MLB 2019 Changes

[hawk36 3,353]

On 11/22/2018 at 3:58 PM, KRZYBDGRZ said:

Like that spring training hat?

I'm sorry but I find that logo really off the mark. White Sox... so logo is a batter with white jersey and sleeves? And the mark itself is a poor, generic Olympic icon at best. Really don't get why it's being used.  

[Ray Lankford 1,298]

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

I'm sorry but I find that logo really off the mark. White Sox... so logo is a batter with white jersey and sleeves? And the mark itself is a poor, generic Olympic icon at best. Really don't get why it's being used.  

That would be nostalgia. 

[ltravisjr 66]

2 hours ago, hawk36 said:

I'm sorry but I find that logo really off the mark. White Sox... so logo is a batter with white jersey and sleeves? And the mark itself is a poor, generic Olympic icon at best. Really don't get why it's being used.  

I guess its the nostalgia value but I do agree. What's worse is that they took what was a bad logo and made it even worse. It is hopelessly generic now because the original logo never had the batterman separate from the block "SOX" beneath it. Never. Never ever. The bottom of the batterman torso even had a point protruding down to fill the void space of the "X" underneath. It wasn't the logo with a separate wordmark under it. The wordmark was integral to the logo and is what connected it to the team. Also, this logo was never black and white. Never ever ever. It was blue and red, the colors of the team then.

[WSU151 9,524]

1 hour ago, ltravisjr said:

I guess its the nostalgia value but I do agree. What's worse is that they took what was a bad logo and made it even worse. It is hopelessly generic now because the original logo never had the batterman separate from the block "SOX" beneath it. Never. Never ever. The bottom of the batterman torso even had a point protruding down to fill the void space of the "X" underneath. It wasn't the logo with a separate wordmark under it. The wordmark was integral to the logo and is what connected it to the team. Also, this logo was never black and white. Never ever ever. It was blue and red, the colors of the team then.

 

The Mariners were never teal and navy when they wore the trident-M...but...here we are.

 

 

Updating old logos with modern colors is not unique to the White Sox. In fact, it's pretty commonplace. To do so for Spring Training games seems like a better idea than any other.

[FiddySicks 11,050]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Ive never though that about their hat. Your eyes ok?

 

Probably because I’ve noticed that, too. I have an old Dodgers cap from the 90s and the difference between the two is pretty stark. 

[DAKINS24 51]

On 11/19/2018 at 4:14 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Terrible.

Powder blue uniforms as a trend were a scourge.  There was exactly one such uniform that looked good: 

 

 

The rest were hideous.  And use of powder blue particularly by the Cardinals was an embarassment.

 

 

LOL WUT?

 

 

[Quillz 1,356]

24 minutes ago, DAKINS24 said:

 

 

LOL WUT?

 

 

Opinions. Different people like different things. I can tell from Fernando's posts that he clearly grew up in a different era of baseball I did, so we like radically different things about the sport.

[SFGiants58 13,748]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Probably because I’ve noticed that, too. I have an old Dodgers cap from the 90s and the difference between the two is pretty stark. 

 

They’d be well-served to use the lighter blue shade that the Royals, Mets, and Brewers throwbacks use. I’ve found that 294 C looks really dark in certain lighting conditions in ways that 286 C does not.

[jp1409 1,946]

1 hour ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Probably because I’ve noticed that, too. I have an old Dodgers cap from the 90s and the difference between the two is pretty stark. 

 

Same here... New Era dark royal is totally useless since it doesn't match anything and looks totally out of place. It's darker than the undershirts, the socks, the cleats and all other accessories and clothing like jackets and hoodies... I even think it's darker than the actual jersey wordmarks. I know I'm always looking like a fool wearing a Dodgers hat with anything royal blue as I end up like I wanted my outfit to match but totally missed the boat.

[Ferdinand Cesarano 4,544]

32 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Opinions. Different people like different things. I can tell from Fernando's posts that he clearly grew up in a different era of baseball I did, so we like radically different things about the sport.

 

You are correct to note that people like different things.

But I will mention again that I grew up in the 1970s, in the heyday of powder blue. Fortunately, however, the good examples of the Yankees and the Mets provided me with enough context to understand, even as a 10-year-old, that powder blue was cheesy — even on the Royals. (The Royals didn't get it right until 1983, when they adopted the uniform I highlighted above.)

