MLB Changes 2020

[WSU151]

1 minute ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

Oh I know, but I feel like it would complete the "faux glitz" theme the logo is going for. Also, the 2020 is drop shadowed, just with blue rather than gold. I think the LA should share this drop shadow, since it brings the whole together.

 

Crap the 2020 is dropshadowed...my bad...didn't see it. 

[sky1324]

40 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Crap the 2020 is dropshadowed...my bad...didn't see it. 

Don't worry about it, it's hard to notice.

[IceCap]

Going to have to agree with @SFGiants58 here. Tradition shouldn't be held to if it can be improved (and I mean objective, quantifiable improvement, not a subjective opinion) but I don't see any evidence that baseball jerseys as they exist today are hampering the players or the game. Forcing a change because "improvements" seems like change for change's sake when there's glaring need to enact it in the first place.

[andrewharrington]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Yeah, why care about the traditional aesthetics of the sport? Who needs classic placket trim? Why not change things that don't need changing? 

 

When's the last time a jersey swallowed up a ground ball. and if it did happen, is it a serious issue? A few teams have lettering that gets compromised, but so what? It's not that noticeable to the average consumer.

 

Button-fronts with the modern textiles are fine. Look at how many players have the partially-unbuttoned look. Yeah, its a bit tacky, but it does kind of disprove your point. 

 

They completely trampled on the traditional aesthetics of the sport once already (twice if you want to count the colored top/every team needs at least four jerseys/take advantage of every summer holiday revolution that’s been happening for the past 20+ years). This would pale in comparison to either of those things. The henley placket is very much a traditional baseball look

 

I definitely didn’t imply that front piping should go away, either. You can can still have placket trim on a henley, either stopping it at the end of the placket or continuing it all the way down the front if you please (still kinda faux, but at least the unnecessary flap and buttons are gone). Collar trim like what the Giants wear would remain completely unchanged. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Going to have to agree with @SFGiants58 here. Tradition shouldn't be held to if it can be improved (and I mean objective, quantifiable improvement, no a subjective opinion) but I don't see any evidence that baseball jerseys as they exist today are hampering the players or the game. Forcing a change because "improvements" seems like change for change's sake when there's glaring need to enact it in the first place.

 

Aren’t comfort and the elimination of unnecessary aesthetic compromises both objective improvements, no to mention how much easier it would be to apply the lettering?

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Aren’t comfort and the elimination of unnecessary aesthetic compromises both objective improvements, no to mention how much easier it would be to apply the lettering?

Is there data to suggest that comfort is a major concern for ballplayers? As for the aesthetic improvements...sorry. I don't view the wordmarks that get compromised by a buttondown as that much of a problem. Certainly not something a sports-wide overhaul is needed to fix.

[SFGiants58]

15 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

They completely trampled on the traditional aesthetics of the sport once already (twice if you want to count the colored top/every team needs at least four jerseys/take advantage of every summer holiday revolution that’s been happening for the past 20+ years). This would pale in comparison to either of those things. The henley placket is very much a traditional baseball look

 

Literally one MLB team wore henley-style uniforms:

 

 

It’s traditional at the lower levels, but not in the majors or even the modern MiLB.

 

Aesthetically, henleys trample far more on the traditional aesthetics than colored jerseys. The full placket has been around for most of the sport’s existence, kept alive during the pullover/sansabelt period by teams who figured that the other franchises would return to their aesthetic traditions.

 

Teams went back after pullovers/sansabelts. These things have a tendency of correcting themselves.

 

15 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I definitely didn’t imply that front piping should go away, either. You can can still have placket trim on a henley, either stopping it at the end of the placket or continuing it all the way down the front if you please (still kinda faux, but at least the unnecessary flap and buttons are gone). Collar trim like what the Giants wear would remain completely unchanged. 

 

Granted, but the placket trim would likely not exist on a henley format, given the college baseball examples posted earlier.

 

15 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Aren’t comfort and the elimination of unnecessary aesthetic compromises both objective improvements, no to mention how much easier it would be to apply the lettering?

 

Again, you can do that without getting rid of full plackets. Despite all of the flex base/cool base/insert proprietary fabric name here, the traditional full button placket design remains. Lettering fixes are easy, it’s just that teams won’t commit to them. Besides, what fan really sees it unless they’re looking for it?

