MLB Changes 2020

[AnPheitseog]

Brewers should stay royal and yellow.

 

Someone needs to own a great royal and yellow in the majors. Too beautiful of a color scheme not to be used. Even as navy, the Padres were close.

[Gothamite]

I agree. But I don’t think it’s likely.  Navy pairs too well with pants from the Gap. 

[Digby]

Are we still doing the "Gap khakis" thing? I guess if anyone is, it'd be baseball fans.

[Andrew_Gamer_NZP]

While watching the Yankees Vs. Red Sox game I noticed that Boston pitcher Austin Brice was wearing a red belt instead of a navy belt, which as far as I could tell everyone else was wearing. Seems like he's used a red belt in all his appearances so far.

 

[hormone]

I think belts are slowly going the way of socks and accessories. There have been yellow belted pirates and orange belted giants. To my knowledge, both wear black and never have an alternate belt so players do that themselves...wouldn’t mind if the whole team did it. I’m not even going to drudge up my feelings on stance vs solid vs stirrup vs striped socks. Definitely not bringing up neon sleeves-batting gloves or cubs wearing red sleeves-cleats.

[shstpt1]

Pete Alonzo for the Mets has been wearing an Orange belt this series against the Braves, and it bothers me so much.

[MJD7]

57 minutes ago, hormone said:

I think belts are slowly going the way of socks and accessories. There have been yellow belted pirates and orange belted giants. To my knowledge, both wear black and never have an alternate belt so players do that themselves...wouldn’t mind if the whole team did it. I’m not even going to drudge up my feelings on stance vs solid vs stirrup vs striped socks. Definitely not bringing up neon sleeves-batting gloves or cubs wearing red sleeves-cleats.

Yea, to be honest, it’s a trend I’m not a fan of, as I think the belt should almost always match the socks. I’d be fine with lighter color belts, as long as teams were willing to use those lighter colors more throughout the rest of their set.

 

 I’ve seen a lot of Twins players alternating between red and navy belts since at least last year, for example:

On the positive side though, I absolutely love these powder blue uniforms for the Twins. I was happy to see them coming back when they were unveiled, but now they’re easily one of my favorite Twins’ uniforms of the past few years, and in MLB in general.

[Bmac]

11 hours ago, (probably)notabandwagonfan said:

Braves are wearing their Friday reds today. Wondering if the creams are canned.

 

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 7/30/2020 at 7:06 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

But I am pleased that you know that the parts of New York City that lie on geographical Long Island are not included in the Islanders' logo.  And here we have to say "geographical Long Island", because a reference to "Long Island" (unmodified) denotes Nassau and Suffolk Counties.  This was not always the case; the default meaning of "Long Island" had been geographical for most of American history, hence the Battle of Long Island, fought in Brooklyn during the war for independence.  This meaning lingered even after Brooklyn and Queens became part of New York City in 1898, as can be seen in Long Island University, which was founded in Brooklyn in the 1920s. Through as late as the 1950s, Queens locations tended to be referred to as "Jamaica, Long Island", and so forth. That usage died out by the mid-1960s, by which time the default meaning of "Long Island" had shifted from the geographical to the socio-political, and the term came to be defined in contradistinction to New York City. So when the Islanders debuted in 1972 with a logo depicting Long Island, that depiction naturally showed only Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

 

Hehehe.   Been here a while, although I can't remember if I learned that bit of trivia here or in the Big Shot 30 for 30 where I most learned just how much the team was steeped in a Long Island identity.

 

On 7/31/2020 at 10:14 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Los Angeles Angels is indeed a goofy name.

 

But Anaheim is worse, for the simple reason that Anaheim is nowhere. I realise that it now has a population comparable to Pittsburgh and St. Louis. But the difference is that Pittsburgh and St. Louis are major cities, while Anaheim is a place near a major city. In Pittsburgh or St. Louis, there are lots of things to do; in Anaheim there is one thing to do. 

 

Anaheim is a name that belongs in the minor leagues, alongside the names with which it is teamed in the famous recurring Mel Blanc bit from the Jack Benny show: "Anaheim, Azusa, and Cuc...amonga". It has no business standing alongside New York, Philadelphia, Chicago — or Pittsburgh and St. Louis; it is simply not worthy of a major league.

 

The Rams knew this. Even the LA Kiss of the Arena Football League knew this! And the Angels knew this, as well, until the city bribed the team to include its name in the team's name. That mistake was rectified as soon as possible under the new ownership.

 

The best name is California Angels. And please note that being the California Angels does not imply that it's the only team in the state. If two teams can have the exact same geographical marker without either one claiming to be the only team in that geographical area, then one team can certainly have a city name while the other has a state name.

 

California Angels is the name that flows nicest, and that makes the most sense. Also, it's the name of the team when it had its most beautiful look. And the name has historical weight, as it is the name under which the team won its first titles (two of those times falling heartbreakingly short of the pennant that Gene Mauch would never win). It is the name of the team of Nolan Ryan, Frank Tanana, Don Baylor, Reggie Jackson, and Rod Carew.

