MLB teams with mismatching logos

[Gothamite]

Not to derail the thread, but I love the Mets road uniforms.

As do I, except for the black drop-shadow, which muddies the letters and makes them harder to read.

[ANGELCAT-IDA61]

Dude, does the cap logo have to match the jersey's wordmark??? I don't think it does.

[JaMike81]

Dude, does the cap logo have to match the jersey's wordmark??? I don't think it does.

I don't think so either, but I created this thread in response to a common criticism of the Washington Nationals. I merely wanted to point out to those critical of the Nats uniforms that many other teams have mismatching cap and jersey logos.

[Gothamite]

True, but very few teams are in the position that the Nationals are, where everything matches exactly except the cap logo....

[The_Admiral]

Dude, does the cap logo have to match the jersey's wordmark??? I don't think it does.

I don't think so either, but I created this thread in response to a common criticism of the Washington Nationals. I merely wanted to point out to those critical of the Nats uniforms that many other teams have mismatching cap and jersey logos.

But those other teams aren't modern designs where every possible design element is harmonized but one. You could get away with unmatching back then.

[Gothamite]

You still can, but only if you don't match every other element.

It's the "everything but one" that's the problems with the Nats, not the cap logo mismatch.

[BallWonk]

You still can, but only if you don't match every other element.

It's the "everything but one" that's the problems with the Nats, not the cap logo mismatch.

Exactly. Which is to say, if you take this argument seriously, and you shouldn't*, the conclusion is that the Nats need to change their numbers. Period. It's actually an argument about the numbers, not the cap and script.

*Here's why it's not a serious argument: The Nats are not in fact any different from the other teams named. The Nats took an existing cap and added a new, unmatching jersey. That's exactly what the Mets did. The Dodgers did the reverse, taking an existing jersey and adding a new, unmatching cap. It is simply false that the Nats are in a different class from these other teams regarding their unmatchiness.

That said, Gotham and I would probably agree all day long about how the Nats could improve their uniforms.

[Gothamite]

I'm sure we could.

But I cannot agree with this:

*Here's why it's not a serious argument: The Nats are not in fact any different from the other teams named. The Nats took an existing cap and added a new, unmatching jersey. That's exactly what the Mets did. The Dodgers did the reverse, taking an existing jersey and adding a new, unmatching cap. It is simply false that the Nats are in a different class from these other teams regarding their unmatchiness.

The difference to my eye is that the Mets and Dodgers use a combination of different fonts on their uniforms (the Mets even more so than the Dodgers). So the cap logos borrowed from their civic predecessors are integrated within a combination of styles. The Nationals created one of the most cohesive identities in all of baseball, then slapped a mismatching logo on top of it. If the Mets or Dodgers had created script numbers designed to match their home lettering, and put their road scripts in the same font, and then used an old Angels or Giants cap logo, they would be equivalent.

Whatever your feelings on the pretzel W, the effect overall is jarring. Not so with the Mets or Dodgers.

[STL FANATIC]

Isn't the Yankees "NY" different on the hat than the jerseys?

It is. Basically one is just cleaned up and slimmed up.

It's actually a completely different shape, not just slimmed or cleaned up. In fact, while the cap logo is slimmer, I'd say the jersey logo is cleaner.

Same thing, in regards to being completely different letterforms, goes for the Tigers.

I would never complain about simply thinning down a form for the hat and/or increasing it's thickness for a jersey.

It's the fact that they're completely different shapes that bothers me.

[McCall]

I'm sure we could.

But I cannot agree with this:

*Here's why it's not a serious argument: The Nats are not in fact any different from the other teams named. The Nats took an existing cap and added a new, unmatching jersey. That's exactly what the Mets did. The Dodgers did the reverse, taking an existing jersey and adding a new, unmatching cap. It is simply false that the Nats are in a different class from these other teams regarding their unmatchiness.

The difference to my eye is that the Mets and Dodgers use a combination of different fonts on their uniforms (the Mets even more so than the Dodgers). So the cap logos borrowed from their civic predecessors are integrated within a combination of styles. The Nationals created one of the most cohesive identities in all of baseball, then slapped a mismatching logo on top of it. If the Mets or Dodgers had created script numbers designed to match their home lettering, and put their road scripts in the same font, and then used an old Angels or Giants cap logo, they would be equivalent.

