SportsLogos.Net News

2019 MLB Changes

Recommended Posts

The Mets are fine as they are. The clean whites are solid, but going to them would feel like a big change-for-change-sakes. Both New York teams can use pinstripes; it's not just a Yankees thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine either way, though I prefer the piping whites a little more than the pinstripes. My ideal scenario would be if the Mets went back to the piping full time and had a '86 throwback for Sundays like they did 2016, but I wouldn't mind if they kept it the way it is now. For what it's worth, the blue alts are one of the best colored alts in the league when used in moderation, but the Mets just wore them way too often (especially the 2015 World Series) and I think we've all grown a fatigue of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mets' narrow, condensed athletic block for NOBs is an underrated design element of theirs, I feel. Helps set them off from the Cubs a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marlins93 said:

I hate this notion that the Yankees own pinstripes and are the only team that can wear them.

I don’t think anyone has ever said the Yankees “own” pinstripes. It’s the simple fact that usually when people think of pinstripes they think Yankees 99% of the time.

 

If we’re going to get historic, the Cubs were the first to implement pinstripes in 1907. That doesn’t necessarily make them the most popular team to wear them though. Again, pinstripes = Yankees. Simple math, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

I hate this notion that the Yankees own pinstripes and are the only team that can wear them.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that. Just like no one would say no college football team besides UCLA should wear a triple shoulder stripe. But everyone would be scratching their heads if USC did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NicDB said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying that. Just like no one would say no college football team besides UCLA should wear shoulder tri-stripes. But everyone would be scratching their heads if USC did it.

 

I can see where you're coming from. It's why the Angels don't use cursive wordmarks, the White Sox use more ornate fonts (and don't have a "C" cap), and the A's & Giants have markedly different colorations/script styles. However, the Mets do enough to separate themselves that the pinstripes don't become a pale imitation. They have the Giants' old "NY" with some modifications, use a cursive script with front number, and use royal blue as their primary shade (real talk: I've seen people here who think the Yankees have black lettering and pinstripes - that earns a bit of a "Really?" from me) with orange accents. 

 

Had they worn the snow whites since 1962, then I'd say pinstripes are a bad idea (a la the block "New York" road script of 1988-92). But since they didn't and 1969/86 featured pinstripes (as well as '73, '00 - for some uniforms, and '15), I'd argue that history is on pinstripes' side.

 

However, I'd argue that they're overlooking a design that they could really call their own. Windowpanes!

 

df05b61b8b29a9382ddd55fc30801f94.jpg

Of course, the Wilpons will try their best to forget that the Giants played in New York, so I doubt it'll happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I can see where you're coming from. It's why the Angels don't use cursive wordmarks, the White Sox use more ornate fonts (and don't have a "C" cap), and the A's & Giants have markedly different colorations/script styles. However, the Mets do enough to separate themselves that the pinstripes don't become a pale imitation. They have the Giants' old "NY" with some modifications, use a cursive script with front number, and use royal blue as their primary shade (real talk: I've seen people here who think the Yankees have black lettering and pinstripes - that earns a bit of a "Really?" from me) with orange accents. 

 

Had they worn the snow whites since 1962, then I'd say pinstripes are a bad idea (a la the block "New York" road script of 1988-92). But since they didn't and 1969/86 featured pinstripes (as well as '73, '00 - for some uniforms, and '15), I'd argue that history is on pinstripes' side.

 

However, I'd argue that they're overlooking a design that they could really call their own. Windowpanes!

 

df05b61b8b29a9382ddd55fc30801f94.jpg

Of course, the Wilpons will try their best to forget that the Giants played in New York, so I doubt it'll happen. 

I can see why people would think the Yankees are black and white, especially before HD tv’s when they midnight navy would look like black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Rays wore their rainbow gradient throwbacks last night and will wear them three more times this season. With them playing the Diamondbacks in May, why didn't anyone think of having a 1998 expansion team throwback night? I'd love to see the rainbows be worn against the D-backs road pinstripes. Missed opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams wearing pinstripes World Series wins since 2001:

 

Not Yankees: 5

Yankees: 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dont care said:
6 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

(real talk: I've seen people here who think the Yankees have black lettering and pinstripes - that earns a bit of a "Really?" from me)

I can see why people would think the Yankees are black and white, especially before HD tv’s when they midnight navy would look like black.

 

I have heard the Yankees' numbers and lettering described as black by radio announcers on games from the 1930s and 1940s.  (So I don't feel so bad for having thought that the San Diego Fleet wore brown or that the Salt Lake Stallions wore white.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rays wore some pretty crazy socks with their throwbacks yesterday. They also posted an incredible late 90's animation on their Twitter.

