MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[McCall]

9 hours ago, bbush24 said:

 

Rough job but it's something

 

 

Yeah that looks too green, giving off the 90s Bucks vibe. They used pantone 323, a darker teal.

[bbush24]

51 minutes ago, McCall said:

Yeah that looks too green, giving off the 90s Bucks vibe. They used pantone 323, a darker teal.

 

Yeahhhh I tried matching it from an old pic from the 90s but I think the lighting was different and it didn't turn out quite right. My bad.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

On 10/5/2023 at 12:17 PM, fortunat1 said:

I don't like the Diamondbacks' current home jersey (and previous red & teal jerseys) for a few reasons. I generally prefer their sand color because it complements the red and black color scheme much better than their current teal imo. It also doesn't help that the current teal is so bright. Contrast is good, but the current shade feels offensive to my eyes, kinda like a highlighter.

 

On top of that, their jerseys that use(d) that shade of teal always had really poor color balance, and leave red and teal as secondary colors that do nothing but clash with each other. Even with teal numbers on the front, the jersey seemed almost entirely black and teal, which isnt how I envision the Diamondbacks. If they really did want to go red + black + teal full time, I feel like it would need to be with a red-dominant identity with black and a more muted teal as the secondary colors. Even then I'd much prefer the red + sand scheme or the 90s colors before that.

 

Outside of all that, they would benefit from committing one way or the other. Not a red + teal home jersey with a red + sand road jersey. Just choose a color scheme and embrace it.

 

When the "turquoise" was introduced, I was crying to the heavens over it.  It's not a throwback.  It's Irish friggin' Springs.  It's soap.  It's a literal pale imitation.  The color is sapped out of it and it's never looked right.

 

When they said they were introducing an old color to the existing set, I really expected it to be purple.  I'd love to see how they'd look in a red/purple/copper set.  Sedona red is nice, and it would be a shame to see it go fully.  Doing some very shoddy mockups (too shoddy to share) using the below pic does show the chest logo looks sharp in those colors.

 

But the problem is if you're going to reintroduce the old set with one color difference, it's going to be a hard sell to not just go all the way.  Although it did work for Milwaukee... 

 

(And then there's always going with all five like the Coyotes have in their history.  Anyone up for kachina D-Backs?)

 

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

No uniform should ever say "D-Backs".  If the name needs to be abbreviated, it's a bad name.

 

This is a perfect uniform (though uniforms with only a chest logo and no numbers should always be on a raglan template - no exceptions):

 

I could take or lose the number font, but this is a classic look that's appropriate for Arizona (not saying that the current scheme isn't) and could be worn for decades without feeling dated.

 

If you want to recolor the current road then that's fine, but I think they'd end up like the Cubs used to be where they had a relatively-untouchable home uniform but tinkered with the road every 3 or 4 years.  And that's fine!  Just keep the home the same forever*

 

 

*in this case, forever means "until they relocate because nobody cares"

 

Unless it's in huge print and gradient.  Then people love it.

 

(EDIT: Whoops, for some reason I thought you said any name that necessitates being broken up into two lines, like their old roads, shouldn't exist.  Well, I referenced this pic above, so I'll leave it.)

 

13 hours ago, bbush24 said:

Rough job but it's something

 

 

 

Wow...  I don't know if it's the shades that are being used, but my immediate thought on looking at this is that this is how Colorado should look.

[McCall]

21 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

When the "turquoise" was introduced, I was crying to the heavens over it.  It's not a throwback.  It's Irish friggin' Springs.  It's soap.  It's a literal pale imitation.  The color is sapped out of it and it's never looked right.

 

It's literally NOT Irish Spring green. Their current turquoise (pms 319) is 1 point below the Marlins original teal (pms 320). Their original turquoise was pms 323, which is closer to the greens on the pantone color chart. 319 is on the bluer side of teals/turquoises.

 

And just for good measure...