Whatever your feelings on the pretzel W, the effect overall is jarring. Not so with the Mets or Dodgers.

With the Dodgers and the Mets, they may have used differing fonts, but they're simple enough that they work together. The Nats' is so glaringly and obviously different, that it just seems so awkward looking.

[Krona]

I feel like the hat is the only thing the Nats got right. The script, logos, numbers. too much beveling. add another bit to the hat probably wouldnt have hurt it any more, but without the pretzel, we wouldnt have anything to hope for.

[tml4life85]

How about the alternate Toronto 'T' cap which doesn't match the T on their new away jerseys or even their old away jerseys?

[Gothamite]

Maybe it doesn't, but it does match the home script. So as much as I hate the Blueless Jays' new look, I wouldn't count that one.

[Artmanc3po]

I think what's jarring to me about the Jays T cap is that they have always had a bird on their cap. Few teams use a logo besides letters on their caps, and to me the Blue Jays' caps worked, up to and not including the Muscle Jay. Using just a T doesn't represent the Blue Jays to me. I actually prefer the current Jay to the T, even though I don't like the Jay much.

I feel sort of the same way, but to a lesser extent, with the Orioles O's cap. I have always liked their cartoon bird and some of the various orioles they've used (the less reaslistic ones, actually). The O's cap seems lacking.

I still maintain that the Curly W is almost acceptable, because it's so blatantly a nod to the past (even though it's not much of Washington's past, only the final few years of the Rangers brand of Senators). I always enjoy seeing the cap, and in fact bought one, because it kind of says, "Ha! We got our team back!" Kind of like the Mets using the same NY logo the Giants had used. It took Washingtonians' last memories of what baseball looked like in DC and restored it on a cap.

That said, maybe they shouldn't have gone with the Monument look on the rest of the uniform if the Curly W was the focal point. They're trying to embrace the past yet create their own appropriate-to-Washington look. Sounds like to many on this board that it doesn't work as well as they would have liked.

[02Rover]

The Indians are wearing the "I" cap on the road this year, only with the blue jerseys. The Blue jerseys do have script "Indians" on the front with the "I", but on the sleeve is trusty Chief Wahoo, who obviously isnt on the "I" cap.

The Tribe's alternate home uni has the new "C" caps and the block "INDIANS" on the front with Chief Wahoo on the sleeve. No Chief on the cap and no "C" on the jersey.

Not sure if either qualifys for what were talking about here, but I figured Id throw it out there...

[tml4life85]

Maybe it doesn't, but it does match the home script. So as much as I hate the Blueless Jays' new look, I wouldn't count that one.

But it doesn't. The old away jersey and the current home jersey essentially have the same font which would make sense cause they started using them at the same time. Which is why I don't think it matches either their new road jerseys or their current home/alts.

[hecticbro]

I'm leaving the Tigers and Yankees off, because their respective logos, while not identical, do not come from entirely different branches of the alphabet family tree.

But on the road, the Detroit script is not in Olde English at all. So wouldn't that be mismatching?

[jojotarantino]

I'd argue the marlins and giants aren't mismatched

No, they are not mismatched. And the Padres' 'SD' does match the wordmark on the aways. I think it's fine if the home has the nickname in a script and the aways, the location in a "block" font. This also applies to the Mets. Their 'NY' is close enough (I feel) to the Tuscan font used on the aways.

The Padres SD logo also is the same font as the numbers

[STL FANATIC]

I'd argue the marlins and giants aren't mismatched

No, they are not mismatched. And the Padres' 'SD' does match the wordmark on the aways. I think it's fine if the home has the nickname in a script and the aways, the location in a "block" font. This also applies to the Mets. Their 'NY' is close enough (I feel) to the Tuscan font used on the aways.

The Padres SD logo also is the same font as the numbers

Padres are actually an interesting case.

They took their re-design as an opportunity to keep a very traditional logo and make it fit in better with their overall look.

I don't really feel they needed to. You can get away with a certain level of plainness in a monogram, but I do applaud them for doing so