MLB 2019 Changes

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

The Royals one looked dreadful because there was no royal on the design outside of the striping,

 

That's a conceptual problem, not an aesthetic problem.

 

From the standpoint of aesthetics, there was only one good powder blue uniform, one grey uniform that was not embarassing, and it was this one:

 

 

(Side note: There was something great about Fleer's photos. They always got the lighting right.)

 

 

 

When the Blue Jays, the Phillies, and every other team that had used powder blue on the road switched to grey, it felt like they had finally begun wearing actual baseball uniforms. (The Phillies' maroon, when it appears on grey, is scrumptious.) The Royals are the only team ever to switch to to grey on the road and have it be a downgrade.

 

[SFGiants58]

I like the Royals in grey and I especially like that they clinched the 2015 title in grey. It shows that their success wasn't limited to the 1970s/80s:

 

 

The full powder blue, while it helped to differentiate them from the Dodgers, just looks dated to me and worse than the Blue Jays and Phillies' powder sets. Besides, just having powder as a top like they do now is a much better implementation of that accent color.

 

 

Giving it powder blue pants is just too much.

[MilSox]

On 7/4/2019 at 9:36 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Once is enough, especially if there are good photos. I think the Brewers dressed as the Pilots only once.

 

More important, there has never been any threat of the Orioles altering the record books to deny their time in St. Louis. Meanwhile, the Nationals' first logo had the completely ahistorical claim "Established 1905", which, combined with their immediate unretiring of the Expos' retired numbers, was a very worrying sign. This is why it is so sweet to see the team come all the way around and acknowledge its actual 1969 origin.

 

 

 

I hope so, too. The key thing is that they can do that without messing with franchise lineages, as we see with the two Washington Senators teams, the original one now the Twins, and the expansion one now the Rangers. And when the St. Louis Browns became the Orioles, that team didn't adopt the history of the 1901-02 Orioles that belonged to another franchise, nor did the Brewers upon their arrival from Seattle claim the history of the 1901 Brewers that belongs to the Browns/Orioles franchise.

 

At one time, even the NFL understood this. In 1950, the Baltimore Colts joined the NFL from the AAFC, and then folded after a single season. Then, in 1953, a new expansion Baltimore Colts team was created; this is the team that exists today, in Indianapolis. These are separate franchises. And we all know of the good example of the Winnipeg Jets in the NHL, whereby a relocated team adopted the name Jets, yet the official records continue to show the true histories of the Jets/Coyotes franchise and the Thrashers/Jets franchise.

 

So I am in favour of calling a new Montreal team the Expos, just so long as there is no violence done to the record books, and we continue to have the Expos/Nationals franchise as well as either the Rays/Expos franchise or else a new expansion Expos franchise.

If MLB and other sports leagues are so concerned with this issue, they can solve it by stop playing cities against each other and moving teams around. 

[MilSox]

I'll concede that it'd look much better with belted pants rather than sansabelts, but you can not tell me this is not a good looking uniform.


As far as tradition is concerned, they wore powder blue roads for their first 20 years of existence and in their first (and still, only) World Series appearance.  Powder blue is as traditional as it gets for the Brew Crew.

[MDGP]

20 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

“The Royals one looked dreadful because there was no royal on the design outside of the striping . . .”

 

The Royals aren’t named after a color, they’re named after cows and and utilize symbols of monarchy. As regularly discussed with the Cleveland Browns, just  because a team’s name can relate to a color doesn’t mean they have to in every way.

[_DietDrPepper_]

11 hours ago, NicDB said:

I'll concede that it'd look much better with belted pants rather than sansabelts, but you can not tell me this is not a good looking uniform.


As far as tradition is concerned, they wore powder blue roads for their first 20 years of existence and in their first (and still, only) World Series appearance.  Powder blue is as traditional as it gets for the Brew Crew.

That’s not a good uniform. None of the full powder blue uniforms were.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

On 7/8/2019 at 12:01 PM, leopard88 said:

The piping on the Expos jerseys looks way too thick.

 

 

 

What logo is on the on-deck circle here?

 

EDIT: never mind, found it on the mothership

 

http://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/1985/_National_League/1976/Anniversary_Logo

 

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, Lafarge said:

 

The Royals aren’t named after a color, they’re named after cows and and utilize symbols of monarchy. As regularly discussed with the Cleveland Browns, just  because a team’s name can relate to a color doesn’t mean they have to in every way.

 

But it's their primary color. That's kind of a big deal. A simple blue outline on the white wordmarks/lettering, as the current powder alternate demonstrates, would have made that uniform better. It's like how the Red Sox never should have dropped red lettering or red outlines from their road uniforms. 

[MDGP]

Just now, SFGiants58 said:

 

But it's their primary color. That's kind of a big deal. A simple blue outline on the white wordmarks/lettering, as the current powder alternate demonstrates, would have made that uniform better. It's like how the Red Sox never should have dropped red lettering or red outlines from their road uniforms. 

 

Mph, they absolutely should have dropped the red from their away uniforms. Red at home, Blue on the road was their historical identity for years. I will forever stand by my opinion that the Red Sox have consistently made their look worse since the 70s redesign. Moving away from the striped Sox, going with the red lettering, and going to the red undershirts, were all major downgrades that together have taken a perfect look and made it merely okay.

 

I get wanting the Red Sox to wear red socks, but just because it’s a team color or is in the name doesn’t mean it has to be on every single piece of equipment the team wears. The Royals wore royal blue hats, royal blue socks, and had royal blue in the piping on the uniforms. There was zero need to add more royal to a look that was already great.

[SFGiants58]

13 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

 

Mph, they absolutely should have dropped the red from their away uniforms. Red at home, Blue on the road was their historical identity for years. I will forever stand by my opinion that the Red Sox have consistently made their look worse since the 70s redesign. Moving away from the striped Sox, going with the red lettering, and going to the red undershirts, were all major downgrades that together have taken a perfect look and made it merely okay.

