New Houston Astros Uniforms

[tubby34]

I guess the twenty teens are the decade of orange.

I'm not sure about that. The Orioles and Giants have always used orange, so them deciding to emphasise it doesn't seem like they're following a trend. Orange was an Astros colour for thirty years, and it was bound to be featured in any new Astros set that looked to return to the team's roots. Again, the team using it has a history with it, so I don't see a trend.

The only MLB team that now uses orange that previously did not would be Miami. Which works, given that it's Florida.

Miami has always used orange.

[Lee.]

nm, late post

[GeorgesL]

I like the way they brought back the cap logos, especially the orange caps. I have an orange Astros cap myself. As for the uniforms, I like them, but I feel something is missing. I would've added a shooting star to the jerseys like they did when they first started using the Astros' moniker back in '65.

[IceCap]

I guess the twenty teens are the decade of orange.

I'm not sure about that. The Orioles and Giants have always used orange, so them deciding to emphasise it doesn't seem like they're following a trend. Orange was an Astros colour for thirty years, and it was bound to be featured in any new Astros set that looked to return to the team's roots. Again, the team using it has a history with it, so I don't see a trend.

The only MLB team that now uses orange that previously did not would be Miami. Which works, given that it's Florida.

Miami has always used orange.

No, they haven't. They've only "always used orange" in the same sense that the Blackhawks have "used green since the 30s."

[McCall]

The primary home look should be the one perfectly modeled by Jose Altuve as the "Saturday" look: orange cap and undershirt with white jersey. For Monday through Thursday home games, they had better wear navy undershirts to match the navy caps. The solid navy cap goes fine with the orange alt, but I would rather they be smarter than the Marlins and actually wear the orange cap and jersey together.

The navy cap is what needs to be worn on the road (with navy undershirt, of course) and with the BP/Sunday alt jersey.

I don't get why so many people are saying the navy cap is unnecessary. If anything, the navy crown/orange bill cap is the unnecessary one. It just looks awkward with the road grays (even with orange undershirts) and the solid navy cap should be the one paired with the BP/Sunday alt. Plus, the fact that they couldn't make the squatchee orange just makes it the scourge of the set.

Agreed. The all navy cap is the classic one. The navy/orange cap should be the primary home cap or secondary to the orange, or worn with the orange jersey at times. It looks odd with the roads that are dominated by navy. THAT'S where the all navy cap should be. The all navy cap really does go with all jerseys, so it's not only great looking, but versatile. However, with 3 caps, it doesn't necessarily need to be worn with all jerseys.

I'd say home, either/or with the orange and the navy/orange. Road, all navy. Orange jersey, orange or navy/orange at home, all navy on the road (if they're wearing them on the road at all).

[McCall]

I guess the twenty teens are the decade of orange.

I'm not sure about that. The Orioles and Giants have always used orange, so them deciding to emphasise it doesn't seem like they're following a trend. Orange was an Astros colour for thirty years, and it was bound to be featured in any new Astros set that looked to return to the team's roots. Again, the team using it has a history with it, so I don't see a trend.

The only MLB team that now uses orange that previously did not would be Miami. Which works, given that it's Florida.

Miami has always used orange.

No, they haven't. They've only "always used orange" in the same sense that the Blackhawks have "used green since the 30s."

Less, actually. They've only really used orange (uniform-wise) on commemorative patches and logos. The Blackhawks at least consistently use green in the primary logo.

[Quillz]

Is there a logo slick showing the entire numeral set?

Thanks, they look better than I thought they would have.

[Gothamite]

I guess the twenty teens are the decade of orange.

I'm not sure about that. The Orioles and Giants have always used orange, so them deciding to emphasise it doesn't seem like they're following a trend. Orange was an Astros colour for thirty years, and it was bound to be featured in any new Astros set that looked to return to the team's roots. Again, the team using it has a history with it, so I don't see a trend.

The only MLB team that now uses orange that previously did not would be Miami. Which works, given that it's Florida.

Miami has always used orange.

No, they haven't. They've only "always used orange" in the same sense that the Blackhawks have "used green since the 30s."

