MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[Lights Out]

I'd like that TX monogram in a vacuum, but not so much when the Tigers, A's, and White Sox already exist.

 

The number font is ugly.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

12 minutes ago, 5ss22 said:

As @SCL said, Minnie and Paul are too detailed/complex for this rendition of the Twins' uniforms. They still have them above center field, so it's not like they're completely gone.

The "small dot" is representing the North Star, as in North Star State, as well as the location of the team within the state.

 

Then that sounds like the rendition is lacking.  I looked at it and the discussion and was like "Yeah, they're going for a more retro look, so things are going to be less detailed", but Minnie and Paul are retro.  It's more a clipart approach to modernity.  Compare with the Brewers' Wisconsin patch that has some kind of detail.  While a lot of his criticism is over-the-top, I can't say I disagree with the "blue blob" terminology.  Yes, it's shaped like Minnesota.  Yes, the red dot is a tiny star.  Doesn't mean those descriptors aren't what anyone sees from more than six inches/six feet away.

[officeglenn]

Couple of graphics from the mothership:

 

 

 

Also worth noting that it's a very dark navy blue, not black.

[fortunat1]

A bit of a snap judgement on this one, but this Texas set really contributes to my idea that Nike has fumbled nearly all of the pants throughout the CC series.

 

My personal opinion is that for the most part, light jerseys should have matching pants, while dark jerseys should have light pants. Somehow Nike decided that their navy jerseys warranted matching pants, but couldn't manage to introduce their tan and powder blue jerseys with matching pants. I know that this whole program was meant to push the needle in terms of modern jersey design, but I feel like they went extreme at the wrong times, and showed restraint where they didn't really need to.

 

Quick fixes would be to give Milwaukee, Boston, and Texas matching pants, and taking away Houston/LA's navy pants. The Cubs' navy pants are alright when they actually have the socks visible, so I'd compromise by allowing them to use either navy pants or solid white pants with their CC top. Just my 2 cents though.

[VDizzle12]

10 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

The TX is a little wonky looking, but overall it’s a nice set. The flying panther and rope stripe are my favorite parts

 

I really like the color balance, with cream over black and small touches of red. The number font isn't great, but I get the inspiration and i'll give them credit that everything is well thought out compared to some City Connect uniforms. 

[coco1997]

1 minute ago, fortunat1 said:

A bit of a snap judgement on this one, but this Texas set really contributes to my idea that Nike has fumbled nearly all of the pants throughout the CC series.

 

My personal opinion is that for the most part, light jerseys should have matching pants, while dark jerseys should have light pants. Somehow Nike decided that their navy jerseys warranted matching pants, but couldn't manage to introduce their tan and powder blue jerseys with matching pants. I know that this whole program was meant to push the needle in terms of modern jersey design, but I feel like they went extreme at the wrong times, and showed restraint where they didn't really need to.

 

Quick fixes would be to give Milwaukee, Boston, and Texas matching pants, and taking away Houston/LA's navy pants. The Cubs' navy pants are alright when they actually have the socks visible, so I'd compromise by allowing them to use either navy pants or solid white pants with their CC top. Just my 2 cents though.

This is proof to me that white/off-white jerseys with darker colored pants can work:

 

[WBeltz]

9 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

The TX is a little wonky looking, but overall it’s a nice set. The flying panther and rope stripe are my favorite parts

This is the first CC that has a light base over a dark bottom correct? I don't mind it!

[Discrim]

Unpopular opinion: if the Tigers didn't exist, the Rangers would have the makings of a good rebrand here. 

[fortunat1]

1 minute ago, coco1997 said:

This is proof to me that white/off-white jerseys with darker colored pants can work:

 

That's fair. I dont hate the idea of the Rangers using navy pants, so I'll solidify my opinion on them once I see them in game. Oftentimes the initial release and on-field product can warrant different reactions from me. The Reds are a great example of this working though, as the contrasting socks take them a long way. If the Rangers did something similar then it would look much better IMO.

[5ss22]

9 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Then that sounds like the rendition is lacking.  I looked at it and the discussion and was like "Yeah, they're going for a more retro look, so things are going to be less detailed", but Minnie and Paul are retro.  It's more a clipart approach to modernity.  Compare with the Brewers' Wisconsin patch that has some kind of detail.  While a lot of his criticism is over-the-top, I can't say I disagree with the "blue blob" terminology.  Yes, it's shaped like Minnesota.  Yes, the red dot is a tiny star.  Doesn't mean those descriptors aren't what anyone sees from more than six inches/six feet away.

I feel bad being so off topic with the Rangers drop, so this is probably my last comment.

I believe that from the start the redesign was billed as retro-inspired, but looking towards the future. I think we can see that with the clear inspirations from the Twins' past while the overall design feels pretty clean and refreshed. And I'll ask you this; was the Minnie and Paul patch that much easier to see from six feet away?

[namefornamesake]

19 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

 

 

"This mythical creature is created by imagining a blend of of the Dallas Eagles and the Fort Worth Panthers."

