MLB Changes 2020

[Old School Fool 3,993]

Padres road uniform is incredible. What would just be a standard brown jersey that is already cool is made even better by the tan pants. It works.

[Archon 26]

 

[Yac12 97]

I love the new Padres look.  But still wishing they kept the yellow front panel cap with the new SD.  

[Ben in LA 1,131]

Meanwhile on Twitter...

 

[McCall 1,207]

4 minutes ago, Ben in LA said:

Meanwhile on Twitter...

 

1. Padres

2. Brewers (minus the panel cap)

3. Pirates

400. Rangers

[CaliforniaGlowin 1,748]

I'd bet that the ones who hate the Rangers mono blues are younger people. It's nostalgic for older ones.

[dont care 5,480]

3 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I'd bet that the ones who hate the Rangers mono blues are younger people. It's nostalgic for older ones.

No, it looks like crap, and is completely disjointed from everything else

[BBTV 18,178]

32 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I'd bet that the ones who hate the Rangers mono blues are younger people. It's nostalgic for older ones.

 

Incorrect.  The script is absolutely horrid, and the light-blue caps are atrocious - especially since they have a T that doesn't match anything else on the uniform.

 

They did light blue about as poorly as possible.  Since they don't have any professional-looking uniforms, it's really hard to pull off, but for most teams, they should do nothing more than swapping gray for blue and not overthink it too much.

 

I grew up knowing nothing but powder-blue uniforms for my entire childhood, and I think it sucks.

[seasaltvanilla 818]

Has there been a good, hi-res version of the updated Twins script posted anywhere? I'm a big fan. Best I've been able to find is this Zoom wallpaper.

[McCall 1,207]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I'd bet that the ones who hate the Rangers mono blues are younger people. It's nostalgic for older ones.

I'm 38 and I hate it. For a multitude of reasons.

[Ridleylash 2,855]

The only teams that I think could pull off mono-powder are the Jays and Expos, tbh. And even they would do well to have differently-colored pants.

[tp49 1,050]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I'd bet that the ones who hate the Rangers mono blues are younger people. It's nostalgic for older ones.

That would be factually incorrect.  The hat is terrible, the script is a mess (it should also be red and non cursive to invoke nostalgia) and is overall not pleasing to the eye.  The only thing the Rangers did right with their new uniforms was put Rangers back on the homes.  I too grew up with many teams wearing powder blue and in the words of Beavis they don't just suck they reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy suck!

[ManillaToad 232]

Powder blues just look worse across the board with the modern, baggier style uniforms. One or two teams can still make them work, but the days of everyone looking good wearing blue are long gone. I don't mind the attempted renaissance, though

[Carolingian Steamroller 3,382]

On 7/28/2020 at 10:18 AM, Gothamite said:

 

It's a half-hearted attempt to match the original 1972 jerseys.  But that only worked because they had neck trim and those huge elastic waistbands.

 

 

 

The sleeve stripes pick up the waist stripes, and the neck stripes pick up the pant stripes.  I don't want to see sansabelt pants come back, but have to admit that this is all very nicely balanced. 

 

Remove the neck and waist stripes, and the balance is shattered.  The uniform looks terrible.

 

 

 

This was super common with pull-over era uniforms. The sleeves and sansabelt matched and so did the collar and pant seam. Each element was matched with its counterpart of similar size. 

 

With nothing to match the sleeves, the Brewers' home jersey feels really unbalance. The only way out would have been to just roll with it and put that expanded sleeve insert on every jersey. It's not even that much wider than the pants striping. Just enough to bother you when you see it. 

[Silent Wind of Doom 753]

Woot!   Made it through 130 pages that happened since I lost track of this thread.   I had to pick up a few things from what I missed.

 

On 11/8/2019 at 8:27 PM, TheRoman said:

I love teal just as much as the next guy, but the teal the dbacks use is way too garish, it’s basically neon. If they went back to their teal from the 90’s it would look fantastic paired with the red and black

 

On 11/13/2019 at 12:45 PM, SilverBullet1929 said:

Yeah everyone says teal but the color the DBacks are currently using isn't a true teal. Their 1998 color was more of a teal. This newer one is way lighter and greenish and more minty I guess you could say.

