New Indians Unis

[-Akronite-]

What sucks is, the set isn't that hard to fix with the current 4 jerseys.

- Make the block jerseys(home and road) the primaries.

- Make the script jersey(home and alt) the home alt and road alt, respectively.

- Give the block home navy piping, so it matches the other 2 non-navy unis.

- Drop the red hat, drop the all navy Wahoo hat.

- Put a white outline on the red C on the navy hat, so both remaining hats have white outlines.

OR

- Don't come up with 2 completely different identities and unveil them as one set.

I agree with most of this, there is so much inconsistency. They have to fix the piping and eliminate the extra outlines on the scripts jerseys. Also, I agree with making the road cap only the navy w/ red block C (and adding the white outline).

But, maybe it'd be fine to split the look to modern at home and throwback on the road. The block C cap works better than Wahoo with the throwbacks. And the current home alt might look nicer with "Cleveland" across the chest instead of "Indians." Plus, the road alt already has "Indians" on it which works better at home IMO. Just a thought.

[BBTV]

Scripts aren't necessarily indicative of a softball uniform - I'd argue that the Dodgers wear the quintessential baseball jersey. However, the thick "patch-like" Indians script (especially with the extra outline) is certainly very softballish. Very much the same way, basic-block letters aren't necessarily just for the rec-league. I've never heard anyone argue that the Giants road jerseys are bush league, and there's not much difference between those and these (though the gold shadow on the Giants block is really cool.)

[andrewharrington]

Scripts aren't necessarily indicative of a softball uniform - I'd argue that the Dodgers wear the quintessential baseball jersey. However, the thick "patch-like" Indians script (especially with the extra outline) is certainly very softballish. Very much the same way, basic-block letters aren't necessarily just for the rec-league. I've never heard anyone argue that the Giants road jerseys are bush league, and there's not much difference between those and these (though the gold shadow on the Giants block is really cool.)

This is certainly what I was getting at. A script itself is very 'baseball' for sure, but the fact that the Indians' version so sterile (in design) and so bulky (in execution) gives it that 'lower-level' quality. I think anything with double outline looks rather cheap, but that's just me.

The Dodgers and Giants are two examples of perfect uniforms. When you put on those uniforms, you just look how a baseball player is supposed to look. I know the Diamondbacks in that photo are baseball players, but they sure as hell don't look like baseball players. LightsOut, you just don't understand how the history of the baseball uniform shapes what people think a baseball uniform should look like, and you don't understand how the function of a baseball jersey relates to how it looks and to the game itself.

[Eye]

Scripts aren't necessarily indicative of a softball uniform - I'd argue that the Dodgers wear the quintessential baseball jersey. However, the thick "patch-like" Indians script (especially with the extra outline) is certainly very softballish. Very much the same way, basic-block letters aren't necessarily just for the rec-league. I've never heard anyone argue that the Giants road jerseys are bush league, and there's not much difference between those and these (though the gold shadow on the Giants block is really cool.)

This is certainly what I was getting at. A script itself is very 'baseball' for sure, but the fact that the Indians' version so sterile (in design) and so bulky (in execution) gives it that 'lower-level' quality. I think anything with double outline looks rather cheap, but that's just me.

The Dodgers and Giants are two examples of perfect uniforms. When you put on those uniforms, you just look how a baseball player is supposed to look. I know the Diamondbacks in that photo are baseball players, but they sure as hell don't look like baseball players. LightsOut, you just don't understand how the history of the baseball uniform shapes what people think a baseball uniform should look like, and you don't understand how the function of a baseball jersey relates to how it looks and to the game itself.

The Indians uniforms are good, but could be better. As other posters have mentioned, go the block route, or the script route. The 1994-2001 set was their best and I hoped they would have gone back to those because they've slowly tweaked those uniforms and ended up muddying the identidy. These uniforms individually are good, but as a set aren't because of the differences.

I don't disagree with some of your points, but telling LightsOut that he just doesn't understand the history of the baseball uniform isn't fair; he simply likes different designs and that is what this board is all about.

[Lights Out]

Yeah, it's rather condescending to tell me that I don't know or "understand" baseball uniforms because I disagree with your tastes. If I didn't know much about them, chances are I wouldn't be posting here.

I get that uniforms like the Dodgers' are the quintessential baseball uniforms, but that has more to do with the fact that they have been worn continuously and unchanged forever, to the point where we've gotten used to them. But that doesn't mean everybody has to like them, and it also doesn't mean that every single team - even the '90s expansion teams - need to look like they came from the 1900's. Why can't classic uniforms like the Yankees' set coexist with out-of-the-box uniforms like the Diamondbacks' TATC, just like basketball and football? What makes baseball special and "above" those other sports aesthetically?

