ANGELCAT-IDA61

MLB changes 2018?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

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.

It's a product of the 70's, but according to the mothership, it originated in 1978.. That's kinda the tail-end of the 70's, and given its lifespan ('78-'93) it book-ended the 80's pretty well.. Based solely on those dates, it doesn't seem odd at all to associate it with the 80's (or for it to be appropriate to do so).. personally, I feel like it's pretty indicative of the ultra-colorful-but-more-traditional-than-the-70's decade that was the 80's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

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

 

 

I'll second this.

Share this post


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

It's a product of the 70's, but according to the mothership, it originated in 1978.. That's kinda the tail-end of the 70's, and given its lifespan ('78-'93) it book-ended the 80's pretty well.. Based solely on those dates, it doesn't seem odd at all to associate it with the 80's (or for it to be appropriate to do so).. personally, I feel like it's pretty indicative of the ultra-colorful-but-more-traditional-than-the-70's decade that was the 80's

 

The BiG made the field in 1978, but it was designed in 1977.  Hard to say that it's not a product of that decade.

 

And as I said before, we associate it with the 1980s because that was the period when they wore it most prominently.  But that doesn't change its aesthetic.  It's a pretty radical design, especially for sports.  Typical of the experimentation we saw in the 1970s.

Share this post


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

 

The BiG made the field in 1978, but it was designed in 1977.  Hard to say that it's not a product of that decade.

 

And as I said before, we associate it with the 1980s because that was the period when they wore it most prominently.  But that doesn't change its aesthetic.  It's a pretty radical design, especially for sports.  Typical of the experimentation we saw in the 1970s.

Fair enough.. I can see why the logo itself may be more a product of the 70's than 80's, but apart from the logo and hanging onto the powder blues a few years too long, they had a pretty clean/traditional aesthetic, which I think plays a big part in the 80's association..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, NicDB said:

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.

 

I don't know if cream and yellow can look good anywhere.  I wouldn't want to see any of the teams with yellow/gold to go with a cream base, but then again I think of cream as more of a throwback that should be used with pre-expansion teams.  That is, save for the Padres and Brewers, who I think can make it fit their identities.  That being said, still not with yellow.  I'd like to see the Brewers try cream with their 90's color scheme.

 

I don't know what it is.  Might just be a personal issue.  I think it might be that it feels like mixing the two colors makes each look like an inferior version of the other.  The cream makes the gold look sickly and pissy and the bright gold makes the cream look dingy and tarnished.  But that's just me feeling something in my gut and trying to find a mental reason for it.

 

6 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

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.

 

Decades aren't hard and fast stops.  There's always bleeding in.  The googie-esque designs I associate with the Twins started in the 50's and has roots in the 40's.  And if something started in one decade, but became famous in another, you're going to associate it with when it became famous.  Especially since its high point is going to be when it may affect other aesthetics or when its aesthetics may be in fashion.

 

Just now, the admiral said:

How do the Cubs look dated? They've had more or less the same logo for years.

 

Again, not a bad thing at all.  I think the Cubs look amazing and never want them to change their home uniforms.  But the incredible thickness of their primary logo, which sits on their chest screams 70's and 80's to me.

 

q9gvs07u72gc9xr3395u6jh68.gif

 

Thick lettering with little negative space and letters that are nearly as tall as they are wide feels of this era in my mind.  The simple color scheme and shape with no outlines or shadows too.

 

I'd compare it to these:

 

5510931982.gif 59232651971.gif 6197791982.gif  365.gif grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif 

hipzyfc456lyasm3jwvxvcs14.gif 63f7yzludlnhhx735q3gzp21m.gif  ngyajwyw8xy1ljhkj8rs66g8l.gif dfv4frdanvat63bc7hbl2009i.gif 6094.gif 

 

Same thing with the Astros' thick serifs, the Blue Jay's retro-futuristic font, and the Twins' outline-less, multi-color, thinly serifed cap logo.

 

The Tigers really threw me for a loop.  Simple design in the uniform and chest insignia, but that logo is meant to reflect the look of a past era, so I have no idea whether to consider it dated or timeless.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

"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

 

I don't really agree with you. Dated is RARELY invoked without meaning bad. Dated usually means it's of a certain and doesn't hold up. In every instance above, I'd argue that none of those are dated because none of then need to change based on aged aesthetics. 

 

Classic is subjective, I agree. The Jays updated from a classic, perhaps dated, look, to become a modern classic that don't need to/shouldn't change. 