Congratulations, Nike! You made a Griffin!

[BBTV]

The black pants don’t bug me at all. I think there’s a few teams that could go with dark pants with their light tops. It seems a little soft ballish at first, but i think that’ll fade pretty quickly. 
 

the flying panther logo is pretty nice, and it’s cool that they combined multiple logos to make it. It’s probably the best part of this set. 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

I seriously thought the logo was a funky RX at first

[Ark]

Are the Rangers City Connect uniforms meant to look like they work at Chic-Fil-A or something?

[8BW14]

8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

The black pants don’t bug me at all. I think there’s a few teams that could go with dark pants with their light tops. It seems a little soft ballish at first, but i think that’ll fade pretty quickly. 
 

 

I’d have to disagree with that. Of the “non-standard” baseball uniforms, light over dark is by far the worst option, IMO. It has a very “slow pitch steroid bro” feel to me, especially with long, baggy pants. I don’t really like a colored top over white or gray pants, but it I can live with that. I do really like matching colored jerseys and pants though and shame on the Rockies and Dodgers for gutlessly abandoning their colored pants.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

The aesthetic I think of when seeing this set:

 

 

It evokes to me the aesthetic of westerns from the 60s-90s, the tones and fonts of old tattered maps in the Old West.  I like the aesthetic.  I like the theme they went with a lot and all the individual pieces.  The pants do seem odd.  I think it would be better in all cream and wonder if it's just a move to differentiate themselves from other teams with similar standard color schemes (Giants home, Twins alt, Padres/Orioles/White Sox if you open your parameters).

[namefornamesake]

1 minute ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

The aesthetic I think of when seeing this set:

 

 

It evokes to me the aesthetic of westerns from the 60s-90s, the tones and fonts of old tattered maps in the Old West.  I like the aesthetic.  I like the theme they went with a lot and all the individual pieces.  The pants do seem odd.  I think it would be better in all cream and wonder if it's just a move to differentiate themselves from other teams with similar standard color schemes (Giants home, Twins alt, Padres/Orioles/White Sox if you open your parameters).

 

Personally, I wouldn't be shocked if the Tigers pressured Nike into including the black pants just to differentiate the uniforms from theirs. 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

28 minutes ago, 5ss22 said:

I feel bad being so off topic with the Rangers drop, so this is probably my last comment.

I believe that from the start the redesign was billed as retro-inspired, but looking towards the future. I think we can see that with the clear inspirations from the Twins' past while the overall design feels pretty clean and refreshed. And I'll ask you this; was the Minnie and Paul patch that much easier to see from six feet away?

 

Eh...  It's the MLB thread, so it's all fair game.

 

I think overall it's more empty than clean.  But I already said when they were released that while I think most of the set is perfect, I think the wordmark should have an outline.  As with everything, it will likely all become the norm with being used to it.

 

But the only other failing I find is this patch.  It goes past empty to sterile, and as my years-long call that the Cleveland C cap needed an outline, red and navy do not stand out enough against each other.

 

Looking at pics, I think the old patch reads, but it's also a major part of the identity.  It's a logo used elsewhere in the park and other places.  Whereas I don't understand why they'd just put the shape of the state on the home uniform.  Seems like a City Connect move.  The TC or even the flags would have probably been better, but I imagine they avoided the TC because they would have had to either change the colors or add an outline.  Although the TC is in those colors on the batting helmet, so it would be fine.

[gosioux76]

21 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

Looking at pics, I think the old patch reads, but it's also a major part of the identity.  It's a logo used elsewhere in the park and other places.  Whereas I don't understand why they'd just put the shape of the state on the home uniform.  Seems like a City Connect move.  The TC or even the flags would have probably been better, but I imagine they avoided the TC because they would have had to either change the colors or add an outline.  Although the TC is in those colors on the batting helmet, so it would be fine.

 

I look at these Twins sets not solely as retro-inspired, but retro and simplified. 

 

I can't quibble with those of you who dislike that patch for the reasons you state. It's all fair criticism. But looking at the set as a whole -- simple wordmark without outlines, a softened and cleaned-up TC logo — it feels as if the design objective, in addition to drawing from the past, was to rid this set of any excess noise. Recognizing that, they created an exceedingly simple patch -- one color state shape, with a different color star. It helps that the star is the same used on the new road cap, linking it closer to the road set.

 

So I get why some people might not like the execution here -- the "big blue blob" as it were -- but, in my mind, it adheres to the total aesthetic of the uniform in keeping it exceedingly similar. Throwing a Minnie & Paul on there, even in simplified form, wouldn't have matched that objective. 

 

[raysox]

dying on the hill that the Dodgers have the only bad City Connect uniform since the beginning of these. The more I see these the more I like them. Fun nod to the history of several teams in their market, and very different from their current brand. I think the only thing is i'd like these more if the Serpentes Diamondbacks uniforms didn't exist yet in the same project.