And it's rather ironic that you use the Giants as an example of a "classic" look, because their uniforms have changed constantly over time. They've tried everything from script to block, white homes to cream homes, BFBS uniforms, TATC, hell, they even wore pink plaid uniforms at one point. The Giants haven't been afraid to try new things and evolve visually over time. I wish more teams could do what the Giants have done, uniform-wise.

[AnythingChicago]

No. You can't have 2 identities. It doesn't work that way. I am denying the fact that this is humanly possible! This is how it should be:

Home: Home alt becomes home primary.

Road: Same.

Sunday Home Alt: Red Jersey with navy INDIANS script and a cream outline (as seen in current home alt). With red socks and a red hat (as seen with current home alt).

Road Alt: Navy jersey with red CLEVELAND script and cream outline (as seen in current road alt). With navy socks and a navy hat (as seen in current road alt).

C'mon man! <<<<<(MNF Countdown reference!)

Why is it so wrong for a team to use one word mark on the home jersey, and another on the road? I'll discount Washington, but what about the Mets, Twins, Padres? They all have two different word marks. Does this mean they are struggling with their identity?

Or is this more about piping and eleventybillion hats...?

And, I'd like to point out that throughout the 40s and 50s, the Indians had cursive word mark on their home jersey and block letters on the road...

I typically find it ok to have script on the home and block on the road (i.e., Twins pinstripes, 80's Mets...) or like mentioned, the current Mets. Actually, the block Cleveland doesn't bother me. It's the 2 different pipings that do. If they had left it off the collar, it'd be ok. Like when the Rangers were in red or the 90's Orioles. But for some reason adding it around the collar on one feels like a completely different design.

And of course the TWO FRICKIN NAVY BLUES!

The best uniforms in sports are consistant.

[BBTV]

I actually like the Giants' script uniforms, though they're certainly not superior to what they wear now. Also, I'd argue that they can't go BFBS, considering that black is their primary color, and has been for decades (if not forever.) Their '80s homes were garbage (though the accompanying road was perfect.)

[Lights Out]

The script uniform did look great.

I like the orange roads that went with it, too. I actually prefer the script to their current Tuscan-esque block letters.

[BBTV]

The script is sooo '70s, but in a good way. Of course I also like the "disco" NY Giants helmets too. I'd like to see that script on a button-down professional-looking jersey. The v-neck and thick stripes really make it look softbally, but I'm not sure if the script would work any other way. Maybe "racing" stripes would work - hell, it's only a matter of time before someone brings them back. I'd be OK with this as an alt... as long as it's rarely used. Their current home and road are simply perfect. I really like the orange too, though I've always thought of the Orioles as being orange with black, and the Giants being black with orange, so I'm not sure that the orange is really appropriate for them.

[andrewharrington]

Yeah, it's rather condescending to tell me that I don't know or "understand" baseball uniforms because I disagree with your tastes. If I didn't know much about them, chances are I wouldn't be posting here.

I get that uniforms like the Dodgers' are the quintessential baseball uniforms, but that has more to do with the fact that they have been worn continuously and unchanged forever, to the point where we've gotten used to them. But that doesn't mean everybody has to like them, and it also doesn't mean that every single team - even the '90s expansion teams - need to look like they came from the 1900's. Why can't classic uniforms like the Yankees' set coexist with out-of-the-box uniforms like the Diamondbacks' TATC, just like basketball and football? What makes baseball special and "above" those other sports aesthetically?

And it's rather ironic that you use the Giants as an example of a "classic" look, because their uniforms have changed constantly over time. They've tried everything from script to block, white homes to cream homes, BFBS uniforms, TATC, hell, they even wore pink plaid uniforms at one point. The Giants haven't been afraid to try new things and evolve visually over time. I wish more teams could do what the Giants have done, uniform-wise.

I apologize for responding in a condescending tone. On the same token, it sounds condescending when you contend that my particular view on uniform design 'bores you to tears.' Clearly we both feel strongly about out viewpoints, and to be honest, it's really not realistic to think that one of us is going to change the way the other thinks (even though you're wrong ). I've researched uniforms for years, designed uniforms longer than that, even wrote a thesis on uniform design and I feel passionate about my viewpoint based on the thing's I've learned in that time. I feel like a young man rocking an old man's hobby, carrying the torch against the 'fresh, new, trendy' uniform designers of today. Unfortunately, my side is losing the battle.

The fact that the Dodgers haven't deviated from their style in decades and the fact that the Giants have continually tinkered with their uniforms is irrelevant; that's not the point. The point is, both teams wear a uniform that looks how a baseball uniform should look. The Dodgers wear a one-color script, and the Giants wear block letters. In the past, the giants have worn left chest monogram, script, block lettering, the whole spectrum of designs, but they always looked like a baseball team. Those Diamondback uniforms don't look like a baseball uniform. I'm sorry.

