kimball

MLB Changes 2020

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

 

They already did. It occupies a spot on the chest of the jerseys. I actually liked Majestic. Yeah there was a few flubs  (dbacks), but come on,  no where near as trash as nike.

I can live fine with a makers mark, the placement is what sucks. And no even before Nike took over the league, the NBA had the league logo in the spot of the Nike logo, so it's not too far fetched of a change. The advertising is probably the worst part about the Nike and NBA situation. That or the heinous alternate uniforms or the ridiculous restructuring of the uniform system in general. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

I can live fine with a makers mark, the placement is what sucks. And no even before Nike took over the league, the NBA had the league logo in the spot of the Nike logo, so it's not too far fetched of a change. The advertising is probably the worst part about the Nike and NBA situation. That or the heinous alternate uniforms or the ridiculous restructuring of the uniform system in general. 

 

I have no problem with makers marks or Maker's Mark for that matter. My issue is nike. Absolutely hate that company. And have for years. Honestly it probably started with the fact I could never wear their shoes after like 1st grade. But then they took over nfl and toilet seat etc, seattle, etc... They took it a new level with NBA and frankly I'm worried mlb will fall prey because of their need to capture a young crowd. Nike will say this is how you do it,  you need to look like clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2020 at 9:19 PM, DNAsports said:

Has anyone else seen these floating around Instagram or other various social media platforms? Most of these are done in good taste and makes me wish MLB would do City Alts.

 

(Dugout Creative)

spacer.png

spacer.png

Horrible Terrible GIF - Horrible Terrible Awful GIFs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

 

I have no problem with makers marks or Maker's Mark for that matter. My issue is nike. Absolutely hate that company. And have for years. Honestly it probably started with the fact I could never wear their shoes after like 1st grade. But then they took over nfl and toilet seat etc, seattle, etc... They took it a new level with NBA and frankly I'm worried mlb will fall prey because of their need to capture a young crowd. Nike will say this is how you do it,  you need to look like clowns.

 

There's a lot to not like about Nike as a company, but I don't think it's fair to say that since they turned the NBA uniform structure into a joke that they'll do the same for MLB. How many times did we hear "NIKE IS GOING TO TURN NFL TEAM X INTO THE OREGON OF THE NFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!!!!" ?? A lot. It never really happened. Additionally, Nike has by and large fixed their awful mistakes in the NFL. The vast majority of the toilet seats are gone. Don't judge Nike solely for the NBA costume party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIke has also been responsible for the explosion of monochrome in the NFL, and for the terrible Color Rush nonsense, so there's ample reason to be concerned. 

 

Even if they "only" to do baseball what they've done to pro football, it'll be terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, I can only imagine seeing a monochrome orange Orioles uniform 🤢

Share this post


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

Oh god, I can only imagine seeing a monochrome orange Orioles uniform 🤢

The Fleer Sticker Project: New Photo of Brooks Robinson in the ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, McCall said:

The Fleer Sticker Project: New Photo of Brooks Robinson in the ...

Stirrups, undershirts and hats are still black. Not enough orange for Nike. 😜 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2020 at 9:38 AM, walkerws said:

The 1922(?) Cleveland Indians. It just said World Champions and they were worn all year

ClevelandIndians1921.jpg

1921

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 63Bulldogs63 said:

 

They already did. It occupies a spot on the chest of the jerseys. I actually liked Majestic. Yeah there was a few flubs  (dbacks), but come on,  no where near as trash as nike.

 

Pretty sure Majestic didn't have anything to do with the D-Backs uniforms.  I don't think teams used Majestic's design department like they do Nike's, and used either in-house or 3rd party firms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2020 at 3:37 PM, McCall said:

A picture OR a thousand words. Please, not both.

 

Heh.   You make me wish this board had the same thing the WDWMagic boards have where one can attribute one of a number of different reaction to posts including laughter rather than just likes.

 

On 8/18/2020 at 4:08 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Again, what's the problem with that? Does the team have to be exactly flag-loyal? Kelly/Yellow is not exclusive to the PNW. It's not like the Mariners are wearing it, nor do any Bay Area have a significant rivalry with Oregon.

 

It all comes down to roots and representation.   If the Padres instead went with Black and Gold, I'd think it weird.

 

Quote

The sun doesn't wash colors out that much. Like, it just doesn't.

 

Quote

The colors you're seeing in my design are the colors I'd want. Kelly Green (349 C) and Athletic Gold (1235 C).

 

046a38.png&f=1&nofb=1 ffb81c.png&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

I love that color combination.   It would have been easier if I'd just known that was what you were looking for.   I agree with that shade fully.

 

That's not the shade the old team used.   Here...

