MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[BBTV]

I suppose the Phillies would count since they introduced blue in the stars.

 

That Indians jersey doesn't work though.  I think for single color to work, it needs to either be dark, have some style to it, not be plain block.  That aesthetic works in basketball, but not so much in baseball.

 

Even these didn't work in most people's opinion (though I liked them.)

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

Here's the rub. The Twins jerseys are not limited to a single color because there's also a number.

 

 

 

 

There's more chromatic diversity on the front of the new Twins jerseys than there is on White Sox road jersey.

 

 

If you don't like the new Twins set, that's fine but I don't think any kind of universal maxim of baseball design is being violated here.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

3 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Here's the rub. The Twins jerseys are not limited to a single color because there's also a number.

 

 

If you don't like the new Twins set, that's fine but I don't think any kind of universal maxim of baseball design is being violated here.

 

With all the talk of past examples, there's a biiiiiig difference.  The Houston and Cleveland examples worked, but they were THICK BLOCK letters.  The Twins logo tapers and dances across the jersey and without the outline looks a bit slight in places because of it.

 

But the BIG thing in terms of why this doesn't look right to me, and I think I just figured this out finally, is because the Minnesota Twins never, ever, EVER went without an outline.  That's why this looks like it's a throwback to an identity that never existed.  I originally said that in referring to how some throwback brands clean things up and thus make a retro-looking but very tightly manicured look.  I think that's also a problem here.  When the Twins came into existence, they had a much more chunky wordmark.  This is a wordmark even more modern than any they've ever used being presented in a very retro style, and it doesn't work for me.

 

The Washington Senators didn't have an outline for much of their existence, but they also used thick block lettering (as anyone who's debated the Nationals' identity knows well).  This doesn't work as a modernizing of an old look, because from the very start the Minnesota Twins have always used an outline.  I don't think the league has ever had a team with a cursive wordmark this large without an outline.  Dodgers and Royals are longer names, and thus the lettering is smaller.  The Mets have always had an outline.

 

Of course, new almost always looks weird and we get used to it, so... we'll see?  But I think the Twins' identity lives in two different eras: their 60's, Killibrew, birth era with the navy trimmed in red and TC cap that they've leaned into with the googie style of Target Field and the 80's/90's, Pucket, Homerdome era with the red trimmed in navy and M cap.  This fits into neither and doesn't even go fully into the Carews which I think are a beautiful jersey and should be a regular throwback.

 

I guess it just doesn't feel Twins to me.  

[namefornamesake]

1 hour ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

With all the talk of past examples, there's a biiiiiig difference.  The Houston and Cleveland examples worked, but they were THICK BLOCK letters.  The Twins logo tapers and dances across the jersey and without the outline looks a bit slight in places because of it.

 

But the BIG thing in terms of why this doesn't look right to me, and I think I just figured this out finally, is because the Minnesota Twins never, ever, EVER went without an outline.  That's why this looks like it's a throwback to an identity that never existed.  I originally said that in referring to how some throwback brands clean things up and thus make a retro-looking but very tightly manicured look.  I think that's also a problem here.  When the Twins came into existence, they had a much more chunky wordmark.  This is a wordmark even more modern than any they've ever used being presented in a very retro style, and it doesn't work for me.

 

The Washington Senators didn't have an outline for much of their existence, but they also used thick block lettering (as anyone who's debated the Nationals' identity knows well).  This doesn't work as a modernizing of an old look, because from the very start the Minnesota Twins have always used an outline.  I don't think the league has ever had a team with a cursive wordmark this large without an outline.  Dodgers and Royals are longer names, and thus the lettering is smaller.  The Mets have always had an outline.

 

Of course, new almost always looks weird and we get used to it, so... we'll see?  But I think the Twins' identity lives in two different eras: their 60's, Killibrew, birth era with the navy trimmed in red and TC cap that they've leaned into with the googie style of Target Field and the 80's/90's, Pucket, Homerdome era with the red trimmed in navy and M cap.  This fits into neither and doesn't even go fully into the Carews which I think are a beautiful jersey and should be a regular throwback.

 

I guess it just doesn't feel Twins to me.  

So if a retro-style uniform like that of the Twins dares to break tradition or isn't an exact replication of uniform styles of yesteryear, it's a failure?