[mjd77]

On 6/6/2019 at 3:24 PM, NicDB said:

 

Either way, I'm fine with a navy BiG identity. It's a great way to reclaim what's great about their past while still moving forward. Toronto and Houston are great examples of bringing the paat into the present without reinventing the wheel.

 

 Houston and Toronto also used the correct colors when they did it.  The navy BiG will never be right to me.  It has to be royal/yellow full time.  On a side note ( I think someone on here mentioned it way earlier this year) could the lettering on all the new signage at the spring training facility be signifying something?

[Ark]

The Twins identity is the most annoying to me in baseball.

 

Just go back to the Metrodome/World Series uniforms

[andrewharrington]

38 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Literally one MLB team wore henley-style uniforms:

 

 

It’s traditional at the lower levels, but not in the majors or even the modern MiLB.

 

Aesthetically, henleys trample far more on the traditional aesthetics than colored jerseys. The full placket has been around for most of the sport’s existence, kept alive during the pullover/sansabelt period by teams who figured that the other franchises would return to their aesthetic traditions.

 

Teams went back after pullovers/sansabelts. These things have a tendency of correcting themselves.

 

 

Granted, but the placket trim would likely not exist on a henley format, given the college baseball examples posted earlier.

 

 

Again, you can do that without getting rid of full plackets. Despite all of the flex base/cool base/insert proprietary fabric name here, the traditional full button placket design remains. Lettering fixes are easy, it’s just that teams won’t commit to them. Besides, what fan really sees it unless they’re looking for it?

 

The Mets’ look there isn’t quite what I’m describing. That’s more like a traditional crew-style henley, where I’m talking more just stopping the standard placket above the lettering. A henley placket with full-length piping would look exactly the same as a button front with full-length piping while eliminating all the unnecessary negatives that come with buttons and a split front.

 

I’ve yet to hear a *good* reason for the persistence of buttons and/or a split front. I think the fact that lots of players have them sewn shut speaks for itself. It’s an antifunctional relic, and one that could easily be remedied with no aesthetic sacrifice (I’d even argue the jerseys would look better).

 

49 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Is there data to suggest that comfort is a major concern for ballplayers? As for the aesthetic improvements...sorry. I don't view the wordmarks that get compromised by a buttondown as that much of a problem. Certainly not something a sports-wide overhaul is needed to fix.

 

I’m not sure where one would find “data” on that. All I can offer is practical evidence (other than that of MLB players having their plackets sewn shut). I talk to a lot of athletes. No one has ever told me they prefer wearing a button front jersey, but several have told me that they love not having buttons on the front because it hurts when they slide or dive (mainly baserunners and infielders). Two people told me they broke fingers on their throwing hand because they got caught in the placket, and equipment managers often tell me it’s an annoyance to repair buttons every day.

 

From a production standpoint, individual letters aren’t too bad, other than the fact that you often have to purposefully set the wordmark off-center and/or flub the kerning due to the split. Scripts are actually quite a bit more work to adapt to a split-front in both design and production.

 

To me, it still comes down to a common sense solution that makes the product better without changing the traditional look.

[andrewharrington]

Here’s a good example: imagine this, but ideally without the lower (non-functional) buttons. Same look, better function.

 

[M4One]

6 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Is there data to suggest that comfort is a major concern for ballplayers? As for the aesthetic improvements...sorry. I don't view the wordmarks that get compromised by a buttondown as that much of a problem. Certainly not something a sports-wide overhaul is needed to fix.

 

There's at least one guy in Chris Sales.

 

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I’m not sure where one would find “data” on that.

I guess I'm looking for more than "I talked to some guys, and some guys don't like buttons" I don't mean to come off a dick it's just that...this seems to be a case of manufacturing a problem no one was previously concerned about. Like how a bunch of people around here suddenly decided that customized goalie pads and masks were bad for hockey.

 

Getting a ball caught between the buttons is such a rare occurrence that we remember the few times it does happen as flukes. And as far as player preference goes? I have no doubt some players dislike buttons. I was very picky about how I wore my baseball uniform in high school. I'm well aware that sometimes athletes have quirks about getting things just right, and I imagine that this is amplified at higher levels of play.

The thing about it is that baseball went away from the button-down look. Or at least a good chunk of it it did. And while I know you're not advocating for the insanity the 70s and 80s brought us? The fact of the matter is that every single team that abandoned the button-down went back on that decision.