Less, actually. They've only really used orange (uniform-wise) on commemorative patches and logos. The Blackhawks at least consistently use green in the primary logo.

Marlins have done exactly the same since their inception.

[The_Admiral]

To the "it doesn't look space age/futuristic/Astro-like" crowd:

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

The Astros aren't the Dodgers nor the Tigers. They've been among baseball's vanguard for most of their history: bright orange hats, shooting stars, plastic grass, white shoes, rainbow guts, modern typefaces, goofy menagerie ballpark if you want to stretch it there, Big Freaking Handguns on their shirts if you want to go pre-Astros. No one is saying they have a mandate to wear spacesuits (then again, if the Padres...), but I don't think this has the progressive elements they've traditionally incorporated, and maybe it should have.

[tBBP]

I'd say home, either/or with the orange and the navy/orange. Road, all navy. Orange jersey, orange or navy/orange at home, all navy on the road (if they're wearing them on the road at all).

That's about the way I think about it, though I'd personally prefer the navy/orange as the default both home and away. My personal opinion, that orange bill helps enhance the orange throughout the rest of the set (that is, assuming it'd be worn with navy undershirts). I also agree with others about the orange lid/orange undershirt look for Saturday home games—though I personally don't see the orange lid working too well on top of the gray, though I really can't pinpoint why. If anything, I think the solid navy cap should be used for that sweet-looking navy alternate-which would help the colored side panels stand out more.

Oh—and just to clarify something from earlier, since it seems some missed my point: this isn't a bad look by any means. It's a clean, solid baseball look that serves its function very well (to echo what I said earlier). I just personally wish they'd have thrown some bone to some of the more expessive parts of their identity beyond the navy alts—that's all I'm saying.

[McCall]

I don't think there's enough orange on the road jerseys to really go with the navy/orange cap. Some may say it helps the bill pop, but all I see is it standing out and clashing with the road uniform. There's orange piping on the home so that's why it looks good with that jersey. All 3 caps actually go well with the home jersey, orange alt and either navy cap with the BP/alt. But really the navy cap is the only one that looks right with the road uniforms. If the piping was orange on them too, it'd be a different story. But it's not.

[tBBP]

Now that I see these, I ain't really liking them too much—but they're also not horrible. At least they do match the rest of the scripts, so there is that. I almost kinda wish they were a tadbit thicker, though.

[The_Admiral]

Feels like one of those number sets NFL Properties would cook up to make sure a team's varsity-ish block was proprietary. Or like someone cut them out of felt with the dull pair of shears from that drawer under the microwave with the rubber bands and pizzeria menus. Either/or

[tBBP]

Yeah that's one way of looking at it—I kinda agree with that assessment. It probably has to do with the serifs, which, even with the cap logo, seem to be shaped that way "just because".

[ToyFrisbee]

The best part of the set is the wordmark, which will only be available on t-shirts. Although the star beveling DOES look weirdly executed.

[McCall]

How does this in any way resemble a tiger?

The road uniforms reflect the name better because they actually use orange on the road.

They play in a ballpark modeled after a turn of the last century train station. There's no way in God's green earth that they'd look right wearing a modern, gaudy mess with a train carrying oranges behind left field.

Aren't they tweaking the interior of the park and getting rid of the train?

Well, that's just a silly argument but I'll play along. OK then, tell me how this in any way represents mountains. Are mountains purple and black?

"Purple mountains' majesty"?

Remind me again how these guys...

look like they're portraying one of these guys?

I'm pretty sure the shape of the front panel on these hats was supposed to somewhat reflect that goofy hat that high-up priests wear.

Except that THIS is the padre/friar that the team is named after.

And, in terms of the Astros, the name is Greek for Stars, so by having a star as a logo, voila!

Exactly. It doesn't mean streaking or shooting star, it doesn't mean multi-colored striping, it simply means "star". It's no different than say the Pirates or the Royals or even the Brewers (the barley/wheat thing). All feature their "namesake", just not in the wordmark. And actually the Pirates and Royals only feature their's on the sleeve patch, so the Astros are one-up on them.

[habsfan1]

Looks like the exact same font once used on the Florida Panthers old alternate jersey.

