2020-2021 NHL Changes

[_DietDrPepper_]

To be fair I rarely watch hockey unless it's the Stanley Cup, so my opinion might be rough but the Ducks have one of the worst brands in the Big Four, by far. Over their entire history, not one logo, one color scheme, or uniform, sticks out to me as relatively good. In fact, they're  the only team I can think of that has never looked good. At least Ottawa has a decent logo package, especially the secondary logo, and the Thunder have Seattle's beautiful history to look back on, but Anaheim, nothing. They need to blow it up desperately. Maybe then I might remember them more often. 

 

Also, they won a cup? When? Why don't I know this? 

[IceCap]

54 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

Also, they won a cup? When? Why don't I know this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Stanley_Cup_Finals

[Chromatic]

11 hours ago, IceCap said:

Making the angle shallower is probably the right move if you were going to bring that identity back, but if we're going to concede to changes here, why stop? I quite like the 25th anniversary sweater's colours more than that actual Mighty Ducks-era scheme. Is that on the table? And is the logo really that untouchable? It's a straight up Disney logo, and yeah. There will be people who will NEVER accept it for that reason. 

The 25th anniversary jerseys were essentially wearing Sharks colours. 

 

Say what you want about Eggplant/Jade or Black/Orange/Gold, but they were solid colour schemes that were unique to Anaheim. I would prefer either of them over a cheap hybridization of the two that mimics their state rival.

[andrewharrington]

12 hours ago, Frylock said:

It’s nearly as distracting (bad) as the Vegas Golden Knights shoulder logo with impossible layering...

There’s no impossible layering in the Knights’ logo. It’s two swords behind a star, and the star casts a shadow onto the swords underneath; no different than this:

 

[monkeypower]

I don’t know if that’s the impression the Vegas logo gives off though. In that picture above, there’s still a shadow (or at least the hint of a shadow) at the top of the shield that shows the sword are underneath it. There’s a clear visual that the swords are behind the shield and all three are three distinct items, the Vegas logo doesn’t have that.

 

The star in the Vegas logo doesn’t look like it’s casting a shadow at the bottom, it looks like it’s the outline of the star because it’s the same stroke that serves as the outline of the rest of the logo. That combined with the left starting sword having the white blade go into the white of the star really doesn’t imply the swords are under the star, it looks more like the swords are entering the top of the star and skewering out the back before continuing down.
 

An easy fix would be to outline the top of the sword like they are at the bottom. EDIT: Like this.

[Frylock]

1 hour ago, monkeypower said:

I don’t know if that’s the impression the Vegas logo gives off though. In that picture above, there’s still a shadow (or at least the hint of a shadow) at the top of the shield that shows the sword are underneath it. There’s a clear visual that the swords are behind the shield and all three are three distinct items, the Vegas logo doesn’t have that.

 

The star in the Vegas logo doesn’t look like it’s casting a shadow at the bottom, it looks like it’s the outline of the star because it’s the same stroke that serves as the outline of the rest of the logo. That combined with the left starting sword having the white blade go into the white of the star really doesn’t imply the swords are under the star, it looks more like the swords are entering the top of the star and skewering out the back before continuing down.
 

An easy fix would be to outline the top of the sword like they are at the bottom. EDIT: Like this.

 

Yes! Exactly! You were able to explain what I was seeing, and fix it to where it doesn’t look “off”. While I appreciate what@andrewharrington was saying, and I appreciate his skills and contributions and experience, I feel that @monkeypower got this revised properly.

[spartacat_12]

On 4/23/2020 at 1:54 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

I'm not sure the colors are necessarily bonded to the logo. Heck, the logo often had one of those signature colors missing!

 

 

No Eggplant on the left, no Jade on the right. This was not a well-designed logo. It has brand equity (far greater than the arguably better "D-foot"), but it's a terrible artwork for getting the colors of the brand across. 

 

The black portions of the logo should be eggplant, and the sticks should be silver. Keep the triangle jade on both jerseys, fix the outlines, and they're set.

[El Diablo]

I hated the Mighty Ducks when I was younger. The fact that they were a Disney team just completely offended my teenage jackwagon sensibilities. Now that I'm older and I have kids and I've realized some things just aren't made for me I think the Jade and eggplant are just about perfect for that team. Tweak it a little and bring it back full time. 

[Bayne]

On 4/25/2020 at 1:46 AM, monkeypower said:

I don’t know if that’s the impression the Vegas logo gives off though. In that picture above, there’s still a shadow (or at least the hint of a shadow) at the top of the shield that shows the sword are underneath it. There’s a clear visual that the swords are behind the shield and all three are three distinct items, the Vegas logo doesn’t have that.

 

The star in the Vegas logo doesn’t look like it’s casting a shadow at the bottom, it looks like it’s the outline of the star because it’s the same stroke that serves as the outline of the rest of the logo. That combined with the left starting sword having the white blade go into the white of the star really doesn’t imply the swords are under the star, it looks more like the swords are entering the top of the star and skewering out the back before continuing down.
 

