MLB 2019 Changes

[SilverBullet1929]

2 hours ago, THRILLHO said:

I was sitting behind a car at a traffic light

Dude this is super dangerous, you probably shouldn't be sitting in the street at any time. 

[Gothamite]

5 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Why? The Padres did that due to owner preference for years. 

 

Because the Padres really didn’t think brown would sell.  Earth colors haven’t been popular for sports in a couple decades now, and they were reluctant to even dip a toe into that water. Until they did. 

 

You don't think it’s a coincidence that, almost as soon as they offered a brown alternate for fans to buy, they’ve reconsidered their earlier refusal and finally started to explore the options for bringing it back?

[THRILLHO]

1 hour ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Dude this is super dangerous, you probably shouldn't be sitting in the street at any time. 

Way to bring the marlinsbaseball.com humor 

[Andrew_Gamer_NZP]

 

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Because the Padres really didn’t think brown would sell.  Earth colors haven’t been popular for sports in a couple decades now, and they were reluctant to even dip a toe into that water. Until they did. 

 

You don't think it’s a coincidence that, almost as soon as they offered a brown alternate for fans to buy, they’ve reconsidered their earlier refusal and finally started to explore the options for bringing it back?

I think I've seen enough cases in sports where owners decide they won't go in a direction fans want because it doesn't appeal to them. Saw it with the Chargers, saw it with the Padres.

I get it to a point because if I pay billions for a team? I'd want them dressing the way I want them to. 

 

Still? I tend to be weary of teams when they say "oh fans wouldn't like that" because often teams aren't arguing in good faith when they make those statements. 

[Gothamite]

Maybe, but none of those teams were actively trying to engage with a tuned-out fan base.

 

I just see statements suggesting that any significant portion of fans as a group want the teal and push back.  Citation needed. 

[SportsLogos.Net News]

Cincinnati Reds In 1961 Throwback Uniforms Today

July 21, 2019 - 14:45 PM

Continuing their series of fifteen throwback uniforms throughout the 2019 season, the Cincinnati Reds will take to the field against the St. Louis Cardinals this afternoon while wearing the team’s home white vests from their 1961 National League championship season. […]

Read More...

[_DietDrPepper_]

18 hours ago, Andrew_Gamer_NZP said:

 

I appreciate the pirates using the correct logo on social media. And while I’m at it, they should bring it back full time, it’s much better than anything they’ve had since it’s departure 

[Andrew_Gamer_NZP]

 

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, Andrew_Gamer_NZP said:

 

Holy , those are so much better than their current uniforms. 

[FinsUp1214]

That’s my all-time favorite Reds uniform. They’ve had other good looks for sure, but that one wins for me. 

[BBTV]

Did I miss something - do the brewers have powder blue uniforms?

[Gothamite]

Last night?  They wore gray. 

 

 

[BBTV]

I swear on the highlights it looked blue. Can’t argue with that photo tho. 

[SilverBullet1929]

6 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I swear on the highlights it looked blue. Can’t argue with that photo tho. 

I've seen that same phenomenon with the Rays gray uniforms too and no it for sure wasn't their light blue alternate, it was definitely the grays. 

[SilverBullet1929]

So I just came across an Instagram post that says Dodger Stadium has four different seating colors because they each represent something different... yellow is the sun, orange is the sand, blue is the sky, and turquoise is the ocean.

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of this, can anyone confirm this?

[Gothamite]

Sounds like after-the-fact marketing speak to me.  Or standard Instagram bull.

 

I have heard that the color scheme was intended to reflect LA’s natural beauty, going up from the sand to the sky.  But I don’t know if that was an original intent either. 

[SilverBullet1929]

29 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I have heard that the color scheme was intended to reflect LA’s natural beauty, going up from the sand to the sky.  But I don’t know if that was an original intent either. 

Yea something like that and it was said as the original intent. It didn't seem like social media BS because it was from one of the Marlins "sideline reporters" who spent the weekend compiling facts about Dodger Stadium for the Marlins broadcast and on social media so it was presented as things she actually "researched" from Dodger Stadium employees so I figured it has some basis to it. 

[WSU151]

2 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

So I just came across an Instagram post that says Dodger Stadium has four different seating colors because they each represent something different... yellow is the sun, orange is the sand, blue is the sky, and turquoise is the ocean.

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of this, can anyone confirm this?

 

Perhaps not the most authentic confirmation...but apparently there is something to it. 

