raysox

Unpopular Opinions

Recommended Posts

I've never really been a fan of the interlocking "SOX" on the home jerseys. I know it's a traditional thing, but I've always preferred baseball jerseys that have scripts on them as opposed to small corner logos; just a bit of personal preference, admittedly. I've even experimented with making a slightly-modified version of the 87-90 White Sox script in the current color scheme, and I think it works pretty well, personally;

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

That set was bland, but think of how dreadful the two before it were. It must have been a breath of fresh air at the time. Pullovers with belly stripes and white front panels, untucked contrasting-collared shirts that crossed Eurostile with Tuscan lettering? That's truly awful stuff compared to the current package, a modern classic. It drives me nuts to see any vestiges of the Winning Ugly set popping up on merchandise today. It should be as dead and buried as the Mariners stuff that just said "M's."

 

Two things I like a lot about the 87-90 set are a hat with a C and the full team name on the home jersey. I'd like that White Sox script to appear on jackets and miscellaneous tertiary stuff (it's a lot better than the new one they've tried to work in), and I wish they could get away with the curly C somewhere as well, though I have to admit the current hat is too ~iconic~ to replace. Slot it in wherever they're using that stupid batter logo now, I guess.

 

Those are what I like about the late 80s Sox. Both the script C and White Sox script would fit seamlessly with their current brand. 

 

But for all people trash the BiG for being too generic, the Batter Man seems to fly right under the radar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the late 1980s White Sox uniforms are pretty nice in a vacuum.  They're classic-looking baseball uniforms, albeit less-than-exciting. The only issue I had with the uniforms themselves was that the loop on the "C" was large enough to create ambiguity.  (And I think they had sizable numbers on the pants, which I wasn't a fan of).

 

But the overall problem is that those uniforms just did not say "White Sox." OK, they literally said that, but despite all the bucking of tradition that the team had done, the use of "Sox" on its own is pretty consistent. The next look, while seemingly jumping on the black/sliver bandwagon* set us straight that the "Sox" were back.

 

If the team were an expansion team today, I'd probably favor the late 1980s uniforms if pitted against anything else they've ever had (though the over-used colors would be another concern).  But they just seemed "off" for that franchise.

 

*And it even turns out that the look stuck for the long haul, which at the time I never dreamed would happen given the trendiness of the colors and the team's history of changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

My pet theory is that the team went with the overly-simplistic look in preparation for a move to Tampa Bay in 1987. The uniform switch happened despite the move falling through.

 

That's likely. It fits in the timeline. Incidentally, the governor who got New Comiskey built (by stopping the clock on the floor of the statehouse so they technically didn't miss the deadline) just died. They should honor him with a clock in right field that always reads 11:59. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

That's likely. It fits in the timeline. Incidentally, the governor who got New Comiskey built (by stopping the clock on the floor of the statehouse so they technically didn't miss the deadline) just died. They should honor him with a clock in right field that always reads 11:59. 


Totally. We even have a tape of the statehouse happenings:

 

 

I really wish he had more stuff like this archived online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

My pet theory is that the team went with the overly-simplistic look in preparation for a move to Tampa Bay in 1987. The uniform switch happened despite the move falling through.

Although they switched from uniforms that simply said "Sox" everywhere to a road uniform that said "Chicago" and a cap with a "C." I'd think sticking with "Sox" would be the way to go if that was the rationale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but I think the theory is that it separated them from the Tony La Russa years and could be easily tweaked for a new locale. I'm sure Reinsdorf was happy to put a tailed script on the home jerseys, guy loves anything the Yankees or Dodgers did. It was a whole to-do when New Comiskey opened with an ocean of seats in lovely Dodger Blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These jerseys aren't really that bad. The only reason they got so much hate is because they replaced (arguably) some of the best jerseys in NHL history.

nathan-mackinnon-paul-stastny-nhl-stanle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DTConcepts said:

These jerseys aren't really that bad. The only reason they got so much hate is because they replaced (arguably) some of the best jerseys in NHL history.

nathan-mackinnon-paul-stastny-nhl-stanle

 

nope, still garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JerseyJimmy said:

 

nope, still garbage.

I like this version better than the Adidas version. New ones look something i would find @ walmart for 30 bucks with a player screen printed on back in a generic font. 

 

I think what helps this for me, is the striping and number font. Same as original and not just a generic grey strip or nice rounded numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TerrorDog13 said:

I like this version better than the Adidas version. New ones look something i would find @ walmart for 30 bucks with a player screen printed on back in a generic font. 

 

I think what helps this for me, is the striping and number font. Same as original and not just a generic grey strip or nice rounded numbers. 

Uh, what? The striping is absolutely not the same as the originals. The Adidas set is way closer to the originals than the Reebok aprons visually; it just combines both small stripes into one large stripe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

Uh, what? The striping is absolutely not the same as the originals. The Adidas set is way closer to the originals than the Reebok aprons visually; it just combines both small stripes into one large stripe.

I meant the piping. 