Would you put a cop in a sleeveless tee with an oversized, sublimated badge wrapping around from the front to the back? Would you put a group of cadets in compression-fit tees with 'U.S. Army' running vertically down the body as they walk for graduation? No, so why is it okay to put a baseball team in a sleeveless tee with an oversized, sublimated snake wrapping around from front to back? It's just not appropriate for a baseball uniform. It might be a nice design, but it's definitely not a nice design for a baseball uniform. This doesn't only apply to baseball. The original Raptors uniforms were a cool, unique design, but that design just wasn't good for a basketball uniform. They didn't look like a professional basketball team while wearing that. Same with the Rockets' pinstriped uniforms.

You can say that the Cardinals, Falcons, Vikings, Oregon, whoever has unique, out-of-the-box uniforms, but they're just not appropriate for football uniforms, and there's a century of history to back me up. A uniform is a uniform. Just because it's a sports uniform doesn't mean it should be held to a different standard than any other uniform.

The current Indians' script looks cheap on the jersey. The original 1994 version was passable, since it only had the one outline and avoided the 'patch' look. The script from which it is derived is even better. It still needs to be updated, but they went too far when they updated it in 1994. It's too digital, when it should be more organic like the original:

[Lights Out]

Would you put a cop in a sleeveless tee with an oversized, sublimated badge wrapping around from the front to the back? Would you put a group of cadets in compression-fit tees with 'U.S. Army' running vertically down the body as they walk for graduation? No, so why is it okay to put a baseball team in a sleeveless tee with an oversized, sublimated snake wrapping around from front to back?

Because cops and the Army aren't worried about merchandise sales and distinguishing themselves from other branches of the police or the Army. A sports team's uniform is made specifically to stand out from other sports teams in order to sell merchandise, period. Making a uniform that anyone with a sewing machine and fabric could make at home (like the Indians' road uniforms) is rather counterproductive to that purpose.

In all honesty, I think uniforms like the Diamondbacks' TATC or the Raptors' pinstriped set or Oregon's mix-and-match uniforms are the perfect sports uniforms: they stand out from the crowd, they're still in high demand among consumers today, and they cannot be easily reproduced by anyone other than the manufacturer. You can't say any of that about the Indians' new road uniform.

[andrewharrington]

A sports team's uniform is made specifically to stand out from other sports teams in order to sell merchandise, period.

This is where your argument falls apart for me, and it's why we have so many garbage uniforms out there today. Somewhere along the line in the last decade or two, people started thinking this way, and it's ruined almost everything that a sports uniform once stood for.

At it's core, the function of the uniform is absolutely not to sell merchandise. That notion was invented around the same time the concept of marketing really took hold in the sports world, around the late 1980s/early 1990s. The uniform is made to differentiate the two teams on the field for the aid of the players and the referees, and its to identify each player (usually with a number) for the aid of the coaches, referees, announcers and statisticians (and fans, if you ask some people). Nothing more.

I'm simply trying to hang on to what little dignity the sports uniform has left, as opposed to enabling the circus-like attitude that merchandise sales and marketing have infused into the sports uniform. There was a time when I think putting on a uniform made an athlete proud to be a part of that team. Now, I can't help but think they just feel silly putting on these clown-suits, and that's really sad.

[Lights Out]

That last paragraph is wrong on two counts: firstly, players these days love the so-called "clown suits" - just look at the reaction Oregon's uniforms get among recruits. And secondly, uniforms have never really made players proud to be a part of a team - winning and collecting a paycheck have always been the main factors in that. Let's not pretend that a boring, no-piping, block-letters baseball uniform has some sort of magical power that uniforms like the Rainbow Guts or the TATCs lack.

There's no turning back the hands of time. You're right that merchandising is a recent phenomenon, but it's here to stay. There's too much money in it for teams and leagues to not worry about its effects.

[andrewharrington]

Let's not pretend that a boring, no-piping, block-letters baseball uniform has some sort of magical power that uniforms like the Rainbow Guts or the TATCs lack.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. I certainly thing Mickey Mantle felt a certain magic buttoning up the Yankee pinstripes as opposed to Nolan Ryan pulling on the 'rainbow guts.'

There's too much money in it for teams and leagues to not worry about its effects.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right.

[SmoothieX]

Phasing out the script logos is such an epic fail. How they can see moving to ridiculously generic uniforms as a good idea is beyond me.

I totally agree with you there. They had a nice look these last 15 years or so. Did the Browns, Cavs, and Indians all get together and agree to have really dull, boring unis? Sure feels like it.

[BBTV]

Let's not pretend that a boring, no-piping, block-letters baseball uniform has some sort of magical power that uniforms like the Rainbow Guts or the TATCs lack.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. I certainly thing Mickey Mantle felt a certain magic buttoning up the Yankee pinstripes as opposed to Nolan Ryan pulling on the 'rainbow guts.'