 

California Angels is by far the superior choice.

 

Ehh...   Arena football teams and any start-up league is going to be full of teams who can't afford to get the big venue in the city and probably play somewhere far off while claiming the big name to sound fancy.   The XFL, the MLS, the XFL, the WNBA, everyone's done it and some still do.   On the subject of claiming the metro area, the Red Bulls are a bit of an embarrassment in my mind.   They should just claim New Jersey.   The Devils take plenty of share of the market despite not repping the big City.

 

But, in the end, much like people complain about Carolina Hurricanes but I've found it impossible to come up with any other name, it may be necessary to go with California when no other name will achieve everything you need, despite the flaws in it.

 

Personally, though, I'm an Anaheim guy.   Alliteration, history, the numbers, the perception around the league.   Did anyone else feel like the Angels doing the Hollywood theming with their All-Star game felt really disingenuous?

 

On 8/1/2020 at 10:28 PM, _J_ said:

Angels are welcome to LA, but should be referred to as LAA in the scorebugs and the Dodgers should be exclusively referred to as L.A.

 

I, like most people, completely missed the drop of the "of Anaheim" from the team name.   But when the team changed to the full name and changed their score bug, I thought for the longest time LAA stood for "Los Angeles of Anaheim" rather than "Los Angeles Angels".   But to be fair, with the Ducks, my lack of experience at the time with basketball, and the fact that football was still missing from the market at that point, I wasn't used to a team from the city being anything but "LA".

 

5 hours ago, MJD7 said:

Yea, to be honest, it’s a trend I’m not a fan of, as I think the belt should almost always match the socks. I’d be fine with lighter color belts, as long as teams were willing to use those lighter colors more throughout the rest of their set.

 

 I’ve seen a lot of Twins players alternating between red and navy belts since at least last year, for example:

On the positive side though, I absolutely love these powder blue uniforms for the Twins. I was happy to see them coming back when they were unveiled, but now they’re easily one of my favorite Twins’ uniforms of the past few years, and in MLB in general.

 

No.   Not socks.   It should depend on the team.  I... can't find my reasoning, but I've always felt that certain belt colors went with certain teams.   It's been a matter of "that works for that".   I don't know if it's a matter of just a random aesthetic thing I can't articulate or where I consider the era of the team to be.  My... my mind is blown as I look at the belt colors I've kept track of.   I'll have to think about this.

[MJD7]

9 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

No.   Not socks.   It should depend on the team.  I... can't find my reasoning, but I've always felt that certain belt colors went with certain teams.   It's been a matter of "that works for that".   I don't know if it's a matter of just a random aesthetic thing I can't articulate or where I consider the era of the team to be.  My... my mind is blown as I look at the belt colors I've kept track of.   I'll have to think about this.

What team do you think would be an exception to that rule? The Red Sox are the only one I can think of, personally (the White Sox should be another exception, but that’s unlikely to ever happen).

[Gothamite]

15 hours ago, MJD7 said:

 

If the socks match the caps, then the belt absolutely should.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

What team do you think would be an exception to that rule? The Red Sox are the only one I can think of, personally (the White Sox should be another exception, but that’s unlikely to ever happen).

 

39 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

If the socks match the caps, then the belt absolutely should.

 

I had a bit of an ending of The Usual Suspects moment there as I questioned everything I believed in trying to think through this matter for two reasons.   I thought I'd had an idea of why I felt the way that I do about what belt fits what team.   Then I realized that all of the teams I thought had black belts may indeed have navy belts.

 

See, I'd always felt that belt color depended on the identity of the club and the look they were going for.   This is comparable to what I've said about the Block C and how it has no sense being a part of Cleveland's identity.   The Indians' logo, usual wordmark, and identity to me is based less around starched, iconic, charter member type stuff and more about silly fun.   They've been associated with losing and with a screwball comedy movie more than they are tradition.   When I think Indians, I think Wild Thing and Drew Carey joyously crying out "Whose team sucks now!"   The fun, bubbly, curvy font fits this identity.  The block C and basic early-1900's look doesn't seem befitting of the team.   Compare this to earlier comments about the Twins and Indians having plenty of leeway to change their colors despite being charter franchises because of their history.

 

So, I'd say teams that are going for old-time, iconic identities either in their entire aura or their ballpark or in their uniforms would wear black belts.   The Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Tigers, Astros, and Giants.   The Rays and Nats are kind of playing dress up to these styles.   But the Cardinals also fit in that groove, and they've got red belts.   But they also have all red everything being a huge part of their identity.   My first instinct was to say that belts should match cleats rather than socks, as I'd also associate black cleats with a lot of these teams, but a lot of players are now striking out with different footwear colors and some of the colored belt teams are still rocking black.   Also, no way the A's are wearing white belts.