So while I do not doubt for a second that you know guys who don't like buttons? I think the fact that every team that abandoned them went back to them is proof enough that they don't bother most ball players.

 

And besides...player comfort has to be balanced with the aesthetic of the game. They are uniforms, after all. Not workout clothes or pyjamas.

[SFGiants58]

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

The Mets’ look there isn’t quite what I’m describing. That’s more like a traditional crew-style henley, where I’m talking more just stopping the standard placket above the lettering. A henley placket with full-length piping would look exactly the same as a button front with full-length piping while eliminating all the unnecessary negatives that come with buttons and a split front.

 

I can see where you’re coming from (with the example you posted), but it still strikes me as exaggerating the problem. 

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I’ve yet to hear a *good* reason for the persistence of buttons and/or a split front.

 

Traditional aesthetics isn’t good enough for you?

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I think the fact that lots of players have them sewn shut speaks for itself.

 

Again, players wearing jerseys mostly unbuttoned counters that point.

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

It’s an antifunctional relic, and one that could easily be remedied with no aesthetic sacrifice (I’d even argue the jerseys would look better).

 

Sure, but there is an aesthetic sacrifice. The full set of buttons is part of the sport’s aesthetic. How many times have we seen the partially-unbuttoned jersey or a player very deliberately buttoning the top at a press conference. Ever notice how many fans wear unbuttoned jerseys? Jerseys are ultimately products, after all.

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I’m not sure where one would find “data” on that. All I can offer is practical evidence (other than that of MLB players having their plackets sewn shut).

 

I offer the evidence of unbuttoned jerseys on the field. Is that not legitimate.

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

I talk to a lot of athletes. No one has ever told me they prefer wearing a button front jersey, but several have told me that they love not having buttons on the front because it hurts when they slide or dive (mainly baserunners and infielders). Two people told me they broke fingers on their throwing hand because they got caught in the placket, and equipment managers often tell me it’s an annoyance to repair buttons every day.

 

At what level are you talking to these athletes? How many athletes have you talked to, and have they convinced you that this is a huge problem that needs fixing? Because from where most of us are standing, it’s a big nothing.

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

From a production standpoint, individual letters aren’t too bad, other than the fact that you often have to purposefully set the wordmark off-center and/or flub the kerning due to the split. Scripts are actually quite a bit more work to adapt to a split-front in both design and production.

 

That doesn’t sound all that difficult. It’s just a little bit extra time for designers and assembly people to figure out how to best handle it.

 

10 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

To me, it still comes down to a common sense solution that makes the product better without changing the traditional look.

 

Except it does change the traditional look in a noticeable way. We’ve been fine with buttonfronts for ages, so why change now? It’s not a problem that requires a huge aesthetic overhaul.

 

I get that you might have more insight, working at Adidas. But still, you haven’t convinced me that it’s a necessary action. Maybe keep it a player preference deal, with faux-plackets for a few people (if that, just let the few who do it make their own). Change for change’s sake is often bad and comes from a place of arrogance, as you have often demonstrated.

[gosioux76]

11 hours ago, Ark said:

The Twins identity is the most annoying to me in baseball.

 

Just go back to the Metrodome/World Series uniforms

I really want to dislike the Twins' aesthetic and their mishmash of varying alt uniforms, but I just can't. I watch them every night and I find myself sincerely appreciating their look. The navy road alternate, with the Minnesota script, might be the lone exception. It now feels dated. 

 

But I genuinely like the home red alt, the new navy alt with the old Twins script, the home whites have grown on me, as have the road grays. I wish I knew why -- maybe I'm just a homer -- but the look is just distinct. 

[andrewharrington]

9 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I guess I'm looking for more than "I talked to some guys, and some guys don't like buttons" I don't mean to come off a dick it's just that...this seems to be a case of manufacturing a problem no one was previously concerned about. Like how a bunch of people around here suddenly decided that customized goalie pads and masks were bad for hockey.

 

Getting a ball caught between the buttons is such a rare occurrence that we remember the few times it does happen as flukes. And as far as player preference goes? I have no doubt some players dislike buttons. I was very picky about how I wore my baseball uniform in high school. I'm well aware that sometimes athletes have quirks about getting things just right, and I imagine that this is amplified at higher levels of play.