 

 

I was really liking those new retro 49ers uniforms, but it looks like they added a (gasp) original touch and put the 49ers wordmark on the front! That means these don't fit into the rigid confines of their past uniform designs! They're a throwback to a design which never existed! They just don't feel 49ers to me now.  

[WSU151]

4 minutes ago, namefornamesake said:

I was really liking those new retro 49ers uniforms, but it looks like they added a (gasp) original touch and put the 49ers wordmark on the front! That means these don't fit into the rigid confines of their past uniform designs! They're a throwback to a design which never existed! They just don't feel 49ers to me now.  

 

They don't feel 49ers now? 99% of the uniform is the same (with adjustments for modern templates). Red jersey, white numbers, three stripes, blocky NOB...that's very 49ers. 

 

Having the wordmark on the front is a bonus because the saloon mark is one of the best in the league. 

[namefornamesake]

12 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

They don't feel 49ers now? 99% of the uniform is the same (with adjustments for modern templates). Red jersey, white numbers, three stripes, blocky NOB...that's very 49ers. 

 

Having the wordmark on the front is a bonus because the saloon mark is one of the best in the league. 

 

SATIRE: noun: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's opinions, and something our friend here doesn't quite understand. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

With all the talk of past examples, there's a biiiiiig difference.  The Houston and Cleveland examples worked, but they were THICK BLOCK letters.  The Twins logo tapers and dances across the jersey and without the outline looks a bit slight in places because of it.

 

But the BIG thing in terms of why this doesn't look right to me, and I think I just figured this out finally, is because the Minnesota Twins never, ever, EVER went without an outline.  That's why this looks like it's a throwback to an identity that never existed.  I originally said that in referring to how some throwback brands clean things up and thus make a retro-looking but very tightly manicured look.  I think that's also a problem here.  When the Twins came into existence, they had a much more chunky wordmark.  This is a wordmark even more modern than any they've ever used being presented in a very retro style, and it doesn't work for me.

 

The Washington Senators didn't have an outline for much of their existence, but they also used thick block lettering (as anyone who's debated the Nationals' identity knows well).  This doesn't work as a modernizing of an old look, because from the very start the Minnesota Twins have always used an outline.  I don't think the league has ever had a team with a cursive wordmark this large without an outline.  Dodgers and Royals are longer names, and thus the lettering is smaller.  The Mets have always had an outline.

 

Of course, new almost always looks weird and we get used to it, so... we'll see?  But I think the Twins' identity lives in two different eras: their 60's, Killibrew, birth era with the navy trimmed in red and TC cap that they've leaned into with the googie style of Target Field and the 80's/90's, Pucket, Homerdome era with the red trimmed in navy and M cap.  This fits into neither and doesn't even go fully into the Carews which I think are a beautiful jersey and should be a regular throwback.

 

I guess it just doesn't feel Twins to me.  

 

I think you've expressed your impressions very well here and you're close to figuring out exactly what's working for you and what's not, so I'll just highlight a couple of things because I'm finding this interesting:

1. The difference between "Royals" and "Twins" is only one additional letter BUT the Twins script used here is particularly tall to fill the horizontal space which gives it more of a fine, airy feel. You also have the false ligature between the "i" and the "n." In the original Twins script and traditional cursive, the line coming off of the "i" would have to travel all the way to the upper left corner of the "n" and then swoop downwards (a product of it being really hard to get a good line pushing a quill nib upward on the page). So there's an extra vertical line that's missing, creating a much shorter mark than you might expect.

 

2. As pointed out by others, mono color marks are common but mono color marks in red are much rarer. You have the Phillies and the Reds but that's the exception. So a single layer, mono red script could be surprising to some, even as its pleasing to others.

 

3. I think this is definitely trying to be the 70's, 80's Carew era but there's a big difference: Imagine that home uniform with a red cap and see if it changes your perspective. Even look at it with the panel batting helmet and how the change in headwear makes it more familiar:

 

[The_Admiral]

Really would have preferred pinstripes and navy scripts outlined in red. That's a timeless look. The pre-1987 Metrodome years don't seem worth revisiting to me.

[aawagner011]

This Twins identity is following the modern day trends we see across other brands across all walks of life. As companies refresh their branding in the modern era, they tend to be more minimalistic and simple. Especially when you account for optimizing the visual package at various scales, such as how the brand reads on an iPhone with the app icon.