An easy fix would be to outline the top of the sword like they are at the bottom. EDIT: Like this.

 

 

To me, grievances like this is like complaining that the letters O and M don't share the exact same baseline. It's optics vs. perfect metrics. Yes, your solution means that it makes more sense but in reality it's not constructed to be a logical depiction of 2 shapes interacting; it's simply an icon. The main goal is to create a design that has a good balance, and sometimes that means making some artistic choices that may not stand up to pedantic scrutiny. It's not the point. I'd say your perfectly outlined star makes the icon look a bit more unimaginative and rudimentary. It doesn't need to be 'spelled' out.

[joey joe joe jr. shabadoo]

On 4/24/2020 at 2:32 AM, _DietDrPepper_ said:

To be fair I rarely watch hockey unless it's the Stanley Cup, so my opinion might be rough but the Ducks have one of the worst brands in the Big Four, by far. Over their entire history, not one logo, one color scheme, or uniform, sticks out to me as relatively good. In fact, they're  the only team I can think of that has never looked good. At least Ottawa has a decent logo package, especially the secondary logo, and the Thunder have Seattle's beautiful history to look back on, but Anaheim, nothing. They need to blow it up desperately. Maybe then I might remember them more often. 

 

Also, they won a cup? When? Why don't I know this? 

 

I do see what you mean. It got off on the wrong foot...christening team of grown men with a cartoonish childrens movie(which I liked) team name is kind of silly. Let the team establish its own identity rather than it being an extension of the movie. 

 

Then they went away from it, somewhat...but of course nostalgia beckons even for abominations (Islanders fishermen too)

[Ridleylash]

9 hours ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

I do see what you mean. It got off on the wrong foot...christening team of grown men with a cartoonish childrens movie(which I liked) team name is kind of silly. Let the team establish its own identity rather than it being an extension of the movie. 

 

Then they went away from it, somewhat...but of course nostalgia beckons even for abominations (Islanders fishermen too)

They were named after the original movie, but the team's design was original to them. If the team was completely aping the movie, they'd have to have been using these jerseys from Day 1 of their existence;

But they didn't. The sequels used the Mighty Ducks' jerseys, but both of them came after the franchise had entered the league; D2 in '94 and D3 in '96.

 

I heavily disagree with DDP's opinion that the Ducks have never looked good, because they had a pretty damn solid look already.

[spartacat_12]

13 hours ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

I do see what you mean. It got off on the wrong foot...christening team of grown men with a cartoonish childrens movie(which I liked) team name is kind of silly. Let the team establish its own identity rather than it being an extension of the movie. 

 

Then they went away from it, somewhat...but of course nostalgia beckons even for abominations (Islanders fishermen too)

 

Fanbases will always have a special attachment to their inaugural uniforms, especially if they had some significant accomplishments while wearing them. It isn't just a '90s nostalgia thing. The Sabres, Oilers, Islanders, Flyers, Canucks, and Capitals all brought back/slightly updated their original looks, plus the Flames might be doing the same. The only teams who have a large chunk of fans hoping to return to their '90s look are teams that were starting out at that time (Ducks, Coyotes, Sens, Sharks).

[Ridleylash]

20 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

Fanbases will always have a special attachment to their inaugural uniforms, especially if they had some significant accomplishments while wearing them. It isn't just a '90s nostalgia thing. The Sabres, Oilers, Islanders, Flyers, Canucks, and Capitals all brought back/slightly updated their original looks, plus the Flames might be doing the same. The only teams who have a large chunk of fans hoping to return to their '90s look are teams that were starting out at that time (Ducks, Coyotes, Sens, Sharks).

And all of them have also never really produced a uniform set that was considered superior to the originals, either, which is another part of the reason people clamor for a return to those uniforms of the past.

 

Hell, I'd even throw the Panthers in here, since their 90's uniforms embody the team's biggest success story (the '96 playoff run).

[Fitzy0220]

8 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Fanbases will always have a special attachment to their inaugural uniforms, especially if they had some significant accomplishments while wearing them. It isn't just a '90s nostalgia thing. The Sabres, Oilers, Islanders, Flyers, Canucks, and Capitals all brought back/slightly updated their original looks, plus the Flames might be doing the same. The only teams who have a large chunk of fans hoping to return to their '90s look are teams that were starting out at that time (Ducks, Coyotes, Sens, Sharks).

I GET what you're saying but at the same time, I wouldn't say that! Look at the Pens as example. Aside from the old timers that really love the original Blue / White, not many people care for the Blue / White (aside from it being a part of the Teams history and being used as a 3rd for the '08 WC).