 

I have been screaming since the new identity dropped about this and I'm glad other people are saying it too now.   The soap color they use now is too pale and they keep trying to pass it off as honoring their past.

 

On 11/13/2019 at 7:43 PM, Marlins93 said:

It enrages me that MLB seems to be stuck in the mindset from the late aughts that teal is nothing more than a 90s fad color. Sure, it was popular during that decade but I don't think teal carries nearly the same level of distaste that it did 10 years ago. Teal would be a welcomed addition to a league swimming in blue and red. It's slightly comical that the Marlins abandoned a unique and beloved color scheme to become yet another blue and red team, even if the shades slightly deviate from those worn by most other teams.

 

Slightly deviate?   I've always been flabbergasted by the way that people complain about blue and red being prevalent when everyone wears it completely differently and very few names could be confused for one another.   But to compare royal blue/red, navy/red, and red/navy teams with the Marlins going Black/Sea Blue/tiny bit of red accents that mostly look like a reddish orange is kind of a level above.

 

On 12/18/2019 at 11:00 AM, Ark said:

 

There was a big fight over the Nike logo competing with the interlocking NY and thus dominating the identity, seemingly going off that the swoosh's area is a certain percentage of the logo and thus is taking up that percentage of the identity.   But, perhaps from being here for so many years and being so intensely interested in uniform design and team identity and culture, the monogram isn't the identity.   The pinstripes, the raglan sleeves, every inch of that uniform is the identity.   And not just this uniform.   The thick 70's striping on the away grays that call back to the Bronx Zoo teams.   The bubble numbers on the sleeves of the Phillies' uniforms.   The double piping on the Braves' uniforms.   The red numbers on the Dodgers' uniforms.   The white/black/white piping that was sadly taken off of the White Sox's (how the crap do I plural possessive that one!?) uniforms that we all mourned the last off.   All of the uniform is part of the identity, so the swoosh in the large picture takes up a tiny percentage of it.   And I kinda already stopped noticing it until I saw the discussion here.   It's definitely obtrusive on some larger script uniforms (Reds, Rangers) but it's not the worst.

 

On 12/21/2019 at 12:11 AM, EddieJ1984 said:

Ask 50 people to name LA's baseball team.

All of them would say the Dodgers.

 

I went to a Mets game and I heard people chanting "Beat L.A.".   It's a classic chant that goes all the way to the heyday of the Celtics and Lakers, but it's not really something that's ever come up in my personal sports experience, much like a hatred of Philadelphia.   I ran through all of the teams I really follow and when I thought to baseball I realized "Oh...   Yeah, that never comes up in baseball because we have Anaheim instead of Los Angeles."   I've never thought of the Angels as Los Angeles.   The broadcasts describe the team being headed for Anaheim when they visit.   They've always either been Anaheim or The Angels, their team name being used even when in a list with other teams being referred to by their city.

 

On 12/21/2019 at 1:52 AM, _DietDrPepper_ said:

This might just be me, but as someone who speaks Spanish regularly, through school and social rounds alike, Los Angeles Angels, is grammatically awkward. Angeles, is spanish for Angels (obviously). So at least for me, Anaheim or California is better than The Angels Angels.

Even In spanish, Los Angeles de Los Angeles is weird. Like people know what your talking about and so it makes sense. But it’s just... weird. Los Angeles de California, or de Anaheim sound much better.

 

Anaheim looks like it would be a pain to pronounce in Spanish.  "ah-nah-EH-eem"?

 

On 12/22/2019 at 2:35 AM, tp49 said:

Point of order, the Coliseum is in Uniondale, not (The Incorporated Village of) Hempstead.  I agree with the greater point even though I don’t remember a point in my lifetime where they made a major effort to market themselves in the city and that includes after the Brooklyn debacle.  Any Islander fan I know who’s from the city for the most part became a fan during the 80’s dynasty or moved to the city after growing up a fan on the Island.

