Jump to content

MLB Logo&Uniform changes


UnclearInitial

Recommended Posts

Ice_Cap,

Now I'm really interested if you could compare and contrast LA/OC to London/Toronto. Really, I'd like to understand the differences.

And attendance spiked almost 10 years before they changed their name. The stadium being renovated in '98 was actually the biggest spike in attendance, as it actually went up almost a full million the year it was re-opened. Attendance spiked again by almost a million after they won the WS. They won the WS in '02 and continually won the AL West or WC as the Anaheim Angels and attendance has spiked since. The team's success on the field had everything to do with it and the name change had nothing to do with it. Their attendance has actually fluctuated between '02 - '09 and it's always within 250,000.

Point being that fans would have abandoned the team if the Los Angeles name was oh so offensive to the good people of Anaheim. That is not the case, leading me to believe that the people trying to play up Anaheim as being distinct from Los Angeles are a small, vocal minority. Using the LA name doesn't seem to bother the majority of the Angels' Orange County-based patrons.

So, a practically redeigned stadium and a consistently winning product has nothing to do with the attendance?

We're delving into hypotheticals now, because there's no way to prove that if the name change coincided with a middling or losing team that the attendance would have gone down. As it was the team was winning, and as previously stated, in SoCal winning trumps everything. Just look to the north. Ownership issues and terrible play have left Dodger Stadium half-empty on good night. Now granted a bankruptcy is a bigger issue than a team name, but I guarantee if the Dodgers were in first place or a game out like the Angels, they'd still be drawing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Now I'm really interested if you could compare and contrast LA/OC to London/Toronto. Really, I'd like to understand the differences.

I'm not Ice Cap, but London is equidistant to Toronto and Detroit, and while it's part of the amorphous blob of civilization we call "Southern Ontario" (I prefer Michigan Bonus Coverage), it is a separate entity from Toronto and the GTA insofar as it has its own economy, its own media outlets, and no readily apparent base of Toronto commuters. I don't think there's a clear political divide between Toronto and Southern Ontario; seems like everyone pretty much just votes Liberal and trusts the government to do their thing.

The uber-suburb for Toronto is Mississauga. The big satellite city in its own right but still part of the same metro is Hamilton. London's way out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if the Padres don't want to use brown and yellow, they'd look sharp in the Chargers' colors.

20-16279-MediumImage.jpg

That is what the Rays cap should look like.

I actually think the Rays cap should look like this.

tb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm really interested if you could compare and contrast LA/OC to London/Toronto. Really, I'd like to understand the differences.

I'm not Ice Cap, but London is equidistant to Toronto and Detroit, and while it's part of the amorphous blob of civilization we call "Southern Ontario" (I prefer Michigan Bonus Coverage), it is a separate entity from Toronto and the GTA insofar as it has its own economy, its own media outlets, and no readily apparent base of Toronto commuters. I don't think there's a clear political divide between Toronto and Southern Ontario; seems like everyone pretty much just votes Liberal and trusts the government to do their thing.

The uber-suburb for Toronto is Mississauga. The big satellite city in its own right but still part of the same metro is Hamilton. London's way out there.

Pretty much. You have to drive three hours through farmland and bypass the massive surburban sprawls that are Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge and Guelph to get to the GTA from London. No one lives in London and works in Toronto, no one from London drives into Toronto regularly for shopping. The greater Toronto metropolitan area is called the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA for short. London is most definitely NOT part of it, whereas Anaheim is clearly within the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if the Padres don't want to use brown and yellow, they'd look sharp in the Chargers' colors.

20-16279-MediumImage.jpg

That is what the Rays cap should look like.

I actually think the Rays cap should look like this.

tb.gif

I have no idea where that cap comes from, but it's a beauty. That should be what the Rays wear.

The San Diego Chargers colours look nice in cap form, but they aren't right for the Rays. There's to much blue in the AL East as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much. You have to drive three hours through farmland and bypass the massive surburban sprawls that are Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge and Guelph to get to the GTA from London. No one lives in London and works in Toronto, no one from London drives into Toronto regularly for shopping. The greater Toronto metropolitan area is called the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA for short. London is most definitely NOT part of it, whereas Anaheim is clearly within the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area.

