MLB 2019 Changes

[DouglasQuaid]

50 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Orioles breaking out the 1969 throwbacks:

Those socks are amazing!

[SFGiants58]

Just now, DouglasQuaid said:

Those socks are amazing!

 

With Boston not wanting to bring them back, I'd love for the Orioles to implement them full-time. 

 

That "Baltimore" script is also a tad better than the primary one, if only because it feels less "machined" than the current design. Some rough edges need fixing (e.g., kerning, the "l" that doesn't match the one in the home script, and a few bits on the B), but it can be done.

 

 

...you can even do a tail-less version to match the 1966-88 home script.

 

 

There needs to be a balance between roughness and cleanliness when it comes to cursive wordmarks. The Orioles, Phillies, new Marlins, and Cleveland go too far in the "clean" direction, while the Royals' old road script, the Twins' cursive wordmark, and the Reds' alternate script are too "rough."

[Andrew_Gamer_NZP]

 

[BadSeed84]

18 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

With Boston not wanting to bring them back, I'd love for the Orioles to implement them full-time. 

 

That "Baltimore" script is also a tad better than the primary one, if only because it feels less "machined" than the current design. Some rough edges need fixing (e.g., kerning, the "l" that doesn't match the one in the home script, and a few bits on the B), but it can be done.

 

 

...you can even do a tail-less version to match the 1966-88 home script.

 

 

There needs to be a balance between roughness and cleanliness when it comes to cursive wordmarks. The Orioles, Phillies, new Marlins, and Cleveland go too far in the "clean" direction, while the Royals' old road script, the Twins' cursive wordmark, and the Reds' alternate script are too "rough."

 

Too rough? I think that was much better than their current.

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, EddieJ1984 said:

 

 

Too rough? I think that was much better than their current.

 

The letters are weirdly stretched (like resized in Photoshop without the "lock aspect ratio" option), the angles of the "a" and "n" don't flow with the "s," and the stroke over the "i" doesn't fit with the rest of the script. The current design flows better without looking "machined," matches the home wordmark, and doesn't look messy.

 

 

It looks much more cohesive. I wouldn't be opposed to the team simply using the "KC" design on the chest, since I really like the way that looks on the blue jersey.

 

[Gothamite]

Still not as good as the original. 

 

[Bill0813]

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

Still not as good as the original. 

 

 

I'm not that keen on the arch effect or the mismatch with the "s" and the "a" in the home script. Maybe bolding the current design could make it look a bit better, I'm not sure. The 1969 road set definitely has better striping, with none of the asymmetry.

 

There's something about that city name and the near-untouchability of the home script (aside from the early-2000s tweak that greatly improved the mark) that makes it tough to render a road script. It's why the team probably went "Bleep it" and used both an arched block wordmark and the home script on the road. 

 

Road scripts are a pain sometimes. They can magnify the problems of the home design (the A's current scripts are far better):

 

 

...look awkward from a kerning or lettering perspective:

 

 

...don't match key components of the home design:

 

 

...or are too particular to a certain phase in a franchise's aesthetics:

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

59 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Still not as good as the original. 

 

 

I'm not that keen on the arch effect or the mismatch with the "s" and the "a" in the home script.

 

I don't mind the arch. But what makes me itch is the mismatch between the arch of the tail and the arch of the lettering.

[sky1324]

6 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Orioles breaking out the 1969 throwbacks:

Absolute beauts. These should be brought back as the road full-time, maybe just updating the bird on the cap.

[WavePunter]

Clean "machined" wordmarks look more professional to me.. sometimes a wordmark tries too hard to accomplish a certain goal (incorporating a certain letter - Braves; or trying too hard to match the home script, etc), and that is typically more of the issue imo.. home and road don't have to match since they won't be worn together.. older wordmarks typically look worse to me.. none moreso than the old Twins script..

[Gothamite]

13 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Road scripts are a pain sometimes. 

 

True.  And sometimes they can be the best part of a team’s identity. 

 

[Sodboy13]

19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

There needs to be a balance between roughness and cleanliness when it comes to cursive wordmarks. The Orioles, Phillies, new Marlins, and Cleveland go too far in the "clean" direction, while the Royals' old road script, the Twins' cursive wordmark, and the Reds' alternate script are too "rough."

"Machined" is an excellent adjective for the Nationals' home alt script. I love it, but when you get in for a close look, you'll see that nearly every lowercase letter uses the same piece over and over to connect it to the next. When a script looks too "perfect," it ends up looking kind of wrong.

[_DietDrPepper_]

14 hours ago, WavePunter said:

Clean "machined" wordmarks look more professional to me.. sometimes a wordmark tries too hard to accomplish a certain goal (incorporating a certain letter - Braves; or trying too hard to match the home script, etc), and that is typically more of the issue imo.. home and road don't have to match since they won't be worn together.. older wordmarks typically look worse to me.. none moreso than the old Twins script..

The aesthetic of baseball scripts though are that they are old. Made in the days before computers and graphic design, they were written by hand, therefore most of them look “rough”. But it’s much better than the machined version of them that are perfect and feel just wrong

[Gothamite]

It’s the Uncanny Valley of sports design.  When the same lines are used over and over, the eye picks it up even if you can’t articulate the problem.  It just looks off. 

[BBTV]

The "machined" nature of the Phillies script totally ruins it for me.  Not sure how it was designed, since it debuted in '92, long before digital art was a thing.

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The "machined" nature of the Phillies script totally ruins it for me.  Not sure how it was designed, since it debuted in '92, long before digital art was a thing.

 

Actually, that’s right when digital art was becoming a thing.  The Brewers’ logos were moved to digital in 1992.  

 

It’s not impossible that the Phillies’ script was one of the first created on a computer. 

[Andrew_Gamer_NZP]

 

[WavePunter]

5 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

The aesthetic of baseball scripts though are that they are old. Made in the days before computers and graphic design, they were written by hand, therefore most of them look “rough”. But it’s much better than the machined version of them that are perfect and feel just wrong

They don't feel "wrong" to me though.. the roughness of the hand drawn scripts much more "wrong" to me for a professional sports organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal

[_DietDrPepper_]

14 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

They don't feel "wrong" to me though.. the roughness of the hand drawn scripts much more "wrong" to me for a professional sports organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal

Decades of baseball>Millions of Dollars, it would be different if baseball was young and hadn't established a brand. I would agree with you then, but you can't say that a team that's had a script for 50+ years, some older than the NBA and NFL as we know it, are wrong. That's why the newer computerized scripts feel wrong because computers weren't around for 80-90% of MLB script history .