Actual New Threads: Players not a Fanatic

[A Boy Named Seo]

Nike is still the manufacturer of MLB uniforms, but this year have hired Fanatics (they apparently took over Majestic's warehouse) to fulfill their uni visions for the '24 season. Fanatics is a provider of officially licensed sports merch but it seems like they have less expensive shit than the regular channels, too. In years past, I've bought old Arsenal kits for less than $30 (seems those days might be gone though) and a couple lower-tier replica Clippers jerseys without the Nike swoosh or corporate sponsor. Some of it feels like licensed knock-offs.

Anyway, baseball. Nike made several changes to the jersey this year, but the ones players and fans are griping most about are the material (players have said they fit differently and feel "cheap") and the new, smaller and more heavily curved last name on the back.

According to Lukas, these issues are Nike's not Fanatics', but people yell at whoever they want anyway cause that's how things work in this stupid world nowadays.

Here are a couple looks:

[Edgy MD]

Teams should be contracting out their uniform construction individually. Blunders shouldn't be universal.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

It's a shame. Paul Lukas pointed out today the new unis do away with trim on beltloops--the Braves were the only team that did that but what was the point or whacking that?

The whole lowering of the MLB logo not only means cheap looking nameplates but the numerals themselves are smaller

[A Boy Named Seo]

Teams should be contracting out their uniform construction individually. Blunders shouldn't be universal.

I agree. I always bring stuff back to soccer cause I'm insufferable, but I love how in European leagues (and the USL here in America), teams hire whoever they want and can be as imaginative (or not) as they like. One team has Puma, one Adidas, one has Charley from Mexico, etc.

[A Boy Named Seo]

It's a shame. Paul Lukas pointed out today the new unis do away with trim on beltloops--the Braves were the only team that did that but what was the point or whacking that?

The whole lowering of the MLB logo not only means cheap looking nameplates but the numerals themselves are smaller

I missed that pant thing. Uniformity is great for one team, but not for every team. MLB shouldn't be acting more like MLS.

[Edgy MD]

Word to the word.

Break up MLB.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Between the see-through pants and the smaller lettering of the names on the back of the jersey, this seems like a New Coke-level mistake.

I wonder if they'll do anything about it before Opening Day. I read that some players have been wearing last year's pants in spring training games, but I assume they wouldn't be allowed to do that in the regular season.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

It's all about Nike benefitting Nike. They wanted to do these more athletic costumes, as though playing baseball was like working out.

Everything was sacrificed for lighter looks, so less stitching, more iron on, narrower collar and front, which caused the MLB logo to drop, the names to shrink and numbers to fall on the back, and the odd breaks across the buttons on the front. The Mets uni splits the e in half instead of breaking between the M and e.

They will fix the pants--nobody buys them.

The shame of it nobody recognized that Major League baseball unis are supposed to be prominent, stitched, a little opulent, a little over the top -- that's one of the things that makes baseball unique.

[MFS62]

From the Toronto Globe and Mail ( behind a paywall), by Cathal Kelly:

The first baseball uniforms were made of coarse wool. Cotton would have made more sense – cheaper, more breathable – but those initial haberdashers of the diamond wanted to look like proper business types. That also explains the first hats, which were made of straw.

Before the invention of the elasticated boxer-brief and the athletic support, one can imagine what it must have felt like to throw a hundred pitches in form-fitting burlap. This must be why old-timey pitchers in the movies are always angry.

Amazingly, the baseball uniform hasn’t changed much in the nearly 200 years since. It remains an impractical sports-business suit. You watch a guy slide headfirst into second base – pretty standard baseball stuff – and he will rise in a state of dishevelment. His shirt has been pulled out of his pants. His pants have started to corkscrew around his waist. Everything’s akimbo. This problem is worse if the player is carrying a little extra baggage around the middle. God help that guy if he has to leg out a triple. By the time he gets to third, his uniform will have essentially worked its way off him. Then he has to get redressed in front of 40,000 people.

Imagine if it worked this way in other professions where people wear uniforms – ‘Sorry, I need a minute before I go into that burning building, chief. My shirt’s all funny.’

So when Major League Baseball and its equipment partners decided to rethink the uniform, there was room for innovation. The real upshot is that the uniforms are lighter. I’m not sure 18 ounces of broadcloth is what’s preventing the average shortstop from mashing like Mark McGwire, but let’s imagine that’s possible. Lighter fabric is also thinner. These new uniforms are so performance-enhanced that they become see-through under a hot flash.

The rest of the article is long, and funny.
If you can get past the paywall, it is worth a read.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/ ... of-sports/
Later

[ashie62]

It's all about Nike

Nike likely even wrote the pressers for endorsers like Adley Rutschman Nolan Arenado and Acuna Jr for starters

No real attempt to make meaningful nice threads

[whippoorwill]

See through pants?

Ew!

[metirish]

Are these the new threads ? This looks really nice

[Benjamin Grimm]

The smaller lettering seems unwise and unnecessary.

[metirish]

Yeah, it is definitely noticable, probably looks worse on shorter names too

[Edgy MD]

The shame of it nobody recognized that Major League baseball unis are supposed to be prominent, stitched, a little opulent, a little over the top -- that's one of the things that makes baseball unique.

Yeah, baseball unis were at their peak when they include neckties.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

That's Oyster Burns, third from left, middle row, for Brooklyn

[Edgy MD]

And third from the left in the top row for the original New York Metropolitans, I'm pretty sure that's a time-traveling Randy Travis.

[Edgy MD]

The Royals, of all teams, didn't like the new name-on-back lettering, asked if they could keep their old look, and were told, "Sure, whatever."

A little bit of thougtfulness can go a long way.

[metirish]

https://uni-watch.com/2024/02/27/exclus ... lettering/

Uni watch is on this

[Edgy MD]

The Royals, of all teams, didn't like the new name-on-back lettering, asked if they could keep their old look, and were told, "Sure, whatever."

Seems like I made a bad assumption there, as the article suggests the Royals had to "lobby hard" for the exemption.

[Benjamin Grimm]

How ridiculous that they had to "lobby hard". There's clearly plenty of room for the larger letters.

[Edgy MD]

This makes me pissier the more I think about it.

Break up MLB.

[batmagadanleadoff]

How ridiculous that they had to "lobby hard". There's clearly plenty of room for the larger letters.

I'll betcha that the fucking Yankees didn't have to lobby hard, or even at all to skip the smaller letter last names or to have no names on back at all. Special treatment and all that crap.

[ashie62]

The smaller lettering seems unwise and unnecessary.

Yes

[Edgy MD]

The smaller lettering is getting the attention, but it seems like an ancillary issue to the broad replacement of the great baseball tradition of embroidery and patchwork with decalling.

The former is an issue of tacky-but-passing style. The latter is a sea change involving the character of the game.