Brian E Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 by visibility, they mean on merchandising, because why do you need more brand visibility on a product that you're already watching. nevermind the fact that the batterman wasn't even in that spot until the year 2000. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 36 minutes ago, Brian E said: by visibility, they mean on merchandising, because why do you need more brand visibility on a product that you're already watching. nevermind the fact that the batterman wasn't even in that spot until the year 2000. For the same reason that they have ads on what you're watching? Or why there are ads on outfield walls? Eyeballs on the item. 1 Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korkie Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 Watching the Phillies and Yankees game today. The Phillies are wearing the pinstripes and, like everyone else has said, they just look cheap. The lack of chain stitching, lack of sleeve numbers, and tiny names just feel off. I didn’t think it would be as noticeable and maybe it wouldn’t be for a non-uniform obsessive. I will get used to it, but when it comes to the Phillies they broke something that didnt need fixing. 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."Dr. Kelso: My son is a big baseball fan. Not so much playing it, but more the designing and sewing of uniforms.Tyler: That's neat.Dr. Kelso: No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroCreep Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 4 hours ago, aawagner011 said: This article claims that it was MLB, not Nike nor Fanatics, that led the decision to move the batterman logo down. The reason? Greater visibility. https://fansided.com/posts/mlb-insider-reveals-one-of-biggest-new-uniform-issues-is-entirely-league-s-fault-01hqenb3mb92 The quote is from Eduardo Perez from the Baseball Tonight with Buster Olney podcast. So they made it smaller and less visible as a result. Seems logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 4 hours ago, aawagner011 said: This article claims that it was MLB, not Nike nor Fanatics, that led the decision to move the batterman logo down. The reason? Greater visibility. https://fansided.com/posts/mlb-insider-reveals-one-of-biggest-new-uniform-issues-is-entirely-league-s-fault-01hqenb3mb92 The quote is from Eduardo Perez from the Baseball Tonight with Buster Olney podcast. So what they're saying is Nike made the placket smaller to accommodate the lower logo placement. How dumb can MLB / Nike be? Alternatively, how dumb do they think we are, to accept that explanation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaGlowin Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 I love the Mariners spring training hats but not matching the green jersey is awkward. Quote Last updated 2/26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 4 hours ago, aawagner011 said: This article claims that it was MLB, not Nike nor Fanatics, that led the decision to move the batterman logo down. The reason? Greater visibility. If they wanted visibility for the MLB logo, then they should have put that logo on the sleeve, where it was for all teams in 1969. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardsFan79 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 1 hour ago, CaliforniaGlowin said: I love the Mariners spring training hats but not matching the green jersey is awkward. My thoughts exactly when I saw them in action yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins93 Posted February 25 Share Posted February 25 I don't think the Diamondback's ST hat matches well with their jersey. Given the red logo and numbers, they need a red hat. There's not enough teal-ish color in their jersey for that hat to work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 I would have put the MLB logo above the cuff on the non-logo sleeve. I don't understand why it needs to be that prominent. MLB isn't really A Brand the way other leagues or its own teams are. NHL, same deal. 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 I think NBA was the first league to do this (85ish?) and I can maybe understand why. Maybe. Most of the teams outside of Boston and LA didn't have much visibility, so maybe they wanted it so that if you saw a photo of Indiana playing the Kings, you'd see the logo and know that those are NBA teams? Maybe? And with NFL, the logo coincided with the launch of Pro Line and more availability of authentic jerseys to fans (nothing like it is now, but I do recall when it started happening.) So it was a way to 1)separate an authentic from a replica, since most authentics were still on mesh with printed numbers, and 2) if you saw someone walking down a street in relatively plain jersey (Raiders or something with just stripes) a random person would recognize that it's for an NFL team. Again - maybe? For NHL and MLB, they were simply hopping on the bandwagon because nowadays if it's not there, it looks off, and maybe like they're not as important as the other leagues. As for MLB doing it for "visibility" purposes, while that may be their reasoning, I don't get it. The MLB "brand" isn't really a thing, and it's not like you don't see it on 80% of players, so I don't see any benefit to moving it. There's no benefit to trying to make the MLB brand equal to the players' or clubs. In fact, I think it could only hurt. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC985 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 9 hours ago, aawagner011 said: This article claims that it was MLB, not Nike nor Fanatics, that led the decision to move the batterman logo down. The reason? Greater visibility. https://fansided.com/posts/mlb-insider-reveals-one-of-biggest-new-uniform-issues-is-entirely-league-s-fault-01hqenb3mb92 The quote is from Eduardo Perez from the Baseball Tonight with Buster Olney podcast. I am probably getting way ahead of myself here, and I have nothing to back this up, but if you move the player name and number down by pushing down the MLB logo you have created a big space to add an advertisement patch and would only have to remove the MLB logo to accommodate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC985 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 For a sport that is often criticized for not doing enough to promote its players and teams, the people running the league make a lot of backward decisions. Instead of marketing our teams, and their players, lets make everyone wear the same uniform for the all-star game and wipe out all identifying marks. For our next trick, we should alter the uniform in a way that shrinks the players' names and makes the sport a complete laughingstock in public opinion. MLB's demise will be blamed on a lack of interest, but there will be other contributing factors. We are seeing them in real-time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlins93 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 I don't believe the "brand visibility" angle. At least the way, it's been voiced as a main driver for the logo being relocated. MLB is getting paid a billion dollars by Nike for this contract, so it seems like MLB is basically letting them do almost whatever they want in terms of cost-cutting measures. And rolling out gimmicks like City Connect. I am guessing that the more economical (and "efficient") template design is the culprit. Nike engineered it with such narrow plackets, that MLB was forced to either accept a smaller logo or relocate it. They opted for the latter option to sustain "brand visibility." It's shocking how much Nike is screwing this up. It really makes you wonder how much money they are actually saving from manufacturing and materials costs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 2 hours ago, BBTV said: As for MLB doing it for "visibility" purposes, while that may be their reasoning, I don't get it. The MLB "brand" isn't really a thing, and it's not like you don't see it on 80% of players, so I don't see any benefit to moving it. There's no benefit to trying to make the MLB brand equal to the players' or clubs. In fact, I think it could only hurt. The NBA is a popular television show and social-media content mill that is basically the Kardashians for men. Major League Baseball is just some abstract concept that won't let you do stuff without express written consent. It's about the teams, the teams, the teams. The NL/AL logos deserve more play than the MLB logo. 5 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaGlowin Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 4 hours ago, Marlins93 said: I don't think the Diamondback's ST hat matches well with their jersey. Given the red logo and numbers, they need a red hat. There's not enough teal-ish color in their jersey for that hat to work. Their black jersey has more turquoise than red. Looks great to me. 1 Quote Last updated 2/26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave-Bird 08 Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 I went to my local Dick's Sporting Goods today to see these jerseys in person. Even with my expectations low I was shocked to see something and am wondering if anyone else has noticed this: Not every, but multiple of the new Braves jerseys I saw hanging up had cuff stripes that were not equal width. Old version: Three-stripe piping of blue-red-blue laying on top of the sleeve material, about an inch up from the edge of the sleeve. All three stripes (or you could say, a thin red stripe on top of a thicker blue stripe) are the same width. (above detail is pretty much the convention for stripes on any sports uniform, especially baseball, for decades) New version: The cuff is a single piece of blue fabric (noticeably lighter shade of blue, btw) with a single red strip. However, on some of the jerseys the single red stripe was not centered on the blue fabric, but slightly closer to the edge of the cuff, leaving one blue stripe noticeably thicker than the other. My best guess in how this happened is that there's standard dimensions for the cuff on the end of the sleeve on the new template, but also standard line width for the blue-red-blue Braves stripe, creating a discrepancy to where if the red stripe is low enough for the bottom blue stripe to match up, it's too low for the top. What blew my mind was that this was inconsistent from jersey to jersey -- I was looking at multiple Braves home jerseys that were all in retail purposes the same, but some had equal-width stripes and some did not. These were selling for $175 a pop. Unbelievable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 On 2/24/2024 at 8:40 PM, FrutigerAero said: I thought it was just uniform nerds not liking the new uniforms, but this is making it to Wall Street Journal's front page... The names were one thing, the see-through stuff is just embarrassing. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 16 hours ago, aawagner011 said: This article claims that it was MLB, not Nike nor Fanatics, that led the decision to move the batterman logo down. The reason? Greater visibility. https://fansided.com/posts/mlb-insider-reveals-one-of-biggest-new-uniform-issues-is-entirely-league-s-fault-01hqenb3mb92 The quote is from Eduardo Perez from the Baseball Tonight with Buster Olney podcast. "And that's a decision that really wasn't made by Nike or the players or the teams. It was made by Major League Baseball" Sorry, i don't believe that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsarebad Posted February 26 Share Posted February 26 14 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said: Fewer players with longer hair obscuring the logo then compared to now? I kind of assumed this was an MLB move for that reason all along. Longer hair? Sounds insane..... but okay, who volunteers to check if there are more players with longer hair now And why would the league care about the logo, everyone know what they are watching, and that logo is everywhere, on the hat and pants as well. No, i say this is BS. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.