MLB Road Uniforms w/Team Rather Than City Name

[STL FANATIC]

I get it. I was overstating things.

I just think there's too much of people wanting to apply standards to things but then inconsistently allowing exceptions, that's all.

My point is simply that teams shouldn't have to put the team name on the homes and the road name on the roads. That may be the most common format, but there are a variety of reasons to do it in a different way, and many of those reason are legitimate.

And thanks SM. But I won't delve into the Angels, you've explained the situation there perfectly.

[LEWJ]

What about this:

I kinda like it, I think I'd prefer the current road to this. It's very plain.

(If I had the capabilities to make a vertical arch, I would prefer that.)

[oldschoolvikings]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

Seriously, you don't see the difference between wearing a monogram logo vs. a team name? There's "guidelines" for each (obviously with some exceptions allowed.) For example, if the Tigers' monogram was a "T", we'd be giving them all kinds of crap. Monograms should be the first initial of the city name - the nickname doesn't deserve the monogram treatment (the "D snake" is the biggest offender here, with the "CR" in second place.) If the Cardinals had traditionally worn a StL monogram on their chests, I don't think anyone here would say a word about it. There's no "rule" about wearing a nickname on your jersey, it's just kind of "accepted" that if you put a wordmark on a home jersey, it should be the nickname, not city name, and if you put a monogram, it should be of the city, not nickname. On the road, if you put a wordmark, it should be the city name, but like you pointed out, it just doesn't work in some cases.

I'm kind of indifferent about the Cardinals. The St. Louis script is pretty nice, so certainly that would look nice on the away jerseys, but for some reason, I don't have a problem with the way they do it now.

What about the "A's"? Why is it that if a team has done something long enough they get a pass but if a new team trots it out, they get dumped on? (Not saying you're doing that necessarily, but I've seen plenty of examples here, the "well, they've always done that" excuse.)

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

When a team puts its nickname on the roads, the clear inference is that they're trying to downplay the city.

While this motive was undoubtedly present when the Orioles and Brewers removed their cities' names from their road unis, I'd say it would be a mistake to assume this in every case.

The Mets' road uniforms said "Mets" instead of "New York" from 1974 through 1986. The Royals' road unis said "Royals" instead of "Kansas City" from 1983 through 1994. The Pirates' road unis said "Pirates", not "Pittsburgh", from the late 50s through the early 90s. I would say that none of these moves represented attempts to downplay the home city of the club in question.

And for the Cards, it's hard to deny that's exactly what they are trying to do. Become a regional team at the expense of their true home.

Even with the Cardinals, I doubt this motivation for not using "St. Louis" on the road. The Cardinals have been a "regional" team for a long time, dating back to their days as the "western outpost" of the Majors, before the Dodgers and Giants moved to California.

I'd say that the sole reason they have tended to use the birds-on-bat "Cardinals" wordmark (in its various forms) on the road for so many decades is its sheer recognisability.

[rebelx]

I'd say that the sole reason they have tended to use the birds-on-bat "Cardinals" wordmark (in its various forms) on the road for so many decades is its sheer recognisability.

Well, hey, as you mentioned, the Pirates switched to their city name after more than 30 years, despite the recognizability of the nickname on their roads for all that time, so why can't the Cardinals? Maybe I'm just too OCD about this. But seriously, that St. Louis wordmark with the birds-on bat looked pretty nice, did it not? Just imagine it on the field. Don't think having that would do anything to diminish the Cards' legacy and/or recognizability, when it comes down to it.

[tBBP]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

Seriously, you don't see the difference between wearing a monogram logo vs. a team name? There's "guidelines" for each (obviously with some exceptions allowed.) For example, if the Tigers' monogram was a "T", we'd be giving them all kinds of crap. Monograms should be the first initial of the city name - the nickname doesn't deserve the monogram treatment (the "D snake" is the biggest offender here, with the "CR" in second place.) If the Cardinals had traditionally worn a StL monogram on their chests, I don't think anyone here would say a word about it. There's no "rule" about wearing a nickname on your jersey, it's just kind of "accepted" that if you put a wordmark on a home jersey, it should be the nickname, not city name, and if you put a monogram, it should be of the city, not nickname. On the road, if you put a wordmark, it should be the city name, but like you pointed out, it just doesn't work in some cases.

