Skip to content
 

MLB Releases Silly 2024 Clubhouse Cap Collection

MLB has just released this season’s “Clubhouse Caps.” These are caps that players supposedly wear in the clubhouse, but they almost never actually wear them, but the fact that they supposedly wear them lets MLB and New Era claim that they’re “official” and lets cap collectors pretend that they’re wearing something that the players wear. In other words, it’s a merch program masquerading as something more than that.

Anyway: From what I can see, each team has four versions this year (as seen above for the Mets, clockwise from top left):

  • A cap rendered in standard team colors with a rubberized team logo.
  • A grey cap with the same team logo.
  • A “stone” cap with a brown brim and squatchee and a muted version of the logo.
  • And a black cap with a black-and-white version of the logo.

As you can also see, this year’s caps also have a bit of decorative stitching, apparently meant to mimic the seams of a baseball.

You can see the entire product line here.

 
  
 
Comments (49)

    There’s also a cream alternate. Even for the A’s, with their hella-cheap owner who’s thinking about shuttering the club rather than play in minor league stadia until 2028.

    The A’s and there “hella cheap” owner have nothing to do with merchandising agreements. That’s a league thing.

    On the MLB Shop website, it seems like only 29 teams are represented. Are there not Atlanta versions of these caps? Curious…

    I don’t see the need to be cynical about the concept. If people don’t want to buy the hats, they don’t have to.

    My cynicism is rooted in marketing text like “Represent your favorite team the way your favorite players do,” which is clearly bullshit.

    I do tend to be cynical about bullshit, it’s true.

    What I find really goofy is that these hats seemingly *need* to have the veneer of being “official” in order to justify being made, when they could just be standard fashion caps that, in some colors, do seem pretty nice. I know that there’s probably a ton of market research that goes into this, but it definitely feels like a “tail wags dog” deal this time around.

    What I find really goofy is that these hats seemingly *need* to have the veneer of being “official” in order to justify being made, when they could just be standard fashion caps…

    Exactly! Just be honest about it instead of cloaking it in bullshit.

    Question of clarification: as these are “official clubhouse caps”, where will they be worn? Surely players won’t swap hats when they enter and exit the dugout, and I don’t predict many players sporting these in post game pressers, or putting on a hat (or different than on-field) hat in the locker room in case they are caught on camera, and they are different from BP hats, so forgive my ignorance but what exactly is the “clubhouse” that these will be mandated in?

    Also, some of them look decent in pictures but spandex snap backs with rubber logos? Hard pass. And an all black and white Red Sox hat with the sock logo looks like a white Sox hat. Good luck selling that one.

    Agreed. I’m loving the anatomically correct Pittsburgh Pirates logo. It’s probably the first time I’ve seen it at all, as after reverencing sportslogos.net It’s definitely before my time.

    Interesting that every team has a collection except Atlanta. Not sure if it’s just an oversight on the website or if they opted out? Strange either way.

    The ones that use an alternate mark, and are done in team colors, such as the Twins and Brewers, strike me as the best examples of what a “clubhouse cap” should be. The ones that just slap a team’s primary logo or use non-team-colors look more like something that belongs at a corporate golf outing or a trade-show exhibit floor.

    Apparently, it’s different for each team. The Rays have 8 of these available, but not the one with the fake wood.
    link

    Meanwhile, the Dodgers have 18
    link

    For all those who think, I love that logo, but it should be on the cap!

    The Pirates in gray was the only one that beckoned me.

    I’m sure when players come in from the dugout, the clubbies are like, “sorry, Shohei, you can’t wear that in here. Please choose one of these six clubhouse caps.”

    Although I will say that the Brewers’ “brick Wisconsin” logo in brown doesn’t look half bad next to the woodgrain bill. (And I hate myself for saying that.) link

    The Brick Wisconsin M logo should be a regular team alternate cap. (Or, my real actual preference, the M from the Brick Wisconsin logo by itself, as a nod to the old Braves and early Brewers block M cap logo.)

    The logos some of these use are amazing and i am a huge fan of when stitching is used as an accent color but man on a whole these are not good at all.

    Perusing those caps reminded me how superior the Reds’ “Running Man” logo is to the one currently in use.