 

On the whole, I find myself really liking the Twins update, but I have a couple nitpicks. They need to pick whether they go with the white panel design or use all navy. Considering the white panel helmet is used with their primary uniform, there needs to be consistency there. If they really want both, then they need to introduce a matching cap. Make it the weekend alternate or something. But make it consistent. It will look goofy wearing the navy cap in the top of the inning but a different design in the bottom of the inning. I’m not sold on the M* cap. Might grow on me. But I really dislike the decision for that to be the primary road cap. The TC is too classic and should be worn the majority of the time. The M* can be used as an alternate but shouldn’t be more than once or twice a week. Also, not sure about the number font. But overall, I like what I’m seeing and the overall package is nice. I like the colors, the striping, the cleaner TC logo, and the white paneled helmet is great.

 

Before the update, they were a mess with the gold and multiple scripts (modern and retro). Everything feels very cohesive now.

[MJD7]

19 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

With all the talk of past examples, there's a biiiiiig difference.  The Houston and Cleveland examples worked, but they were THICK BLOCK letters.  The Twins logo tapers and dances across the jersey and without the outline looks a bit slight in places because of it.

I will admit, the wordmark does seem like it might look a bit “wispy” in action, I’m gonna need to see more of it in order to have a more firm judgement about it. Still, I think it’s an upgrade over the previous wordmark because it’s cleaner and more readable. 
 

19 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

But the BIG thing in terms of why this doesn't look right to me, and I think I just figured this out finally, is because the Minnesota Twins never, ever, EVER went without an outline.  That's why this looks like it's a throwback to an identity that never existed. 

This is part of why I like it so much, that they were willing to try something a bit new, that still connects to a different, more iconic aspect of their branding (the no-outline look connects really nicely with the TC.) 

 

19 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

When the Twins came into existence, they had a much more chunky wordmark.  This is a wordmark even more modern than any they've ever used being presented in a very retro style, and it doesn't work for me.

This is what is so refreshing to me, as the Twins have never really had a wordmark that I’ve actually loved until now. As you said yourself, both of the Twins main previous wordmarks were quite a bit chunky, in different ways. This new one looks like a streamlined, modern combination that takes the best from both of them. 
 

19 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

This fits into neither and doesn't even go fully into the Carews which I think are a beautiful jersey and should be a regular throwback.

The new uniform is essentially as close to a throwback of the Carew era as one can get these days, without going full-on throwback. As @Carolingian Steamroller said, the batting helmet really brings the connection home. There’s also traces of the 90’s Puckett & 2010’s Target Field era in the wordmarks & number font. 

 

9 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

This Twins identity is following the modern day trends we see across other brands across all walks of life. As companies refresh their branding in the modern era, they tend to be more minimalistic and simple. Especially when you account for optimizing the visual package at various scales, such as how the brand reads on an iPhone with the app icon.

I think this sums up nicely what I love about the redesign: everything is very clean & easy to read from any distance, while still feeling distinctly “Twins” in a modern & refreshing way. 

 

9 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

On the whole, I find myself really liking the Twins update, but I have a couple nitpicks. They need to pick whether they go with the white panel design or use all navy. Considering the white panel helmet is used with their primary uniform, there needs to be consistency there. If they really want both, then they need to introduce a matching cap. Make it the weekend alternate or something. But make it consistent. It will look goofy wearing the navy cap in the top of the inning but a different design in the bottom of the inning. I’m not sold on the M* cap. Might grow on me. But I really dislike the decision for that to be the primary road cap. The TC is too classic and should be worn the majority of the time. The M* can be used as an alternate but shouldn’t be more than once or twice a week. Also, not sure about the number font. But overall, I like what I’m seeing and the overall package is nice. I like the colors, the striping, the cleaner TC logo, and the white paneled helmet is great.

I can agree with this. Personally, I like the M* cap, but I wouldn’t mind the TC as the primary away cap. I do think the alternate needs the M* cap though, as having the TC on both the cap & the sleeves would feel redundant.

I would love a white-paneled TC cap.

 

9 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

Before the update, they were a mess with the gold and multiple scripts (modern and retro). Everything feels very cohesive now.

Couldn’t agree more. 

[gosioux76]

9 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

They need to pick whether they go with the white panel design or use all navy. Considering the white panel helmet is used with their primary uniform, there needs to be consistency there. If they really want both, then they need to introduce a matching cap. Make it the weekend alternate or something. But make it consistent. It will look goofy wearing the navy cap in the top of the inning but a different design in the bottom of the inning.

