ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

Wow...  It's been, what?  Two months?

 

On 4/18/2018 at 9:20 AM, leopard88 said:

I'm in Baltimore and I hear "DC" used relatively frequently . . . and not by people who seem to be trying to be fancy.

 

On 4/18/2018 at 10:51 AM, DeFrank said:

I call my hometown Washington, the District, or DC all about the same amount.

 

If someone asks me “where are you from?” I’ll reply “Washington, DC.”

 

If my dad calls and asks “when are you driving down?” And I don’t know if he means home or to Senior Week I’ll say “to Washington?”

 

If I’m making a political point to a home friend, I’ll end my point with “in all 8 wards in the District.”

 

If I’m arguing with my high school buddy from the MD suburbs who’s an Orioles but Redskins fan, I’ll chide him with “just pick one. DC or Baltimore.”

 

I suppose there's a number of regional and situational factors.  With the earlier comment about fanciness, I think DeFrank's comment on describing DC in political terms captures what I meant.  What with my post being at 3am and featuring a point that I completely left unfinished and had to go back and fix, I couldn't think of a better term, but I suppose "poetic" might be more fitting.  Or "trying to make themselves sound important".  Imagine the difference between talking about driving to Myrtle Beach and worrying about what time of day we'll go around Washington and a deep voice in NFL films referring to a crisp autumn wind blowing through the white monuments of DC.

 

Then again, we're a fair distance away, so we don't say it constantly.  I can see a local that constantly has to talk about the local area

 

(I know this is old, but I'd written it over a month ago and it's been sitting in the field, so might as well send it.  Now onto "new" business.)

 

On 5/10/2018 at 11:32 PM, seasaltvanilla said:

Made this up real quick based on this idea. Included original teal and a brighter shade that I think matches the magenta better

HyBuJQT.png

 

The new shade you propose is also super cool as it's closer to the flag of the City of Phoenix.

 

1024px-Flag_of_Phoenix,_Arizona.svg.png

 

On 5/11/2018 at 12:59 AM, NicDB said:

People who aren't baseball fans frequently mix it up with the NY of that other New York club.

 

And that club's monogram literally needs the context of a surrounding color to not be mistaken for the logo of a previous New York team.

 

My uncle, who is a lifelong Mets fan and Yankees hater, once owned a black-on-black Yankees cap with orange accents that he didn't realize was a Yankees cap until I pointed out the logo was different.

 

On 5/21/2018 at 8:46 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

If someone causes a major situation at Safeco Field that causes a cancellation of this TATC game and thus this TATC game doesn't happen in 2018 then this will alter history and the TATC games of 1999 will never happen (or have happened?) because there will not have been any TATC games to actually Turn the Clocks Ahead to now that we're currently in the future right? Come on guys this may be our one chance to erase TATC from history! Who's with me? 

 

And I've gone cross-eyed.

 

On 5/30/2018 at 4:48 PM, AstroBull21 said:

ff_3158545alt1_full.jpg&w=600ff_3158544alt1_full.jpg&w=600

 

In an odd twist, this looks like Braves merchandise to me.

 

On 6/5/2018 at 10:54 PM, mafiaman said:

I'll see you all over in "Unpopular Opinions."  The old Florida Marlins look is hideous.

 

I've often thought the original version of the Marlins' looks to be a little... rough.  But seeing all these images of it now, it looks like a much better shade of teal than those old cards and programs I've seen made it look.  Might be a thing of lighting and these will still look sickly pale if they hit sunlight.

 

In fact, I'm finding with throwbacks that we're seeing high-res pictures of they look so much better than I'd ever thought they were, including that Padres throwback.

 

16 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I would agree here. If there’s one thing they definitely got right on the redesign, it’s the deco style of the lettering, and I’d like to see a version of it in teal with a simpler treatment as a sort of hybrid of the two looks. I happen to like the simplified fish (it hooks to the Dolphins’ look in that way), but the detailed fish works great, too.

 

Funnily enough, I did that last year, putting the old Marlin and new M together and running through a few combinations of the current colors and old colors.

 

3u9PnxG.png

 

Also to throw into the Nationals debate, I'd go with W on the cap, DC on the primary roundel which would be featured on the sleeves, and a similarly-angled wordmark on the home and away.  The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that I find their version of the two-line plack piping to be the only one that's worked for me.  I'd be interested in an alt with DC on the chest and the W on the cap.