    So first of all, yes these are 1000% a pointless merch drop and the templates are pretty ugly.

    Beyond that, I will say one thing quasi-positive: I do always like when secondary/throwback.etc. logos from team’s visual programs and history are used to these kind of caps or BP caps. Heck, I can’t stand that the Yankees ones use the interlocking NY logo instead of the full top hat logo (or even just the top hat).

    Great point about the Yankees. Looks like the Blue Jays are the only other team where they have used the primary cap logo. Don’t know why they did that for the Jays, but easy to guess why for the Yanks– that logo is worn on caps on six continents and they want the $ales! Too bad– the top hat logo would have looked good. (says this Met fan)

    The Yankees NY is so simple, clean and iconic on its own. When anything is added to it (double or triple outline, for example) it looks like crap. Definitely should have used the top hat.

    The concept behind the hats is annoying but I love seeing Mr. Red on a hat. It is odd that he is wearing pinstripes & vest when the Reds abandoned that look years ago. Aside from the infusion of black into the last version of that uniform, I loved it and would love to see both the Reds and Mr. Red return to it.

    I can certainly see complaining about the marketing of these–definitely never worn by the players–but the designs are all pretty solid.

    The alleged “gold rush” of merch is utterly asinine, garbage-producing, and destined to someday be remembered with mocking laughter and rolls of the eyes.
    What an embarrassing era…

    Some of them are nice hats. The teams with nice alt logo and the right team colors version of these work. IMO the Mariners, Orioles, Angels, Tigers, Reds are sweet looking.

    Interesting that the Phillies caps have the old logo, which was done away with some years ago, not the current one.

    I’ve never liked the Guardians logo…and seeing it on these hats doesn’t change that feeling.
    If I was forced to get any one of these – it’d be the wrongly colored Mariners cap…should have never abandoned its’ use.

    I actually like a lot of these designs — so much so that I eagerly searched scrolled down to see if was worth getting a Mariners one. Unfortunately, they have one of the worst designs.

    Not really interested in these, but based on some of their retro logos I’ll take Clubhouse Collection over Shitty Connect any day of the week and twice in Sunday

    A brown cardinal? How ironic. Also of note, the Angels cap is using the old California Angels state outline logo. I much prefer that. The only one that looks any good is the Padres. And why does Cincinnati not have Mr. Redlegs? Have they gotten away from that? I love that logo!

    Serious Question Paul, why do you cover these merch drops?

    You’ve said that you have little to no interest in the consumer sportswear/athleisure market space; and I would agree, these are not on-field or official in any true sense of the word. I suppose, why even give New Era/Fanatics/MLB the advertising. I mean I suppose if you’re against them philosophically…it’s just that reading the comments theres more than a handful of people that hadn’t even heard of them, but seem interested in buying one?

    I guess what I mean to say is, there’s only a few months to go, why not lean into the things that you ‘want’ to do on the blog instead of filling it with content that your heart isn’t in or you aren’t interested in doing? You do you, but it just strikes me is all.

    Anyways, I mostly lurk and only rarely comment, but I did mean to reach out to say thanks for everything. Pretty wild to think P2 even could exist these days, but I don’t want to ramble anymore. Seriously though, thanks for the ride

    THIS^

    I would’ve had no idea these were released without this blog, now I’ll probably buy a couple.

    So I guess the White Sox only get 3, right? Because the team colors one and black and white ones would be the same.

    These aren’t terrible. Are we sure the logos are rubberized? I took a closer look at some of them (cubs and giants to be specific) and they look almost like sublimated patches or something close to that, it looked more like fabric than rubber.

    There seen to be retailer exclusive. Fanatics has different colorcombinations than Rally house does for the Rangers. The City Connect hasta are like that as well

    Sorry for being a part of the problem, but I went and ordered that mariners hat as soon as I saw it. The colored, fitted one. Love that trident-star logo, and on those colors, it pops really well. (41/m )

    I agree with the overall sentiment, but some of these are actually quite sharp. I ordered a blue Rangers one. After I take the ol’ seam ripper to it, gonna look pretty sweet with that old emblem logo. (Also, I have a huge head, so a lot of times I can’t get the cap I want. That one sang to me.) So dammit, MLB marketing, ya got me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *