MLB 2023 Uniform/Logo Changes

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Sport said:

Historically speaking - Connie Mack wore a suit, Joe McCarthy never wore a number, Burt Shotton wore slacks and a handsome satin Dodgers jacket.

 

It's true that Connie Mack and Burt Shotten wore street clothes.  It's also true that Joe McCarthy (who started his Major League managerial career before the advent of uniform numbers) never wore a number.  Nor did John McGraw, who also began his career in the pre-number era.

 

And, out of the many hundreds people who have managed Major League clubs since the beginning of the 1930s, those are just about the only examples.  I believe the applicable idiom is "the exception that proves the rule".  To take the position that the managers and coaches wearing numbers is not the norm would be absurd.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Sport said:

I can't remember the last time I saw the Reds David Bell in his actual uniform top.

 

 

(Wearing number 25, the same number as his father and his grandfather.)

 

 

2 hours ago, Sport said:

What would look sloppier? The hoodie or wearing the actual uniform top without a number? 

 

There's no reason to believe that the managers who wear sweatshirts instead of jerseys would stop that slovenly practice if their jerseys had no numbers.  Solving that problem is going to take a rule.

 

 

2 hours ago, Sport said:

The Yankees went overboard with the number retiring (Would anyone have made a fuss if they never retired Paul O'Neill's #21?)

 

No.  And the same goes for Williams, Posada, and Pettitte.  I'd go further and say that the Yankees should never have retired the numbers of Billy Martin (who, all told, brought the Yankees more shame than glory) and Roger Maris.  Even the Scooter (whom I adore) is a borderline case.  (Though note that two very deservedly retired Yankee numbers belong to managers: Stengel's 37 and Torre's 6.)

 

The Yankees f-ed up a good thing.  They — and only they — should be responsible for remedying the problem that they themselves created, by putting some numbers back into circulation, instead of attacking a venerable tradition of nearly a century.

[monkeypower]

I think managers/coaches should still wear the baseball pants, because I find those can be pretty comfortable and I think it would keep some level of professionality over track pants or sweats, but the tops should just be whatever on-field apparel they want (or what Nike wants them to wear), similar to NFL coaches.

 

The full uniforms and numbers are a relic of a bygone era.

 

I also don't think Kevin Cash has ever worn a jersey managering.

[Sport]

3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It's true that Connie Mack and Burt Shotten wore street clothes.  It's also true that Joe McCarthy (who started his Major League managerial career before the advent of uniform numbers) never wore a number.  Nor did John McGraw, who also began his career in the pre-number era.

 

And, out of the many hundreds people who have managed Major League clubs since the beginning of the 1930s, those are just about the only examples.  I believe the applicable idiom is "the exception that proves the rule".  To take the position that the managers and coaches wearing numbers is not the norm would be absurd.

 

 

I didn't take that position. You took the position that the managers and coaches not wearing numbers "spits in the eye of history" when there's a long history of baseball managers not wearing numbers. Is it the norm since the 50's that managers wear numbers? Yes. Would a manager not wearing a number "spit in the eye of history?" Connie :censored:ing Mack says no.  

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

7 minutes ago, Sport said:

Is it the norm since the 50's that managers wear numbers? Yes.

 

It has been the norm since the 1930s, when teams introduced numbers.  (The Yankees actually began using numbers in 1929; though, as noted, despite their 1929 and 1930 managers wearing numbers, McCarthy didn't wear one during his long tenure starting in 1931 and lasting into the mid-1940s.)

[TBGKon]

7 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Maybe they're bringing the teal back partially to test the response?

I wouldnt count on it.  I's an anniversary year for the Marlins.  It's possible they're used as an alternate, but I wouldn't count full time just yet.

[McCall]

1 minute ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It has been the norm since the 1930s, when teams introduced numbers.  (The Yankees actually began using numbers in 1929; though, as noted, even though their 1929 and 1930 mangers wore numbers, McCarthy didn't wear one during his long tenure starting in 1931 and lasting into the mid-1940s.)

Just because something's "the norm", doesn't mean it's automatically unchangeable. You have to look at it at a case-by-case basis. To me, personally, I see no reason for managers/coaches to be wearing numbers. It makes no sense. Even if base coaches still wore a regular jersey, just their name without a number would still look ok and appropriate.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

9 minutes ago, McCall said:

Just because something's "the norm", doesn't mean it's automatically unchangeable.

 

That's true.  But a change of a longstanding policy requires a good reason, which is lacking here.

 

 

9 minutes ago, McCall said:

You have to look at it at a case-by-case basis.