 

d38jzhp0vrfzodnsfehpfd29x.gif

Primary/Sleeve Logo

 

zhwd0skhafeh6k5zyl8sr3ptt.gifv2jxordr9a9ku4grq0dj3zy2o.gif

Home cap and jersey

 

k05xqttskhbs1ywf6g6al6ter.gifszg5q58xknfxdekk9qwin58jg.gif

Road cap and jersey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These jerseys in that stadium are almost perfect:

920x920.jpg

If the Padres are going to stick with navy, they need to go with a darker shade than the one they've been using. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

Blue and orage alone couldnt work for the Marlins, as they look very similar to the Mets.

 

Electric blue, black, and hints of orange would be better...

 

In theory I would think this, but in practice -- using the classic Boyz II Men model photo -- it doesn't read as Metsy to me at all. I would make the hat brim blue too, personally. (That said, I agree in that a black hat paired with these jerseys might be the best choice of all.)

 

Bqrz7nTCIAAS7_Y.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the Padres, much like the Teal Marlins, I find that look to again be very painfully dated. In SD's case it's the wordmark -- replace that with something less pillowy, and less like it's using those horrible default transforms in Photoshop, and we may have something to work with. 

Share this post


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

As for the Padres, much like the Teal Marlins, I find that look to again be very painfully dated. In SD's case it's the wordmark -- replace that with something less pillowy, and less like it's using those horrible default transforms in Photoshop, and we may have something to work with. 

I'd like to see something built around the P. There's a German beer whose wordmark uses a B that's awfully similar to the old Padres P that the team should definitely rip off:

410.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the difference between dated and classic?

 

Because people are calling the 93 Marlins and the 98 Padres uniforms dated but how aren't the Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, A's, White Sox, BiG Brewers, 01 DBacks, etc etc dated?

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those looks being classic or dated but it just seems like too fine a line only to be decided by personal tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

What's the difference between dated and classic? Because people are calling the 93 Marlins and the 98 Padres uniforms dated but how aren't the Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, White Sox, BiG Brewers, 01 DBacks, etc etc dated? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those looks being classic or dated but it just seems like too fine a line only to be decided by personal tastes.

I've always assumed dated is tied too closely to the time it came from. Different sport but all the 90s NBA looks scream 90s and would not work today.

Share this post


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

I've always assumed dated is tied too closely to the time it came from. Different sport but all the 90s NBA looks scream 90s and would not work today.

Yeah I agree in terms of what the word dated means but I think it's too blurry of a line for many people. Seems like dated is used to describe an old look when someone doesn't like it and classic is used when someone likes it. The 2001 DBacks alternate that they wear often people seem to love it and call it a classic but I think it's quite a dated look myself. The BiG Brewers? Beautiful look but it SCREAMS 1980's to me so I'd call it dated myself. Why can't a dated look still be a good look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SilverBullet1929 said:

Yeah I agree in terms of what the word dated means but I think it's too blurry of a line for many people. Seems like dated is used to describe an old look when someone doesn't like it and classic is used when someone likes it. The 2001 DBacks alternate that they wear often people seem to love it and call it a classic but I think it's quite a dated look myself. The BiG Brewers? Beautiful look but it SCREAMS 1980's to me so I'd call it dated myself. Why can't a dated look still be a good look?

Marketing? People also love the Padres 84 look and that was already dated in its own time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

So what's the difference between dated and classic?

 

Because people are calling the 93 Marlins and the 98 Padres uniforms dated but how aren't the Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, A's, White Sox, BiG Brewers, 01 DBacks, etc etc dated?

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those looks being classic or dated but it just seems like too fine a line only to be decided by personal tastes.

 

It is an interesting question and one I may not have the answer to myself! Maybe it's that classic is "old but good", and dated is "old but bad". :) I am being only somewhat facetious -- I would argue that the Mariners' look is very 90s as well, in its color and typeface choices and general aesthetic. But I'd consider that more of a classic, and I don't want nearly any of it changed. (The cream jersey with royal and yellow accents makes me want to puke.) Maybe it's because it was better executed or more restrained than, say, the bright teal Marlins. 

Share this post


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

Maybe it's that classic is "old but good", and dated is "old but bad"

This is what I was getting at and it's just too subjective for me and it makes me uncomfortable lol.