 

Frankly, among all those classic looks, the Yankees are probably the most dated, as they are both old designs that very likely wouldn't be created by an expansion team today. But they've had that look for their whole storied history basically, so how can you change that? Many people will call it timeless, but I think that only applies because they literally will wear that look for all of time (I'm not that big a fan of the look aesthetically, but it's not bad or in need of change). The Astros have jerseys that could've been introduced realistically in just about any era, whereas I don't believe you can say that for the Yanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

I don't know if cream and yellow can look good anywhere.  I wouldn't want to see any of the teams with yellow/gold to go with a cream base, but then again I think of cream as more of a throwback that should be used with pre-expansion teams.  That is, save for the Padres and Brewers, who I think can make it fit their identities.  That being said, still not with yellow.  I'd like to see the Brewers try cream with their 90's color scheme.

 

I don't know what it is.  Might just be a personal issue.  I think it might be that it feels like mixing the two colors makes each look like an inferior version of the other.  The cream makes the gold look sickly and pissy and the bright gold makes the cream look dingy and tarnished.  But that's just me feeling something in my gut and trying to find a mental reason for it.

 

 

Decades aren't hard and fast stops.  There's always bleeding in.  The googie-esque designs I associate with the Twins started in the 50's and has roots in the 40's.  And if something started in one decade, but became famous in another, you're going to associate it with when it became famous.  Especially since its high point is going to be when it may affect other aesthetics or when its aesthetics may be in fashion.

 

 

Again, not a bad thing at all.  I think the Cubs look amazing and never want them to change their home uniforms.  But the incredible thickness of their primary logo, which sits on their chest screams 70's and 80's to me.

 

q9gvs07u72gc9xr3395u6jh68.gif

 

Thick lettering with little negative space and letters that are nearly as tall as they are wide feels of this era in my mind.  The simple color scheme and shape with no outlines or shadows too.

 

I'd compare it to these:

 

5510931982.gif 59232651971.gif 6197791982.gif  365.gif grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif 

hipzyfc456lyasm3jwvxvcs14.gif 63f7yzludlnhhx735q3gzp21m.gif  ngyajwyw8xy1ljhkj8rs66g8l.gif dfv4frdanvat63bc7hbl2009i.gif 6094.gif 

 

Same thing with the Astros' thick serifs, the Blue Jay's retro-futuristic font, and the Twins' outline-less, multi-color, thinly serifed cap logo.

 

The Tigers really threw me for a loop.  Simple design in the uniform and chest insignia, but that logo is meant to reflect the look of a past era, so I have no idea whether to consider it dated or timeless.  

I'm not sure I agree on the cubs.. Their logo, while thickened a bit in 79, is simply a bolder version of their previous logo dating back to the 50's, with origins in the 30's, and modeled after the Chicago Athletic Association's logo (assuming the article I read is credible), which was similarly bold.. Plus, I personally think the current version has the closest "C" to the cap version of all the iterations of this logo.. So, there's plenty of logic behind it looking the way it does, and I just struggle to associate such a small tweak with a specific time period and aesthetic trend.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

Yellow wouldn't be bad, but I think orange makes for better color balance with brown. 

 

 

19 hours ago, insert name said:

 

This is the Padres I always think of. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

I don't really agree with you. Dated is RARELY invoked without meaning bad. Dated usually means it's of a certain and doesn't hold up. In every instance above, I'd argue that none of those are dated because none of then need to change based on aged aesthetics. 

 

Classic is subjective, I agree. The Jays updated from a classic, perhaps dated, look, to become a modern classic that don't need to/shouldn't change. 

 

Frankly, among all those classic looks, the Yankees are probably the most dated, as they are both old designs that very likely wouldn't be created by an expansion team today. But they've had that look for their whole storied history basically, so how can you change that? Many people will call it timeless, but I think that only applies because they literally will wear that look for all of time (I'm not that big a fan of the look aesthetically, but it's not bad or in need of change). The Astros have jerseys that could've been introduced realistically in just about any era, whereas I don't believe you can say that for the Yanks.

 

You're right in that dated is usually used as an insult, but it doesn't have to be, and a lot of teams and fans show their dated throwback pride frequently.

 

The Yankees uniform lacks a lot of signifiers for time and place.  The design and colors are so simple that it's hard to attribute to a certain time.  That's why I listed it as timeless.  It's like a t-shirt and jeans.  The away jersey looks a bit dated with its thick sleeve piping that clues you in to when it was created, but that probably slips by people that don't pay as much attention as we do.  Of course, it's a look that originated a long time ago.  Perhaps it's that the basic design stuck around for a long time and became a template for uniforms today that makes it feel less old.  The Red Sox are in the same boat.