 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

3 minutes ago, McCall said:

It's literally NOT Irish Spring green. Their current turquoise (pms 319) is 1 point below the Marlins original teal (pms 320). Their original turquoise was pms 323, which is closer to the greens on the pantone color chart. 319 is on the bluer side of teals/turquoises.

 

And just for good measure...

 

 

Yeah, I don't know why I said "Irish Spring".  Perhaps because it's one of the more famous brands in popular culture, at least in my lifetime.  Honestly, I've never seen a bar.  I personally use Dove, but the brand I've seen everyone else use is Coast, which is what I meant.

 

 

Nevertheless, that's a far difference between two shades.  It looks so washed out compared to the original hue.  Those two colors look so different side-by-side I kinda would like to see a team run with those as an identity.

 

It is crazy, tho how it does look darker as a swatch than it seems to me looking at the thing.  I wonder if it's a matter of materials or lighting.

[McCall]

7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

Yeah, I don't know why I said "Irish Spring".  Perhaps because it's one of the more famous brands in popular culture, at least in my lifetime.  Honestly, I've never seen a bar.  I personally use Dove, but the brand I've seen everyone else use is Coast, which is what I meant.

 

 

Nevertheless, that's a far difference between two shades.  It looks so washed out compared to the original hue.  Those two colors look so different side-by-side I kinda would like to see a team run with those as an identity.

 

It is crazy, tho how it does look darker as a swatch than it seems to me looking at the thing.  I wonder if it's a matter of materials or lighting.

Actually it's the more accurate shade. Google "Arizona Turquoise".

[The_Admiral]

Just popping to say what a miserable road uniform this was:

 

 

Part of the reason I don't want them to roll back to their first set is that I don't want them to revisit anything like this. It does so many things I hate in one place: 

- vests

- pinstripes on grey

- black for black's sake

- black drop shadows

- becoming dark and drab on the road 

- knocking out a team color from the home uniform completely

- cap monogram that is the first letter of the nickname

- cap monogram that isn't same as the one at home

- the late '90s Matrix numbers

 

Brick/sand/black probably makes the most sense for them. I really like the brick/turquoise/black combo, but the Marlins decided to come too close to it. 

[BBTV]

20 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Just popping to say what a miserable road uniform this was:

 

 

Part of the reason I don't want them to roll back to their first set is that I don't want them to revisit anything like this. It does so many things I hate in one place: 

- vests

- pinstripes on grey

- black for black's sake

- black drop shadows

- becoming dark and drab on the road 

- knocking out a team color from the home uniform completely

- cap monogram that is the first letter of the nickname

- cap monogram that isn't same as the one at home

- the late '90s Matrix numbers

 

Brick/sand/black probably makes the most sense for them. I really like the brick/turquoise/black combo, but the Marlins decided to come too close to it. 

 

they can go back to something like the original home without going back to that awful uniform, which is awful, for all the awful reasons you mentioned.

 

I'd take a pinstripeless sand version of the A-chest uniform as a road uniform and call it a day.

[SFGiants58]

33 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Just popping to say what a miserable road uniform this was:

 

 

Part of the reason I don't want them to roll back to their first set is that I don't want them to revisit anything like this. It does so many things I hate in one place: 

 

 

I tried to make that '98-'06 set work in modernity.

 

 

I maintain that the "db" is way better than the snake swallowing the ball.

[gosioux76]

On 10/6/2023 at 10:15 AM, BBTV said:

 

 

I was watching a replay of a Cubs game from the '80s, with the pullover blue jerseys, and it occurred to me how strange it looks to have a logo on just the left side of a baseball jersey.

 

I realize it's become a standard practice for baseball, but seeing it on that Cubs jersey just made it seem so random, especially because it was a pullover rather than the buttom-up style, which I'm sure why the logo-on-the-left thing became so common.

 

Anyway, after seeing the Cubs jersey that way I now look at all  baseball jerseys with only a logo on the left as sort of odd an unbalanced. That's why I prefer the Arizona's abbreviated D-Backs wordmark over this example. 

[The_Admiral]

It's an insignia over the heart. It goes where a front pocket would go. Doesn't strike me as that weird.