Sounds like Anaheim 50 years ago. LA used to be numerous suburbs enveloping central and downtown LA, separated by farmland, groves and miles desert or ranches. Urban sprawl has basically made it one gigantic metro area stretching for 100 miles in any direction; North South, East or West. It may not happen this decade or maybe not even the next, but eventually the city of London will just blend with all of the rest of the Toronto metro area too, Ice Cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well San Diego's metro area is literally only 25 miles from LA's. The only reason San Diego will never connect with LA/Orange county is because Camp Pendleton is in-between, otherwise it would already be one giant metro area today. Is Hamilton considered part of Toronto metro, because looking at it from MapItNow, it is a continuous city from Toronto to Hamilton in terms of development. London is only 62 miles from the west side of Hamilton's urban area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much. You have to drive three hours through farmland and bypass the massive surburban sprawls that are Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge and Guelph to get to the GTA from London. No one lives in London and works in Toronto, no one from London drives into Toronto regularly for shopping. The greater Toronto metropolitan area is called the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA for short. London is most definitely NOT part of it, whereas Anaheim is clearly within the Los Angeles greater metropolitan area.

Sounds like Anaheim 50 years ago. LA used to be numerous suburbs enveloping central and downtown LA, separated by farmland, groves and miles desert or ranches. Urban sprawl has basically made it one gigantic metro area stretching for 100 miles in any direction; North South, East or West. It may not happen this decade or maybe not even the next, but eventually the city of London will just blend with all of the rest of the Toronto metro area too, Ice Cap.

So many things wrong with this post.

- As admiral correctly asserted, there are laws in Ontario to prevent urban sprawl like this.

- When we're all living in the world of Judge Dredd and all of southern Ontario is one metro area, yes, you can then call London part of the GTA.

- By your own admission the London-Toronto/Anaheim-Los Angeles comparison is not reflective of the modern day reality. So your comparison was a poor one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well San Diego's metro area is literally only 25 miles from LA's.

Outskirts to outskirts, maybe. But the downtowns are 125 miles apart. Downtown LA to downtown Anaheim is 25 miles, so the two aren't exactly analogous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question to you guys is this then? What makes a city unique? Distance? Commute times? It can take 2 hours to get from one side of LA to the other, not even including Orange County or any other county next to LA.

Because obviously local economies, law enforcement, courts, elected city officials, local government, school districts, fire departments, hospitals, parks, water & power, trash different laws don't mean a hill of beans in terms of a city's own identity.

Would you guys call San Francisco Oakland or vice-versa? They are only 8 miles apart, but are two very different big cities. Is the city of Washington, DC also Baltimore to you because they are only 30 miles apart and also completely different. Trenton, NJ and Philadelphia, PA? Same city to you since they're only 25 miles apart I guess.

Just because a city's downtown is only a certain distance away does not mean it's the same city or area. Drive on the freeways here from North Ventura county to South Orange County. It will take you possibly 4 or 5 hours. You'll see many different cities that look nothing alike and feel nothing alike. But to you guys it would be all the same and should just be lumped together as Los Angeles. You take pride in your cities being so unique yet just assume there is none with ours.

That is what is wrong to me.

I'm not going to argue anymore because what started this debate was always just personal opinions anyways.

I guess you see LA as the same city as Anaheim or any other city that may be in the 200+ miles of numerous cities in the area . To somebody 2,000 miles away from here it may seem right...but to somebody living here it's like apples to oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You take pride in your cities being so unique yet just assume there is none with ours.

Not at all.

I'm sure that Anaheim is a lovely city in which to live. Hell, I loved living in Queens, which had a wonderful, vibrant air of its own, and a diversity unmatched on this planet. I just didn't kid myself that we weren't part of New York City.

Anaheim may well be one of the individual gems that combine to make metro LA such a great place. That's a good thing, and should be celebrated. But the notion that Anaheim is therefore not actually part of metro LA is nonsense.

San Francisco/Oakland and Minneapolis/St. Paul are the exceptions which prove the rule. True twin cities are extremely rare, and become less so every day as the nation as a whole becomes more homogenized (not to mention metro regions). I'm not sure that such cities could ever develop today; they'd have to have arisen in an era without mass communication and culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess Anaheim is like Rodney Dangerfield...no respect I tell ya.

