MLB 2019 Changes

[The_Admiral]

4 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Yep - I get it. Sword of Damocles says an M is the answer, not elb.

 

Wrong sharp object: the simplest answer being the right one is Occam's Razor, the Sword of Damocles is when you exist in a constant state of likely doom. Though the Expos were under that.

[Dynasty]

25 minutes ago, Digby said:

And my problem with that color-on-color thing is that the Orioles’ orange over gray pants is one of my least favorite combinations in the game. Something about that bright orange over dull gray just looks horribly unbalanced and clashy to me.

 

I think they were originally used for home games on the weekend. The black alternate was the same way.

[Marlins93]

32 minutes ago, Digby said:

And my problem with that color-on-color thing is that the Orioles’ orange over gray pants is one of my least favorite combinations in the game. Something about that bright orange over dull gray just looks horribly unbalanced and clashy to me.

 

The Marlins tried wearing their orange alternate with road gray pants for awhile and it looked horrible. Of course their shade was more of a red-orange technically speaking, but it often had a "highlighter" look to it.

[BBTV]

I love the Expos logo, and I think it does exactly what a logo should do.  It doesn't matter what letters are in it, or even if there even are letters hidden in it.  When you see it, you know it's the Expos logo.  It passes the book-cover test.  It's iconic, and that's not a word I use lightly.  The fact that nobody knows what it is can actually be viewed as a good thing, because 15 years after the team became extinct, we're still talking about the logo and keeping the memory of the team alive.

 

Hell - our own Lord Commander CC is even on record as stating it's his all time favorite logo.  If you diss the logo, then you're committing treason.  Time for some dracarys.  

[THRILLHO]

Guys hate to break it to you but that expos logo says Jb

[Marlins93]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I love the Expos logo, and I think it does exactly what a logo should do.  It doesn't matter what letters are in it, or even if there even are letters hidden in it.  When you see it, you know it's the Expos logo.  It passes the book-cover test.  It's iconic, and that's not a word I use lightly.  The fact that nobody knows what it is can actually be viewed as a good thing, because 15 years after the team became extinct, we're still talking about the logo and keeping the memory of the team alive.

 

Hell - our own Lord Commander CC is even on record as stating it's his all time favorite logo.  If you diss the logo, then you're committing treason.  Time for some dracarys.  

I've been trying to avoid getting ensnared in the Expos logo discussion, but I agree with this. It doesn't really matter too much to me that the e, M, and b are not super straightforward in the way they are integrated. In fact, I appreciate it. There's something refreshingly abstract about the whole design and a nice change of pace from the typical intertwined city/team letters so ubiquitous in MLB. This kind of semi-abstraction in the Expos logo is perfect for a team's identity that is clearly embracing late 60s modernism.

 

Now, I wouldn't go as far as to claim it's one of the "best logos ever" or anything close to that, but as I mentioned before, I much prefer it over the uninspired Washington Walgreens design.

[BadSeed84]

The expos logo is classic, but this is still the absolute best

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, EddieJ1984 said:

The expos logo is classic, but this is still the absolute best

 

Funny you should mention this, because I’ve always thought the logos were of a kind.  Separated by less than a decade, both use sweeping lines and bulbous curves.  They both combine multiple letterforms into a larger image.  They very much start from the same place. 

 

The difference is that the Brewers logo succeeds and the Expos logo fails.  Spectacularly.

 

The evidence for that is patently obvious; when you show somebody the hidden letters in the glove, they invariably say “OMG HOW DID I NOT SEE THAT BEFORE THATISBRILLIANT”.   When you show somebody the hidden “e” and “b” in the Expos’ “M”, the response is usually some variation on “Huh.  But what does the white “l” stand for?  Or “Is that really supposed to be an M?”

 

Even knowing what’s supposed to be in the “elb” logo doesn’t help, because they’re still not clear.  The “e” reads clearly, the rest not so much. 

 

(And this isn’t a biased fan talking; I don’t particularly love the glove logo, and it isn’t even in my top five Brewers logos of all time.  But I can’t deny that it’s really well-designed, and it just works.)

 

The Expos logo is iconic, but that doesn’t make it good.  It’s iconic in the way a Ford Pinto is.  Or Enron.  Longevity and nostalgia spread a thin layer of cheap gloss on a very, very bad design. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

27 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Even knowing what’s supposed to be in the “elb” logo doesn’t help...

 

There is no L in the Expos' logo. There never has been an L in the Expos' logo. Therefore, the formulation "elb" is nonsensical.

 

Referring to the logo as "eM", according to its original intent, is most correct; calling it "eMb", according to the latter-day interpretation, is also technically acceptable. But a mention of an L constitutes a rhetorical loading of the dice.