There were even Pens players (from the Blue / White days) that said Black / Gold made more sense: considering the Pirates Hockey Club wore Black / Gold before any other Pittsburgh Sports Franchise, the rondel logo was added to the uniform in '68 (Black / Gold logo didn't make sense on a Blue / White uniform, considering Pittsburgh was a Black / Gold town because of the City Flag, Steelers and Pirates (MLB))

[andrewharrington]

On 4/24/2020 at 10:46 AM, monkeypower said:

I don’t know if that’s the impression the Vegas logo gives off though. In that picture above, there’s still a shadow (or at least the hint of a shadow) at the top of the shield that shows the sword are underneath it. There’s a clear visual that the swords are behind the shield and all three are three distinct items, the Vegas logo doesn’t have that.

 

The star in the Vegas logo doesn’t look like it’s casting a shadow at the bottom, it looks like it’s the outline of the star because it’s the same stroke that serves as the outline of the rest of the logo. That combined with the left starting sword having the white blade go into the white of the star really doesn’t imply the swords are under the star, it looks more like the swords are entering the top of the star and skewering out the back before continuing down.
 

An easy fix would be to outline the top of the sword like they are at the bottom. EDIT: Like this.

I see where you’re coming from, but that fix (at least to me) feels a little too flat and elementary, like all the shapes were drawn individually, stroke added, and stacked on top of one another in Illustrator. It reminds me of that uniweight linear illustration trend we’re finally coming out of in that there’s a fine line between simple and simplistic. It doesn’t feel much like a cast shadow when it goes all the way around, so you lose a little depth, and I think the integration of the pieces helps it read as a unified shape, which is what makes it work as a parody/pastiche of the star on the sign.

 

That said, I really like the other fix that’s floating around out there with no shadow at all. Looks great. The underlying issue is that this mark was tailor-made for a dark background, and the strength of it is much more evident there. I thought it was best suited as a pant graphic so it always sat on a black field and the single, asymmetrical position of the star would have given it an even better connection to the sign.
 

Quibbles like this remind me why I try to avoid using outlines when I can; they have a tendency to steal too much focus and change the way our brains read line and form, which is especially disruptive when the mark has a complex footprint like this one. If it were me, I would have used gold for the swords and rotated the colors when I switched from light background to dark so it would hold up on both without needing an outline, but there will always be clients and other designers see things differently than I do. That’s how it goes.

[IceCap]

8 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

They were named after the original movie, but the team's design was original to them. If the team was completely aping the movie, they'd have to have been using these jerseys from Day 1 of their existence;

Technically they did. Michael Eisner wore that jersey to the event where the NHL announced that Disney was getting an expansion team in Anaheim.

 

 

 

[Morgan33]

5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

The only teams who have a large chunk of fans hoping to return to their '90s look are teams that were starting out at that time (Ducks, Coyotes, Sens, Sharks).

 

That's because teams established in the 90's shouldn't be trying to look like members of the Original Six.  Nor should they be throwing out what they came into the league with for the trends of the time (ie: Ducks, Coyotes).  It's like trying in vain to be something you're not and no different from when teams with traditional looks (ie: the Sabres and Islanders) adapted what was trendy in the 90's.  It wasn't them and it didn't work.

The Coyotes going back to the Kachina look is no different from the Sabres returning to Blue and Gold IMO.  Their contemporary updates weren't terrible but they also didn't suit them.  I would put the Ducks returning to Eggplant and Jade in the same category.  Hell, if a Stanley Cup victory can't make a uniform set more beloved than the original, what will.
 

5 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Hell, I'd even throw the Panthers in here, since their 90's uniforms embody the team's biggest success story (the '96 playoff run).

 

The Panthers are a great example of why this shouldn't happen.  They continually went with what was trendy and are suffering an identity crisis as a result.  The current team looks nothing like the one that made the finals in 1996.

That's not to say these inaugural looks are untouchable.  The Avalanche recently did a great job of improving theirs without throwing away what made it unique.  The Coyotes did as well by toning down the clunky collar on the Kachina set.  This is the direction teams like the Ducks, Panthers and Lightning should be taking.

[Bayne]

9 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

 

 

Tbh, it looks sublime as a black and white icon on a dark background. Hats off.

[Kevin W.]

10 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

The only teams who have a large chunk of fans hoping to return to their '90s look are teams that were starting out at that time (Ducks, Coyotes, Sens, Sharks).

But two of those teams should be going back to their early 2000s looks, at least partially or fully. The Sharks' pre-Edge set is the best they've ever looked and if the Senators used their pre-Edge alternate as the base for a primary look, it'd be their best look.

[dannykraft]

15 minutes ago, Kevin W. said:

But two of those teams should be going back to their early 2000s looks, at least partially or fully. The Sharks' pre-Edge set is the best they've ever looked and if the Senators used their pre-Edge alternate as the base for a primary look, it'd be their best look.

Both are extremely cold takes