[rxmc89]

To the "it doesn't look space age/futuristic/Astro-like" crowd:

What part of this looks like a guy dodging trolley cars, again?

How does this in any way resemble a tiger?

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Again, bad example. You're comparing teams that have storied histories that go back 100+ years, and classic, iconic uniforms that have been around for decades, with a team that's been around for 50 years and has never kept the same uniform for more than 15 years. The Astros don't the winning tradition or storied history that those teams do, or that classic, iconic uniform, so they're free to something more modern and out of the box with their uniforms w/o messing with any kind of sacred tradition. If the Tigers were a new or relatively new expansion team, they'd probably have tiger stripes or something like that on their uniforms.

How do you know what the Tigers would do? Baseball team's in general go for more classic looks anyway. And again, just because a team has a history with some gaudy designs it DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO KEEP HAVING THEM. They do have some simple designs in their past and that's what they chose to go with and it looks good. There's a reason why they kept changing from those out of the box uniforms: they didn't look good.

I never said I know what the Tigers would do, it was just a guess, and maybe not a very good one.

Do you think that these don't look good?

If so, then you must think these don't look very good:

Or these:

[McCall]

To the "it doesn't look space age/futuristic/Astro-like" crowd:

What part of this looks like a guy dodging trolley cars, again?

How does this in any way resemble a tiger?

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Again, bad example. You're comparing teams that have storied histories that go back 100+ years, and classic, iconic uniforms that have been around for decades, with a team that's been around for 50 years and has never kept the same uniform for more than 15 years. The Astros don't the winning tradition or storied history that those teams do, or that classic, iconic uniform, so they're free to something more modern and out of the box with their uniforms w/o messing with any kind of sacred tradition. If the Tigers were a new or relatively new expansion team, they'd probably have tiger stripes or something like that on their uniforms.

How do you know what the Tigers would do? Baseball team's in general go for more classic looks anyway. And again, just because a team has a history with some gaudy designs it DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO KEEP HAVING THEM. They do have some simple designs in their past and that's what they chose to go with and it looks good. There's a reason why they kept changing from those out of the box uniforms: they didn't look good.

I never said I know what the Tigers would do, it was just a guess, and maybe not a very good one.

Do you think that these don't look good?

If so, then you must think these don't look very good:

Or these:

Ok, I'm about to pull what's left of my hair out. One has nothing to do with the other. Yes I like the shooting star ones. Doesn't mean these can't look good. Doesn't mean they have to include it. They feature a star on the caps and sleeve so the nickname is fully represented.

[rxmc89]

To the "it doesn't look space age/futuristic/Astro-like" crowd:

What part of this looks like a guy dodging trolley cars, again?

How does this in any way resemble a tiger?

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Again, bad example. You're comparing teams that have storied histories that go back 100+ years, and classic, iconic uniforms that have been around for decades, with a team that's been around for 50 years and has never kept the same uniform for more than 15 years. The Astros don't the winning tradition or storied history that those teams do, or that classic, iconic uniform, so they're free to something more modern and out of the box with their uniforms w/o messing with any kind of sacred tradition. If the Tigers were a new or relatively new expansion team, they'd probably have tiger stripes or something like that on their uniforms.

How do you know what the Tigers would do? Baseball team's in general go for more classic looks anyway. And again, just because a team has a history with some gaudy designs it DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO KEEP HAVING THEM. They do have some simple designs in their past and that's what they chose to go with and it looks good. There's a reason why they kept changing from those out of the box uniforms: they didn't look good.

I never said I know what the Tigers would do, it was just a guess, and maybe not a very good one.

Do you think that these don't look good?

If so, then you must think these don't look very good:

Or these:

Ok, you clearly can't make a rational point. One has nothing to do with the other. Yes I like the shooting star ones. Doesn't mean these can't look good. Doesn't mean they have to include it. They feature a star on the caps and sleeve so the nickname is fully represented.

True. And the Cardinals don't have to have red birds on their jerseys. They could just wear plain uniforms with cardinal red hats and 'Cardinals' written across the front in generic block letters and the nickname would still be fully represented. So why don't they just do that? That would look just as good, right?