 

QeoB8ag.png

 

6 is your shade.   5 is the shade the team used.   It's significantly lighter.  (8 is the current with 7 being the one from the picture I said looked like a good shade.   Not as much difference as I expected.)

 

As for the effect of sun on the uniforms, 4 is the color the uniforms look in that pic I posted earlier from the brawl.   It doesn't look like a green green at all.   It's getting into jade territory.   And 1-3 are the shades of different parts of the uniform in the pictures Ridleylash posted.   That ALL looks so much lighter than the true color.   So, I don't know how you can say the sun doesn't effect it.

 

But really, when it comes down to it, we're sitting here twiddling with graphics colors when everyone agrees that textiles and graphics don't mix.   Funnily in the span of two pages earlier someone said to throw away TruColor when it comes to textiles and someone used it to prove the same shade was used.   For textiles I've never seen a definitive base of information, instead just seeing insiders pass by and drop a bit of information when people are discussing shades of navy.

 

Either way, I think they look good in green and less good in jade.   Jade feels to light.   That's it.   Your colors look great.   Explains why I enjoyed the colors in your sleeve patch concept so much.

 

Quote

Well, a big roundel at the bottom of the logo is a good place. Heck, if you wanted the "O" elsewhere in the identity, why not just use an Old English "O" on the road uniform?

 

I hope you mean as a part of the wordmark.   I mentioned avoiding the pitfalls of Baltimore and Cleveland, and I wouldn't want them to replace the A anywhere it should be.

 

Quote

Nah. The road cap had the history of the 1956-64 teams, where they only won a single title. Said title was in 1964, when they debuted the home cap of the present (give or take minor tweaks). They clinched with the home cap. The team has clinched at home for '82, '06, and '11 (with the red cap). Heck, the final game of the '04 and '13 World Series featured the red cap. 

 

If the road cap had a red bill, like the mid-'40s dynasty set, then I'd argue that its loss was a tragedy. But the '92-present navy hat? Limiting it was a good choice and brought a lot of life back to the road set.

 

But more often than not, it just feels unnecessary. One winds up being better than the other, with the sole exception of the Tigers.

 

Hehehe.   You seem to be hyperfocused on teams only wearing what they wore during their highest successes.

 

15 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

NIke has also been responsible for the explosion of monochrome in the NFL, and for the terrible Color Rush nonsense, so there's ample reason to be concerned. 

 

Even if they "only" to do baseball what they've done to pro football, it'll be terrible.

 

8 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

Oh god, I can only imagine seeing a monochrome orange Orioles uniform 🤢

 

Yeah, definitely glad I didn't ever get that Color Rush MLB concept done.   🤣

Share this post


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

NIke has also been responsible for the explosion of monochrome in the NFL

 

Taking color rush out of it, you're going to need to back that up.  While some teams (Seattle, new ATL) were designed to be monochrome (though even if Nike proposed it, the team green lit it) others are just mixing and matching uni parts that weren't originally designed to be worn together, like the Chiefs red-on-red, Saints black-on-black, Texans blue-on-blue, etc.  

 

55 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

and for the terrible Color Rush nonsense

 

That's the thing I'll hold Nike 99% responsible for.  I have no idea if the contract specified that Nike could force some multi-year special jersey program, but it's clear that it was a Nike invention and the League prostituted their players to serve as nothing more than live-action models.

Share this post


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

 

Heh.   

 

He’s right. You should learn to be concise, use the image resize function, and quit “omnibus” posting. Do one post replying to one person. 

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

It all comes down to roots and representation.   If the Padres instead went with Black and Gold, I'd think it weird.

 

That’s hardly the same. Blue/green is more “Northwest” than green/gold.

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

That's not the shade the old team used.   Here...

 

QeoB8ag.png

 

6 is your shade.   5 is the shade the team used.   It's significantly lighter.  (8 is the current with 7 being the one from the picture I said looked like a good shade.   Not as much difference as I expected.)

 

I still picked a kelly. The Stars’ shade is darker and it’s still Kelly.

 

spacer.png

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

As for the effect of sun on the uniforms, 4 is the color the uniforms look in that pic I posted earlier from the brawl.   It doesn't look like a green green at all.   It's getting into jade territory.   And 1-3 are the shades of different parts of the uniform in the pictures Ridleylash posted.   That ALL looks so much lighter than the true color.   So, I don't know how you can say the sun doesn't effect it.

 

And you know what? They all look good! The sun doesn’t change that it’s a light green, it just alters the exact composition of the shades. 

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

... everyone agrees that textiles and graphics don't mix.  

 

Fair.

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

I hope you mean as a part of the wordmark.

 

I meant as an insignia on the road jersey.

 

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Hehehe.   You seem to be hyperfocused on teams only wearing what they wore during their highest successes.