Back to the whole Angels naming thing, I still think they should just make a decision on if they are the LA Angels or the Anaheim Angels. Just one and I would live with it. But it's just stupid to have both cities mentioned in their name. Nobody became an Angel fan all of a sudden because they added LA to their official name. After all those years of being known as the California Angels it was kind of cool and refreshing to see them become the Anaheim Angels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't you easily say that if a place has it's own city government, it's its own city? Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe any of New York City's burrows have their own mayors do they? Thus they are part of New York City. Makes sense.

Anaheim on the other hand is proper city with mayor, city government, etc. They have nothing to do with LA. Are we going to say that Santa Clara and San Bernardino are also part of Los Angeles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't you easily say that if a place has it's own city government, it's its own city?

Its own city? Yes. Its own, distinct metro area? No. There's a difference.

Guess Anaheim is like Rodney Dangerfield...no respect I tell ya.

Goth just said that Anaheim was a lovely place and part of what made greater LA such a fantastic city. What more do you want?

Back to the whole Angels naming thing, I still think they should just make a decision on if they are the LA Angels or the Anaheim Angels. Just one and I would live with it. But it's just stupid to have both cities mentioned in their name. Nobody became an Angel fan all of a sudden because they added LA to their official name. After all those years of being known as the California Angels it was kind of cool and refreshing to see them become the Anaheim Angels.

I agree. Both Los Angeles and Anaheim in the name is stupid. Blame the city of Anaheim for that.

Anyway the name Anaheim Angels was a step up from California Angels. That was a really stupid name. You don't get to say you represent the entire state when there are four other teams that play in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you guys call San Francisco Oakland or vice-versa? They are only 8 miles apart, but are two very different big cities. Is the city of Washington, DC also Baltimore to you because they are only 30 miles apart and also completely different. Trenton, NJ and Philadelphia, PA? Same city to you since they're only 25 miles apart I guess.

If you cut my metropolitan area, does it not bleed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well San Diego's metro area is literally only 25 miles from LA's.

Outskirts to outskirts, maybe. But the downtowns are 125 miles apart. Downtown LA to downtown Anaheim is 25 miles, so the two aren't exactly analogous.

Yeah, and San Diego's metro area kind of gets cut off due to the Camp Pendelton buffer. Besides distance, San Diego's connection to SoCal is a whole different animal. You can say that the Lake Elsinore keeps the link to the rest of the sprawl, but it's sparse link, and even then I'd say Elsinore tends to align itself more towards San Diego anyways (It's a real bitch to get from there to OC or LA).

And that 25 miles in a straight line from Downtown LA to "Downtown" Anaheim (a.k.a. the Disneyland/Stadium/Arena corridor) is the longest 25 miles you can ever travel.

Back to the whole Angels naming thing, I still think they should just make a decision on if they are the LA Angels or the Anaheim Angels. Just one and I would live with it. But it's just stupid to have both cities mentioned in their name. Nobody became an Angel fan all of a sudden because they added LA to their official name. After all those years of being known as the California Angels it was kind of cool and refreshing to see them become the Anaheim Angels.

I agree. Both Los Angeles and Anaheim in the name is stupid. Blame the city of Anaheim for that.

Anyway the name Anaheim Angels was a step up from California Angels. That was a really stupid name. You don't get to say you represent the entire state when there are four other teams that play in the state.

Eh, really it goes both ways. Yeah, Anaheim should have made the lease stricter when it came to the name (something the city has smartened up and done after the Angels fiasco with the Pond/Honda Center concerning the Ducks or any potential NBA team). But Arte Moreno could have seen this was stupid and ridiculous and gone with the simple layout of the Anaheim lease. But he found his loophole, and silly naming convention be damned, he went for it.

But yeah, LA/Anaheim independencies aside. We can all agree it's dumb. While there's the lot of us that want it to be Anaheim and the lot of us that wants it to be LA, I just want it one way or the other. I'd like it to be Anaheim, but if it's LA, then so be it. And none of this Southern California Angels crap. We don't need the Halos to all of a sudden start claiming Santa Barbara or Bakersfield anything like that into their influence. (Not that anyone wants to claim Bakersfield anyways :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.