New Houston Astros Uniforms

[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, 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?

Seriously what is your point? You're not making any sense.

[Mitch B]

I think the thing that bothers me about this set is the all blue cap. It's already kind of a dull set, uniform-wise - using the blue/orange cap as the full time hat and tossing in the orange one on occasions would bring a bit of brightness to the net. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they went orange full time at home and blue/orange on the road.

I agree. The orange brightens up the uniform.

[Gothamite]

I think the two-tone cap is the odd man out. Would much rather they have all-navy home and road and orange with the alternates.

[rxmc89]

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?

Seriously what is your point? You're not making any sense.

I guess that's what you say when you can't come up with a good refutation to someone's argument. I'm making the same point you made about the Astros. You say you like the shooting star, but that they don't have to include it, and that the current set looks just fine without it, and that the name is fully represented without it. Same could apply to the Cardinals. They don't have to have the birds on bat. 'Cardinal' could just as easily mean the color cardinal red as it does birds. They could easily get away with just a generic block (or script) 'Cardinals' on the front and as long as they wear cardinal red (which they don't even do now) the nickname is fully represented. The reason they don't do that is because it would be extremely boring.

[Gothamite]

The problem is that nobody's disagreeing with you.

The Cardinals could go with a simple script or block name on the front. They don't absolutely need the birds. Most people like the birds (I'm not one of them), but nobody's saying that they need them.

I don't want to speak for him, but that's my reading of your post. The comparison you're trying to make doesn't work. It's neither sufficiently grounded in reality to be challenging nor outlandish enough to work as biting satire.

[oldschoolvikings]

OK... that's pretty nice.

[McCall]

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?

Seriously what is your point? You're not making any sense.

I guess that's what you say when you can't come up with a good refutation to someone's argument. I'm making the same point you made about the Astros. You say you like the shooting star, but that they don't have to include it, and that the current set looks just fine without it, and that the name is fully represented without it. Same could apply to the Cardinals. They don't have to have the birds on bat. 'Cardinal' could just as easily mean the color cardinal red as it does birds. They could easily get away with just a generic block (or script) 'Cardinals' on the front and as long as they wear cardinal red (which they don't even do now) the nickname is fully represented.

No, it's what I say when you're not making an argument. You're saying they need to have the shooting star, but we're saying they don't. Yet your using teams with the mascots in the wordmarks that could do without them and still represent the name as an argument as to why the Astros DO need to include the star. You're contradicting yourself.

Also, the birds on the bat are probably the most legendary uniform feature in MLB. The shooting star, not so much.

[Gothamite]

Precisely.

I'm sympathetic, because I love the star and wish they had brought it back. But the argument you're making, that they need the star, just doesn't make any sense.

Or are you trying to argue that since the Astros can look good without the shooting star, then the Cardinals need to lose their birds? I honestly can't tell, but that assertion would make even less sense.

[rxmc89]

As has been mentioned before, "Astro" simply means "star", which is featured. It doesn't have to be in the wordmark, it doesn't have to necessarily shown any form of motion, the uniforms don't have to be futuristic or space agey. They just need to look good. Which they do. They may not exactly replicate the original 60's era uniforms, but it does give off the vibe. Are they perfect? No. I myself would've like to see a rebirth of the shooting/streaking star, but this is a solid look nonetheless. It seems most have this preconceived notion that the Astros are required to be the wacky, over-the-top looking team, when in reality, prior to and after the various rainbow eras, they've always had fairly basic uniforms. Sure the wordmarks may have been a little more modern on the 90's navy and gold set, but all-in-all, basic has really been their style.

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".

Technically true, but 'Astro' is almost always used in the context of space and space exploration. Astronaut. Astronomy. Astrophysics. It usually doesn't refer simply to stars in general. It was always the general understanding that the name was inspired by NASA and the space program, you know, being in "space city", where NASA Mission Control is located. They most likely weren't named after just stars in general. MLB doesn't play the All-Astro Game every July. Actors don't get their astro on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. The American flag doesn't have 50 astros on it, etc.

[Gothamite]

Okay, now you've really lost me.

They have a star in their scheme, but not the right kind of star?

[Darth Brooks]

How does this in any way resemble a tiger?

There was that one year...

But according to all accounts the stripes were blue so maybe that doesn't count.

[rxmc89]

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?

Seriously what is your point? You're not making any sense.

I guess that's what you say when you can't come up with a good refutation to someone's argument. I'm making the same point you made about the Astros. You say you like the shooting star, but that they don't have to include it, and that the current set looks just fine without it, and that the name is fully represented without it. Same could apply to the Cardinals. They don't have to have the birds on bat. 'Cardinal' could just as easily mean the color cardinal red as it does birds. They could easily get away with just a generic block (or script) 'Cardinals' on the front and as long as they wear cardinal red (which they don't even do now) the nickname is fully represented.

