what they have now.

 

(Side note: Looking through Getty Images, it seems that on August 30th Lindor wore Wahoo at Yankee Stadium with the road grays while everyone else wore the block C.  Wonder if that happened anytime else and if anyone noticed.)

Share this post


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