adsarebad Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 13 hours ago, spartacat_12 said: Not surprising, but Fanatics is taking no accountability for this mess, and is doubling down on the fact that them & Nike think the uniforms are an improvement over what came before them. I agree with Rubin that they just did what they were told.... but then he goes on to kiss Nike's ass and doubling down, and saying the uniforms are an improvement, and players will just have to get used to them! And that is where his (and his Company) true colors shine through. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Here's what he does with the Fanatics and (formerly) the Sixers money. This guy's parties are legendary. Oh what I'd give to be a 5'6" jewish billionaire that gets pro athletes and rappers to temporarily put aside their war against the chosen ones. NGL, he's living the life. Think I might start my own cheap-ass bullcrap poor-shipping and no-customer-service-having apparel company. 2 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...
M59 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 Cardinals have also swapped their distinctive front number font for a miniature version of the back numbers (just like the knockoff jerseys always did)...and they're having a mismatched road colors issue. https://uni-watch.com/2024/02/29/mlb-nike-fiasco-now-features-mismatched-road-greys/#comment-1049826 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Wind of Doom Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 15 hours ago, BBTV said: why on earth do some teams put the front number so low when it's on the right (viewer's left) side? I can't think of any scenario where that's preferable to putting it parallel with the logo. I've never really found this odd and the Reds having the number up at the same level seemed unique and different. But I just realized looking at it why it is the way it is. Front numbers came into existence on uniforms with wordmarks across the chest. When they were put on uniforms with just a logo on one side of the chest, I imagine no one thought to switch the numbers from where they originally were even though there now wasn't a wordmark in the way of higher placement. It just felt like the natural place where front numbers go. Probably why until you asked I never thought it was an oddity in any way. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 5 hours ago, BBTV said: Here's what he does with the Fanatics and (formerly) the Sixers money. This guy's parties are legendary. Oh what I'd give to be a 5'6" jewish billionaire that gets pro athletes and rappers to temporarily put aside their war against the chosen ones. NGL, he's living the life. Think I might start my own cheap-ass bullcrap poor-shipping and no-customer-service-having apparel company. They're wearing the same material as the new MLB uniforms. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave-Bird 08 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 4 hours ago, M59 said: Cardinals have also swapped their distinctive front number font for a miniature version of the back numbers (just like the knockoff jerseys always did)...and they're having a mismatched road colors issue. https://uni-watch.com/2024/02/29/mlb-nike-fiasco-now-features-mismatched-road-greys/#comment-1049826 If this doesn't get fixed before the regular season... What bothers me even more is I can see MLB and Nike using some type of "material matching challenges" as justification for eventually moving every team off of grey tops for road uniforms, and then phasing out grey pants. Within 2 seasons we will all have teams dressing in colored tops over white pants and/or their gaudy City Connect uniforms because "well, we just couldn't match the grey color" Same thing that has happened with shiny pants in college football and the NFL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 1 hour ago, Brave-Bird 08 said: If this doesn't get fixed before the regular season... What bothers me even more is I can see MLB and Nike using some type of "material matching challenges" as justification for eventually moving every team off of grey tops for road uniforms, and then phasing out grey pants. Within 2 seasons we will all have teams dressing in colored tops over white pants and/or their gaudy City Connect uniforms because "well, we just couldn't match the grey color" Same thing that has happened with shiny pants in college football and the NFL. This will surely be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but I wouldn't be super upset to see the end of gray jerseys. Grey pants? That would irritate me a bit. But the jerseys wouldn't upset me that much. I wouldn't mind at all if the Orioles had two orange and two black jerseys (one each with "Orioles" and one each with "Baltimore" script on the front), scrapped the white, grey and Cash Grab Connect jerseys. And, given the current state of MLB plackets, go ahead and make them two-button henley pullovers. But that's just me. I'd also send the O's cap straight back to hell. Again, that's just me. 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 5 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said: I've never really found this odd and the Reds having the number up at the same level seemed unique and different. But I just realized looking at it why it is the way it is. Front numbers came into existence on uniforms with wordmarks across the chest. When they were put on uniforms with just a logo on one side of the chest, I imagine no one thought to switch the numbers from where they originally were even though there now wasn't a wordmark in the way of higher placement. It just felt like the natural place where front numbers go. Probably why until you asked I never thought it was an oddity in any way. But historically, teams with chest logos never put the number low. It's actually a more recent thing. 2 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...
The_Admiral Posted March 2 Share Posted March 2 10 hours ago, BBTV said: Oh what I'd give to be a 5'6" jewish billionaire that gets pro athletes and rappers to temporarily put aside their war against the chosen ones. I was thinking the other day about Mickey Monus, founded of Phar-Mor and erstwhile investor in the Colorado Rockies, who bankrupted Phar-Mor by cooking the books and embezzling millions of dollars to fund a professional basketball league for people who weren't particularly tall, in what can only be called the most Jewish crime ever committed 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...
