Uni Watch Power Rankings 2013: MLB

[BBTV]

but if you're going to use the formula and have a series of logos that carry the identity then they should be some strong logos. The Cards havent changed anything major in i dont even know how long so what they have "works" fine because of the consistency. but that script is OK at best, certainly not an example of fine typography. the bat/birds/script mark has directional lines going all over the place. they all send your eye in a different direction out into space. i look at this uniform/identity and just see how much better it could be

I'll say that with baseball, the poor kerning, non-straight lines, and just general sloppiness in some of the older scripts just gives them an old-timey hand-drawn charm, which evokes images of guys chucking balls around on fields back in the 20s and 30s, even 40s and 50s.

It's why I'd say that the throwback Twins script is miles ahead of the current one, which is "mathematically" more perfect (just meaning lines are straight, consistency in the letters, etc.)

It's why I think the 48 Phillies script and 50s era script are miles ahead of today's insignia.

It's why the old Senators / Nationals jerseys were miles ahead of the Todd Radom version that was designed decades later. And I'm someone who loves Todd Radom's work about as much as one can love an inanimate portfolio.

Baseball is the one sport where scripts that look like they were drawn by children with a crayon can appear nicer than ones designed with the latest version of Illustrator by an artist with multiple degrees and decades of experience.

[BrandMooreArt]

Theres a Japanese word means something like "natural beauty". Wish i remembered what that was. But they use it to describe art done by hand or something that has a human touch. For instance a plate made by hand is more beautiful that one by machine because the imperfections are what make it attractive.

Theres a lot of things in art/ design that i like myself for the same reasons and tottally understand the sentiment. But these old baseball scripts dont do it for me. Personally i think if the identity were given to someone who is really great like Rob Clarke, he could create a script that bridges the gap between the hand drawn and machined and take the identity to a beautiful new level. Actually i know he could because, thats just what he does. Would love to see one of his marks in MLB

[BBTV]

Theres a Japanese word means something like "natural beauty". Wish i remembered what that was. But they use it to describe art done by hand or something that has a human touch. For instance a plate made by hand is more beautiful that one by machine because the imperfections are what make it attractive.

Theres a lot of things in art/ design that i like myself for the same reasons and tottally understand the sentiment. But these old baseball scripts dont do it for me. Personally i think if the identity were given to someone who is really great like Rob Clarke, he could create a script that bridges the gap between the hand drawn and machined and take the identity to a beautiful new level. Actually i know he could because, thats just what he does. Would love to see one of his marks in MLB

That seems to be the challenge that so many fail at. I'd say that the mid-90s Indians (home) script comes pretty close to accomplishing this, but not exactly. The current Orioles scripts, especially the road, fail at this miserably. It takes true talent to master this.

The "natural" logos just seem warmer, while the "machined" marks just seem cold and soulless, even at first glance when you haven't had time to process and recognize which is which. Objectively, the machined would win, but subjectively, the natural generally comes out on top. I'm curious what that Japanese word was.

[bradsbeard]

There's something the Japanese call the "uncanny valley," which says that the more realistic a cartoon, robot, video game character, etc., the more repulsive it is to observers. Sounds similar to what you are talking about.

[BrandMooreArt]

Ha! I found it. Wabi-Sabi

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I think it goes without saying that baseball has the nicest uniforms overall. They maintain their tradition and origin (somewhat); Football, hockey and basketball are becoming blander and blander every day it seems.

I had trouble putting a top-20 in order for baseball, because most of them are so nice. Basketball, hockey and football, outside of maybe a top 7- which are those that have remained unchanged for decades upon decades- there isn't much to look at.

[Ted Cunningham]

No list is right or wrong, since they are all opinion, but his explanations are very bad. Like that one poster mentioned, he faulted the Nats for having 3 hats, when the Cardinals also have 3 hats? C'mon.

This is exactly the problem I have with Paul Lukas's writing. His opinion is one man's opinion, and I don't even think it's all that informed. I don't understand how he has had all this "uniform authority" conferred to him, especially for someone who is neither a professional designer nor an equipment manager or the like. Yet, because he's a "writer" for ESPN and he has a website with a substantial following, he comes off with this certain arrogance that his opinion is in fact authoritative in all things uniform-design. I'll certainly give him his due: he has done a lot of research/interviewing/etc. and does know his way around sports uniform history. But (even though he sometimes even states to the contrary), he writes in a manner that makes it sound like his word is the word. His writing lacks thoughtfulness and any attempt at understanding design and aesthetic opinions he does not hold. It's more "uniforms from the 50's, grilled meat, and old duck-pin bowling alleys are the best because I say so!" I don't even necessarily disagree that any of those three things are cool (as a matter of fact I like all three of those things), but it's just the way he writes it and the tone he uses. I can't take him seriously as an authority on sports aesthetics.