[BBTV]

26 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I was watching a replay of a Cubs game from the '80s, with the pullover blue jerseys, and it occurred to me how strange it looks to have a logo on just the left side of a baseball jersey.

 

I realize it's become a standard practice for baseball, but seeing it on that Cubs jersey just made it seem so random, especially because it was a pullover rather than the buttom-up style, which I'm sure why the logo-on-the-left thing became so common.

 

Anyway, after seeing the Cubs jersey that way I now look at all  baseball jerseys with only a logo on the left as sort of odd an unbalanced. That's why I prefer the Arizona's abbreviated D-Backs wordmark over this example. 

 

That jersey also looked strange, but at least to me, it was just because it was a pullover.  It's also why I think the Blue Jays made the right call by putting the logo in the middle of their pullover jerseys, rather than the left side like where they moved it to after converting to buttons.

 

At least to me, the Yankees are the standard, so if they do it then it's a traditional baseball look.  Same with Detroit (though I chose the Yankees due to the pinstripes.)

 

In fact, I prefer just the logo on the chest as opposed to the logo / number combo that the White Sox, 70s-80s Phillies, and other teams have used.  For some reason I think the Expos worked better with the number then they would have without, but I can't tell you why.

 

Just my preference.   I don't find anything strange about this look at all (though it's absolutely strange on a pullover).  That Arizona jersey fits right in:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheBigFiz21]

I didn't think it was possible to improve upon the 2012 Wild Card game, but if Game 1 speaks volumes, then Orioles-Rangers does just that now that Texas dropped the extra outlines on their roads and blue alts.

 

Also, I'm a little surprised, but not too much that the O's went with white instead of orange, making it like Opening Day 2.0 at the ballpark.

[OnWis97]

Houston’s ad patch is huge and obnoxious.

[MJD7]

15 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

Houston’s ad patch is huge and obnoxious.

The giant sign of the same company in left-center field is equally as huge & obnoxious. It’s really overkill.

[MJD7]

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm starting to think the Phillies might be in a Tampa Bay Bucs situation where their main identity and their throwback ought to coexist, rather than going strictly with one or the other.

 

I'd always felt the Phillies should go back to the maroon & powder blue, but the more I see their red pinstriped uniform in Citizens Bank Park, the less I can imagine them without it. I'd probably prefer maroon when it comes to the away & alternate jerseys, but the red candy cane pinstripes just feel right for them.

 

Maybe it's due to the success they've had with them in the late 2000's as well as the past couple years that's affecting my opinion, I don't know. But keeping red as the primary while reserving maroon for a throwback might be the way to go moving forward.

[VampyrRabbit]

On 2023-10-07 at 1:41 PM, McCall said:

Actually it's the more accurate shade. Google "Arizona Turquoise".

The shade the Diamondbacks used was still within the colour range for Arizona Turquoise though.

On 2023-10-07 at 5:09 PM, SFGiants58 said:

 

I tried to make that '98-'06 set work in modernity.

 

 

I maintain that the "db" is way better than the snake swallowing the ball.

The db Snakehead and the A look like they were designed by the same people and took the same inspiration, and those two feel like a natural fit, far more than the original snake sleeve patch or either of the D-Snakes.

[Kramerica Industries]

The Phillies are one of those teams where they have a colored jersey but they wear it very rarely...catches me off-guard to see them wear it in an NLCS game.

 

To wit - according to Uniformlineup, they only wore those jerseys 18 times during the regular season (if I counted correctly), which amounts to an average of three games per month.

[coco1997]

How long have the front numbers on the D-backs home jerseys been turquoise? When they debuted their current look prior to the 2016 season, I remember the front numbers being black and just trimmed in turquoise.

[McCall]

1 hour ago, coco1997 said:

How long have the front numbers on the D-backs home jerseys been turquoise? When they debuted their current look prior to the 2016 season, I remember the front numbers being black and just trimmed in turquoise.

2020 when they updated the set and removed the diamond patterns.