 

 

D4oRD2-WsAAR1ph.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I can see where you're coming from. It's why the Angels don't use cursive wordmarks, the White Sox use more ornate fonts (and don't have a "C" cap), and the A's & Giants have markedly different colorations/script styles. However, the Mets do enough to separate themselves that the pinstripes don't become a pale imitation. They have the Giants' old "NY" with some modifications, use a cursive script with front number, and use royal blue as their primary shade (real talk: I've seen people here who think the Yankees have black lettering and pinstripes - that earns a bit of a "Really?" from me) with orange accents. 

 

Had they worn the snow whites since 1962, then I'd say pinstripes are a bad idea (a la the block "New York" road script of 1988-92). But since they didn't and 1969/86 featured pinstripes (as well as '73, '00 - for some uniforms, and '15), I'd argue that history is on pinstripes' side.

 

However, I'd argue that they're overlooking a design that they could really call their own. Windowpanes!

 

df05b61b8b29a9382ddd55fc30801f94.jpg

Of course, the Wilpons will try their best to forget that the Giants played in New York, so I doubt it'll happen. 


I don't even think the Mets pinstripes are necessarily an "imitation" (I've heard the story about them being a tribute to the Yankees too, but never thought much of it).  But even in a vacuum, I don't think they add anything to the Mets look.  If anything, they distract from its strong points.  The fact that pinstripes are so closely associated with the hated Yankees is just the icing on the proverbial cake.

But, someone made the point that the snow whites weren't around until the late 90s... right when I started seeing the Mets on a regular basis.  So it's hard to say if I'd still feel that way if I were a fan who grew up with the pinstripes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

I hate this notion that the Yankees own pinstripes and are the only team that can wear them.

 

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I don’t think they are the best looking pinstripe team. Good-looking classic? Yes. I think the Cubs and Mets look better. I would add the Rockies too if they removed the front number. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rockies look bad in pinstripes for two reasons. 

 

1. The hollowness of their lettering creates strokes around empty space that doesn’t look good when out on top of pinstripes that are essentially strokes around empty space. 

 

2. Serifs can sometimes look awkward on top of pinstripes with thin lines crossing thin lines. 

 

 

Look at at the I and E. The I kinda looks like two pinstripes on top of pinstripes, and the serif on the E looks like the pinstripe is crooked in places. 

 

 

 

7700_ROCH_DN7_R07__59604.1459373396.1280

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, evoquik said:

So the Rays wore their rainbow gradient throwbacks last night and will wear them three more times this season. With them playing the Diamondbacks in May, why didn't anyone think of having a 1998 expansion team throwback night? I'd love to see the rainbows be worn against the D-backs road pinstripes. Missed opportunity.

Eh, they wear them on Saturday's typically, which is why the Dbacks series was probably ignored as it's a midweek series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The Rockies look bad in pinstripes for two reasons. 

 

1. The hollowness of their lettering creates strokes around empty space that doesn’t look good when out on top of pinstripes that are essentially strokes around empty space. 

 

2. Serifs can sometimes look awkward on top of pinstripes with thin lines crossing thin lines. 

 

 

Look at at the I and E. The I kinda looks like two pinstripes on top of pinstripes, and the serif on the E looks like the pinstripe is crooked in places. 

 

 

 

7700_ROCH_DN7_R07__59604.1459373396.1280

 

 

Man. Seeing the Rockies jersey away from the rest of the uniform really hits you with how bland and lifeless it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The Rockies look bad in pinstripes for two reasons. 

 

1. The hollowness of their lettering creates strokes around empty space that doesn’t look good when out on top of pinstripes that are essentially strokes around empty space. 

 

2. Serifs can sometimes look awkward on top of pinstripes with thin lines crossing thin lines. 

 

 

Look at at the I and E. The I kinda looks like two pinstripes on top of pinstripes, and the serif on the E looks like the pinstripe is crooked in places. 

 

Fair points but I don't think that their wordmark would look any better on plain whites as is. They need to either add purple and/or find a way to make the silver pop more. Then I could overlook the other issues you mention. I think the issue isn't so much the pinstripes, but how bland the rest of the jersey is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep saying, I want the Rockies to rebrand in just purple and white. If Arizona's whole reason for sticking with Sedona Red is because they feel Colorado owns purple, it makes it that much more frustrating that the Rockies won't rebrand so they can actually do it.

Share this post


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

I keep saying, I want the Rockies to rebrand in just purple and white. If Arizona's whole reason for sticking with Sedona Red is because they feel Colorado owns purple, it makes it that much more frustrating that the Rockies won't rebrand so they can actually do it.

Silver is a great color for the Rockies and I don't believe it's being used elsewhere in MLB at the moment, but they definitely need to embrace purple a bit more forcefully in their home whites.

 

I love Arizona in Sedona Red. I'd like them to keep their current red/teal-ish color scheme but revert back to a design closer to what they wore in the early 2000s.

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.