 

What's more, the overall shape of an M is obvious; any claim not to realise this is simply not believable.

 

The Expos' logo is a triumph in every way imaginable. First, its pure aesthetics are charming, as it manages to be simultaneously bold (in its broad strokes) and elegant (in its curves, and in the lines in the "e" segment).

 

And from the standpoint of brand recognition this logo — even after a decade and a half of inactivity — succeeds in being more recognisable than the vast majority of current North American team logos.

 

Finally, the logo is associated overwhelmingly with positive memories. The unpleasant associations with Loria's destruction of the team and the ensuing move are overwhelmed by happy associations with Gary Carter, Andre Dawson, Rusty Staub, Tim Raines, Steve Rogers, Warren Cromartie, Ellis Valentine, Felipe Alou, Larry Walker, Vladimir Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, and many others.

 

The Expos' logo is beautiful in its own right, and it is filled with plenty of meaning derived from its history. This remarkable symbol embodies everything that a good logo should be. 

[Digby]

If the “elb” formation is nonsensical, don’t make your damn logo look like it says “elb”.

[SFGiants58]

Something being iconic or recognizable does not exclude it from being hideous. This is an "iconic" image:

 

 

...yet most people look beyond its brand recognition to see how fugly it is. You can cite all of the guys from the late-1940s/early-1950s, Major League, the 1994-2001 squads, 2007 and the recent run of success as the "positives outweighing the negatives" (never mind that Cleveland has had more success with Wahoo than the Expos had with the M-blob). There's no questioning what it is, how bold it is, and how recognizable it is. It has kept Cleveland relevant, even in periods of non-contention. Every praise you can sing of the Expos' logo, you can sing of Wahoo.

 

However, none of that saved it. People saw it as a poorly-designed cartoon logo that should go away. While I'm probably making a false equivalence, I'm just illuminating how the logic used to defend the fugly M-blob can be used on Wahoo.

 

Hey, you can critique that logo without bringing up MOD EDIT issues!

[Sec19Row53]

16 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

Wrong sharp object: the simplest answer being the right one is Occam's Razor, the Sword of Damocles is when you exist in a constant state of likely doom. Though the Expos were under that.

[insert Homer Simpson]

[D'oh!]

I'll go hide out for a bit now...

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

59 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Something being iconic or recognizable does not exclude it from being hideous. This is an "iconic" image:

 

 

...yet most people look beyond its brand recognition to see how fugly it is. You can cite all of the guys from the late-1940s/early-1950s, Major League, the 1994-2001 squads, 2007 and the recent run of success as the "positives outweighing the negatives" (never mind that Cleveland has had more success with Wahoo than the Expos had with the M-blob). There's no questioning what it is, how bold it is, and how recognizable it is. It has kept Cleveland relevant, even in periods of non-contention. Every praise you can sing of the Expos' logo, you can sing of Wahoo.

 

However, none of that saved it. People saw it as a poorly-designed cartoon logo that should go away. While I'm probably making a false equivalence, I'm just illuminating how the logic used to defend the fugly M-blob can be used on Wahoo.

 

Hey, you can critique that logo without bringing up MOD EDIT issues!

 

That is a totally inapplicable argument.

 

First of all, the Wahoo logo is a graphical logo, not a letter logo.  As such, it is in the category of the Orioles' cartoon bird, rather than the category of the stylised letter logos of the Expos or the Brewers.

 

Moreover, the Cleveland logo went out of style not due to its inherent aesthetic qualities, but solely on account of cultural context. Absent this cultural issue, the Wahoo logo would be just as good as the Celtics' logo or the Vikings' logo — the very logos which people attempting dishonestly to ignore the cultural context tend to invoke in defence of Wahoo.

 

So literally everything in your comparison fails. Other than that, great work.

 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

There is no L in the Expos' logo. There never has been an L in the Expos' logo. Therefore, the formulation "elb" is nonsensical.

 

Then what is the white supposed to be?

 

If they didn't want people to see an "l". they shouldn't have put one in their logo.  And yet they did.

 

The Montreal Elbs.

[Ark]

The l could very well be a J

 

Expos Jeux Baseball

[Gothamite]

Yes, it could easily be a "j".

 

The Montreal Ejbs.  

 

What it can't be is nothing.

[SFGiants58]

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That is a totally inapplicable argument.

 

First of all, the Wahoo logo is a graphical logo, not a letter logo.  As such, it is in the category of the Orioles' cartoon bird, rather than the category of the stylised letter logos of the Expos or the Brewers.

 

It's a baseball team logo, so I'd argue that it's applicable.