No, it's what I say when you're not making an argument. You're saying they need to have the shooting star, but we're saying they don't. Yet your using teams with the mascots in the wordmarks that could do without them and still represent the name as an argument as to why the Astros DO need to include the star. You're contradicting yourself.

Also, the birds on the bat are probably the most legendary uniform feature in MLB. The shooting star, not so much.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. The Cardinals thing was mostly sarcasm. I'm arguing that by your logic, the Cardinals could do all the things I mentioned and it would be fine and dandy. Of course that wouldn't be the case. I agree the birds on bat are one of the best uniforms in baseball and it would be terrible if they got rid of them. And I'm not saying the Astros NEED the shooting star, just as the Cards don't NEED the birds on bat, but they would look a lot better with it. The shooting star may not be as legendary as the birds on bat, but it could be a distinctive mark that would uniquely identify the Astros, like the Brewers barley, the Angels halo, or the Mariners compass.

[pmoehrin]

I think its a big upgrade.

It could be better, but I thought the Astros as one of those teams with a real identity crisis on their hands. The either had to get away from that train motiff or change their name. Also doesn't help matters that they've been without question the worst team in baseball for the last two years, so the new look is coming at a time when they can only get better.

They're still a couple years away from being competitive, but this is a young team going to a new league, why not have a new look to go with it? They need to do something to get baseball back in the headlines in Houston. This is a team that finished dead last in NL attendance last year. Hopefully this will help, but they also need to play alot better.

[BrySmalls]

I don't think the bottom right point of the 5-pointed star is supposed to be behind the circle, is it?

[The Mojo Maniac]

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?

Seriously what is your point? You're not making any sense.

I guess that's what you say when you can't come up with a good refutation to someone's argument. I'm making the same point you made about the Astros. You say you like the shooting star, but that they don't have to include it, and that the current set looks just fine without it, and that the name is fully represented without it. Same could apply to the Cardinals. They don't have to have the birds on bat. 'Cardinal' could just as easily mean the color cardinal red as it does birds. They could easily get away with just a generic block (or script) 'Cardinals' on the front and as long as they wear cardinal red (which they don't even do now) the nickname is fully represented.

No, it's what I say when you're not making an argument. You're saying they need to have the shooting star, but we're saying they don't. Yet your using teams with the mascots in the wordmarks that could do without them and still represent the name as an argument as to why the Astros DO need to include the star. You're contradicting yourself.

Also, the birds on the bat are probably the most legendary uniform feature in MLB. The shooting star, not so much.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. The Cardinals thing was mostly sarcasm. I'm arguing that by your logic, the Cardinals could do all the things I mentioned and it would be fine and dandy. Of course that wouldn't be the case. I agree the birds on bat are one of the best uniforms in baseball and it would be terrible if they got rid of them. And I'm not saying the Astros NEED the shooting star, just as the Cards don't NEED the birds on bat, but they would look a lot better with it. The shooting star may not be as legendary as the birds on bat, but it could be a distinctive mark that would uniquely identify the Astros, like the Brewers barley, the Angels halo, or the Mariners compass.

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares?

[rxmc89]

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares?

Who cares what you have to say? Your opinion isn't any more valid or relevant than mine.

[habsfan1]

I don't think the bottom right point of the 5-pointed star is supposed to be behind the circle, is it?

Well since both the circle and that particular star point are the same color, it just appears to be behind the circle.

There just isn't any outline when that darker shades of orange overlap the circle. The logo is fine.

[oldschoolvikings]

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares?

Who cares what you have to say? Your opinion isn't any more valid or relevant than mine.

I don't think he was saying "who cares" to your opinion... I think he was saying "who cares" to this particular argument. As Goth pointed out, its hard to say what point is really trying to be made. I believe you're trying to say the the Astros need the shooting star, but at times it almost seemed like you were saying the Cardinals don't need their birds. It's made for an exhusting few pages.

[CubsFanBudMan]

OK... that's pretty nice.

I think it all looks pretty good. The only thing that bothered me is that for the second consecutive year a team unveiled an orange cap, and none of the players wore it at the event. That just seems like a bad sign. At least it sounds like it's the Saturday cap, so it won't go unused like the Marlins' orange cap/helmet.

And I am not a fan of side panels on any baseball jersey, but if you're going to have them, that's the way to go. (Maybe the Cubs can incorporate light blue with white pinstripes in their panels. ) Great way to nod to the rainbows, and I'd be fine if they used them regularly in games. It's allowed, so teams might as well.

[oldschoolvikings]

I have a question for Colorwerx or some other insider...

Which orange matches the uniform orange? The star's highlights or shadows?