I'm kind of indifferent about the Cardinals. The St. Louis script is pretty nice, so certainly that would look nice on the away jerseys, but for some reason, I don't have a problem with the way they do it now.

What about the "A's"? Why is it that if a team has done something long enough they get a pass but if a new team trots it out, they get dumped on? (Not saying you're doing that necessarily, but I've seen plenty of examples here, the "well, they've always done that" excuse.)

I think that's pretty much the answer right there.

Being that the team is, for all intents and purposes, called the A's (even though we all know the proper name is the Athletics), the A's find themselves in a bit of a unique situation where they wear a "monogram" and the "team name" at the same time. Sorta kinda the same thing with the "SOX" script/logo of the Chicago White Sox, I suppose. Just a unique situation, if you ask me. (But, since no one did, feel free to tear this synopsis to shreds, if you wish.)

As for the second question, I think it's chiefly and probably ONLY due to the fact that, especially with the Yankees and Tigers, people just can't split their minds from the "lore of tradition" (I'd include the Steelers here if we were talking about more than just baseball). I think the other thing is that, as much as most might not like to admit it, they'd like to see new teams try out new things rather than trying to act like they've been around for 35, 40 years. So long as it doesn't include teal or purple, I guess.

To the point BBTV made...interestingly enough, I've actually always seen it the other way around...that the Colorado Rockies were the biggest offender of the "monogram rule", being that the Diamondbacks actually have a monogram "A" logo, whereas, outside of the full crest logo, the "CR" monogram is pretty much the only logo the Rocks have...and have ever had, for that matter, if memory serves me correctly...added to the fact that it's pretty much portrayed as their "primary" logo (and by that I mean the first logo to come to mind when one thinks of the Colorado Rockies).

(Of course, if we were try to identify the biggest overall offender, I think that honor would have to go to another snake-named team in Arizona...the Rattlers of the AFL.)

[BBTV]

Yep, the Cards have an official "St. Louis" script in their current package.

They could easily put it on the roads.

The linked logo is NOT an official logo. I can just about guarantee that.

They do have a St. Louis script, but they do NOT have an official St. Louis on the Birds on the Bat logo.

I for one hope Cardinals remains on both jerseys.

Not sure why the Yankees and Tigers get a pass for not putting the home name on their jerseys, but the Cardinals don't get one with their roads. Is it because the Yankees and Tigers haven't been willing to make proper modifications to their uniforms (okay, it's technically the hats that need touched) overtime, so there jerseys remained fixed on what they are? And since the Cardinals have tinkered and modernized while keeping the integrity of their look in place for years and years, they're seen to be an open case?

I don't get it. The Cardinals have nearly as much tradition (and the only recent I say nearly is because they had 2-3 year hiccups) wearing Cardinals on both jerseys as the Yankees and Tigers have wearing a monogram/letter on their home jerseys.

Seriously, you don't see the difference between wearing a monogram logo vs. a team name? There's "guidelines" for each (obviously with some exceptions allowed.) For example, if the Tigers' monogram was a "T", we'd be giving them all kinds of crap. Monograms should be the first initial of the city name - the nickname doesn't deserve the monogram treatment (the "D snake" is the biggest offender here, with the "CR" in second place.) If the Cardinals had traditionally worn a StL monogram on their chests, I don't think anyone here would say a word about it. There's no "rule" about wearing a nickname on your jersey, it's just kind of "accepted" that if you put a wordmark on a home jersey, it should be the nickname, not city name, and if you put a monogram, it should be of the city, not nickname. On the road, if you put a wordmark, it should be the city name, but like you pointed out, it just doesn't work in some cases.