The thing about it is that baseball went away from the button-down look. Or at least a good chunk of it it did. And while I know you're not advocating for the insanity the 70s and 80s brought us? The fact of the matter is that every single team that abandoned the button-down went back on that decision.

So while I do not doubt for a second that you know guys who don't like buttons? I think the fact that every team that abandoned them went back to them is proof enough that they don't bother most ball players.

 

And besides...player comfort has to be balanced with the aesthetic of the game. They are uniforms, after all. Not workout clothes or pyjamas.

 

Well, there’s your problem. You keep saying “abandon the button down” when it’s really just making the button down better. Try looking at the glass half full sometimes.

 

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

I can see where you’re coming from (with the example you posted), but it still strikes me as exaggerating the problem. 

 

 

Traditional aesthetics isn’t good enough for you?

 

 

Again, players wearing jerseys mostly unbuttoned counters that point.

 

 

Sure, but there is an aesthetic sacrifice. The full set of buttons is part of the sport’s aesthetic. How many times have we seen the partially-unbuttoned jersey or a player very deliberately buttoning the top at a press conference. Ever notice how many fans wear unbuttoned jerseys? Jerseys are ultimately products, after all.

 

 

I offer the evidence of unbuttoned jerseys on the field. Is that not legitimate.

 

 

At what level are you talking to these athletes? How many athletes have you talked to, and have they convinced you that this is a huge problem that needs fixing? Because from where most of us are standing, it’s a big nothing.

 

 

That doesn’t sound all that difficult. It’s just a little bit extra time for designers and assembly people to figure out how to best handle it.

 

 

Except it does change the traditional look in a noticeable way. We’ve been fine with buttonfronts for ages, so why change now? It’s not a problem that requires a huge aesthetic overhaul.

 

I get that you might have more insight, working at Adidas. But still, you haven’t convinced me that it’s a necessary action. Maybe keep it a player preference deal, with faux-plackets for a few people (if that, just let the few who do it make their own). Change for change’s sake is often bad and comes from a place of arrogance, as you have often demonstrated.

 

I’m going to number this not to be facetious, but to keep it all straight without having to wrestle with formatting.

 

1. It’s not exaggerating anything. It’s eliminating the problems while keeping the look unchanged. You can’t tell me that Auburn jersey looks noticeably different from one that has an open front.

 

2. It is a reason, but it’s not a good one because there’s no way to support it other than saying, “It’s always been that way and I like it that way.” Aesthetics come after function in the hierarchy. If you can integrate the function without changing the aesthetics, then great (see Auburn’s jersey). If not, you have a bit of a challenge on your hands, but in that situation, I’d still prioritize the function and find a way to minimize the aesthetic disruption.

 

3. Buttons, zippers, and laces were a part of other sports’ traditions, too. They wised up when they found a better way.

 

If the appearance of buttons all the way down the shirt is that important, then there’s still room to make them softer, less intrusive, flush to the jersey, more durable, etc. The design of the Auburn jersey still offers players the ability to open the collar or button it up.

 

I’m going to disagree that on-field jerseys should be designed as if they are commercial products, though. Commercial interests driving the on-field product is kinda toxic in my opinion (not to mention counter to the most basic goal of design). A jersey should be designed for its primary use, which is on the field. In my opinion, if it works for a baseball player, it’s probably going to work fine for a fan. If not, then leave the commercial version “fan-friendly” with the open front and functional buttons, but either way, the commercial side should be the one conceding in that situation, not the other way around.

 

4. I’m unclear what you mean by “unbuttoned jerseys on the field.” If you’re talking about a completely open button down on the field, I’ve never seen it and I don’t think it should be a thing (y’know, traditional aesthetics and all ).

 

If you’re talking about leaving the top few buttons open, you can still do that with a henley.

 

5. We’re talking sub-professional for sure (anywhere from college to youth), but all professionals start as sub-professionals, so I’d expect a lot of the same feedback going up the ladder. I wouldn’t characterize it as a problem in the sense that it’s putting players in imminent danger, but it’s very clearly an annoyance. I don’t have a tally of how many people I’ve talked to, but this is definitely the thing that pops up most often (I’d estimate roughly half of the people I talk to).

 

It’s easy to dismiss it as “not a problem from where we’re standing,” but I think that proves the point. We’re the ones standing, they’re the ones playing and saying, “This could be better.”