 

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Moreover, the Cleveland logo went out of style not due to its inherent aesthetic qualities, but solely on account of cultural context. Absent this cultural issue, the Wahoo logo would be just as good as the Celtics' logo or the Vikings' logo — the very logos which people attempting dishonestly to ignore the cultural context tend to invoke in defence of Wahoo.

 

Culturally unacceptable, yes. But I'd also argue that its aesthetic qualities left it in the dust. The linework and detailing is far less appealing and consistent when compared to modern designs. Look at compared to what the Vikings do (since 2013, at least):

 

Note the consistent line weights, clean detailing, and proper perspective. Wahoo has none of those elements. Now look at more modern "cartoon"/graphical designs.

 

 

They generally adhere to consistent line weights, well-defined detailing, and easily-re-sizable forms. Wahoo doesn't have that, which is why it is aesthetically inferior (like the M-blob).

 

42 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

So literally everything in your comparison fails. Other than that, great work.

 

 

Nice of you to overlook how I disputed the "good outweighs the bad" and "iconic/know what it is" logic behind liking the M-blob. Like it or not, they're comparable and they're both terrible for aesthetic reasons (with Wahoo having an additional stink of MOD EDIT). No amount of "good times" or "iconic status" can outweigh a terrible design, especially when the "good times" weren't all that good. Like it or not, the "success" argument goes further with Wahoo than it ever would for the M-blob. I loathe Wahoo, but the same defenses for the M-blob apply to that outdated cartoon logo.

 

Also, way to put all the blame on Loria when it can spread pretty far and wide (separatists, Olympic Stadium's construction, the Blue Jays claiming Southern Ontario and Ontario's growing population of former Quebecois, and a fairly sizable recession during the 1990s in Canada - one which was worse in Quebec than it was in Ontario, IIRC). I would never be a Loria apologist at all, but he gets too much credit for sabotaging the Expos. If anything, MLB sent him in to finish off the market. 

 

It's OK to let the Expos fade away into baseball history, like the St. Louis Browns, the Washington Senators MK I/AL Nationals, or the Seattle Pilots. Nobody can take away the fond memories of the fans or the great careers of their many hall-of-famers (who often went off to have more success on other teams). Just because there's a cultural clout attached to a design doesn't mean we can critique it and point out its numerous flaws. One can be both a formalist and a new historicist. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

18 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Then what is the white supposed to be?

 

14 minutes ago, Ark said:

The l could very well be a J

 

There is no mystery here. You all saw the 1969 newspaper clippings that mentioned only an M and an E. The white section is just the left side of the M that is partially obscured by the red E.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

What it can't be is nothing.

 

Yet, in fact, "nothing" is precisely what the white is, as conclusively proven by the above documentation. No imaginary L or J (or any other fanciful character that anyone wants to pretend to see).

[Marlins93]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That is a totally inapplicable argument.

 

First of all, the Wahoo logo is a graphical logo, not a letter logo.  As such, it is in the category of the Orioles' cartoon bird, rather than the category of the stylised letter logos of the Expos or the Brewers.

 

Moreover, the Cleveland logo went out of style not due to its inherent aesthetic qualities, but solely on account of cultural context. Absent this cultural issue, the Wahoo logo would be just as good as the Celtics' logo or the Vikings' logo — the very logos which people attempting dishonestly to ignore the cultural context tend to invoke in defence of Wahoo.

 

So literally everything in your comparison fails. Other than that, great work.

 

I was quite baffled by that post too. It seems really evident that Wahoo was ditched for cultural/political reasons that had next to nothing to do with inherent design or aesthetics. I never detected a pervasive sentiment that Wahoo was "fugly" or a "poorly designed cartoon logo that should go away." The fanbase in particular always seemed to embrace it.

 

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, Marlins93 said:

I was quite baffled by that post too. It seems really evident that Wahoo was ditched for cultural/political reasons that had next to nothing to do with inherent design or aesthetics. I never detected a pervasive sentiment that Wahoo was "fugly" or a "poorly designed cartoon logo that should go away." The fanbase in particular always seemed to embrace it.

 

 

What's so hard to understand about my: "The logic used to defend the M-blob also applies to Wahoo. Both designs were outdated and flawed compared to illustrations and insignias from their respective schools of design. You can argue that both are 'iconic' and that the 'good outweighs the bad,' but that doesn't change the poor quality of the designs." argument? Sure, Wahoo has the added element of insensitivity (which is why the team was forced to disposed of it), but one can make the argument that it's aesthetics was also a good reason to drop it. Besides, fanbase embrace is immaterial to the argument I was trying to make.