MLB 2024 Uniform/Logo Changes

[bcon_731]

3 hours ago, adsarebad said:

look at the replies..... the fans hate them

-

 

These arent horrible, they're pretty safe. If nike would of done a simple V neck, it would look alot cleaner. They also couldve done the jersey # on the front. I do like the sleeve patch tho. 

[Silent Wind of Doom]

This...  This right here...

 

 

This is the thing I absolutely hate most of the new uniforms.  This stupid, forced arch name kerning.  Looks terrible.

 

(Although, I admit, our uni set didn't change because of the new template, and I can understand people having other qualms for being forced to lose something.)

 

On 5/6/2024 at 12:04 PM, adsarebad said:

Agree, should be orange somewhere..... and how can you not somehow incorporate  the much underused Tiger logo we see here on sportslogos.

 

At least put that tiger on the hat!  

 

They did!  It's... on the socks.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, bcon_731 said:

These arent horrible, they're pretty safe. If nike would of done a simple V neck, it would look alot cleaner. They also couldve done the jersey # on the front. I do like the sleeve patch tho. 

 

They are horrible, for the following reasons (not in any specific order.)

 

1. The navy on the jersey is very-noticeably different than the navy on the hat.  They don't look like they're part of the same uniform set.

 

2. The aforementioned Nike V-ish neck.  FFS, that's simply Nike trying to  brand it twice without putting another swoosh on there.

 

3.  Speaking of the swoosh, could it stand out any. more?  Being the only thing in a sea of white on that side of the jersey (and bright red, so it contrasts with the navy sleeves.)  It's awful under any circumstance, but at least if it was navy, then removing it wouldn't upseat the color balance at all.  By making it red, it's essentially an integral part of the jersey - making it just as much Nike's as it is Washington's.

 

4.  I don't necessarily hate colored raglan sleeves, though they do look a little little-league.  Still, there's precedence in MLB for it.  What I don't like is that one of the sleeves is empty.  Obviously there will be another ad there eventually, but it still looks odd.

 

5.  I know a few (but not many) other teams in the past have used a chest logo and nothing else (the A's come to mind).  I"m not sure if any were white though.  The white looks so... plain.  I'm not counting the Cubs, since the pinstripes broke up the sea of white.  I think a script would have worked much better.

 

6.  If that V-ish neck is how Nike is going to do things, I'd rather teams go to a henley style.  I don't personally "get" the henley, as I don't know anyone that buttons any of the buttons (so they're effectively just v-necks anyway), but it'd work very well for a baseball uniform.  You avoid the awkward placket breaks, while maintaining the traditional collar trim and overall "look".

[BBTV]

8 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

This...  This right here...

 

 

This is the thing I absolutely hate most of the new uniforms.  This stupid, forced arch name kerning.  Looks terrible.

 

 

At this point, move the number up and put the NOB underneath it in a straight line.

[FiddySicks]

10 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I feel like the Jays want something that any Canadian would want to buy, so I'd be surprised if they reference something too specific about the city. It could be cool to base the design off something like the old Honest Ed's signage, but I doubt that would resonate with people in New Brunswick or Saskatchewan.

 

Which seems weird to me because 

 

A.) It goes against the idea of a CITYConnect

B.) Unless they ditched the red Canada Day unis, they already have that. 
 

It’s probably gonna be red and black and say NORTH on it. 

[adsarebad]

5 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

This...  This right here...

 

 

This is the thing I absolutely hate most of the new uniforms.  This stupid, forced arch name kerning.  Looks terrible.

 

(Although, I admit, our uni set didn't change because of the new template, and I can understand people having other qualms for being forced to lose something.)

 

 

They did!  It's... on the socks.

LOL, i mean the orange tiger that steps out from behind the D

 

 

*snicker* 

[spartacat_12]

11 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

B.) Unless they ditched the red Canada Day unis, they already have that. 

 

I believe they have ditched them. They already have 4 other jerseys in the rotation (white, grey, royal blue, powder blue).

[M59]

13 hours ago, BBTV said:

 If that V-ish neck is how Nike is going to do things, I'd rather teams go to a henley style.  I don't personally "get" the henley, as I don't know anyone that buttons any of the buttons (so they're effectively just v-necks anyway), but it'd work very well for a baseball uniform.  You avoid the awkward placket breaks, while maintaining the traditional collar trim and overall "look".

The Orioles 1994 black alternates were henleys, and looked quite nice. Nike is capable of producing this style of shirt (they have Tiger Woods branded henley golf shirts) and it would look SO MUCH BETTER than the weird basketball collar they're forcing on MLB.
Given the problems the Orioles have had with the "high i" script and plackets, I've advocated for them to go to henleys...to the usual response from the group. Oh, well...

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, M59 said:

The Orioles 1994 black alternates were henleys, and looked quite nice. Nike is capable of producing this style of shirt (they have Tiger Woods branded henley golf shirts) and it would look SO MUCH BETTER than the weird basketball collar they're forcing on MLB.
Given the problems the Orioles have had with the "high i" script and plackets, I've advocated for them to go to henleys...to the usual response from the group. Oh, well...

Whats the “usual responses?”

[DCarp1231]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:20 PM, Andrew_Gamer_NZP said:

Nationals debuted their new pullovers today.

