MLB 2022 Uniform/Logo Changes

[lgbaseball8]

5 minutes ago, MNtwins3 said:

It just looks too plain with the chest logo

Maybe a front red number on the same level as the LA logo?

[The_Admiral]

On 11/24/2021 at 1:42 PM, SFGiants58 said:

I prefer city names on all teams, even the Cardinals. “St. Louis” on the road uniforms would be fantastic. The Giants could do the “SF,” but I prefer the pre-2012 version of the road uniform with the block “San Francisco.”

 

I'll dig deeper and say the version without the gold drop-shadow was even better:

 

 

I know it's good for uniforms to match, but it gets in the way with a grey background, and given the choice, I'd rather have it on neither than both.

[SFGiants58]

2 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

I'll dig deeper and say the version without the gold drop-shadow was even better:

 

 

I know it's good for uniforms to match, but it gets in the way with a grey background, and given the choice, I'd rather have it on neither than both.

Agreed. I always delete the gold shadow on Giants concepts.

 

With the Giants, anything is better than this:

 

 

I see why Pittsburgh moved back to the cursive.

[AnPheitseog]

6 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Agreed. I always delete the gold shadow on Giants concepts.

 

With the Giants, anything is better than this:

 

 

I see why Pittsburgh moved back to the cursive.

I dunno, i liked it for the PIrates. Though doesnt work for SF.

[SFGiants58]

20 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

I dunno, i liked it for the PIrates. Though doesnt work for SF.

Yeah, two years later and I still don’t know if the wordmark or script was better for the Pirates. The home wordmark is untouchable, but both road options are good. I’m trending towards supporting a less awkward version of the script.

 

 

Looking at the old script for long enough makes it look like a retro Twins-level mess.

[AnPheitseog]

4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Yeah, two years later and I still don’t know if the wordmark or script was better for the Pirates. The home wordmark is untouchable, but both road options are good. I’m trending towards supporting a less awkward version of the script.

 

 

Looking at the old script for long enough makes it look like a retro Twins-level mess.

I'm torn. I like the wordmark because it matches the home, but also think the script looks better. But, i do like the corrected one better.

[The_Admiral]

I prefer the matching scripts for the Pirates. I really like that lettering style and would even want to see it on the players' names.

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, the admiral said:

I prefer the matching scripts for the Pirates. I really like that lettering style and would even want to see it on the players' names.

The number font is pretty bad, though. Fortunately, alternatives exist.

 

 

 

I modified “Ocean Beach” (found on Creative Market). Heck, the Giants’ City Connect font would also work for the Pirates.

[Survival79]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

[The_Admiral]

I have to agree. That fixes a lot of problems with the numbers, 2 and 7 in particular, while still looking perfectly cohesive with the letters. Great fix.

[joekono]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:42 AM, insert name said:

Black Fridays for the Mets are here to stay.

 

It was quickly pointed out that the replicas shown in the video and website are missing the neck piping. A slight redesign maybe? Seems weird to remove an element that's been on nearly every Mets alternative.

Terrible news!!!

[MJD7]

17 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Agreed. I always delete the gold shadow on Giants concepts.

 

With the Giants, anything is better than this:

 

 

I see why Pittsburgh moved back to the cursive.

This is my favorite road wordmark the Giants have ever had…

 

I do admit it’s a little cluttered. If not this, I’d prefer they just have the “SF” logo as the primary away option.

[BBTV]

Giants should just go with the gray SF jerseys.  They can put the city name on an alt or something.  SAN FRANCISCO is too long for a jersey.

 

Their ideal set is the cream homes, gray SF roads, orange '70s-script alts, and then a black SAN FRANCISCO alt (or not.)

 

Dodgers ideal set is simple - white and gray with Dodgers script, red numbers, and no outline on the gray.  No alt.  No nonsense.  I'm indifferent to their sleeve patches, though I don't care for simply slapping the LA on there.

[SFGiants58]

1 hour ago, MJD7 said:

This is my favorite road wordmark the Giants have ever had…

 

I do admit it’s a little cluttered. If not this, I’d prefer they just have the “SF” logo as the primary away option.

I kind of liked the ‘77 version more, albeit with cleanup.

 

 

I’ve never had an issue with the length of the current wordmark, as it looked fantastic without placket trim.

 

 

Doing it in a condensed version of the Giants/Pirates font might be possible, but the plain block is more legible and has precedent (1958-76). It looked fine then, too:

 

 

But yeah, I see why the “SF” placket is such a popular design. I’d opt for a double placket (like the Braves and A’s forest green jersey) if it returned, for consistency’s sake.

 

The original “SF” jersey is a relic of the 1983-93 era, a period the team never wants to throw back to on any kind of basis. The “Lurie Slab” font and Helvetica numbers were pretty crap, so it’s understandable. Heck, I tried to make a “Lurie Slab” team name wordmark. It looked predictably terrible.