 

https://dodgersway.com/2017/06/06/dodgers-stadium-history/

 

Quote

Top Deck is a light blue color that reminded O’Malley of the ocean and the skies that surround all of Los Angeles and Southern California. Reserve level is a sea foam green color that represented the landscape all around Dodger Stadium. The Loge level seats are a light orange which was a representation of the sandy beaches. Lastly, are the Field level seats which are yellow because that reminded O’Malley of the sun which is always out in Los Angeles.

 

Changing the seats back to the "muted pastels" was the best thing Frank McCourt did. 

[THRILLHO]

12 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Holy , those are so much better than their current uniforms. 

 

The Reds uniforms looked good yesterday.  My only gripe was that the players who got into the Ted Kluszewski spirit for the 50s throwback carried that into yesterday.  In the history of vested jerseys Big Klu probably wasn’t the only player to rip off the sleeves from his undershirt, but he was certainly the most notable to do it.  It was a signature look for him and it made sense for players to do that on the day.  It didn’t make sense yesterday given that the year was 1961, Kluszewski wasn’t on that team, and every member of that Reds team wore a standard red undershirt with the vest.  Here’s to hoping that when they play in the 1995 throwbacks this doesn’t happen.  I’m not holding my breath though.  The Marlins are wearing vests this coming Sunday and in some of the promotional materials there was a player doing the “guns out” thing with the vest. 

 

If I was going to rank Reds home uniforms I’d probably go (taste is relative)

 

1. 1968-1992: The quintessential Reds look.  Subcategories to this design (in order of my preference)
   1. 68-71: Button down shirt and belt.  No stripes on pants or sleeve 
   2. 72-87: Double knit pullover & sansabelt.  This iteration had a single stripe around each sleeve.  No stripes on the pants
   3. 88-92: Striping on the sleeves changed to a double red stripe.  It was also applied to the side of the pants. 
2. 1993-1998: They had previously donned a vest from 1956-1966,  Initially there were no pinstripes and the wishbone C did not include ‘REDS’ as they were known as the Redlegs for that time. In 1958 they added the pinstripes, and in 1961 they replaced the wishbone C with an elongated C without the wishbone with navy accenting.  In 93 the Reds and Marlins brought the vest back.  This Reds vest is basically the 1958-1960 uniform with REDS included in the jersey logo.  
3. 1961-1966:  I like this uniform.  I don’t know why the team dropped their wishbone C for six seasons.  It’s such a key element to their identity which is why I prefer the 90s vested uniform to this one.  The Reds have a ton of uniforms in their past that incorporate some level of blue accenting or even as a primary color.  I feel like this was their best execution of using navy as an accent.  I much prefer navy as an accent over black if they must have one, though I prefer the Reds wearing just red and white.  Still, this is a really sharp uniform and it looked really nice yesterday using modern fabrics and hat materials. 
4. 1939-1946 (’47-’55):  From 39-46 the team had a red bill on the cap with navy under garments.  The uniform was essentially the same from 47-55 but the hat was all navy and the under garments went from navy to red.  Basically nearly two decades of navy heavy Reds uniforms.  As a baseball uniform it looks excellent.  When the Reds wore it this summer it looked excellent.  It blows away their current regular home uniforms.  For me…if you’re the Reds you really should feature Red though.  Also the Indians around this team wore an almost identical cap.  The navy hat/red bill/red letter look feels more Cleveland to me than Cincinnati.  The Reds really owned the wishbone though so if I saw this cap out in the wild I’d assume it to be a Reds cap.

 

The Reds seem really hellbent on having an accent color.  Plenty of time has passed and enough teams have moved on from black that it seems like it is here to stay for the Reds.  They really need to be evaluating all these different uniforms they’re trotting out this year and make some decisions about adjusting their look going forward.  It’s a pretty neat opportunity to test how designs look on the field using modern uniform materials. 

 

There’s probably a thread dedicated to the Reds current home uniform somewhere but I’ll just say a couple things here.

1. I’m not a fan of headspoon piping, especially for the Reds. 
2. The black drop shadows are awful.  It really ruins the wishbone C on the cap
3. Their custom font is fine, but the drop shadow really clutters it up.  Maybe it would look better if it was just outlined in navy.  But going back to my preferences I really like them in just red and white.  
4. If they just removed all black and removed the headspoon I think I’d like it. They could even have the best of both worlds and do a vested pinstripe alternate for Sunday home games.