 

I love pullovers, but man does this one suck

[AnPheitseog]

3 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I believe they have ditched them. They already have 4 other jerseys in the rotation (white, grey, royal blue, powder blue).

It's very possible that they've been taken from the rotation and just put in as a special jersey. Aka how they wore them last year

[tsizer]

Who else feels like they stray a little too far with the city connects?

 

[Brave-Bird 08]

26 minutes ago, tsizer said:

Who else feels like they stray a little too far with the city connects?

 

 

Ridiculously far. 

 

Braves, Angels, Mariners and Astros are the only ones I like. 

 

and the Braves isn't really that good, but I am just appreciative -- in hindsight since this program is further along -- that they look unquestionably like the Braves when they're in them. For most teams you can't even tell who you are watching. 

[aawagner011]

27 minutes ago, tsizer said:

Who else feels like they stray a little too far with the city connects?

 

From the mothership:

 

 

Of these, I would say only half look somewhat or even vaguely like the club they are supposed to represent. And I think that’s the problem with the City Connect program. While it allows teams to explore alternate identities, too many of them stray too far from the norm and have zero relation to the team. I think a better approach would be to run a heritage program, as we have seen a bit in the NHL. It allows teams to offer variety without going too far outside their normal color palette. Heck, you could even tie it into the Cooperstown angle, as we have seen Majestic and Nike do the last decade or so with the merchandise they’ve offered.

[aawagner011]

9 minutes ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

 

Ridiculously far. 

 

Braves, Angels, Mariners and Astros are the only ones I like. 

 

and the Braves isn't really that good, but I am just appreciative -- in hindsight since this program is further along -- that they look unquestionably like the Braves when they're in them. For most teams you can't even tell who you are watching. 

I think we might have similar taste. I agree with you on those four, though I am not a huge fan of the slogans or nicknames on the jerseys (Space City, Brew Crew, Wrigleyville, etc).

 

There are a couple more that I’d add into the “good” category. I really like the White Sox and they are one of the few that I don’t hate the different wordmark. But if it were a full time identity, I’d prefer the standard White Sox logo. But I love the pins on the black uniform with the matching pants, and I kinda like the number font.

 

The Royals is good. They play it pretty safe but it could be an every day MLB uniform. Same with the Diamondbacks.

 

The Marlins is a fun deviation from their normal look while still feeling very Miami. I don’t love the cap logo but appreciate its historical significance. The script is beautiful.

 

Lastly, I kinda like the Orioles but only when the uniform is worn how it first released, with the pops of color hidden. The all black with simple wordmark and basic cap logo make me think of a retro uniform from the 1920s or so.

 

The rest are trash. Burn them all.

[Bill0813]

On 5/3/2024 at 10:05 AM, TheBigFiz21 said:

Cherry blossoms and un-clippable wings. Coming soon.

 

Sorry, but I dislike the Baltimore CC uniforms for the simple reason being that they're 5-9 (0-3 in '24) wearing them.  They're going to be the Friday night home uniform all season.   At least the "B" cap is an upgrade over the stupid O's cap with the upside down apostrophe.  Change the "B" from white to orange, just as it is on the road uniforms,  and burn the rest of the look.

 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

Houston and Boston are still my top 2.

[VikWings]

6 hours ago, aawagner011 said:

From the mothership:

 

 

Of these, I would say only half look somewhat or even vaguely like the club they are supposed to represent. And I think that’s the problem with the City Connect program. While it allows teams to explore alternate identities, too many of them stray too far from the norm and have zero relation to the team. I think a better approach would be to run a heritage program, as we have seen a bit in the NHL. It allows teams to offer variety without going too far outside their normal color palette. Heck, you could even tie it into the Cooperstown angle, as we have seen Majestic and Nike do the last decade or so with the merchandise they’ve offered.

 

The only ones in my opinion that are truly terrible are the Giants, Phillies and Reds. I'm not a big fan of the Rangers either but some people seem to like them. Boston is nice in a vacuum, but the Red Sox shouldn't be wearing blue and yellow and UCLA hats. 

 

Seattle is ruined by the black pants. Pirates are ruined by the PGH. Colorado is more tolerable when they wear white pants,

 

I love the Marlins, White Sox and Rays (just wish they had colored numbers/word mark). Diamondbacks and Astros (wish this said Houston instead of Space City) would probably round out my top 5. I like that the Braves said "since we have to get rid of the throwback here's something close to it."

 

I like the Padres and Phillies hats. And the Brewers grill logo.

[fouhy12]

In a sport where you play 162 games, I think experimenting a bit with the uniforms and the branding is totally acceptable. I like the City Connect project idea, but I think a lot of these are just ok at executing it.

 

One example: Washington. The jersey looks great up close, and the branding is really cool. But, on TV, it ends up looking a bit dull and washed out with a grey and pastel pink base. If you're going to do something like that, lean all the way in and make sure the pink is really visible from a distance. 

 

As an aside, I would make sure that each team declares home and road uniforms (and perhaps a clash set if needed) and make a rule that it must be worn at least once in every series. That would make sure we always get classic jersey matchups and teams can't over use alternates. 

[655321]

 

2 legit 2 quit.