 

Well, it makes my argument that the all-navy road cap was garbage easier to make! It was garbage, compared to the alternatives (navy with red brim and all-red). The all-navy cap has history, it’s just inferior history.

Share this post


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

He’s right. You should learn to be concise, use the image resize function, and quit “omnibus” posting. Do one post replying to one person. 

 

Yes, please.  

Share this post


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

And you know what? They all look good! The sun doesn’t change that it’s a light green, it just alters the exact composition of the shades. 

 

I mean... I prefer they look more consistent, but considering my point was that the shade varies in the sun, we're in agreement.

 

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Well, it makes my argument that the all-navy road cap was garbage easier to make! It was garbage, compared to the alternatives (navy with red brim and all-red). The all-navy cap has history, it’s just inferior history.

 

Objectively calling that cap garbage is insane to me, but so goes differing opinions.

 

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

He’s right. You should learn to be concise, use the image resize function, and quit “omnibus” posting. Do one post replying to one person. 

 

Funnily enough, I'd been complimented in the past for the practice, using that exact term.   Usually, it's a much rarer thing, perhaps once a season to catch up.   Would you prefer a quadruple post?

 

Okay, seriously though, there's an image resize function?   I have never been able to find such a function in the board software, but that would make life so much friggin' easier.   Holy crap.   That would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't posted in a while so just some general observations in my mind...

 

Padres look fantastic but I would prefer the road pinstripes to be the primary road uniforms but I'll admit there's no wrong answer here as both options are great. I just think the road pinstripes are unique and still classic enough that they should be emphasized more than the brown tops. And if I'm not mistaken I think so far they've worn the pinstripes more than the browns anyways so maybe the team agrees? I also love the shade of tan because it's gray enough to not look like a dirty stained uniform, if that makes any sense. In some lighting it actually does look more gray than tan and I think that just works so well. Plus the yellow accents and accessories add so much to the look as well. It's nearly perfect.

Pham, Padres use big six-run 10th for 12-7 win over Giants - ABC News

 

Rangers home whites don't look as awful as I expected in action. Still a bad wordmark but they're not as garish and distracting as I thought when they were revealed. Definitely better with the blue caps, though I would love a red bill option. The powder blue is awful but is improved greatly by using the solid blue caps. The powder caps need to disappear fast.

Tatis connects twice for HR lead, Padres rout Rangers 14-4

 

Yes the Marlins use too much black but, if we can accept this as their thing I think they do it quite well. There are some instances when the other colors really do jump off the black base and look fabulous. I can admit its not all the time and the black alternates are illegible wayyy too often but man there are times when I'm like "Look right there that's how it's supposed to look!" There's a "coolness" to this that isn't as garish as when the DBacks tried to be too cool with gradients and gimmicks like that. Look at the caps, look at the jersey backs, and look at Cervelli's perfectly designed catcher's gear.

With Marlins battling virus outbreak, will they play again? | News ...

 

Lastly, Brewers creams are great but I think they should be the alternate. The pinstripe whites just fit better as the primary homes.

 

Share this post


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

Funnily enough, I'd been complimented in the past for the practice, using that exact term.   Usually, it's a much rarer thing, perhaps once a season to catch up.   Would you prefer a quadruple post?

 

I think I would prefer the alternative of a quadruple post. Heck, depending on how quickly people reply to a thread, it won't be a quad post. It gives you more time to engage in conversations as well.

 

27 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Okay, seriously though, there's an image resize function?   I have never been able to find such a function in the board software, but that would make life so much friggin' easier.   Holy crap.   That would be helpful.

 

It's easy to do. Double-click on the image after you've pasted it in and it'll show you the image resolution. You can adjust the images to make them smaller (say, 300-500 pixels wide for 1000+ pixel wide images). It works on mobile too, if you hold your finger over the pasted image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

It's easy to do. Double-click on the image after you've pasted it in and it'll show you the image resolution. You can adjust the images to make them smaller (say, 300-500 pixels wide for 1000+ pixel wide images). It works on mobile too, if you hold your finger over the pasted image.

This is awesome, never knew about this feature!

Share this post


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

This is awesome, never knew about this feature!

 

Seriously.   It's such an obscure and esoteric way of applying it, but this is SUPER helpful.

 

as.5-1.jpge0989b32dfd6dd2e9221da2b8b8589c7.jpg4e6a3bddbd6cccda7c6e0c6422e1e9d8--reggie3b578b58a6591e967b6a30424252d58f--rickey

16915c_lg.jpegNINTCHDBPICT000600983102.jpg?resize=678,th?id=OIP.Hec1t-cVuffqDzFiCnUOnQHaJ_&pidoakland-elephant-logo-1988-alt1.png

 

 

 

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.