Orioles 2012 Changes

[The Mojo Maniac]

And who knows how long the Orioles will even have theirs. You can't really say "they're back" if they're gone by the All-Star break, so who knows.

True. Given how baseball uniforms tend to change, even within the same set, the white paneled Orioles cap is one poor sales report or losing streak away from being shelved.

Not sure how relevant it is to overall sales, but the white panel cap is already on back order at shop.mlb.com. No problems at all ordering the black caps.

As to the topic at hand, I have a hard time believing that off panel caps are "back" when three teams with a history of using them re-branded this off-season, and only one used the opportunity to bring them back. The Orioles might stick with theirs for a very long time. They might make the white panelled cap their "thing." If they do, good for them. One team using them doesn't mean the trend is "back."

I'll give you this though. Off-colour panelled caps are more likely to make a comeback in the Majors then pullovers are.

Good points. I wouldn't say they're "back" either, but they are back for the Orioles and I think it would be cool if they made it their "thing", whether other teams followed or not.

A question to ball cap guru's out there: How many white or multicolored panel caps has MLB had, and at what point in time were they most prevalent? Off the top of my head, I can think of O's, White Sox, Padres, Expos, Braves, Brewers... I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them.

White Sox (1982-86), Orioles (1975-88), Red Sox (1974), Blue Jays (1977-93, not including "flashback Fridays" a couple years ago), Padres (1972-1984), Brewers (1974-85), Expos (1969-91), Braves (1972-80).

So it would seem that they were most prevalent from about 1977-1984 or so.

Also, the Twins and Mariners were two teams that for a time wore paneled batting helmets but never wore paneled caps.

[Gothamite]

And while the Brewers wire their gold-paneled caps on the road, they wore white-paneled helmets with those and with the all-blue home caps:

Those helmets didn't match any caps.

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Blue Jays did have a pullover alt last year, so pullovers were "back" as much as white-paneled caps (Toronto had those, too) if "worn regularly" is all that qualifies it. They might not be ever used more frequently than weekly but they were used again. So they returned, but didn't quite spark a trend. We'll see if this Orioles cap or the Marlins' small step (IMO) out of the box do. Personally, I think the Orioles are one of the few teams who can pull it off, but I suppose a newer expansion team could try.

Also, the last BPs were pullovers, which I actually thought was a good place for modern pullover experimentation. Sadly, side-panel overload kind of ruined those for me.

To bring it back to the Orioles, weren't they wearing pullover BPs when they went orange a couple years ago for t-shirt Tuesdays or something?

[Trevell]

And who knows how long the Orioles will even have theirs. You can't really say "they're back" if they're gone by the All-Star break, so who knows.

True. Given how baseball uniforms tend to change, even within the same set, the white paneled Orioles cap is one poor sales report or losing streak away from being shelved.

Not sure how relevant it is to overall sales, but the white panel cap is already on back order at shop.mlb.com. No problems at all ordering the black caps.

As to the topic at hand, I have a hard time believing that off panel caps are "back" when three teams with a history of using them re-branded this off-season, and only one used the opportunity to bring them back. The Orioles might stick with theirs for a very long time. They might make the white panelled cap their "thing." If they do, good for them. One team using them doesn't mean the trend is "back."

I'll give you this though. Off-colour panelled caps are more likely to make a comeback in the Majors then pullovers are.

Good points. I wouldn't say they're "back" either, but they are back for the Orioles and I think it would be cool if they made it their "thing", whether other teams followed or not.

A question to ball cap guru's out there: How many white or multicolored panel caps has MLB had, and at what point in time were they most prevalent? Off the top of my head, I can think of O's, White Sox, Padres, Expos, Braves, Brewers... I'm sure there are more, but I can't think of them.

White Sox (1982-86), Orioles (1975-88), Red Sox (1974), Blue Jays (1977-93, not including "flashback Fridays" a couple years ago), Padres (1972-1984), Brewers (1974-85), Expos (1969-91), Braves (1972-80).

So it would seem that they were most prevalent from about 1977-1984 or so.

Also, the Twins and Mariners were two teams that for a time wore paneled batting helmets but never wore paneled caps.

Thanks for the rundown, Mojo. So during it's 8 year ('77-'84) peak, the multi-paneled caps were worn by 6 of the 26 MLB teams at the time(except '81, when only 5 teams wore them).

6 of 26 doesn't really seem like that many teams, so how many teams today would have to adapt the paneled look for it to be considered "back"?

[Bravo96]

Didn't the BoSox have a front panel at one time?

[IceCap]

The Blue Jays did have a pullover alt last year, so pullovers were "back" as much as white-paneled caps (Toronto had those, too) if "worn regularly" is all that qualifies it. They might not be ever used more frequently than weekly but they were used again. So they returned, but didn't quite spark a trend. We'll see if this Orioles cap or the Marlins' small step (IMO) out of the box do. Personally, I think the Orioles are one of the few teams who can pull it off, but I suppose a newer expansion team could try.

Also, the last BPs were pullovers, which I actually thought was a good place for modern pullover experimentation. Sadly, side-panel overload kind of ruined those for me.