 

The look of their home uniforms (I'm assuming you're calling the look of pinstripes and chest insignia logo) were worn by the Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Rockies, Marlins, and Diamondbacks decades after the Yankees put it on.  I don't know why you don't think it would be worn by an expansion team today 

 

The Astros also went for a very basic look, but the big chunky serifs evoke a certain time, especially the huge ones on the cap logo.

 

Just now, WavePunter said:

I'm not sure I agree on the cubs.. Their logo, while thickened a bit in 79, is simply a bolder version of their previous logo dating back to the 50's, with origins in the 30's, and modeled after the Chicago Athletic Association's logo (assuming the article I read is credible), which was similarly bold.. Plus, I personally think the current version has the closest "C" to the cap version of all the iterations of this logo.. So, there's plenty of logic behind it looking the way it does, and I just struggle to associate such a small tweak with a specific time period and aesthetic trend.. 

 

Yeah, but the specific tweaks that were made to fit the aesthetic of the time, so it feels like the aesthetic of that time. 

 

4l0rcedpoe42tn9sh5kwbl6hg.gifq9gvs07u72gc9xr3395u6jh68.gifplfvnnjvk6o2zbu75olp.gif

 

Think of the darkening of bright logos that took place in the 90's and 2000's.  Don't those now feel of that era rather than the era of the original logo?

 

nuudzbqeegyh2w4vef9q6025s.gifscxsuiit824f8druiaf83mo3j.gif138.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2018 at 11:57 PM, NicDB said:


Now just palette swap the navy for brown and they'll never have to change again.

That's the thing about this whole debate: the Padres are stuck in a damned if they do/damned if they don't situation. Lots of people are mad now about the blue jerseys but not everyone's going to be pleased if they switch to brown, particularly those who have only ever known the Padres in blue (which is basically anyone under 30). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like “dated” means that a design looks stuck in a specific decade/fad/era.  “Timeless” is something that crosses these boundaries and evolves with the times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AstroBull21 said:

I feel like “dated” means that a design looks stuck in a specific decade/fad/era.  “Timeless” is something that crosses these boundaries and evolves with the times.

 

I dunno.  I feel like Timeless means it doesn't need to evolve.

 

I actually take back what I said about the Yankees uniforms not looking like something an expansion team would be introduced with.  I'm watching Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Finals and as I look at the Golden Knights' jerseys, I realize that an expansion team today wouldn't wear something like that.  Expansion teams don't often go with timeless looks.   They go with what is the most current, flashy, faddy look at the time.   Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and those identities can sometimes be their most enduring and iconic look.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a team like the San Jose Sharks or the Miami (formerly Florida) Marlins? Both were teams born in the 90s who used about as 90s of a color scheme as you can have. Teal and Black with a hint of Orange. But now, both are considered timeless. Many (me included) wany to see the Miami Marlins adopt their far superior original color scheme. 

 

So are those fad based, 90s uniforms that look okay or would they be considered timeless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

You're right in that dated is usually used as an insult, but it doesn't have to be, and a lot of teams and fans show their dated throwback pride frequently.

 

The Yankees uniform lacks a lot of signifiers for time and place.  The design and colors are so simple that it's hard to attribute to a certain time.  That's why I listed it as timeless.  It's like a t-shirt and jeans.  The away jersey looks a bit dated with its thick sleeve piping that clues you in to when it was created, but that probably slips by people that don't pay as much attention as we do.  Of course, it's a look that originated a long time ago.  Perhaps it's that the basic design stuck around for a long time and became a template for uniforms today that makes it feel less old.  The Red Sox are in the same boat.

 

The look of their home uniforms (I'm assuming you're calling the look of pinstripes and chest insignia logo) were worn by the Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Rockies, Marlins, and Diamondbacks decades after the Yankees put it on.  I don't know why you don't think it would be worn by an expansion team today 

 

The Astros also went for a very basic look, but the big chunky serifs evoke a certain time, especially the huge ones on the cap logo.

 

 

Yeah, but the specific tweaks that were made to fit the aesthetic of the time, so it feels like the aesthetic of that time. 

 

4l0rcedpoe42tn9sh5kwbl6hg.gifq9gvs07u72gc9xr3395u6jh68.gifplfvnnjvk6o2zbu75olp.gif

 

Think of the darkening of bright logos that took place in the 90's and 2000's.  Don't those now feel of that era rather than the era of the original logo?

