Unis

[Edgy MD]

There's no right way to be a fan after all, it's a personal thing.

Bad ways to be a fan:

[Ceetar]

metsmarathon wrote: it would've been fucking awesome if they went with a turn ahead the clock style uniform in white with a big ol' mr. met head on it. fucking a.w.e.s.o.m.e. envision it. i dare you. now you will want it. i know this because i want it. with racing stripes on the weird shoulder panel things. (i wish hte mets would bring back the racing stripes. they were the cats' pajamas)

I think this is what I'm trying to say. The desire to stick to some sort of "baseball players wear classic white pinstripes with no dropshadow" logic seems to prevent them from doing something like that. That sounds cool. I would indeed want it. The push towards the "no black" seems to run parallel to a lack of change/imagination, and that's where I'm lost. I want to see them do stuff like that, or the Giants throwbacks with the giant NY, or just generally feel free to get creative.

[Edgy MD]

imagination /= change

Sometimes it's right to go forward, sometimes it is not.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

It's "no black" because black and blue together are about as close as you can get to "objectively ugly." Unlike complementary blue-and-orange, blue-and-black clashes.

As far as "objectively ugly" goes... well... it's the same with the dropshadow. It's crappy design because it serves no need, functionally OR visually. As a tool to make the logo/numbers pop out to the eye, it's redundant; bright orange already stands apart from the cream/white AND sets off the blue. Plus, it attempts to do so in a way that rings false to the eye-- it aims to "pretend" that the logo isn't brightly-colored placket twill. It's a visual lie, and an inelegant one, to boot.

And as marathon said, "back to classic" is good because our classic WAS good. Complementary colors laid out in a way that pops-- without tawdry-looking trompe l'oeil-- on a warm, neutral, comfy-looking field... with understated pinstripes for subtle adornment. It's a look that has visual harmony, AND it was our first look.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

TransMonk wrote: I can honestly say that my least favorite thing about the unis right now is the 50th anniversary patch. Not that it's a bad patch...I just like the traditional logo on the left sleeve. I am not a fan of the back of the cap logo shenanigans, tho. While I'm in the thread...I've moved past seeing everyone wearing 42 as meaningful on Jackie Robinson day. I would much rather see the one player on each team who best exemplifies the characteristics of Jackie Robinson get the honor of wearing 42 based on a vote of their teammates/coaches. I'm not sure who proposed that idea, because it is not an original idea of mine, but I think it is much better than seeing it on everyone.

I'm with you on the Mets 50th ann. logo/patch. It looks to big, and like a light bulb. And I'm not too crazy about it. I'm not with you on the Jackie Robinson Day festivities. In fact, I don't think that MLB has gone nearly far enough in honoring him. I think that every player should wear a Jackie Robinson mask on Jackie Robinson day. Like those rubber Tor Johnson Halloween masks, only it would look like Jackie Robinson instead of Tor Johnson. And I'd make all the winning teams on Jackie Robinson Day wear the Jackie Robinson mask for their next game. They'd have to keep on wearing the JR mask until they lost. I'd also rename the stolen base the Jackie Robinson. As in: Jose Reyes is the all time Mets franchise leader in Jackie Robinsons. How many Jackie Robinsons did Jackie Robinson have in his career? And then I'd force every team to build a Jackie Robinson rotunda in their stadium. No grandfather clause either. Get crackin', Fenway. Maybe the players could walk pigeon toed on April 15th, if not all game, then at least just a little bit. Because that's how Jackie walked. And ran. And if jackie Robinson did it, so should everybody else.

[G-Fafif]

In 1992, the Phillies and Cardinals opted for updated versions of what they had pre-1970. I remember the phrase "classic" being showered down on them in praise, as if classic equaled idyllic 1950s or before Astroturf kicked in altogether. Thus is a Padres uniform that is in that style "classic" or is Padres classic the brown and yellow look that declared "Padres"? Eye of the beholder and all that. I was fond, aesthetically, of the oversized, wavy P the Phils sported even when I disliked them intensely. I also kind of like what they have now. (I hate that I like anything about them.)

Expos went to that kind of "classic" iteration in 1992 and it wasn't classic for them.

Glad the Mets added numbers on the front in 1965, though if I'd been around in 1962, I might have found it an affront.

Was surprised when orange buttons were added that they weren't already there. As soon as they arrived, they made all the sense in the world to me.

Still say the names on the backs of the home uniforms currently don't look quite right. It might be the absence of the shadow. Everything else currently is suave, smooth, what have you.

42: In the course of a JR Day game, I change my mind 42 times. "Nice tribute." "Overkill." "No, it's the right thing to do." "This is ridiculous." It's just one day is my conclusion, and I can take intention over execution for one day.

Every batter looks to me like Butch Huskey, every pitcher Ron Taylor. That's not a line. I really do see those two guys. Not McDowell, not R. Hodges.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

G-Fafif wrote: I also kind of like what they have now. (I hate that I like anything about them.)

Those weekend cream-blue-and-red pajamas are like Satan-in-Paradise-Lost seductive to my eyes.

[TransMonk]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I'm not with you on the Jackie Robinson Day festivities. In fact, I don't think that MLB has gone nearly far enough in honoring him.

Exactly. I wasn't hypothesizing that MLB should do less...just something different now that the novelty and meaning of what they are doing seems to have worn off.

[batmagadanleadoff]

G-Fafif wrote: In 1992, the Phillies and Cardinals opted for updated versions of what they had pre-1970. I remember the phrase "classic" being showered down on them in praise, as if classic equaled idyllic 1950s or before Astroturf kicked in altogether. Thus is a Padres uniform that is in that style "classic" or is Padres classic the brown and yellow look that declared "Padres"? Eye of the beholder and all that.

You ask the right questions. And probably supply the right answers, too. I wrote in another thread here that the Mets are pinstripes and that the (snow) whites are bullshit, in order to diss the whole black/drop shadow look. I loathed that black look to no end. But I knew all along that I was merely making an emotional argument. Because the Mets might not be pinstripes. Or the Mets might be black tops with drop shadows all over the place and cap logos the color of bruise. The Mets are whatever they wear. And if they wear Mercury Met tops every single day, then that�s what the Mets logically are � the Mercury Mets of New York. Or Anaheim. And the newly retired black/drop shadow look has been around long enough (almost 15 seasons) that there exists an entire generation of hardcore Mets fans, old enough to have graduated college, that, until this season, didn�t know any other Met uni from watching live action. It really is in the eye of the beholder. Me, I think those mid 70�s Winfield era Padres uniforms are classics � to the Padres.