To bring it back to the Orioles, weren't they wearing pullover BPs when they went orange a couple years ago for t-shirt Tuesdays or something?

I wouldn't say the Blue Jays' pullover counts, because that was a straight throwback to their pullover uniforms. To be "back" I mean a team unveils a new design that uses pullovers in place of standard button down jerseys.

The batting practice examples you mentioned are more to the point, but still it's just batting practice. I very much doubt a team will use that style for a new full time uniform.

[The Mojo Maniac]

Didn't the BoSox have a front panel at one time?

They did, I mentioned them in my list as wearing them in 1974. The front panel was red while the rest of the cap was navy, and they served as an alternate for Sunday home games, or so it seems. There is a picture of a 1975 program out there that indicates that they were about to go with that look full-time for the '75 season, but of course we all know that they ended up going with the red crown/navy bill scheme immortalized in the famous Carlton Fisk game 6 walk-off home run.

[yh]

And now for Deadspin's take on it . . . . (with appropriate attibution, of course).

[CubsFanBudMan]

The Blue Jays did have a pullover alt last year, so pullovers were "back" as much as white-paneled caps (Toronto had those, too) if "worn regularly" is all that qualifies it. They might not be ever used more frequently than weekly but they were used again. So they returned, but didn't quite spark a trend. We'll see if this Orioles cap or the Marlins' small step (IMO) out of the box do. Personally, I think the Orioles are one of the few teams who can pull it off, but I suppose a newer expansion team could try.

Also, the last BPs were pullovers, which I actually thought was a good place for modern pullover experimentation. Sadly, side-panel overload kind of ruined those for me.

To bring it back to the Orioles, weren't they wearing pullover BPs when they went orange a couple years ago for t-shirt Tuesdays or something?

I wouldn't say the Blue Jays' pullover counts, because that was a straight throwback to their pullover uniforms. To be "back" I mean a team unveils a new design that uses pullovers in place of standard button down jerseys.

The batting practice examples you mentioned are more to the point, but still it's just batting practice. I very much doubt a team will use that style for a new full time uniform.

True, but the mothership has those throwback alts used for three years. Was it used weekly for all three? (Before looking, I honestly thought it was the Friday uni for only one.) At whatever time it did become a weekly uni, I remember thinking that it was a pretty strong commitment to a pullover look. Strongest in years (until those BPs, I guess). And if it was weekly for three years it was even more than I thought. It certainly wasn't a trend, but it was a legit "third." I agree that a full-time home or road is doubtful, but I guess you never know.

My memory is failling me on this one. Maybe it's the lack of Jays coverage on ESPN. Glad I have MLB Network now.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

The full-bodied bird is completely gone right? If so, it kind of saddens me. I always thought it was a nice logo. I know it's kind of contradictory to have a cartoon bird and then a highly detailed version, but I was hoping to still see it somewhere.

[BigBubba]

The Blue Jays did have a pullover alt last year, so pullovers were "back" as much as white-paneled caps (Toronto had those, too) if "worn regularly" is all that qualifies it. They might not be ever used more frequently than weekly but they were used again. So they returned, but didn't quite spark a trend. We'll see if this Orioles cap or the Marlins' small step (IMO) out of the box do. Personally, I think the Orioles are one of the few teams who can pull it off, but I suppose a newer expansion team could try.

Also, the last BPs were pullovers, which I actually thought was a good place for modern pullover experimentation. Sadly, side-panel overload kind of ruined those for me.

To bring it back to the Orioles, weren't they wearing pullover BPs when they went orange a couple years ago for t-shirt Tuesdays or something?

I wouldn't say the Blue Jays' pullover counts, because that was a straight throwback to their pullover uniforms. To be "back" I mean a team unveils a new design that uses pullovers in place of standard button down jerseys.

The batting practice examples you mentioned are more to the point, but still it's just batting practice. I very much doubt a team will use that style for a new full time uniform.

True, but the mothership has those throwback alts used for three years. Was it used weekly for all three? (Before looking, I honestly thought it was the Friday uni for only one.) At whatever time it did become a weekly uni, I remember thinking that it was a pretty strong commitment to a pullover look. Strongest in years (until those BPs, I guess). And if it was weekly for three years it was even more than I thought. It certainly wasn't a trend, but it was a legit "third." I agree that a full-time home or road is doubtful, but I guess you never know.

My memory is failling me on this one. Maybe it's the lack of Jays coverage on ESPN. Glad I have MLB Network now.

It was worn on every home Friday game for those 3 years.

81 home games/7 (days in a week) = ~12. Of course, they had some Fridays off, so they wore it about 10 times a year. How often do teams wear their alts on average? The best I can think is that NHL teams wear theirs about 12-14 times, which would equate to somewhere in the mid 20s for an MLB team, which is significantly more than the Jays wore theirs. So I'm not sure if you could call it a "legit third" because it was only at home.

[IceCap]

The full-bodied bird is completely gone right? If so, it kind of saddens me. I always thought it was a nice logo. I know it's kind of contradictory to have a cartoon bird and then a highly detailed version, but I was hoping to still see it somewhere.

