Showing posts with label COL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COL. Show all posts

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Top 30 Logos: 1-10

Day 3/3 of our quest to find the best logo!  Unlike the other two days, I'll be counting in ascending order today.  If you haven't already, hop over to sportslogos.net and check out what they have to offer.  It's a great site, and this countdown wouldn't have happened without it.

1. Milwaukee Brewers, primary, 1978-1993
Was there really any other choice?  I mean, c'mon.  The brilliance and awesomeness of this logo is obvious.  In case you hadn't noticed--and I didn't until about a year ago--the glove spells out an M and a B, for Milwaukee Brewers.  I'll give that a minute to set in.  The ball in the middle of the glove, doubling as, well, a baseball and the hole in the lowercase "b," is pretty genius too.  This logo isn't just clever, it also has great colors.  I love the old Brewers color scheme.  I love whenever I'm watching MLB Network classic highlight shows and Paul Molitor or Robin Yount appears in the uniforms from that era.  They just looked so great, and this logo is a primary reason why.  A+'s all around.

2. New York Mets, primary, 1999-present
This says the Mets' current logo started being used in 1999, but it's really been around since the Mets' inception in 1962 (save for a few very subtle changes).  Anyway, maybe I'm just being a homer here, but I think this logo is really great.  The color scheme is classic, simple, and unchanged since 1962.  The way the circle is also a baseball is very smart.  The script is well done.  Perhaps best of all, the skyline and bridge are just wonderful representations of the "metropolitan" aspect of the Mets' real name.  It's not as good as the Brewers' logo, but it's damn fine nonetheless.

3. Baltimore Orioles, primary, 1966-1988
Before I loved the Mets I loved the Orioles.  (1997 was a weird year.)  One of the things I liked the most about this team and its history was the lovable cartoon bird that adorned the uniforms on the 1980s baseball cards I collected.  Let's start with the bird, who's obviously the centerpiece of the whole shebang: he's cute, fun, but he's also a baseball player.  It's hard to describe just how much the bird works here, so I won't even try.  Other things that are good: the colors.  It's very clear that simple = better, as none of the top three teams try to clash their colors or add non-team colors to their logo.  The text is also very large and easy to read, something that's not always a given with these circular, text-wrapped-around logos.  If the Orioles still had this logo during my one season of fandom, perhaps I'd still be rooting for them to this day....

4. Montreal Expos, primary, 1969-1991
Another clever logo, though this one's a bit more... French?  Yes, that's right--the red, white, and blue M spells out eMb, équipe de Montreal baseball (or "Montreal baseball team" for you non-Francophones).  This logo loses a few points for its dull color scheme and the odd integration of "expos" below the M, but those are minor quibbles.  This was a great logo, and it's a shame the Expos were forced to flee to the interesting logo-less Washington, DC.

5. Toronto Blue Jays, primary, 1977-1996
O Canada!  What is it with you and great logos?  This logo just looks... great.  My favorite part of it is the font, which is so distinctive in a good way that few other fonts are.  The eponymous blue jay is remarkably detailed, though not distracting.  Somehow, it just adds to the overall atmosphere of the logo.  The red baseball in the background adds a nice touch of color, though I honestly could have done without the maple leaf, as I feel it just gets in the way a little.  Still, though, I love this logo, and I can't get enough of the Joe Carter WS-winning clip in part because of the great uniform he's wearing.

6. San Diego Padres, primary, 1969-1984
This is another logo where I have to plead guilty to a childlike love of the mascot representation and the colors.  The Swinging Friar looks kind of like a cross between Homer Simpson and Fred Flinstone, but that's part of his charm.  I'm still amazed that anybody ever thought it'd be cool to put a monk on a major league sports team's logo.  The script "Padres" on the bat is a nice touch, as is the yellow ring--again, it's all about having your team's colors in a non-obtrusive and meshable way, and this logo does that perfectly.  This logo screams 1970s, but unlike many other uniform- and logo-related creations from that era I actually give this one a big thumbs up.

7. St. Louis Cardinals, primary, 1922-1948
This one really boils down to the bat doubling as a tree branch, which I for one think is pretty neat.  The "Cardinals" script (well, it's not really script, but you know what I mean) is a familiar but distinct typeface, which is always appreciated.  Even though the logo features a lot going on, it still only has three colors--red, yellow, and brown.  That's tough to pull off, and this one does it quite well.  Also, while the birds sort of look like raccoons, it's always nice to see teams put a well-done visual representation of their team name on their logo.  This one may not have that much to it, but I just love it.  Besides, who wouldn't want to be reminded of Stan Musial every time they look at a logo?

What is a giant, anyway?  (The very tall human thing, I guess.  But why?  Anyway...)  This logo sure isn't going to tell us!  No, this logo isn't here because of its visual skill--the team name in front of a baseball, ho hum--but rather because of its elegant color scheme.  The ball is that perfect orangey off-white that is the base of the Giants' home uniforms.  I love that color.  The stitching on the ball is orange, and the black "Giants" is outlined in orange.  This is just a very simple, elegant combination of the Giants' colors, resulting in perhaps the best "basic" logo.

9. Seattle Mariners, primary, 1980-1986
This loses points for not being descriptive in the least, but I still just love something about it.  Maybe it's how the M doubles as a trident?  Yes, that's it.  Also very good is how the M is outlined in the cheesy yellow, spicing up a logo that had great potential to be boring.  Making a star as the background seems unnecessary, but it's not distracting and prevents the logo from looking too barren.  Good job, team.