 

6. It sounds easy, but “a bit of extra time” is more like several hours figuring out where to best split it, measuring it, positioning it, clipping the art, overlapping it, figuring out the best way to instruct someone how to line it up properly, etc. Then, in production, you have to produce and sew two pieces down instead of one, make sure they line up, are positioned correctly, etc. I wouldn’t say it takes twice as long as sewing down a non-split script, but it’s close. In addition to the extra time, there’s more waste because it’s easier to mess up.

 

7. I’m still not grasping this point. It is most definitely not a huge aesthetic overhaul, as evidenced by the Auburn jersey above.

 

8. I’m hoping this is just worded funny and you mean arrogance on the part of the sportswear industry, not arrogance on my part.  At any rate, if there’s a tangible benefit (especially with little to no aesthetic disruption), I don’t see it as a change for its own sake. It is, in the most literal sense, a change for the sake of making a baseball jersey that’s better suited for the players who wear it.

 

We were fine with cars for ages before rear view cameras, lane assist technology, and adaptive cruise control, but all those things (while technically not “necessary”) make the practical experience of driving a car better. This is no different.

 

Just some food for thought...

[chcarlson23]

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

I really want to dislike the Twins' aesthetic and their mishmash of varying alt uniforms, but I just can't. I watch them every night and I find myself sincerely appreciating their look. The navy road alternate, with the Minnesota script, might be the lone exception. It now feels dated. 

 

But I genuinely like the home red alt, the new navy alt with the old Twins script, the home whites have grown on me, as have the road grays. I wish I knew why -- maybe I'm just a homer -- but the look is just distinct. 

The regular home whites and even the red alts aren’t bad, but the added gold is AWFUL. And it especially shows on the navy alt. The gold looks more like mustard, rather than the cream color of Target Field. The road greys and even the road navy alt look much better, and fit the branding of the Twins for all of their history. The Pinstripes should have never left. There was no need to change or to add a color that matched the stadium trim... I’m a huge Twins fan too, and their look is terrible

[shaydre1019]

16 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Is there data to suggest that comfort is a major concern for ballplayers? As for the aesthetic improvements...sorry. I don't view the wordmarks that get compromised by a buttondown as that much of a problem. Certainly not something a sports-wide overhaul is needed to fix.

I work for a minor league baseball team and we're very hesitant to use pullovers bc

 

1) the players don't like them - they prefer the 'give' that buttoned jerseys have.

2) a lot of our fans won't buy jerseys if they can't wear them opened (note: our fanbase and season ticket holders are mostly older out of shape folks)

[SFGiants58]

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Well, there’s your problem. You keep saying “abandon the button down” when it’s really just making the button down better. Try looking at the glass half full sometimes.

 

But you're still getting rid of it. That's the problem.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

1. It’s not exaggerating anything. It’s eliminating the problems while keeping the look unchanged. You can’t tell me that Auburn jersey looks noticeably different from one that has an open front.

 

Except it does.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

2. It is a reason, but it’s not a good one because there’s no way to support it other than saying, “It’s always been that way and I like it that way.” Aesthetics come after function in the hierarchy. If you can integrate the function without changing the aesthetics, then great (see Auburn’s jersey). If not, you have a bit of a challenge on your hands, but in that situation, I’d still prioritize the function and find a way to minimize the aesthetic disruption.

 

But it's still functional. This isn't the big problem that you're making it out to be.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

3. Buttons, zippers, and laces were a part of other sports’ traditions, too. They wised up when they found a better way.

 

Laces came back for hockey (but even in their heyday, were never as critical as buttons), while the others were only a part of it for microscopic points in time.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

If the appearance of buttons all the way down the shirt is that important, then there’s still room to make them softer, less intrusive, flush to the jersey, more durable, etc. The design of the Auburn jersey still offers players the ability to open the collar or button it up.

 

You can just make better buttons and fabrics, as you've frequently suggested.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I’m going to disagree that on-field jerseys should be designed as if they are commercial products, though. Commercial interests driving the on-field product is kinda toxic in my opinion (not to mention counter to the most basic goal of design). A jersey should be designed for its primary use, which is on the field. In my opinion, if it works for a baseball player, it’s probably going to work fine for a fan. If not, then leave the commercial version “fan-friendly” with the open front and functional buttons, but either way, the commercial side should be the one conceding in that situation, not the other way around.