 

nuudzbqeegyh2w4vef9q6025s.gifscxsuiit824f8druiaf83mo3j.gif138.gif

I still have to disagree.. At best, I'd call it a coincidence.. The "C" itself didn't change much, just a tiny bit to be more uniform with the cap.. The blue wasn't just simply made thicker, it was made to be the same thickness as the "C".. Sure, the empty space was decreased, but firstly, the empty space now correlates more closely to the white outline of the cap logo (Supporting the "cap C" logic).. And secondly, it simply looked empty before, and was improved by thickening the border and minimizing the empty space.. The previous version looked like a white patch with lots of empty space was sewn onto a jersey with blue thread, while the current version actually looks like a jersey logo.. And finally, thickening the "ubs" is nothing more than making them match aesthetically...

The logo has evolved multiple times between the 1930's and 1979, and this adjustment fits in line with the previous adjustments, so again, I wouldn't consider it more than a coincidence that it happened during an era that featured similar design trends..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

You're right in that dated is usually used as an insult, but it doesn't have to be, and a lot of teams and fans show their dated throwback pride frequently.

 

The Yankees uniform lacks a lot of signifiers for time and place.  The design and colors are so simple that it's hard to attribute to a certain time.  That's why I listed it as timeless.  It's like a t-shirt and jeans.  The away jersey looks a bit dated with its thick sleeve piping that clues you in to when it was created, but that probably slips by people that don't pay as much attention as we do.  Of course, it's a look that originated a long time ago.  Perhaps it's that the basic design stuck around for a long time and became a template for uniforms today that makes it feel less old.  The Red Sox are in the same boat.

 

The look of their home uniforms (I'm assuming you're calling the look of pinstripes and chest insignia logo) were worn by the Cubs, White Sox, Phillies, Rockies, Marlins, and Diamondbacks decades after the Yankees put it on.  I don't know why you don't think it would be worn by an expansion team today 

 

The Astros also went for a very basic look, but the big chunky serifs evoke a certain time, especially the huge ones on the cap logo.

 

An expansion team today is very unlikely to go with as plain a look at the Yankees. One color, the only logo on the uniforms is the NY, nothing on the sleeves... That's the kind of stuff is very old-timey and of an older era.

 

For the record I find pinstripes unpleasant in almost all situations and to me they're the among the least fortunate uniform tropes.

Share this post


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

That's the thing about this whole debate: the Padres are stuck in a damned if they do/damned if they don't situation. Lots of people are mad now about the blue jerseys but not everyone's going to be pleased if they switch to brown, particularly those who have only ever known the Padres in blue (which is basically anyone under 30). 

But that assumes that Padres fans are not even cognizant of the team ever having worn brown, even though retro Padres gear is widespread and many of the franchise's best players and seasons are associated with brown uniforms. It might be new to fans at games in person (if you allow that they've never seen the Padres wear throwbacks or alternates), but it wouldn't be something completely unfamiliar to them, like, say, sky blue and beige were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

I don't know if cream and yellow can look good anywhere.  I wouldn't want to see any of the teams with yellow/gold to go with a cream base, but then again I think of cream as more of a throwback that should be used with pre-expansion teams.  That is, save for the Padres and Brewers, who I think can make it fit their identities.  That being said, still not with yellow.  I'd like to see the Brewers try cream with their 90's color scheme.

 

I don't know what it is.  Might just be a personal issue.  I think it might be that it feels like mixing the two colors makes each look like an inferior version of the other.  The cream makes the gold look sickly and pissy and the bright gold makes the cream look dingy and tarnished.  But that's just me feeling something in my gut and trying to find a mental reason for it.


It's tricky, but it has to be the right hue of cream.  One that skews more reddish-orange than golden.  I feel like the Bucks really dropped the ball in that regard.  They chose a cream that doesn't mesh well with white or metallic gold.  Worse, they actually used cream to outline the white numbers on their green uniforms, making it look like a bloated mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

I dunno.  I feel like Timeless means it doesn't need to evolve.

 

I actually take back what I said about the Yankees uniforms not looking like something an expansion team would be introduced with.  I'm watching Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Finals and as I look at the Golden Knights' jerseys, I realize that an expansion team today wouldn't wear something like that.  Expansion teams don't often go with timeless looks.   They go with what is the most current, flashy, faddy look at the time.   Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and those identities can sometimes be their most enduring and iconic look.  


An expansion team only using one color, especially navy blue (plus white and gray)?  No, that'll probably never happen again.  But there was this.

7k3889auwgzavs4fntde8u0n9.png

These may have technically been 3 years after their expansion year, and the colors and font choice certainly reflected 1998 sensibilities; but I don't know how anyone could look at these and say the Yankees weren't the inspiration... and rightfully so.  The execution of the Yankees uniforms may mark them as being from a certain era, but it's still a template that can be just as effective as ever when used correctly.

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.