EDIT - I could be entirely wrong or in the dark about Lukas's qualifications as I've only been reading his stuff off and on for the past fourish years. But his bio on Uni-Watch reads more like that of a historian rather than an authority on sports uniforms aesthetics.

[BigBubba]

No list is right or wrong, since they are all opinion, but his explanations are very bad. Like that one poster mentioned, he faulted the Nats for having 3 hats, when the Cardinals also have 3 hats? C'mon.

This is exactly the problem I have with Paul Lukas's writing. His opinion is one man's opinion, and I don't even think it's all that informed. I don't understand how he has had all this "uniform authority" conferred to him, especially for someone who is neither a professional designer nor an equipment manager or the like. Yet, because he's a "writer" for ESPN and he has a website with a substantial following, he comes off with this certain arrogance that his opinion is in fact authoritative in all things uniform-design. I'll certainly give him his due: he has done a lot of research/interviewing/etc. and does know his way around sports uniform history. But (even though he sometimes even states to the contrary), he writes in a manner that makes it sound like his word is the word. His writing lacks thoughtfulness and any attempt at understanding design and aesthetic opinions he does not hold. It's more "uniforms from the 50's, grilled meat, and old duck-pin bowling alleys are the best because I say so!" I don't even necessarily disagree that any of those three things are cool (as a matter of fact I like all three of those things), but it's just the way he writes it and the tone he uses. I can't take him seriously as an authority on sports aesthetics.

And on top of that, he is rather inconsistent with his reasonings. *Cardinals have three caps* >>> Best look in baseball! /// *Nats have three caps* >>> Eew ugly!

He ripped the Bobcats for "ripping off" the Mavs, yet he's a staunch defender of the Lightning's look and will probably rank them high when he does his NHL hist.

[OnWis97]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9545428/uni-watch-power-rankings-rates-nfl-uniforms-1-32

NFL is out and while I totally think it makes sense for Wahoo to knock the Indians down the list, I am not as sold that the Redskins name should knock Washington down the list (though in fairness it did not knock them as far down.

I thought he nailed it with the first sentence of the Bengals critique, though (similar to McCarthy's take that they are trying to dress up like actual tigers).

[Ted Cunningham]

"Ideally, a uniform should be viewed in a vacuum, strictly on the basis of its aesthetics."

and thats why i don't read his stuff. i'm done

Your problem is that he's judging visuals... on the visuals?

Yeah, I'd like to hear the explanation on this too. Brandon's post didn't make sense to me. Plus, I feel like Lukas doesn't simply judge a uniform on its aesthetics.

[BigBubba]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9545428/uni-watch-power-rankings-rates-nfl-uniforms-1-32

NFL is out and while I totally think it makes sense for Wahoo to knock the Indians down the list, I am not as sold that the Redskins name should knock Washington down the list (though in fairness it did not knock them as far down.

I thought he nailed it with the first sentence of the Bengals critique, though (similar to McCarthy's take that they are trying to dress up like actual tigers).

He said that in pure aesthetic terms, they match up with some of the best in the league, yet because of their name, he ranks them at 19. It seems he dropped them pretty low, at least 10 spots.

[UnclearInitial]

For the NBA, the "response" was much better

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9582391/bulls-blazers-higher-uni-watch-power-rankings

[mmajeski06]

Today is NBA:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9554965/uni-watch-power-rankings-rates-nba-uniforms-1-30

The Suns at 11 is a bold move, but I agree for the most part with this ranking. OKC at 8 i am not a fan of, Heat seem a bit high, New York seems low but otherwise I mostly agree with these

Let me guess the Cavs are rated low because they play right across the street from that racist MLB team?

Are you taking it personally that some writer doesn't think your local team's uniforms are great? I think he explained why the Cavs were rated low. Not sure what it has to do with the racist MLB team.

EDIT: WTF with the quotes? Can an admin comment on whether this is permanent or if they're working on a fix?.

EDIT2: As soon as I edited the post, the quotes looked OK. Weird.

Meant as a joke...and kindly remind me where I took it personally? He used a uni ranking to get up on his soapbox about a political issue. He then did it again with the Redskins. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Blackhawks.

If you are going to do a logo / uniform ranking I don't see how political opinions should play any part in it. Look at his NFL rankings, Redskins ranked lower because of their name. The political implications of the name of the team has nothing to do with a uniform ranking.