 

I've seen several people make this point, and I don't really understand why this is an issue. As a fan, I'd love a white-paneled cap. (In fact, I have one; it was a BP design from several years ago.) But I don't get why there's this insistence on them needing to have one in order to right some wrong, as if they broke some unwritten rule of baseball design that  says the helmet NEEDS to match the cap.

 

Although I didn't agree with it, I could at least understand why people felt the prior set was inconsistent because of its use of gold only at home. But that was because they introduced an entirely different color for only one use. This white-paneled helmet, by comparison, fits seamlessly into the overall design scheme. 

 

Its only offense is that it doesn't match the home cap, and only out of some apparent belief that helmets and caps must match in order to keep the universe in balance or something? It seems to me that the Twins aren't afraid to try new things, and should be applauded for it. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I've seen several people make this point, and I don't really understand why this is an issue. As a fan, I'd love a white-paneled cap. (In fact, I have one; it was a BP design from several years ago.) But I don't get why there's this insistence on them needing to have one in order to right some wrong, as if they broke some unwritten rule of baseball design that  says the helmet NEEDS to match the cap.

 

Although I didn't agree with it, I could at least understand why people felt the prior set was inconsistent because of its use of gold only at home. But that was because they introduced an entirely different color for only one use. This white-paneled helmet, by comparison, fits seamlessly into the overall design scheme. 

 

Its only offense is that it doesn't match the home cap, and only out of some apparent belief that helmets and caps must match in order to keep the universe in balance or something? It seems to me that the Twins aren't afraid to try new things, and should be applauded for it. 

 

The mismatching cap/helmet thing also has precedent within Twins history and specifically with the white front panel:

 

[seasaltvanilla]

I think they should have flipped the stripe colors so blue is the outermost. It would neatly prevent the blending into the navy jersey:

 

 

And the loss of the Minnie and Paul logo still stings. Hoping it gets resurrected. The Minnesota state logo with the star is a poor replacement.

 

 

[namefornamesake]

1 hour ago, seasaltvanilla said:

And the loss of the Minnie and Paul logo still stings. Hoping it gets resurrected. The Minnesota state logo with the star is a poor replacement.

 

 

I agree with you on the Minnesota patch. I know they were going for a simplistic look, and it works for the most part. But that patch looks like it was designed 5 minutes before the jerseys went into production. Same thing with the new M logo. 

But remember, it could be worse. 

 

Much worse. 

[MJD7]

4 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I've seen several people make this point, and I don't really understand why this is an issue. As a fan, I'd love a white-paneled cap. (In fact, I have one; it was a BP design from several years ago.) But I don't get why there's this insistence on them needing to have one in order to right some wrong, as if they broke some unwritten rule of baseball design that  says the helmet NEEDS to match the cap.

 

Although I didn't agree with it, I could at least understand why people felt the prior set was inconsistent because of its use of gold only at home. But that was because they introduced an entirely different color for only one use. This white-paneled helmet, by comparison, fits seamlessly into the overall design scheme. 

 

Its only offense is that it doesn't match the home cap, and only out of some apparent belief that helmets and caps must match in order to keep the universe in balance or something? It seems to me that the Twins aren't afraid to try new things, and should be applauded for it. 

Worth noting that the previous home set’s batting helmet didn’t match the cap either (gold outline on the cap, no outline on the helmet), not that that makes it any better.  

[Silent Wind of Doom]

20 hours ago, namefornamesake said:

So if a retro-style uniform like that of the Twins dares to break tradition or isn't an exact replication of uniform styles of yesteryear, it's a failure?

 

 

I was really liking those new retro 49ers uniforms, but it looks like they added a (gasp) original touch and put the 49ers wordmark on the front! That means these don't fit into the rigid confines of their past uniform designs! They're a throwback to a design which never existed! They just don't feel 49ers to me now.  

 

I fully appreciate the sarcasm.  Expertly done.  But I don't agree with the underlying point.  The hyperbole has gone a bit strawman.  The Blue Jays took the past and went forward with it.  The Brewers too, although there's not total unity on the success of the "cover all bases" nature.  The Padres sort of mixed all their past identities to bring them into the future.  But what if the Blue Jays unveiled their current set and had filled in the gaps in the middle of the lettering?  It would look weird.  Football teams have been putting their wordmark on the front for years.  It's not out of the ordinary.  And block is block.  If they rolled out in numbers that looked like the Ravens', you would look at it weird.