I'm kind of indifferent about the Cardinals. The St. Louis script is pretty nice, so certainly that would look nice on the away jerseys, but for some reason, I don't have a problem with the way they do it now.

What about the "A's"? Why is it that if a team has done something long enough they get a pass but if a new team trots it out, they get dumped on? (Not saying you're doing that necessarily, but I've seen plenty of examples here, the "well, they've always done that" excuse.)

The A's are a weird case, and a tough one for me. Even if they tried to totally rebrand themselves as just the "A's", like they kinda did in the '70s, there would be a problem, because they'd have to drop the apostrophe, or they'd be grammatically incorrect. As it stands now, it's grammatically correct, but it's a nickname for a nickname, which is wrong in a lot of ways. I liked it better when they used to have only the "A", back in the Philadelphia days, but I have to admit, if I was around when those were released (or I should say, if those were released for the first time now), I'd have just as big a problem with it as I do with the D-snake.

I think the reason nobody gives them crap, is not just because they've had it so long (in one variation or another, if you take away the KC years), its because the history behind it not only makes it very unlikley that any amount of complaining will ever lead to a change, but for better or worse, it's such a part of their identity now that it would be foolish for them to tamper with it any more than modernizing it or slight tweaks.

How many corporate logos really suck, but the companies are so known for them that it would be detrimental for them to come up with anything else? Honda cars comes to mind for me - their H logo looks extremely dated IMO, and their blocky-serifed font would never see the light of day today.

Another example of this would be the Dodgers. Without context, if their uniforms were released today, I'd crap all over them. I really do think they're too plain, and look cheap, but they are one of those teams who's identity is their history, so it gets a pass, to an extent.

[The_Admiral]

Re: A's, also consider that an O wouldn't make for a good monogram. Not a whole lot you can really do with an O. It also looks like a zero. Who wants to don a cap and feel like a zero? The White Sox should've kept the curly C.

Re: Cardinals, the way I look at it is that the city name is the "formal" designation for the team, and as such is fit to wear on home and road jerseys alike. This is why the Tigers and Yankees can make it work, and the Knicks in basketball; the Texas Rangers are in this tradition but the execution + relative age of the franchise + WHOOEE TEXEEISS makes them look sloppy and lame. The team name is more "informal," and as such can go on home jerseys in front of the familiar fans. The Sacramento Kings, as the internet would say, are Doing It Wrong. That the Cardinals recycle their home script instead of using a super-cool St. Louis bird-bat isn't really what I'd call a Proud Uniform Tradition in the vein of the Yankee pinstripes or the Dodger blues or the Old English D, so there's not really a reason to avoid upgrading it other than comfortable inertia.

[oldschoolvikings]

Re: A's, also consider that an O wouldn't make for a good monogram. Not a whole lot you can really do with an O. It also looks like a zero. Who wants to feel like a zero?

The Oregon Ducks?

[BBTV]

Re: A's, also consider that an O wouldn't make for a good monogram. Not a whole lot you can really do with an O. It also looks like a zero. Who wants to don a cap and feel like a zero? The White Sox should've kept the curly C.

Re: Cardinals, the way I look at it is that the city name is the "formal" designation for the team, and as such is fit to wear on home and road jerseys alike. This is why the Tigers and Yankees can make it work, and the Knicks in basketball; the Texas Rangers are in this tradition but the execution + relative age of the franchise + WHOOEE TEXEEISS makes them look sloppy and lame. The team name is more "informal," and as such can go on home jerseys in front of the familiar fans. The Sacramento Kings, as the internet would say, are Doing It Wrong. That the Cardinals recycle their home script instead of using a super-cool St. Louis bird-bat isn't really what I'd call a Proud Uniform Tradition in the vein of the Yankee pinstripes or the Dodger blues or the Old English D, so there's not really a reason to avoid upgrading it other than comfortable inertia.

Good post.

