Baseball is America’s pastime. It reminds millions of the lazy days of summer, spent cheering on your favorite team. Maybe you were even lucky enough to go to your hometown stadium, where you were able to witness the action first-hand. Either way, it is safe to say that baseball, specifically Major League Baseball, is a long-standing tradition in this country. That is one of the reasons the game is so revered—it has been around so long (over 100 years) that it is one thing to which many people can relate. Understandably, MLB relies heavily on that history of the game when it comes to uniform designs and the like. You rarely see anything in what could be considered a “modern” font; most are serif fonts that recall the beginnings of the game. If any designs did change, they have changed back to what designers of uniforms know looks more professional. Take for example, the Astros uniforms of the 1970s:
Even though they are occasionally worn for “throwback” days, the upper management has come to their senses and these uniforms are usually worn.
The issue with baseball uniforms now is the sleeve patch for the Mets
’ inauguralural season in their new stadium, Citifield, as addressed by Paul Lukas on his blog “
Uni Watch: the obsessive study of athletics aesthetics.” This is the Mets traditional logo, to the right. This logo is similar to many other baseball teams’ logos in the fact that it has a script font and the team colors. Although they all differ, in essence there is not much variation. Traditionally, sleeve patches are used to commemorate significant events for a ball club: new stadiums, host of the All-Star Game, and World Series Champions, among other things. Clearly, the Mets felt the need to update their image to fall in line with their corporate sponsor of their stadium. However, I personally, (and clearly the blogger agrees with me) think that it was a really, really, REALLY bad idea. This is what they came up with:
I think that baseball relies on its history to make it successful; that is why so many people pay attention to the MLB—because they always have. Clearly, the Astros throwback uniforms didn’t work out too well; cou
ldn’t the Mets take a hint from history and stick to what they know works? Take a look at the logo on the jersey; do you see how it clashes? I read somewhere that, generally, sleeve patches incorporate the shape of the baseball diamond somewhere on the patch. That was achieved by tilting the square sideways. However, the curved lines separating the colors in addition to the sans serif font make this look too much like a computer graphic and not authentic enough for baseball. Baseball needs authenticity to survive. Maybe the Mets think that the MLB should undergo a facelift and that’s why they are starting the process? I think that if there was really a problem, the executives of the MLB are man enough to address it. Clearly, The traditional logos are what works.
I think the Mets went in the wrong direction with this one, and I can see this ridiculous sleeve patch to be the object of ridicule for many months on “Sportscenter” and “Baseball Tonight.” There is no need to completely revamp a logo, and a brand for that matter, for the sake of updating for the times. Take, for example, the 2007 Red Sox World Series
Champions sleeve
patch. Although the Red Sox are one of the oldest teams in baseball, they were able to design a patch using a “modern,” sans serif font that was visually appealing. Also, look at this year’s All-Star Game patch, hosted by the St. Louis Cardinals in Busch Stadium. This logo doesn’t look too hokey and old-time, does it? This is using the script font but also has elements of modernity. The Mets, I believe, just missed the mark on this one. This just further emphasizes that serifs and scripts are never out of style. Although some people may think the only way to update something is by getting a sans serif font and crisp lines, that clearly does not always work.