 

And then, of course, a lot of the brightly colored belts are the teams whose identities are focused more on the late 60's/70's/80's or more focused on fun rather than tradition like the Indians, Royals, Angels, Mets, Reds, and Dodgers.

 

But then I realized that most of the black belt teams either are wearing black socks/caps/have black as a team color or are navy teams.   Do the teams actually wear black belts, or have they been such a dark navy that I've just missed it.   Navy belts on the Red Sox was mentioned earlier, and I always thought they wore black.   And I've got Oakland wearing black in my uniform images, but could it have actually been a poor quality photo with a dark green belt from the originals in the mid 2000's?   And some of the teams don't actually fit any of those rules I was just talking about but still feel like they look good with black.   I'd just kind of assumed that was my standard until I actually thought about it and realized that it doesn't actually work.

 

So, at 3am as I wrote the rest of my post and then got stuck on the sock thing as I realized everything I believe is a lie, I kind of just wrapped up and figured I'd think about this later.  So in the end, I have no friggin' clue what I believe.   As to the question of teams whose socks and belts shouldn't match, I'd say Boston, Chicago if they ever went for a black top white bottom sock, the Rangers when going red because it feels like it throws off the balance, and any throwback or fauxback trying to emulate a pre-70's look.

[MJD7]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

If the socks match the caps, then the belt absolutely should.

This seems like a good theory. At least 2 out of the 3 should definitely match, preferably all 3, in most cases. 

1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

So, I'd say teams that are going for old-time, iconic identities either in their entire aura or their ballpark or in their uniforms would wear black belts.   The Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Tigers, Astros, and Giants.   The Rays and Nats are kind of playing dress up to these styles.   But the Cardinals also fit in that groove, and they've got red belts.   But they also have all red everything being a huge part of their identity.   My first instinct was to say that belts should match cleats rather than socks, as I'd also associate black cleats with a lot of these teams, but a lot of players are now striking out with different footwear colors and some of the colored belt teams are still rocking black.   Also, no way the A's are wearing white belts.

 

But then I realized that most of the black belt teams either are wearing black socks/caps/have black as a team color or are navy teams.   Do the teams actually wear black belts, or have they been such a dark navy that I've just missed it.   Navy belts on the Red Sox was mentioned earlier, and I always thought they wore black.   And I've got Oakland wearing black in my uniform images, but could it have actually been a poor quality photo with a dark green belt from the originals in the mid 2000's?   And some of the teams don't actually fit any of those rules I was just talking about but still feel like they look good with black.   I'd just kind of assumed that was my standard until I actually thought about it and realized that it doesn't actually work.

Ah, I figured our difference might rest on black belts after I submitted my last post. Personally, for any team that doesn’t have black in their color scheme, I’d rather them just use a color that is in their scheme, such as navy for the Yankees or Tigers, for example. It’s sort of like the gray vs team color facemask debate in football, I’d rather them just go with a team color almost every time.

 

As for teams that actually do wear a black belt, I know the Angels did for a while, and I’m pretty sure the Nationals have black belts as opposed to navy. Still, in those cases, I like red better for the Angels, and would prefer navy as opposed to black for the Nats (however, the Nats are a good example of a team that doesn’t need to match the belt & socks, as they often wear red socks).

[MilSox]

On 8/2/2020 at 3:33 PM, _J_ said:

Brewers should stay royal and yellow.

 

Someone needs to own a great royal and yellow in the majors. Too beautiful of a color scheme not to be used. Even as navy, the Padres were close.

 

I'd rather just have them replace that useless pinstripe set with the 1982 fauxbacks and use it like the A's have their kelly green set.

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, NicDB said:

I'd rather just have them replace that useless pinstripe set with the 1982 fauxbacks and use it like the A's have their kelly green set.

 

Me, too.  Much as I criticized them for trying to have it both ways, two full sets is better than banishing the retro logo entirely.

[ltjets21]

Has any team ever worn their championship celebration uniforms as many times as the Nationals? I remember the Royals getting some good use but this is getting ridiculous.

[AstroCree]

How does everyone feel about teams wearing a gold star to commemorate a championship all season long? The Nats have one above their sleeve patch and I think it looks pretty good. 

[MJWalker45]

19 minutes ago, insert name said:

How does everyone feel about teams wearing a gold star to commemorate a championship all season long? The Nats have one above their sleeve patch and I think it looks pretty good. 

That's for one game. I think that's enough. 

[itsmb8]

1 hour ago, insert name said:

How does everyone feel about teams wearing a gold star to commemorate a championship all season long? The Nats have one above their sleeve patch and I think it looks pretty good. 

Soccer does it to represent how many championships theyve won and it looks good.  But the championship uniforms should be worn for the home opener and that's it.

[Pharos04]

2 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

Has any team ever worn their championship celebration uniforms as many times as the Nationals? I remember the Royals getting some good use but this is getting ridiculous.

1906 NY Giants had these uniforms for an entire year