 

I love this look it's classic!

 

I hate this look it's so dated!

Share this post


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

I would argue that the Mariners' look is very 90s as well, in its color and typeface choices and general aesthetic. But I'd consider that more of a classic, and I don't want nearly any of it changed. (The cream jersey with royal and yellow accents makes me want to puke.) Maybe it's because it was better executed or more restrained than, say, the bright teal Marlins. 

 

That's a good point.   We can say a uniform is of its era while simultaneously being a classic.  And I'd say that this qualifies.

 

WASH_SPORTS_YEARENDER_2001_1959621.jpg

 

There is little doubt that it was created in the 1990s.  From the typeface to the color scheme, it is very much a product of its era.  But it's the best of its era, and therefore has real lasting power.

 

Ichiro-081-e1287378893845.jpg

 

Similarly, I would argue that the recent changes to the uniform are equally a product of their time, but in the opposite direction; they're emblematic of the mid-2010s tendency towards over-stuffing designs, and they already look dated to me.

 

954032862.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i realize that one of the more prominent definitions for the term "dated" is "old" or "old fashioned.. and i think that definition plays a small role in the meaning when it's used in this context to describe uniforms/looks/identities, but i think the other definition of "marked with a certain date/period" is MORE accurate.. the terms "Classic" and "Timeless" are not synonyms, but both can frequently be used to describe the same look.. "Classic" imo deals more with a look that is traditional to a certain team and/or the sport itself.. "Timeless" is often similar to "Classic", but "Timeless" imo refers to a look that (while often traditional) can't be visually traced back to any specific time period (like the 70's Sansabelt baseball pants, or 90's NBA uniforms).. typically "Timeless" looks are "Classic" (at least to the sport), which helps them avoid being "dated", but sometimes "Classic" looks CAN become "Dated" (St. Louis Browns' block font jerseys come to mind - follow all the "Classic" baseball aesthetic rules, but lack ANY "Timeless" flair - such as custom font, script wordmark, unique logo, etc., so these particular jerseys feel very "Dated" to me - while Boston's unique fonts, the Dodgers' script, and the unique flared shape of the Yankees' NY logo all help these "Classic", traditional looks remain "Timeless" as well..) 

so, to summarize - i feel like the term "Dated" only means "old" in that it suggests it's not from THIS era/time period, and therefore old - and because it's look can be traced to a specific era/time period (typically for negative reasons, such as chasing fads of the time), it's not a desirable trait.. no one wants to look like they're trapped in the past (i.e. "90's looks"), so having a look that can remain "modern" without much tweaking, creates a "Timeless" look - which is easiest to do with a "Classic" design..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

i feel like the term "Dated" only means "old" in that it suggests it's not from THIS era/time period, and therefore old - and because it's look can be traced to a specific era/time period (typically for negative reasons, such as chasing fads of the time), it's not a desirable trait.. no one wants to look like they're trapped in the past (i.e. "90's looks"), so having a look that can remain "modern" without much tweaking, creates a "Timeless" look - which is easiest to do with a "Classic" design..

 

I use "dated" all the time to represent modern trends that I don't think will stand the test of time.  Heck, I just did one post above yours.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's a good point.   We can say a uniform is of its era while simultaneously being a classic.  And I'd say that this qualifies.

 

WASH_SPORTS_YEARENDER_2001_1959621.jpg

 

There is little doubt that it was created in the 1990s.  From the typeface to the color scheme, it is very much a product of its era.  But it's the best of its era, and therefore has real lasting power.

 

Ichiro-081-e1287378893845.jpg

 

Similarly, I would argue that the recent changes to the uniform are equally a product of their time, but in the opposite direction; they're emblematic of the mid-2010s tendency towards over-stuffing designs, and they already look dated to me.

 

954032862.jpeg

 

 

 

I like that update to the Mariners, it me it increased readability. The blue and the teal dont really stand out from each other too well at a distance. 

Share this post


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

I like that update to the Mariners, it me it increased readability. The blue and the teal dont really stand out from each other too well at a distance. 

 

Ah, those are two separate issues.

 

I'll grant that the teal and blue merged from a distance.  But that actually made the script more legible.  Your eye reads the colors all as one, which makes reading the letters and numbers much easier.