 

 

Major downgrades? Not really. I get wanting the striped socks back and maybe the navy undershirts (I like red), but don't tell me that this isn't a fantastic road uniform.

 

 

Also, "historical identity for years" kind of falls flat when it's so tied to failure. They didn't look like the Red Sox, but rather the flannel Yankees with different-colored accessories. Heck, the Red Sox's biggest failures happened with navy-only road uniforms.

 

 

 

Going back to navy-only was a mistake, one that I'm glad the team corrected. Of course, their best road look only lasted two years.

 

 

Navy w/red outlines and placket trim is perfect.

 

Quote

The Royals wore royal blue hats, royal blue socks, and had royal blue in the piping on the uniforms. There was zero need to add more royal to a look that was already great.

 

Except the white lettering didn’t contrast enough with the powder base. Outlines would help it immensely.

[Bill0813]

AS game patch on right sleeve moved the Frank Robinson to the front.   Of course, there's also the Tyler Skaggs tribute on front, the Cleveland guitar patch on the left sleeve and the 150th anniversary on the right.  By my count, that's 5 on one jersey, could be more.

 

[MDGP]

9 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Major downgrades? Not really. I get wanting the striped socks back and maybe the navy undershirts (I like red), but don't tell me that this isn't a fantastic road uniform.

 

 

Also, "historical identity for years" kind of falls flat when it's so tied to failure. They didn't look like the Red Sox, but rather the flannel Yankees with different-colored accessories. Heck, the Red Sox's biggest failures happened with navy-only road uniforms.

 

 

 

Going back to navy-only was a mistake, one that I'm glad the team corrected. Of course, their best road look only lasted two years.

 

 

Navy w/red outlines and placket trim is perfect.

 

To be fair to the all-navy, the two greatest players in team history wore them, and they did win the World Series in them in 2013. However, I’d be perfectly willing to meet halfway on those 90’s uniforms due to the blue sleeves. More than anything I hate the red undershirts because they throw off the perfect color balance the team has. (Though ironically, I think the 2013 ones work because of the red sleeves). They wouldn’t be my favorite sox uniforms ever, but what they currently wear with blue sleeves and striped socks would go a long way into having a top 5 uniform in the league again.

[Quillz]

Since the Royals were mentioned, and this may be off-topic, but I've had to admit that from a pure aesthetic standpoint, they have better uniforms than the Dodgers. Proper number thickness, and a predictable alternate schedule. (I have no idea when or why the Dodgers choose "Los Angeles" over "Dodgers" for their road jerseys). Both of these minor things add up to a lot for me. I also like the arm striping. Since they basically copied the Dodgers' jerseys, it seems fitting to me they fixed some of the minor issues I've always had.

[McCall]

9 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Since the Royals were mentioned, and this may be off-topic, but I've had to admit that from a pure aesthetic standpoint, they have better uniforms than the Dodgers. Proper number thickness, and a predictable alternate schedule. (I have no idea when or why the Dodgers choose "Los Angeles" over "Dodgers" for their road jerseys). Both of these minor things add up to a lot for me. I also like the arm striping. Since they basically copied the Dodgers' jerseys, it seems fitting to me they fixed some of the minor issues I've always had.

Actually the inconsistency of the Royals's numbers annoy me way more than the Dodgers. You have the seemingly thicker than average (and better) numbers on the home whites and KC royal blue alt, aswear the road grays and powder blues have thinner numbers that don't look nearly as good, even with the outline, which actually seems to emphasize the thinness of the numeral even more. The Dodgers is at least consistent even if they do need to be thickened up on the back of the jersey.

[Quillz]

11 minutes ago, McCall said:

You have the seemingly thicker than average (and better) numbers on the home whites and KC royal blue alt, aswear the road grays and powder blues have thinner numbers that don't look nearly as good, even with the outline, which actually seems to emphasize the thinness of the numeral even more.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression the home jerseys have a color-matched outline (effectively blue on blue), so the width is consistent but it looks thicker because of this.

 

I took a look at MLB Shop's Royals jerseys and I see what you are saying. The alternate road does seem to have thicker numbers. I think what is happening is the home and alternate road effectively use outer stroke outlines (one blue, one powder blue), the road and alternate home use inner stroke outlines. So the thicker/thinner numbers are featured on both home and road jerseys. At least, that's how I'm seeing it.

[BigEd76]

The last of the three retirement ceremony patches for the Phillies this season

 

[rmc523]

On 7/6/2019 at 6:55 PM, Marlins93 said:

I don't understand this current obsession around the league with powder blues. Those Montreal home whites are absolute fire. Dumb decision number one was having the Nationals wear Expos gear at all. Dumb decision number two was wearing road uniforms at home.

 

Well, in a way, the "Expos" playing in DC would be an away game.

 

On 7/7/2019 at 5:35 PM, zigbazah said:

Why don't the All-Star teams wear their All-Star uniforms during, you know, the All-Star Game? 

 

As a way to show off the individual teams' uniforms.

[EvilChameleon]

Well, now that we're done hosting the All Star game, let's see if they announce a better main logo soon to slap on the sleeves.

[Old School Fool]

Was going through games on MLB TV since it's free this week and I noticed something during the Braves/Padres game that was pretty cool. The local Braves broadcast was using brown for the Padres because they were wearing the brown alternate but for some reason the Padres broadcast didn't do that.

 

[BC985]

On 7/11/2019 at 10:30 PM, EvilChameleon said:

Well, now that we're done hosting the All Star game, let's see if they announce a better main logo soon to slap on the sleeves.

 

Should be seeing something from the Dodgers soon.