Jump to content

New Houston Astros Uniforms


JustABallCoach

Recommended Posts

Did the MLB 13 video say the BP jerseys were going to be worn on Sundays?

That's what the video said. So BP jerseys for regular season games on a consistent basis is something unique

I know the Mets wore their BP unis in a game in 2011

The last team to regularly wear their BP's as a normally-scheduled game uniform was the Orioles, when they wore their orange BP's for their Tuesday night promotion. The only other times it's happened since the advent of COOLBASE grey is when teams want to mix it up (like the Mets did). BP's-as-a-game-jersey so minor league. If you want to wear a blue alternate, get a goddamn blue alternate. BP's are BP's. If you're copying something the Orioles did while they spent 14 years being a laughingstock, you're doing it wrong.

I suspect, being a complete cynic about these things, the Astros DO have a blue alt...for 2014. Gotta push more merch in 2014, so add another alt then! It's similar to what Tampa did, adding the navy alt in 2009 and the columbia in 2010.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 726
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares? :angered:

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.

My point essentially was neither team NEEDS those design elements (birds on bat for the Cards, shooting star for the Astros) but they wouldn't look very good without them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dHygqDvH.jpg

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.

This orange can actually be worn on a hat, unlike Miami's highlighter orange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I would change would be the letters/numbers on the home jersey. I would make them orange with a navy blue outline.

To me, it would just look better if the letters/numbers matched the color of the jersey's piping.

They match on the road grays and I like the consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has gotten out of control...

So far as the actual Astros new set goes, it's run of the mill, but I like the color combo, the uniforms are safe, and it's not over the top ridiculous looking like Miami. The H-star logo just kills me though. The double bevel makes no sense, and the shading is so out of control... And add that to the fact that the logo on the orange cap is a monochrome star... This took me about 5 minutes to fix:

Orange-Star.png

Blue-Star.png

Obviously it's what we're all thinking, I just wanted to see what it looks like when done right. It's also weird that the actual embroidered cap logos look like they have some semblance of the traditional star beveling (look in between the legs of the H). The way it looks now, with the outer bevel it's like the top of the star is flat, but that doesn't jibe with the shadowing.

pMLB2-13910614dt.jpg

I also like the orange bill with the home uniform and the solid navy with the away. But that's probably because my O's wore the same setup for forever. The orange cap with the orange undershirt looks great though. Love to see more orange in the league. Let's get some green somewhere too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dHygqDvH.jpg

You know what? I like this new Astros look.

Going back to their original colors is what all the teams are doing anyway. At least they did not blow it by adding something that creates a major screw up to the look.

Maybe in the future, they could make an alternate jersey with a shooting star on the front, or a rainbow jersey.

And also an alternate logo with baseballs swooshing around their current stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares? :angered:

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.

My point essentially was neither team NEEDS those design elements (birds on bat for the Cards, shooting star for the Astros) but they wouldn't look very good without them.

Both look better with, but Astros look fine without, aswear the Cardinals do not. Simple as that. And again, the star is there, so it's really no different.

I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my gosh...seriously, who cares? :angered:

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.

My point essentially was neither team NEEDS those design elements (birds on bat for the Cards, shooting star for the Astros) but they wouldn't look very good without them.

Sorry, it's just not working as an argument. At the end of the day "rules" regarding uniform designs are subjective. It doesn't follow that because something works in St. Louis it MUST work in Houston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really sick of X-Box kids calling everything "boring," especially when it doesn't glow in the dark, have 99 uniform options, made-up colors that sound "kewl", have a Mountain Dew scan tag or a Taco Bell free offer.

That said. I like what Houston is trying to accomplish. Many parts I like, many I don't. The "H" star is massively overrated IMHO. Decent job overall.

Oh, and kids, I think "meh" is the new "boring."

.... X-Box kids?

Look, not every new sports uniform has to be like Oregon, but damn, these are just too plain for the Astros. I actually like the last set better.

Why go overboard on those who just want to see a bit more modernization than this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both look better with, but Astros look fine without, aswear the Cardinals do not. Simple as that. And again, the star is there, so it's really no different.