 

Given the strong Long Island identity and fanbase in their history, I always thought the "New York" in the name was for New York State, not New York City.   I mean, their logo lops the outer boroughs (Queens and Brooklyn) off of the Island, ditching the City.

 

On 12/28/2019 at 10:40 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Possibly - so I'll add an extra 1% to the tax - but only for MLB jerseys - to make up the lost revenue.  Call it the "Rock Tax".

 

Love the New Generation love, but seeing this in response to someone mentioning the Repo Man just... breaks my brain even though I know the context and what you were doing.  Like those things where the names of colors are shown to you in different colors than the letters spell out.

 

 

On 3/24/2020 at 12:38 PM, Andrew_Gamer_NZP said:

White NL version and gray AL version.

 

 

The jerseys are beauties, but I don't like the caps.   I know they usually go with the single letter, but why not go interlocking monograms like the team's logo?

 

 

(Quick and cheap mockup of idea.   You can parse the letters however you want.)

 

On 5/7/2020 at 2:24 PM, Ridleylash said:

That version of the star is still pretty slick, though. Way better than the version they have now.

 

EDIT: Honestly, the Astros' brand is pretty bland overall. I'd love for them to go back to a more space-y style of logo like they had in the late 90's, instead of a generic block font roundel. Something akin to this quick little concept would be nice;

 

Hey!   Great minds think alike!   I'd done the same thing 10 years ago!  (Back when I couldn't do much besides use the fill tool so there's weird outlines)

 

 

On 5/27/2020 at 11:06 PM, Gothamite said:

Amen.  When your regular uniforms look that good, you shouldn't clutter them up with alternates. 

 

The Giants are right up there with the Yankees and Dodgers.  Or at least, they should be.

 

Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Royals, Athletics, Mets, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs, Pirates, Dodgers, and Giants all have great looks with a lot of history and they could all be on a pantheon of legend if they would stop screwing things up.

 

On 6/26/2020 at 11:27 PM, EddieJ1984 said:

Diamond Backs is still better than D-Backs.

 

The A logo is the best option.   Fits without having to go to two lines or an abbreviation.   Has the history.   Looks clean and professional.

[Carolingian Steamroller 3,382]

The other thing that bugs me:

 

The outlining on the chest number is far thicker than the outlining on the script. You can really see it on the pinstripes and the grey jersey. I think they're trying to keep the outlining the same color as on the back number but it just looks incongruous. 

 

[Silent Wind of Doom 753]

2 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

The other thing that bugs me:

 

The outlining on the chest number is far thicker than the outlining on the script. You can really see it on the pinstripes and the grey jersey. I think they're trying to keep the outlining the same color as on the back number but it just looks incongruous. 

 

 

I... never noticed that but you're absolutely right.   But it seems to be of a similar ratio, so... did they just stretch the font while rendering the uniforms without adjusting the outline and didn't catch it so they ran with it?   Or is it done on purpose and the outline was made smaller for the wordmarks so that it doesn't overpower?

[Carolingian Steamroller 3,382]

14 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

I... never noticed that but you're absolutely right.   But it seems to be of a similar ratio, so... did they just stretch the font while rendering the uniforms without adjusting the outline and didn't catch it so they ran with it?   Or is it done on purpose and the outline was made smaller for the wordmarks so that it doesn't overpower?

 

It's probably reflexive. Most numbers use the same thickness outlining for front and back. 

[_J_ 1,765]

Might just be me being used to MiLB, but one this I dont mind for this year are the ads on the baselines.

 

Honestly, I'm okay with them staying next year. Especially if it staves off uniform ads for another couple years.

[VikWings 1,395]

I love almost all things powder blue. But the Rangers' just doesn't work.

 

The Cardinals, Twins and Jays all look beautiful. The Rangers don't.