 

14 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

1. The difference between "Royals" and "Twins" is only one additional letter BUT the Twins script used here is particularly tall to fill the horizontal space which gives it more of a fine, airy feel. You also have the false ligature between the "i" and the "n." In the original Twins script and traditional cursive, the line coming off of the "i" would have to travel all the way to the upper left corner of the "n" and then swoop downwards (a product of it being really hard to get a good line pushing a quill nib upward on the page). So there's an extra vertical line that's missing, creating a much shorter mark than you might expect.

 

2. As pointed out by others, mono color marks are common but mono color marks in red are much rarer. You have the Phillies and the Reds but that's the exception. So a single layer, mono red script could be surprising to some, even as its pleasing to others.

 

It's not even the color.  It's just that it's a thin and wispy wordmark as @MJD7 mentioned.  The Phillies have chonky letters.  The Reds have a drop shadow.  The Twins look like they're screaming for something.

 

Perhaps the Royals and Dodgers don't look as naked because the closed letters make the wordmark look like it has more mass whereas "Twins" is all open letters and lines?  Perhaps it's because save for the Dodgers' number their jerseys only have one color in it.  Meanwhile, these have a third color that's not featured in the wordmark?  The old navy alts had different color numbers, but the numbers and wordmark used the same two colors, just flipped.

 

14 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

3. I think this is definitely trying to be the 70's, 80's Carew era but there's a big difference: Imagine that home uniform with a red cap and see if it changes your perspective. Even look at it with the panel batting helmet and how the change in headwear makes it more familiar:

 

Hm.  I suppose in the overall look you're right.  Honestly, I just really love the red crowned caps of the Carew Twins and the Fisk Red Sox.  Thick colorful stripes are also nice.  But I've never actually seen the Twins version in practice or in anything but a Carew baseball card.  The issues in my mind are wholely with the wordmark and number, so I didn't even think of the totality in that way.

 

3 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

Although I didn't agree with it, I could at least understand why people felt the prior set was inconsistent because of its use of gold only at home.

 

The fact that the cap worn with their home whites was an alternate cap and not their standard cap made me irrationally rage-filled.  In the end, it was just unnecessary and wasn't an appealing color to many.  Take it away and you had a beautiful update of the Killebrew set.

 

13 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

This Twins identity is following the modern day trends we see across other brands across all walks of life. As companies refresh their branding in the modern era, they tend to be more minimalistic and simple. Especially when you account for optimizing the visual package at various scales, such as how the brand reads on an iPhone with the app icon.

 

A single red navy outline would not be illegible an actually make the wordmark pop more.  But, in the end, as I mentioned in my original post (which was mainly stream-of-consciousness as I tried to figure out what was a gut feeling), this is new and new things feel weird.  So, perhaps we'll all get used to it.  This is the way the human brain works.

 

Also, on the other conversation going here, I've no problem with not perfectly matched helmets as long as its design works with the uniform.  For instance, the Athletics and Orioles have at times worn two different caps on the home and road to match their jerseys and feature less white with their no-white road uniforms.  It looks silly when they then wear helmets that match the home cap on the road.

[MJD7]

26 minutes ago, namefornamesake said:

But remember, it could be worse. 

 

Much worse. 

Ironically, if the Twins were to get an ad patch (praying that we get at least one season without one),  this would probably be the least bad option. The solid red on white at least pairs nicely with the wordmark.

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, namefornamesake said:

I agree with you on the Minnesota patch. I know they were going for a simplistic look, and it works for the most part. But that patch looks like it was designed 5 minutes before the jerseys went into production. Same thing with the new M logo. 

But remember, it could be worse. 

 

Much worse. 

Hit batter, win fine (tweaking an olde tyme baseball outfield sign)

[VikWings]

I'd prefer a blue outline on the Twins script, but the unis aren't terrible overall. The biggest problems with them are the removal of Minnie and Paul and that atrocious road cap. Either bring back the Metrodome M, or just use the TC.

 

I'd have rather them done white panel at home and all navy TC on the road.

[NYCdog]

Uniform sponsorship coming soon to Yankees jerseys