 

Separating the teal and navy with a silver outline may make the teal stand out more, but in doing so it also fills in all the negative spaces and makes the individual letters and numbers less readable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot this earlier.  On the Le Batard Show, they were discussing Len Barker, which made me look him up.  Saw all the pictures of him wearing this cap.  Man, that C needs an outline.  Look at how much better this looks than what they have now.

 

1-Len-Barker-Copy.jpg

 

6 hours ago, Digby said:

In theory I would think this, but in practice -- using the classic Boyz II Men model photo -- it doesn't read as Metsy to me at all. I would make the hat brim blue too, personally. (That said, I agree in that a black hat paired with these jerseys might be the best choice of all.)

 

It's the same as the people complaining that white and navy or red, white, and navy/blue is too prevalent and makes teams look alike.  Just because you use the same or similar colors doesn't mean you look anything alike.  The Marlins' white all-caps wordmark stands in stark contrast to the Mets' orange/blue cursive wordmark.

 

3 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

So what's the difference between dated and classic?

 

Because people are calling the 93 Marlins and the 98 Padres uniforms dated but how aren't the Cardinals, Yankees, Dodgers, A's, White Sox, BiG Brewers, 01 DBacks, etc etc dated?

 

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those looks being classic or dated but it just seems like too fine a line only to be decided by personal tastes.

 

"Dated" just means of a certain era.  It's the opposite of "timeless".  And "classic" just means whether or not you subjectively consider it good.

 

Dated isn't a bad thing.  Teams that have heydays during certain eras may want to celebrate those times by building their identity around it, while fans buy and proudly wear their throwbacks from that time.  

 

Dated looks: 

492957302013.gif er2v8s32txgcr1q6ncwdogkau.gif 8erib83fgg45eo82bczr9yvgp.gif 6555292015.gif

 

Timeless looks:

4102.gif 9atp8fzzl8tf4xflyfllknjff.gif g5lo117wyevebnilh334nnu46.gif h5ths4t1ousvyjr7do0znnggn.gif

 

 

39 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Similarly, I would argue that the recent changes to the uniform are equally a product of their time, but in the opposite direction; they're emblematic of the mid-2010s tendency towards over-stuffing designs, and they already look dated to me.

 

 

2 minutes ago, KGeeX5 said:

I like that update to the Mariners, it me it increased readability. The blue and the teal dont really stand out from each other too well at a distance. 

 

Dangit... KGee beat me to it.  The old look was good, but it's a bit drab.  The navy and dark teal bled together, especially under the roof of Safeco Field.  The change made it legible and brightened up an aging set, infusing some life into it.

Share this post


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

 

It is an interesting question and one I may not have the answer to myself! Maybe it's that classic is "old but good", and dated is "old but bad". :) I am being only somewhat facetious -- I would argue that the Mariners' look is very 90s as well, in its color and typeface choices and general aesthetic. But I'd consider that more of a classic, and I don't want nearly any of it changed. (The cream jersey with royal and yellow accents makes me want to puke.) Maybe it's because it was better executed or more restrained than, say, the bright teal Marlins. 


I think it's a gorgeous look... just not for the Mariners. (Brewers, pay attention).  But I agree that the Mariners have a perfect identity even though the teal will always mark it as having come of age in the 90s.

But isn't it pretty par for the course that once a look becomes associated with a franchise's first brush with greatness, that becomes their permanent look? 

 

3 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Yeah I agree in terms of what the word dated means but I think it's too blurry of a line for many people. Seems like dated is used to describe an old look when someone doesn't like it and classic is used when someone likes it. The 2001 DBacks alternate that they wear often people seem to love it and call it a classic but I think it's quite a dated look myself. The BiG Brewers? Beautiful look but it SCREAMS 1980's to me so I'd call it dated myself. Why can't a dated look still be a good look?


Curious why you think that.  Is it just the logo?  Because block lettering dates back to the 19th century, pinstripes date to at least the 1920s, and gold trim became prominent in the postwar years.  Take away the BiG, and that's a look that wouldn't look out of place in any era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the Ball in Glove is a product of the 1970s, not the 1980s.  Just because we now associate it with one decade doesn't mean that it actually reflects the aesthetic of that decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do the Cubs look dated? They've looked more or less the same since the '60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.