[STL FANATIC]

Re: A's, also consider that an O wouldn't make for a good monogram. Not a whole lot you can really do with an O. It also looks like a zero. Who wants to don a cap and feel like a zero? The White Sox should've kept the curly C.

Re: Cardinals, the way I look at it is that the city name is the "formal" designation for the team, and as such is fit to wear on home and road jerseys alike. This is why the Tigers and Yankees can make it work, and the Knicks in basketball; the Texas Rangers are in this tradition but the execution + relative age of the franchise + WHOOEE TEXEEISS makes them look sloppy and lame. The team name is more "informal," and as such can go on home jerseys in front of the familiar fans. The Sacramento Kings, as the internet would say, are Doing It Wrong. That the Cardinals recycle their home script instead of using a super-cool St. Louis bird-bat isn't really what I'd call a Proud Uniform Tradition in the vein of the Yankee pinstripes or the Dodger blues or the Old English D, so there's not really a reason to avoid upgrading it other than comfortable inertia.

Good post.

Legit post, but I simply disagree. I would actually say the Cardinals are one of the few teams in the league who's road uniform is every bit as traditional as their home jersey. But don't let that hit you too hard, it's something I wrote as I thought, I haven't given that very heavy thought. Might change my mind or think of others later.

In any case, KJ was right, don't need to be defensive about every little thing, but I'd just hate to see the Cardinals make the switch. To me, THEIR standard is rep the city on the caps, rep the team on the jerseys.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm changing things a bit here, but I do have one thing to ask. Would not standardizing the Yankees caps and jerseys and the Tigers caps and jerseys be avoiding an upgrade because of comfortable inertia?

I think it would be, I'm just curious. That's in the same vein as the Cowboys colors to me. Why not make simple and almost unnoticeable changes to make something that much better? Simply having had it the wrong way for a long time isn't a good reason not to fix it.

And if that's how you view the Cardinals road jerseys, I can see you perspective on it for sure. I just don't personally view the situations as parallel.

[rebelx]

I'm changing things a bit here, but I do have one thing to ask. Would not standardizing the Yankees caps and jerseys and the Tigers caps and jerseys be avoiding an upgrade because of comfortable inertia?

I think it would be, I'm just curious. That's in the same vein as the Cowboys colors to me. Why not make simple and almost unnoticeable changes to make something that much better? Simply having had it the wrong way for a long time isn't a good reason not to fix it.

And if that's how you view the Cardinals road jerseys, I can see you perspective on it for sure. I just don't personally view the situations as parallel.

Yes, it would be. And whether or not the Tigers or Yankees continue to use monograms on their home jerseys, I'm all for them standardizing the things with the ones on their caps. How did the organizations not take notice of these things long ago? They've only had the better part of a friggin' century!

[STL FANATIC]

That said, and this doesn't show up on the uniforms, but how about your Dodgers and Lakers replace their flimsy logo scripts with the ones that adorn their jerseys...

...just saying... lol.

[The_Admiral]

All for the Dodgers doing just that, incidentally.

[BBTV]

I'd be all for the Yankees and Tigers standardizing their monograms, and the Dodgers using the jersey script in their logo.

[Gothamite]

I'd rather they go the other way, and use the elegant logo script on their jerseys.

[STL FANATIC]

I'd rather they go the other way, and use the elegant logo script on their jerseys.

Would have to see a good mockup to decide. Dunno if it'd be bold enough, but if it works that'd be fine, too.

I just hate having multiple logos that are only slightly different in form.

[rebelx]

That said, and this doesn't show up on the uniforms, but how about your Dodgers and Lakers replace their flimsy logo scripts with the ones that adorn their jerseys...

...just saying... lol.

Hey, why not? You know, it's funny how I didn't notice the differences in scripts for my teams until very recently. They are fairly subtle, aren't they? Nevertheless, as a sports logo junkie, I say tweak 'em. And yeah, I would kind of prefer that the Dodgers used the logo script on the jerseys, as it looks cleaner.