Moseph Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 On 2/29/2024 at 10:04 AM, ptay said: The Nats used to have a red alternate cap with a navy bill. That would balance out the look a bit more. They've just blown through so many hats and jerseys already that their identity is becoming so muddled. That was my favorite Nats hat, way better than the all red home version. I'm glad they are bringing that color scheme back for the BP hats this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadSeed84 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 6 hours ago, BBTV said: But historically, teams with chest logos never put the number low. It's actually a more recent thing. Makes me wonder who the 1st team to have the odd low numbers were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damnyoutuesday Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 55 minutes ago, BadSeed84 said: Makes me wonder who the 1st team to have the odd low numbers were. According to the mothership, the 2002 Colorado Rockies alternate white uniform with the chest logo was the first Quote Sorry, I'm on an iPad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Wind of Doom Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 8 hours ago, BBTV said: But historically, teams with chest logos never put the number low. It's actually a more recent thing. Huh. You're right. I'd forgotten how far back some of those examples go. I went to the Dressed to the Nines archive and unfortunately it doesn't show alternates and it turns out all of the examples nowadays seem to be alternates. But, it did show that those who do it nowadays wore them alongside or after wearing wordmarks with front numbers, so perhaps it was just a matter of one team saying "we put the numbers here, so keep doing it" and others following or just a number of people coming to that same conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 6 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said: Huh. You're right. As has been confirmed dozens of times by dozens of members, this is generally the case. 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...
BBTV Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said: Huh. You're right. I'd forgotten how far back some of those examples go. I went to the Dressed to the Nines archive and unfortunately it doesn't show alternates and it turns out all of the examples nowadays seem to be alternates. But, it did show that those who do it nowadays wore them alongside or after wearing wordmarks with front numbers, so perhaps it was just a matter of one team saying "we put the numbers here, so keep doing it" and others following or just a number of people coming to that same conclusion. Also, Dressed To The Nines is basically obsolete now. It's not even HTTPS. I refer to this site for uniform histories, as it's almost all game-worn stuff, and insanely thorough. Now I have caught at least one discrepancy where a Phillies jersey with bootleg numbers was shown, but overall I trust the site. EDIT: unfortunately it stopped being updated in the late 2010s, but it's the best resource I've found for anything up to that point. https://mlbcollectors.com/index.php 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...
oldschoolvikings Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 15 hours ago, BBTV said: But historically, teams with chest logos never put the number low. It's actually a more recent thing. 7 hours ago, MNtwins3 said: According to the mothership, the 2002 Colorado Rockies alternate white uniform with the chest logo was the first 7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said: Huh. You're right. I'd forgotten how far back some of those examples go. I went to the Dressed to the Nines archive and unfortunately it doesn't show alternates and it turns out all of the examples nowadays seem to be alternates. But, it did show that those who do it nowadays wore them alongside or after wearing wordmarks with front numbers, so perhaps it was just a matter of one team saying "we put the numbers here, so keep doing it" and others following or just a number of people coming to that same conclusion. 27 minutes ago, BBTV said: As has been confirmed dozens of times by dozens of members, this is generally the case. 3 Quote http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said: I didn't count that because it seemed necessitated due to the vest (2 digit numbers would never fit there) but I suppose it's one example. My point still holds - the majority of early examples are in line with the logo 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...
Silent Wind of Doom Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 Also I didn't think that or the White Sox because it was high enough to at least overlap whereas I thought we were specifically talking about severely lower numbers. Although that Oakland example may be just as low and the A is just huuuuuuge. It seems taller than the usual chest logo. Besides the URL and the lack of alternates, what makes Dressed to the Nines obsolete, especially when it's still getting updated? I've always found it useful for finding trends. Set to the larges amount of unis per page and see what year a change was made in a few seconds/the rise of powder blue and pullovers/etc. Besides, alternates exploded in this millennium and I have my own records past 2007. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 7 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said: Also I didn't think that or the White Sox because it was high enough to at least overlap whereas I thought we were specifically talking about severely lower numbers. Although that Oakland example may be just as low and the A is just huuuuuuge. It seems taller than the usual chest logo. Besides the URL and the lack of alternates, what makes Dressed to the Nines obsolete, especially when it's still getting updated? I've always found it useful for finding trends. Set to the larges amount of unis per page and see what year a change was made in a few seconds/the rise of powder blue and pullovers/etc. Besides, alternates exploded in this millennium and I have my own records past 2007. The URL isn't trivial, but the lack of alternates is a big deal - especially since some teams have a relatively-equal rotation of jerseys rather than what used to be considered "alternates". Example would be the Padres, who designated their "brown" jerseys as "road", so you wouldn't even know that they had a gray/sand version of their home. Also, the Marlins seem to wear black more than gray, but the black is nowhere to be found. Also the template was horrific from 95-00, but that's been improved upon. 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...
ddub53 Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 On 3/2/2024 at 2:13 PM, Brave-Bird 08 said: If this doesn't get fixed before the regular season... What bothers me even more is I can see MLB and Nike using some type of "material matching challenges" as justification for eventually moving every team off of grey tops for road uniforms, and then phasing out grey pants. Within 2 seasons we will all have teams dressing in colored tops over white pants and/or their gaudy City Connect uniforms because "well, we just couldn't match the grey color" Same thing that has happened with shiny pants in college football and the NFL. That wouldn't be the first time Nike would do that. I know they did that with Mizzou athletics. They said they had a hard time matching their old gold for football pants, so they simply converted everything to athletic gold instead. Quote Uploaded with ImageShack.us 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.