There's too much money in it for teams and leagues to not worry about its effects.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right.

I wear a suit, or at least a shirt, tie, and wool pants every day. I hate it, and wish my "old school" company would get with the times. Their argument (one of them anyway) is that when you put the dress clothes on, it has a subconcious effect on you, putting you in a focused, business like mood, helping you to block out distractions and focus on the task at hand. You don't want to be wearing anything flashy - anything that would actually make you "notice" what you're wearing. Simple is better in this case - you want to look over at your coworker or teammate and see them for them, not for what they're wearing.

Obviously sports is different, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that at least some of that still applies.

[Matito]

Let's not pretend that a boring, no-piping, block-letters baseball uniform has some sort of magical power that uniforms like the Rainbow Guts or the TATCs lack.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. I certainly thing Mickey Mantle felt a certain magic buttoning up the Yankee pinstripes as opposed to Nolan Ryan pulling on the 'rainbow guts.'

There's too much money in it for teams and leagues to not worry about its effects.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it right.

I wear a suit, or at least a shirt, tie, and wool pants every day. I hate it, and wish my "old school" company would get with the times. Their argument (one of them anyway) is that when you put the dress clothes on, it has a subconcious effect on you, putting you in a focused, business like mood, helping you to block out distractions and focus on the task at hand. You don't want to be wearing anything flashy - anything that would actually make you "notice" what you're wearing. Simple is better in this case - you want to look over at your coworker or teammate and see them for them, not for what they're wearing.

Obviously sports is different, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that at least some of that still applies.

Agreed on all accounts. I don't wear a suit and tie (just a college student with a part-time job at a grocery store), but our uniforms are designed to be basic and clean. Occasionally for seasonal promotions, our manager allows us to wear buttons promoting whatever it is, but I keep mine as plain as allowed - my name tag and my "We Check IDs" badge. On the other hand, I see some people who stockpile the buttons and wear them all on their aprons until they look like this:

[IceCap]

A sports team's uniform is made specifically to stand out from other sports teams in order to sell merchandise, period.

This is where your argument falls apart for me, and it's why we have so many garbage uniforms out there today. Somewhere along the line in the last decade or two, people started thinking this way, and it's ruined almost everything that a sports uniform once stood for.

At it's core, the function of the uniform is absolutely not to sell merchandise. That notion was invented around the same time the concept of marketing really took hold in the sports world, around the late 1980s/early 1990s. The uniform is made to differentiate the two teams on the field for the aid of the players and the referees, and its to identify each player (usually with a number) for the aid of the coaches, referees, announcers and statisticians (and fans, if you ask some people). Nothing more.

I'm simply trying to hang on to what little dignity the sports uniform has left, as opposed to enabling the circus-like attitude that merchandise sales and marketing have infused into the sports uniform. There was a time when I think putting on a uniform made an athlete proud to be a part of that team. Now, I can't help but think they just feel silly putting on these clown-suits, and that's really sad.

Agreed on all counts.

That last paragraph is wrong on two counts: firstly, players these days love the so-called "clown suits" -

Arguing that uniforms don't matter to player preference when it's a classic uniform but arguing that they do when it's a modern uniform? Hypocrisy.

just look at the reaction Oregon's uniforms get among recruits.

Just because someone can play a sport doesn't mean they know anything about uniform designs for that sport.

And secondly, uniforms have never really made players proud to be a part of a team - winning and collecting a paycheck have always been the main factors in that. Let's not pretend that a boring, no-piping, block-letters baseball uniform has some sort of magical power that uniforms like the Rainbow Guts or the TATCs lack.

First off, to reference what I said above, you're a hypocrite. You say that players don't, in fact, feel a sense of pride when they wear a classic uniform, but you say the modern uniforms are essential to recruiters. Either uniforms matter to those who wear them or they don't. You can't say they do only for the aesthetic you personally like.

Secondly, there are plenty of stories of players who have gone on to play for historic teams and who have mentioned a sense of pride when wearing those uniforms. Is it all talk? Possibly, but there are first-hand accounts out there that go against what you're claiming.

Finally, I would argue that, in a recruiting sense, classic looks are just as important as modern ones, perhaps more so. For every player that wants to wear an Oregon clown suit I'll show you a player who wants to wear the classic Notre Dame look.

There's no turning back the hands of time.

The cry of doomed futurists everywhere. 1,000 years can pass and the Toronto Maple Leafs still won't look like the Toronto Maple Leafs in sweaters with leaf-inspired striping. The classics will always stay classic, and what looks good will always stay in style. The clown suits we currently see will fall out of favour in a decade or so. Just like they did after they ran their course in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The "cool" trends will come and go but what looks classic, what looks professional, will always stay consistent.

[omnivore]

I love the Indians throwbacks, but want to retire Chief Wahoo and hope they do eventually.