 

 

Ugh.

[The_Admiral]

That bendy 7 is very ugly.

 

I have a feeling the matching fancy-block lettering would make "San Francisco" a little too hard to read. All the little points would make it look pretty crowded on a radial arch, just as it did on the vertical arch from the late '90s. The classic condensed block from '58 fits just right.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

I think "San Francisco" is fine on a jersey cause it's not script, looks clean to me.  To me it's the script that makes long wordmarks messy.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

I think "San Francisco" is fine on a jersey cause it's not script, looks clean to me.  To me it's the script that makes long wordmarks messy.

 

The S and O are practically in their armpits.  If you look at this photo, the entire word isn't 100% legible on either of the players.  It's so long that parts of it are affected by folds in fabric no matter what (guy in middle) and even if there's not folds, the S and O are partially obscured by the player's arms (guy on right.)  I'm sure there's photos where it looks fine, but I'd say that it's 50/50 at best.

 

 

 

[coco1997]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:38 PM, SFGiants58 said:

I want to like it, but the red front number that works so well with cursive script kind of doesn’t work with an insignia. Maybe going all-in on a vintage look (with the Brooklyn-style trim) would be better.

 

On 11/25/2021 at 12:35 AM, DarthBrett said:

 

 

I like it but would change three things that would improve it. Drop the white trim on the piping, add piping/stripes down the pant legs and ditch the number on the front altogether. There have been many jerseys with logos but without numbers and they usually look good ('90s Angels navy alt, Dbacks black alt and original vest, the current Giants black alt and retired but recent road alt, the Marlins mid-2000s alt, the Padres 2010s unis, the early 2000s first Reds red alt, the most recent Royals blue road alt, the Tigers home whites and the Yankees home whites. 

 

Something like this...

 

On 11/25/2021 at 7:17 PM, lgbaseball8 said:

Maybe a front red number on the same level as the LA logo?

 

I took these suggestions into consideration and made some tweaks to my original idea:

 

@DarthBrettI minimized the white trim to just the monogram and numbers. Eliminating it entirely makes the uniform look too drab, in my opinion. The white provides a necessary pop of bright color. @SFGiants58, the piping matches these Brooklyn Dodgers road unis. @lgbaseball8, the front numbers are now level with the "LA." I also added the Nike mark and a flannel texture to the design. I do think it's an improvement on my first idea. 

[Ted Cunningham]

On 11/27/2021 at 10:22 AM, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

I don't know that I ever knew San Francisco had a wordmark that used the older "hand-lettered" style of keystone serifs. Putting the two side by side shows how the older version is better.

 

1) Even though the characters have obvious inconsistencies, it feels easier on the eyes (and therefore more pleasing), especially in situations like "SAN FRANCISCO" where there are so many letters. The consistency in the newer version between the letters almost makes it harder to read because the serifs run together. To be fair, I like the F better in the new one, but otherwise, the older mark is superior.

2) At a more base level, the preference should skew more to hand-written/hand-drawn lettering in baseball simply given 1) the age of the sport, and 2) how many of the sport's iconic marks are not from "fonts" but from hand-drawn/-cut/-stitched marks.

3) I am a Pirates fan. I've seen a lot of 3rd-party/local vendors put out t-shirt designs using either the same font as the more modern San Francisco example above, or one that is similar. I suppose that means I'm conditioned, but that much consistency from letter to letter screams off-brand to me. ("We can't actually use the name of the team, but you know who we're talking about by using this font!: PITTSBURGH BASEBALL")

 

To be clear, I don't think every team should look like they play in 1942. For instance, the Blue Jays look great, and their lettering matches their identity. But it's also not trying to look like a typical baseball script, etc. If you're designing an identity that includes script marks, letter marks for hat logos, or something else traditional to baseball like keystone serifs, etc., those should have a human/hand-rendered look because there's a precedence for that. Marks like the older SAN FRANCISCO have a certain soul that ready-made fonts can't replicate.

[SFGiants58]

On 11/28/2021 at 2:36 PM, Ted Cunningham said:

1) Even though the characters have obvious inconsistencies, it feels easier on the eyes (and therefore more pleasing), especially in situations like "SAN FRANCISCO" where there are so many letters. The consistency in the newer version between the letters almost makes it harder to read because the serifs run together. To be fair, I like the F better in the new one, but otherwise, the older mark is superior.

 

The top of the old "F" better matches the "F" from the 1958-82 cap insignias:

 

 

 

Despite being more "consistent," the 1994-present "SF" is a far better logo. 

 

 

Give the "F" in the '77 wordmark the top of the 1994-present "F" and you'd have a better keystone road wordmark for the Giants.