He basically said, "The Redskins have some the nicest uniforms in the NFL, but their name grinds my gears so I am putting them in the middle of the pack". That is not a true uniform ranking then. That's no better than me doing a ranking and saying "The Steelers have a classic uniform that ranks with the best, but I am putting them at 18th because I hate Pittsburgh".

[Legend]

Today is NBA:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/story/_/id/9554965/uni-watch-power-rankings-rates-nba-uniforms-1-30

The Suns at 11 is a bold move, but I agree for the most part with this ranking. OKC at 8 i am not a fan of, Heat seem a bit high, New York seems low but otherwise I mostly agree with these

Let me guess the Cavs are rated low because they play right across the street from that racist MLB team?

Are you taking it personally that some writer doesn't think your local team's uniforms are great? I think he explained why the Cavs were rated low. Not sure what it has to do with the racist MLB team.

EDIT: WTF with the quotes? Can an admin comment on whether this is permanent or if they're working on a fix?.

EDIT2: As soon as I edited the post, the quotes looked OK. Weird.

I'm having the same issues with the quotes too.

I can see the info right now, but when I go back to the thread I can't see who's being quoted. I said something about it on the FAQ, I think some others did as well.

[BrandMooreArt]

"Ideally, a uniform should be viewed in a vacuum, strictly on the basis of its aesthetics."

and thats why i don't read his stuff. i'm done

Your problem is that he's judging visuals... on the visuals?

Yeah, I'd like to hear the explanation on this too. Brandon's post didn't make sense to me. Plus, I feel like Lukas doesn't simply judge a uniform on its aesthetics.

i hate to focus too much on this, but ill explain.

design isn't just decoration, which is why aesthetics are fleeting. it's mainly communication. uniforms are part of an identity, and identity is the visual representation of brand. a company's identity expresses certain brand values, ideas, and personality to it's audience.

you dont have to have a strong theme like the TB Buccaneers, or have to use a color from a state flag to make an emotional connection with an audience, though. identities never come with notes or instructions. they have to communicate clearly on their own, and over time they gain value. take even the simplest identity/uniform and think about the communication and message it's sending; how it represents that team, and what they want you to think of them.

I'll use the Indy Colts as an example, just because i know football more than any other sport. nowhere on the uniform is it written that they are what they are. the graphic language tells us they are a team that values it's Baltimore and Indy past (which is filled with championships and HoF players). They are not looking for "speed" or "energy" in their identity. they want to be a symbol of stability, consistency, and tradition. They wear gray mask, black cleats, and 1 color elements to match the uniform from the 1950s as close as possible to communicate those ideas.

BBV even explained the same kind of communication with the STL Cardinals, and other imperfect baseball scripts. Even though i would like to see a lot of baseball teams update the quality of their identities, if only to differentiate them more from other competitors (the #1 thing an identity does) it would change the communication and personality of them quite a bit.

That's why i dont read Lukas' stuff. because all he cares about is the one thing that really dosen't matter; the aesthetic

[Ted Cunningham]

I can see the info right now, but when I go back to the thread I can't see who's being quoted. I said something about it on the FAQ, I think some others did as well.

It's been that way for me for a couple weeks now. The icons for the page and the various forums don't show as the CCSLC icon anymore either. They appear to be the default icons from whomever hosts the forum.

[The_Admiral]

There's something the Japanese call the "uncanny valley," which says that the more realistic a cartoon, robot, video game character, etc., the more repulsive it is to observers. Sounds similar to what you are talking about.

Not quite: the uncanny valley is that verisimilitude is increasingly attractive up to a certain point at which it becomes just close enough to real to be repulsive, after which you get to the real thing, which looks fine again. That's what makes it an uncanny valley, you see.

The Polar Express is my go-to experience with this. Man, that movie weirded me out.

[-kj]

...one thing that really dosen't matter; the aesthetic

So, the thing that doesn't matter about the look is how it looks? That is quite possibly the biggest pile of designer-double-speak I've ever seen on these boards.

[Ted Cunningham]

"Ideally, a uniform should be viewed in a vacuum, strictly on the basis of its aesthetics."

and thats why i don't read his stuff. i'm done

Your problem is that he's judging visuals... on the visuals?