I'm done.

It's not as simple as that. You're stating your opinion as if it's a fact. I disagree that the Astros look fine without it.

Sorry, it's just not working as an argument. At the end of the day "rules" regarding uniform designs are subjective. It doesn't follow that because something works in St. Louis it MUST work in Houston.

It's not really a rule, more of an analogy. If birds on a bat over a wordmark can work, I don't see why a shooting star over a wordmark can't.

That's the last I'm going to say on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, too many people around here look at these new designs with blinders or something and think they must include a shooting star and/or the rainbow stripes or it's not futuristic or modern or wacky enough. Those were never a greatly established identity feature like say the birds on the bat or the red front numbers. I, too, do wish the shooting star had returned, but that doesn't make it an automatic failure. Now I'm not saying people can't dislike it and there are plenty of legitimate gripes being made, like the block lettering or the beveling, but to say it's a failure because it doesn't feature the shooting star or rainbow stripes is ridiculous and tells the rest of us that you can't unbiasly (sp?) look at a design. And this especially goes to those who keep claiming it doesn't represent the Astros. "Astros" means star. Yes it works as a shortened version of "Astronauts", but do you really think they named the team and, at the time, the Astrodome the "Astronautdome"? No. The primary usage was for space in general and stars are one of the more common things associated with space. So therefore, the fact that a star is featured on the cap, whether it's in the way you prefer or not, means that the name is being represented. Yes other teams like the Cardinals, Braves and Mariners, to name a few, feature the namesake or something representing the namesake in their wordmarks. Doesn't mean others have to. If it works, it does. If not, it doesn't.

I actually rambled on there some, so to summarize, look at it for what it is rather than what you wanted it to be. That's how you properly judge an identity. Then if you still don't like it, fine. But at least try to make a legitimate reason. Otherwise, around here with all of us sports logos nuts, you're going to lose some future credibility.

Off my soapbox. Criticize me if you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? It's getting kind of tiring being told that I (and those who share my opinion) know nothing about baseball uniforms because we don't like the Astros' plain new set.

I am looking at what it is. It's block letters on placket/sleeve-piped jerseys. Whoop-de-freaking-do. Oh, and they also went with the shocking, edgy choice of navy as a main color. If it wasn't for that BP jersey, this set would be wholly uninteresting and safe, and the MLB has enough safe-looking teams.

I think most of us can agree the red-and-tan era sucked. But the Astros needed to knock this one out of the park to make up for it, and they just didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking at what it is. It's block letters on placket/sleeve-piped jerseys.

I'm looking at what it is too. A very clean, nice looking baseball uniform.

Seriously? It's getting kind of tiring being told that I (and those who share my opinion) know nothing about baseball uniforms because we don't like the Astros' plain new set.

You know what I find tiring? Being told that my tastes (and the tastes of those who share my aesthetic preferences) are "lazy," "boring," and "safe." I'm sorry that I don't find a vest with a wrap-around snake pattern the pinnacle of baseball uniform design.

Oh, and they also went with the shocking, edgy choice of navy as a main color.

This is quite the empty statement when you get down to it. First off, yes navy is very prominent in baseball, and some teams could stand to lose it. The Brewers should probably return to royal blue and the Padres should probably return to brown.

That being said the Astros aren't a team that needs to avoid navy. They didn't go with navy to be "safe," they went with navy because the entire point of this set was to return to the team's aesthetic roots. And the team wore navy for the first thirty seven years of their existence. Overused or not, the Astros using the colour navy has precedent.

The "oh they went with navy how boring B) " statement really falls apart, however, when you think about what the Astros could have done. Had they updated the shooting star set, brought back the rainbow guts in some form on a game jersey, or even gone back to the 1994-1999 set you love so much, you would be praising the new look all day. Yet they would still use navy as the primary colour. So your whole "I don't like it because it uses navy" argument comes off, to me at least, as b****ing for b****ing's sake. You don't dislike the navy. You just dislike how it was used. Which is fine. Just admit it and stop bashing the colour itself.

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.