When teams began dropping powder blue in favour of grey at the end of the 1980s, I was so pleased.  It was only then that I could really enjoy the Phillies on the road.

 

That right there is a sharp baseball uniform.

[hawk36 3,353]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You are correct to note that people like different things.

But I will mention again that I grew up in the 1970s, in the heyday of powder blue. Fortunately, however, the good examples of the Yankees and the Mets provided me with enough context to understand, even as a 10-year-old, that powder blue was cheesy — even on the Royals. (The Royals didn't get it right until 1983, when they adopted the uniform I highlighted above.)

When teams began dropping powder blue in favour of grey at the end of the 1980s, I was so pleased.  It was only then that I could really enjoy the Phillies on the road.

 

That right there is a sharp baseball uniform.

I'll agree that the light blue isn't for everyone BUT to me one of the very best was the Phillies as maroon and light blue are an amazing combo. That to me was so much better than the homes with red pin stripes as those tend to give off a pinkish hue. 

[BBTV 19,503]

I"m pretty sure that the pinstripes from that era were woven in (like the Yankees) rather than printed (like today's) and weren't really as pink as they currently are.  

 

If you click the link, you can zoom in on the below jersey (game-worn Schmidt from '83) and kinda make out a "zig zag" pattern on the stripes, especially closer up to the collar.  That would be a tell-tale sign of them being woven rather than printed.

 

http://may12.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=45096

 

[poser 393]

How and why did the powder blue/ pullover trend start?

[Gothamite 23,686]

4 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

The Mariners were never teal and navy when they wore the trident-M...but...here we are.

 

 

Updating old logos with modern colors is not unique to the White Sox. In fact, it's pretty commonplace. 

 

Doesn't make it a good idea. 

[mjd77 1,503]

1 hour ago, poser said:

How and why did the powder blue/ pullover trend start?

 

When color tv started to become popular in the 1970s, teams wanted something that would pop on color tv, as opposed to the drab grays.  Here's an article that expands on that...

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23392725/the-long-storied-history-mlb-teams-taking-field-blue-uniforms

[BC985 1,356]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That right there is a sharp baseball uniform.

 

 

I was born in the 80s but did not become aware of baseball until shortly after the swirly P look was put away. With that said, this look needs to come back and be the primary again. Not only would the Phillies have a shade of red (or whichever color you prefer) all to their own, the current Phils look outside the number font and sleeve numbers is so generic. The Phillies could really have a look all their own again. 

[BBTV 19,503]

1 hour ago, Brandon9485 said:

 

I was born in the 80s but did not become aware of baseball until shortly after the swirly P look was put away. With that said, this look needs to come back and be the primary again. Not only would the Phillies have a shade of red (or whichever color you prefer) all to their own, the current Phils look outside the number font and sleeve numbers is so generic. The Phillies could really have a look all their own again. 

 

Hold on... red pinstripes with a bubbly custom script with blue stars over the i's is "generic"?  What planet are you on?

 

For the record, I'm not a fan of the Phillies look, and i can't stand the numbers, but it's hardly "generic".

[FiddySicks 11,050]

Yeah the one thing the Phillies have is that their current look is uniquely awful. 

[BBTV 19,503]

8 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

Yeah the one thing the Phillies have is that their current look is uniquely awful. 

 

Awful is an exaggeration.  I'm not sure there's any reasonable justification for 'awful'.  There's plenty of objective things wrong with it, but nothing that makes it "awful".

[FiddySicks 11,050]

I like certain elements about their look, such as the numbers on the sleeves, but yes, parts of it I think are legitimately awful. The overall puffiness of the numbers and logos (I HATE their current hat logo) don’t look good at all and the brightness of their shade of red does make the set look relatively generic and leaves a sickly pink hue when paired with the pinstripes. 

 

If if I recall correctly, I think you said your favorite Phillies look is the look with the skinny P, right? I can’t remember the specific years that set was used. If they darkened the red (it doesn’t have to be straight up maroon, but darker) and based their look on that set, they would look fantastic. As it stands right now? It almost looks like they had a somewhat whispy looking wordmark and they decided to just add an extra outline to everything that’s the same color and it just muddled the whole look. 

 

The main reason I think it’s awful is because it’s actually really close to looking great, but those elements kind of ruin it.