The full body realistic bird is still in the team's primary logo.

[Gothamite]

And yes, it does seem to conflict.

Three different styles of Oriole, all within the same logo package.

[McCall]

The Blue Jays did have a pullover alt last year, so pullovers were "back" as much as white-paneled caps (Toronto had those, too) if "worn regularly" is all that qualifies it. They might not be ever used more frequently than weekly but they were used again. So they returned, but didn't quite spark a trend. We'll see if this Orioles cap or the Marlins' small step (IMO) out of the box do. Personally, I think the Orioles are one of the few teams who can pull it off, but I suppose a newer expansion team could try.

Also, the last BPs were pullovers, which I actually thought was a good place for modern pullover experimentation. Sadly, side-panel overload kind of ruined those for me.

To bring it back to the Orioles, weren't they wearing pullover BPs when they went orange a couple years ago for t-shirt Tuesdays or something?

I wouldn't say the Blue Jays' pullover counts, because that was a straight throwback to their pullover uniforms. To be "back" I mean a team unveils a new design that uses pullovers in place of standard button down jerseys.

The batting practice examples you mentioned are more to the point, but still it's just batting practice. I very much doubt a team will use that style for a new full time uniform.

True, but the mothership has those throwback alts used for three years. Was it used weekly for all three? (Before looking, I honestly thought it was the Friday uni for only one.) At whatever time it did become a weekly uni, I remember thinking that it was a pretty strong commitment to a pullover look. Strongest in years (until those BPs, I guess). And if it was weekly for three years it was even more than I thought. It certainly wasn't a trend, but it was a legit "third." I agree that a full-time home or road is doubtful, but I guess you never know.

My memory is failling me on this one. Maybe it's the lack of Jays coverage on ESPN. Glad I have MLB Network now.

It was worn on every home Friday game for those 3 years.

81 home games/7 (days in a week) = ~12. Of course, they had some Fridays off, so they wore it about 10 times a year. How often do teams wear their alts on average? The best I can think is that NHL teams wear theirs about 12-14 times, which would equate to somewhere in the mid 20s for an MLB team, which is significantly more than the Jays wore theirs. So I'm not sure if you could call it a "legit third" because it was only at home.

The throwbacks were only alternates, worn sparingly compared to other uniforms, and of course, are gone now. So they're not back. If they were back, they'd still be around, as regularly worn uniforms, and other teams would be doing so. Same with the panel caps. One team is now using them, and you can't say "they're back" until they've been established and aren't going anywhere. They haven't even used them in a game yet, so saying they're back is getting ahead of ourselves. You have to give them time first.

And the BP's were pullovers, but with two buttons, and, of course, are now back to button-ups. So that kind of proves our point that pullovers are indeed trendy and not back.

[hofflalu]

Weren't the Orioles the last team to wear pullovers on a regular basis (as opposed to wearing a pullover BP in a game or series) in 1993-94?

Of course, the Reds were the final team to wear pullovers throughout their entire set (1992).

While the pullover "look" with the v-neck may never make a comeback, didn't Adrian Gonzalez supposedly have a faux-button-down jersey this past season that might have actually been a pullover but with the button-down front permanently connected? And, if this was the case and catches on, might this address the issue of wordmark interruption?

[RedSox44]

Didn't the BoSox have a front panel at one time?

Yeah, it was part of an alt uniform they wore in 1974.

[winghaz]

Deadspin's take on the typo brings up a pet peeve: It should be Os, not O's. It's plural, not possessive.

Likewise, it should be As, not A's. I understand that makes it look as if it's the word "as" and it is tradition. But it's wrong.

Oh, well. If Maple Leafs doesn't bother me, then I shouldn't get all upset over this.

[IceCap]

Oh, well. If Maple Leafs doesn't bother me, then I shouldn't get all upset over this.

"Maple Leafs" is grammatically correct, so it shouldn't bother you

[TruColor]

Deadspin's take on the typo brings up a pet peeve: It should be Os, not O's. It's plural, not possessive.

Likewise, it should be As, not A's. I understand that makes it look as if it's the word "as" and it is tradition. But it's wrong.

Oh, well. If Maple Leafs doesn't bother me, then I shouldn't get all upset over this.

But then again, we live in an age where a large percentage of interwebs users insert apostrophes into every word that ends in "s". Not to mention a complete lack of understanding of word usage - "there" vs. "their" vs. "they're" among others.

How many times have we seen - on this very board nonetheless - somebody post something like this?:

"Team X unveiled there new logo's today."

"I like those jersey's."

Ack.

[erlovepuck]

Deadspin's take on the typo brings up a pet peeve: It should be Os, not O's. It's plural, not possessive.

Likewise, it should be As, not A's. I understand that makes it look as if it's the word "as" and it is tradition. But it's wrong.

Oh, well. If Maple Leafs doesn't bother me, then I shouldn't get all upset over this.

Yes but in both instances the apostrophe is not there to show possession but rather in place of 'riole' and 'thletic' respectively. It would seem to be grammatically correct in this context because it is being used as a contraction.