 

OK, let's do that.

 

In no case other than that of the Yankees is there a shortage of numbers.  Ergo, this is not a problem that needs a league-wide solution.  It is a problem for the Yankees alone, purely as a result of that team's mismangement.

[McCall]

3 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

That's true.  But there needs to be a good reason, which is lacking here.

 

 

 

OK, let's do that.

 

In no case other than that of the Yankees is there a shortage of numbers.  Ergo, this is not a problem that needs a league-wide solution.  It is a problem for the Yankees alone, purely as a result of that team's mismangement.

You're assuming that availability of numbers is the only reason. It's not. It's a logical one. But not the only one. The fact that managers/coaches wear numbers in the first place, purely out of tradition, is something I, a rather traditionalist baseball fan, find absurd. It makes not sense. Baseball pants with either one of the tops they already usually wear, or a jersey without a number are just fine. AND justifiable.

[Sport]

15 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

It has been the norm since the 1930s, when teams introduced numbers.  (The Yankees actually began using numbers in 1929; though, as noted, despite their 1929 and 1930 managers wearing numbers, McCarthy didn't wear one during his long tenure starting in 1931 and lasting into the mid-1940s.)

 

Regardless, it wouldn't "spit in the eye of history" when history is that McCarthy and the others mentioned didn't wear a number. There's actual historical precedent for managers not wearing numbers. If the norm changed at some point, then that means it can change again.

 

That doesn't mean that I think we should go back to numberless jerseys for the players. When everyone wears 42 or the Red Sox-Yankees throwback game where nobody wore a number, it actually demonstrated how necessary the numbers are. For the players. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

26 minutes ago, Sport said:

If the norm changed at some point, then that means it can change again.

 

The norm changed for a good reason, namely, that teams introduced uniform numbers.  A few holdouts from the pre-number era (McCarthy, McGraw, Mack) are irrelevant, as is the lone latter-day case of Shotten.

 

 

28 minutes ago, McCall said:

You're assuming that availability of numbers is the only reason. It's not.

 

It is indeed the only reason that that this change was proposed by the Yankees.

 

 

28 minutes ago, McCall said:

The fact that managers/coaches wear numbers in the first place, purely out of tradition, is something I, a rather traditionalist baseball fan, find absurd. It makes no sense.

 

Such a statement is so terribly saddening.  

 

Note this is why seemingly little changes can sometimes arouse opposition that appears on its face to be outsized — because, over time, people can get accustomed to really bad things, until those become entrenched and normalised. That's been the case with pants worn with no sock showing; it's been the case with coloured road jerseys replacing grey; it's been the case with the inexplicable return of the unsightly powder blue (especially in its inappropriate use at home); it's been the case with managers not wearing jerseys (which was controversial when Buck did it with the Yankees, so much so that he received pressure to wear the jersey more often); it's been the case with World Series patches on caps and uniforms; and it will surely be the case with ads on the uniforms.

 

At least on that last question, most people here (who are self-selected for a deep interest in uniforms) have the good sense to be disgusted by the degradation of the aesthetic landscape.  But to realise that even those who should know better are prepared to accept a change as terrible as removing managers' and coaches' numbers, this provides grounds for despair.

[McCall]

10 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

The norm changed for a good reason, namely, that teams introduced uniform numbers.  A few holdouts from the pre-number era (McCarthy, McGraw, Mack) are irrelevant, as is the lone latter-day case of Shotten.

 

 

 

It is indeed the only reason that that this change was proposed by the Yankees.

 

 

 

Such a statement is so terribly saddening.  

 

Note this is why seemingly little changes can sometimes arouse opposition that appears on its face to be outsized — because, over time, people can get accustomed to really bad things, until those become entrenched and normalised. That's been the case with pants worn with no sock showing; it's been the case with coloured road jerseys replacing grey; it's been the case with the inexplicable return of the unsightly powder blue (especially in its inappropriate use at home); it's been the case with managers not wearing jerseys (which was controversial when Buck did it with the Yankees, so much so that he received pressure to wear the jersey more often); it's been the case with World Series patches on caps and uniforms; and it will surely be the case with ads on the uniforms.

 

At least on that last question, most people here (who are self-selected for a deep interest in uniforms) have the good sense to be disgusted by the degradation of the aesthetic landscape.  But to realise that even those who should know better are prepared to accept a change as terrible as removing managers' and coaches' numbers, this provides grounds for despair.

Why is it saddening? Because it's not YOUR opinion?