 

While I agree with you for the most part (especially in regards to basketball and hockey jerseys), a big part of the baseball jersey's appeal for the buying public is that you can wear it unbuttoned. Taking that away would pose a problem, a problem that doesn't need to exist.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

4. I’m unclear what you mean by “unbuttoned jerseys on the field.” If you’re talking about a completely open button down on the field, I’ve never seen it and I don’t think it should be a thing (y’know, traditional aesthetics and all ).

 

If you’re talking about leaving the top few buttons open, you can still do that with a henley.

 

While it can be done with a henley, I'd rather players have the option to wear partially-unbuttoned uniforms. While it's not the traditional aesthetic, it works with it to fit player needs (as you've described repeatedly).

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

5. We’re talking sub-professional for sure (anywhere from college to youth), but all professionals start as sub-professionals, so I’d expect a lot of the same feedback going up the ladder.

 

Look at @shaydre1019's post to see why that isn't the case.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I wouldn’t characterize it as a problem in the sense that it’s putting players in imminent danger, but it’s very clearly an annoyance. I don’t have a tally of how many people I’ve talked to, but this is definitely the thing that pops up most often (I’d estimate roughly half of the people I talk to).

 

It’s easy to dismiss it as “not a problem from where we’re standing,” but I think that proves the point. We’re the ones standing, they’re the ones playing and saying, “This could be better.”

 

Again, that's only about half. It's not the issue you make it out to be. I don't see it the same way as the call for lighter materials in basketball or a different fabric formation in hockey sweaters.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

6. It sounds easy, but “a bit of extra time” is more like several hours figuring out where to best split it, measuring it, positioning it, clipping the art, overlapping it, figuring out the best way to instruct someone how to line it up properly, etc. Then, in production, you have to produce and sew two pieces down instead of one, make sure they line up, are positioned correctly, etc. I wouldn’t say it takes twice as long as sewing down a non-split script, but it’s close. In addition to the extra time, there’s more waste because it’s easier to mess up.

 

This still doesn't seem like that big of a sacrifice from the production perspective, especially when its been like this for so long.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

7. I’m still not grasping this point. It is most definitely not a huge aesthetic overhaul, as evidenced by the Auburn jersey above.

 

Except it is a big aesthetic overhaul, from the perspectives of fans buying jerseys and for players who would want the additional "give" of the full buttonfront. 

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

8. I’m hoping this is just worded funny and you mean arrogance on the part of the sportswear industry, not arrogance on my part.  At any rate, if there’s a tangible benefit (especially with little to no aesthetic disruption), I don’t see it as a change for its own sake. It is, in the most literal sense, a change for the sake of making a baseball jersey that’s better suited for the players who wear it.

 

It was worded for both the industry and you. I'm sorry, but you often carry yourself like you know better than everybody else here. Our opinions don't matter to you because we don't work in the business and you feel the need to talk down to the rest of us. You haven't outright insulted us like Tom O'Grady, but I can detect some condescending in your posting history (you and BrandMooreArt, who can never be wrong about anything by his reasoning). But enough of me being a backseat moderator.

 

Again, most people would need to see far more evidence to go ahead with the full adoption of henleys. We need to see if an overwhelming majority of players approve of it, if the team's top brass approve of it (especially the more tradition-minded clubs who withstood the pullover/sansabelt period intact), and if market research shows that fans would want it. 

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

We were fine with cars for ages before rear view cameras, lane assist technology, and adaptive cruise control, but all those things (while technically not “necessary”) make the practical experience of driving a car better. This is no different.

 

Except it is, because those added technologies were overwhelming supported by both consumers and the automotive industry as a whole. Besides, there's no "culture of tradition" or aesthetic compromises made in the adoption of those technologies.

 

24 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Just some food for thought...

 

Sure, but it's not convincing. I'm sure you'll say the same about me.

[smarisca03]

I can't be the only Yankee fan that wants a navy alternate.  The gray jersey is so boring.  Like the Twins they should have a navy city name jersey

[IceCap]

46 minutes ago, smarisca03 said:

I can't be the only Yankee fan that wants a navy alternate.  The gray jersey is so boring.  Like the Twins they should have a navy city name jersey

Nah. An alternate would mean they'd wear it at home. And the Yankees should never wear anything but the pinstripes at home.