Yeah, I'd like to hear the explanation on this too. Brandon's post didn't make sense to me. Plus, I feel like Lukas doesn't simply judge a uniform on its aesthetics.

i hate to focus too much on this, but ill explain.

design isn't just decoration, which is why aesthetics are fleeting. it's mainly communication. uniforms are part of an identity, and identity is the visual representation of brand. a company's identity expresses certain brand values, ideas, and personality to it's audience.

you dont have to have a strong theme like the TB Buccaneers, or have to use a color from a state flag to make an emotional connection with an audience, though. identities never come with notes or instructions. they have to communicate clearly on their own, and over time they gain value. take even the simplest identity/uniform and think about the communication and message it's sending; how it represents that team, and what they want you to think of them.

I'll use the Indy Colts as an example, just because i know football more than any other sport. nowhere on the uniform is it written that they are what they are. the graphic language tells us they are a team that values it's Baltimore and Indy past (which is filled with championships and HoF players). They are not looking for "speed" or "energy" in their identity. they want to be a symbol of stability, consistency, and tradition. They wear gray mask, black cleats, and 1 color elements to match the uniform from the 1950s as close as possible to communicate those ideas.

BBV even explained the same kind of communication with the STL Cardinals, and other imperfect baseball scripts. Even though i would like to see a lot of baseball teams update the quality of their identities, if only to differentiate them more from other competitors (the #1 thing an identity does) it would change the communication and personality of them quite a bit.

That's why i dont read Lukas' stuff. because all he cares about is the one thing that really dosen't matter; the aesthetic

Ah, yes. OK. I follow you with the brand as a means of communication. In a way that's what I was looking for: a designer's answer.

I was getting more at the validity of Lukas judging things based purely on aesthetics which I don't think he does. He allows outside factors that have nothing to do with either the aesthetics or the branding (i.e. with the Redskins, it's his politics) influence his opinions. I feel like that's deceptive to people who read him because generally that audience gives him some kind of knowledge-based authority. In other words, his writing gives off the impression that he's experienced with uniform aesthetics and design and therefore his word is authoritative on the subject. So those folks won't be as likely to question how his writing is influenced and the message he's trying to convey. "Oh, he's the expert. He must know. He writes for ESPN after all."

mmajeski06 captured it well up above when he said, "He basically said, 'The Redskins have some the nicest uniforms in the NFL, but their name grinds my gears so I am putting them in the middle of the pack.' That is not a true uniform ranking then. That's no better than me doing a ranking and saying 'The Steelers have a classic uniform that ranks with the best, but I am putting them at 18th because I hate Pittsburgh.' "

I'm not even interested in the politics so much of the Redskins. (I happen to agree with Lukas's stance that it's archaic and offensive.) But I don't think he should allow that to influence his writing as an authoritative figure on sports branding, be that aesthetics or the overall brand and its communication with the team's fanbase.

[BBTV]

No list is right or wrong, since they are all opinion, but his explanations are very bad. Like that one poster mentioned, he faulted the Nats for having 3 hats, when the Cardinals also have 3 hats? C'mon.

This is exactly the problem I have with Paul Lukas's writing. His opinion is one man's opinion, and I don't even think it's all that informed. I don't understand how he has had all this "uniform authority" conferred to him, especially for someone who is neither a professional designer nor an equipment manager or the like. Yet, because he's a "writer" for ESPN and he has a website with a substantial following, he comes off with this certain arrogance that his opinion is in fact authoritative in all things uniform-design. I'll certainly give him his due: he has done a lot of research/interviewing/etc. and does know his way around sports uniform history. But (even though he sometimes even states to the contrary), he writes in a manner that makes it sound like his word is the word. His writing lacks thoughtfulness and any attempt at understanding design and aesthetic opinions he does not hold. It's more "uniforms from the 50's, grilled meat, and old duck-pin bowling alleys are the best because I say so!" I don't even necessarily disagree that any of those three things are cool (as a matter of fact I like all three of those things), but it's just the way he writes it and the tone he uses. I can't take him seriously as an authority on sports aesthetics.

EDIT - I could be entirely wrong or in the dark about Lukas's qualifications as I've only been reading his stuff off and on for the past fourish years. But his bio on Uni-Watch reads more like that of a historian rather than an authority on sports uniforms aesthetics.

I don't see anywhere where he's listed as an authority or as anything other than someone giving their opinion. If you feel like he writes like "his word is the word", think about it - isn't all opinion writing like that? Or should he write "IMO" after every single sentence? He's just a guy with a strong background in journalism / writing who has interests just like most of us here and acted on them and made a career out of it. That's all.

Think about it - how can there even be an authority on this stuff? Can you "win" at design? Is this the new way that teams will be decided for a National Championship game? It's totally harmless, and frankly, I think anyone who gets worked up over this kind of stuff is an idiot. Not saying you're an idiot, unless you're really all worked up. Some others in this thread are clearly pathetic idiots.