[BBTV]

Would the Yankees issuing “02” infringe on Jeter’s “2”?

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 minutes ago, McCall said:

Why is it saddening?

 

Because we would be losing something beautiful about the look of baseball, for no good reason.

 

 

Just now, BBTV said:

Would the Yankees issuing “02” infringe on Jeter’s “2”?

 

I imagine you are probably joshing.  But Benito Santiago's use of 09 with the Padres suggests that 09 and 9 are the same number.  

 

On the other hand, the Blue Jays once had, at the same time, players wearing 0 (Al Oliver) and 00 (Cliff Johnson).  

[BBTV]

I’m being serious. Santiago gave me the thought. It’s one way to reissue numbers without reissuing them (unless they’re considered the same for sports purposes like they are for math purposes). 

[McCall]

8 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Because we would be losing something beautiful about the look of baseball, for no good reason.

 

How is it "beautiful" to see a manager/coach wear a number for no reason? Not to mention you might the only person in existence to ever refer to it as "beautiful".

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 minute ago, McCall said:

How is it "beautiful" to see a manager/coach wear a number for no reason? Not to mention you might the only person in existence to ever refer to it as "beautiful".

 

The uniformity is indeed beautiful.  Uniforms without numbers are for batboys and ball girls. 

[OnWis97]

On 3/30/2023 at 9:42 AM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

F no!  There aren't enough curse words available to sufficiently condemn this idea.  Shame on the Yankees, of all teams, for advancing such an anti-historical proposition.  It's one more reason to be glad that I retired upon the introduction of the abomination of interleague play after the 1996 season.  The only current aspect of Major League Baseball that I follow is the uniforms; so this absurd idea (along with the unsightly practice of players not showing any sock) still has the power to irk me. 

 

The article mentions that "Very few players want higher numbers typically associated with NFL offensive tackles, hockey defensemen[,] or back-of-the-roster scrubs." So the obvious solution presents itself: give those undesireable numbers to the manager and the coaching staff. Problem solved.

 

It's definitely true that the Yankees have retired too damn many numbers.  Therefore the onus to remedy the problem that they themselves caused must be on them, not on all of Major League Baseball by means of an offensive practice that spits in the eye of history.

Your reaction is really over-the-top. And I am with you. I know I'm in the minority but I like uniformed coaches...they have a different relationship with the field.  Base-coaches are on the field at at all times. Other coaches go to the mound. It's not the same in other team sports. As ridiculous as an NBA, NFL, or NHL coach would look in full uniform, I think MLB coaches would look strange in street clothes. 

 

They can still dress the same, I guess (pretty much only base-coaches wear jerseys, now) so it' not like they'll be wearing suits or even khakis and polos. But I like the numbers being issued to them and as you point out, their coaches can wear numbers like 67 and 83.

[CaliforniaGlowin]

This dude needs to design the next Dodgers city jersey

 

[adsarebad]

12 hours ago, Marlins93 said:

 

I've railed over the rebrand (2019 to the present) since its introduction, and I still feel that it is bottom three in all of MLB. If you look around the park, most fans are either wearing the City Connects or old school teal. I don't think that the rebrand ever really caught on or was warmly embraced by the fanbase. Now that Jeter is gone, hopefully it can be scrapped.

 

 

I used to think that 1996-2002 was the best era for the team's uniforms, but the teal throwback hats worn on Friday and during the 25th anniversary celebration in 2018 have reassured me that's the best look for the franchise. Back in 1993 they might have looked a bit dorky due to materials, sizing, and MLB fashion trends, but they look very much at home now in 2023.

 

 

Fans didn't turn on orange because of Marlins Man. It was a reviled decision from the very beginning. The entire fanbase collectively dry heaved the moment the 2012 uniforms were unveiled. It's so strange that they made orange, the color of all of those empty seats in the old football stadium, a major part of their new identity. It's very telling that the orange hats were hardly worn, even if they technically remained part of the official uniform set.

true.... but compared to what the marlins wear now..... that orange jersey, along with the white one, and the black one,  were excellent 

[adsarebad]

16 hours ago, McCall said:

The hats were literally the exact same orange hats made by New Era. The oranges only differentiated in print, where the Astros use pantone 173 (which is darker than their uniform orange) and the Marlins used Warm Red, which they called "red-orange", and also different than the stock orange of the hats (pantone 172). And Miami never called it "Mandarin".

But i have Aut.  Astros jerseys and  Marlins jerseys ........ don't think they are the same orange color at all. You are saying the hats were the same orange color?

or am i just misunderstanding something?