 

The jersey pattern reverted back to original, but the piping/striping on the reebok set is very similar and to me, more ascetically pleasing, than the drab large grey piping/striping on the current set. Looks like cheap, lazy knockoff. The reebok design isnt the greatest. But it kept the smaller details that made the original Avs jersey unique i.e. the number font, yeti foot shoulder patch. Adidas version looks like lazy, cheap retro jersey with a sponsorship by target on the shoulder caps. They kept the C/A the same as originals but nothing else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TerrorDog13 said:

The jersey pattern reverted back to original, but the piping/striping on the reebok set is very similar and to me, more ascetically pleasing, than the drab large grey piping/striping on the current set. Looks like cheap, lazy knockoff.

And the Reebok set looked like an apron with a blue undershirt. I'd rather a simplified (and I'd argue improved) version of what worked over the peak of Reebok's "piping and no hem stripes" era of design.

 

Quote

The reebok design isnt the greatest. But it kept the smaller details that made the original Avs jersey unique i.e. the number font, yeti foot shoulder patch.

I'd argue the yeti foot was the poorest-aged part of the identity considering they haven't had a yeti mascot for most of their existence at this point. Howler only lasted like five years, their mascot is currently a St. Bernard...it was long past time to ditch the foot logo and just embrace state iconography.

 

The number font also just looks like a modernized version of their original set, anyways. I don't see what the big deal is.

 

Quote

Adidas version looks like lazy, cheap retro jersey with a sponsorship by target on the shoulder caps. They kept the C/A the same as originals but nothing else. 

It's the state emblem, not a "sponsorship by Target". I'd argue having it there does a lot more to tie the team's visual identity into their location then a random hairy foot logo ever did. Plus, even if they didn't do well, the Rockies also did the same damn thing with the C on the shoulders; it's a nice way to sort of bridge the two teams together in spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spacer.pngspacer.pngspacer.png

 

here are the 3 white versions of their jerseys, not sure if they'll show up as first time posting pics on here. To me first 2 go from good to decent, not the best, and needs improvements. Third one is a mix of wanting to be original (design/captains letter), wanting to be new and smooth (numbers), and bring in retro to throw back to an old defunct team that didn't last more than 5 years. Looks cheap to me. sorry. My unpopular opinion. 

 

I think the "C" logo could work and i really like how the third jersey logo looks with the "C" inside the triangle/mountain. But on the newer ones, it is basically invisible on the white version, being burgundy on burgundy. 

 

The foot I think works for Colorado and Avalanches. Many people i think associate an snowy mountain with big foot/yeti like creature. Regardless if they have a mascot or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted it in the NHL Changes thread and I'll say it again here: there is not a single hockey jersey with diagonal text that wouldn't be improved by placing the crest on the front instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Avalanche A logo was always weird to me partially because I never understood "letter logos" emphasizing the team name over the city name. This leads into my unpopular opinion that I hate it when teams do this. In the big 4 they are:

- Avalanche

- Ducks

- Canadiens

- Canucks

- Angels

- Athletics

- Bengals

- Rockets and Pacers (these ones are unique because the city name is actually there in the full logo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

- Athletics

 

This is a pretty bad example because they are literally called the A's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

- Canadiens

It makes sens for the Habs, as their official name is "Club de Hockey Canadien".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TerrorDog13 said:

spacer.pngspacer.pngspacer.png

 

here are the 3 white versions of their jerseys, not sure if they'll show up as first time posting pics on here. To me first 2 go from good to decent, not the best, and needs improvements. Third one is a mix of wanting to be original (design/captains letter), wanting to be new and smooth (numbers), and bring in retro to throw back to an old defunct team that didn't last more than 5 years. Looks cheap to me. sorry. My unpopular opinion. 

 

I think the "C" logo could work and i really like how the third jersey logo looks with the "C" inside the triangle/mountain. But on the newer ones, it is basically invisible on the white version, being burgundy on burgundy. 

 

The foot I think works for Colorado and Avalanches. Many people i think associate an snowy mountain with big foot/yeti like creature. Regardless if they have a mascot or not. 

The current road jersey does look half-baked, I’ll give you that... It needs more blue, and it should have matched the original better. The rounded numbers are actually a pretty decent update to the branding, however. The new home is also one of the top 10 in the league with its simplicity and better pattern than the original. 
 

The Reebok version is an absolute mess. There’s simply no reason a hockey jersey should have side panels. And the color of the striping is as an apron piping on the front, rather than all around the jersey like before. The rest of the elements on the jersey just carried over, because then those were the only uniquely Avalanche elements. The Reebok jerseys could have been for anyone, and it wouldn’t felt out of place, unlike the mountain pattern of the original and current jerseys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can all agree the new designs that Reebok came up with was different with an different end result expected(tucked jerseys). If side panels work in some cases in other sports i.e. Denver Broncos, why can't it work in another sport if done right.?

 

The Adidas Away jersey feels like a lazy recreation of the original. Needs blue as the piping or as part of the piping. With a jersey with sharp corners/cuts, numbers should match I think. Round numbers on sharp cornered jersey looks weird, specially here.  If you're going to update the numbers to get rid of the little serif type thing on the original numbers, do the same for the captains letters.Or at least try a different outline on the numbers, like the originals. On HD, you can't see the trim of the colors and it ends up looking like standard numbers i.e. Dallas Stars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.