10. Colorado Rockies, primary, 1993-present
Somebody's taking "purple mountain's majesty" a bit seriously, eh?  This logo suffers from many traditional pitfalls--too many colors, too much going on, a broken up name--but it's in my top ten because of those aforementioned mountains.  I love the way the baseball looks like it's been hit over the mountains, and the light lavender of the letters compliments the purple of the mountains very well.  Also, I'm a big fan of purple, and I think the Rockies' use of it is pretty exceptional.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

2011 Predictions: NL West

Up tomorrow: postseason, awards, and opening day!

1. San Francisco Giants
Last year’s World Series champions are still very good, and will make a serious run at repeating.  Led by Buster Posey, the team’s offense is a bit lacking, but still good enough to compete.  Pablo Sandoval had a bad year in 2010, but should rebound this season.  Aubrey Huff was a nice surprise last year, and although he won’t replicate his 138 OPS+ he should still put up very good numbers.  I’m a bit wary of Andres Torres in the leadoff spot, but I guess they have no real choice.  This team is built to slug.  The pitching, though, is very clearly this team’s proudest and strongest spot.  The ZiPS projections have all five members of the rotation putting in better-than-average seasons, something about which the Giants have to be positively giddy.  Tim Lincecum is one of the best pitchers in the league, Matt Cain would be an ace on almost any other team, Jonathan Sanchez is wild but has great stuff, Madison Bumgarner is only 21 and very good (though beware his arm wearing down), and Barry Zito has shown that he’s perfectly fine for the back of the rotation.
Bottom line: A return trip to the October Classic is not out of the question for this team.

2. Colorado Rockies
If there’s one thing that could get in between San Francisco and another title it’s this team.  The Rockies have a great offense, built around the newly-extended Carlos Gonzalez and Troy Tulowitzki.  The multi-year, multi-million dollar deals that these two players received this past offseason won’t look foolish if these two can avoid the DL and hit like they did last year.  Even if they tail off a bit, as can be expected, the spare parts of this team are plenty decent.  Seth Smith regressed last year after a very good 2009, but even if he puts up numbers in between those two seasons—.270/.350/.480, say—he’ll be a good complement to Tulo and CarGo.  Nobody else in the lineup stands out, but they’re all decent enough.  The pitching has a lot of potential as well, as Ubaldo Jimenez looks to return to his pre-All-Star Game form.  Everything else kind of rests on that.  Jorge de la Rosa and Jhoulys Chacin are very good, but this team would still be a lot better if Aaron Cook were not injured.  If Jimenez, de la Rosa, and Chacin are lights out through early May, when Cook figures to return, the Rockies could make a quite serious October push.
Bottom line: It will be a very close division race, and an even closer Wild Card race.

3. Los Angeles Dodgers
The Dodgers are good, but clearly not as good as the two teams ahead of them in this division.  Still, they could surprise.  Andre Ethier has established himself as one of the premier outfielders in the game, though he needs his slugging partner Matt Kemp to have a good year.  Without those two at the top of their game, this offense won’t be able to compete with the Giants and the Rockies.  The pitching, meanwhile, is plenty decent.  Clayton Kershaw has very quietly put up two consecutive excellent seasons in a row.  Chad Billingsley is also very good, and these two make a nice 1-2 punch at the top of the rotation.  The rest of it is pretty good as well, with the ever-reliable Ted Lilly very capably playing the part of #3 starter.
Bottom line: This Dodgers are not quite as good as the Giants or the Rockies, but could make a run for the playoffs if those teams slump and peripheral players like James Loney and Hiroki Kuroda have good years.

4. San Diego Padres
It’s kind of difficult to understand just how important Adrian Gonzalez was to the Padres, but it won’t be in a few months when you realize just how few runs they are scoring.  Ryan Ludwick is good, but he can’t carry this team.  It’ll be up to players like Brad Hawpe and Chase Headley (among others) to all cobble together above average seasons.  If not, this team just won’t score enough runs to be competitive.  The pitching will be fine, but it’s shaky to rely on Mat Latos and Clayton Richard to carry the rotation.  If both of them, plus Tim Stauffer, turn in solid seasons, this team might be fine.  But I don’t expect that to happen, and neither should you.
Bottom line: Without a top slugger or ace, this team can consider itself in rebuilding mode.

5. Arizona Diamondbacks
This team actually might be decent.  I was very down on them a few weeks ago, but made a re-appraisal and realized that they can actually hit and pitch.  They almost certainly won’t contend this year, but they could pull off 70-75 wins.  Justin Upton is still very young and should rebound from his disappointing 2010 (though it was still good enough).  Kelly Johnson and Stephen Drew form a pretty good middle infield combination.  If Chris Young can play to his potential, the Diamondbacks should be pretty set in the hitting department this year.  The pitching, however, is a bit lacking, though Daniel Hudson flashed his potential with a 7-1 record and a 1.85 ERA over the course of eleven starts at the end of last season.  I don’t think he’ll be remotely that good this year, but should be able to get 13 wins with an ERA south of 3.70.  Ian Kennedy also shows promise, and could match Hudson’s predicted numbers.  Besides them the situation is pretty dire, but there’s a glimmer of hope—if not this year, then for 2012 or 2013.
Bottom line: The Diamondbacks, in typical fashion, have a number of promising young players who probably won’t play to their potential.  Even if they do, the Diamondbacks can’t contend in the NL West.