Shoulder patch design for hockey jerseys

There's an old saying in hockey that “you can't win a game in the first period, but you can lose a game in the first”. From a zero-sum perspective, this doesn't make any sense, yet I've applied this word structure to jerseys:

Shoulder patches can't make a good jersey great, but it can make an otherwise good jersey bad.

Look no further than the two most-recent franchises. Vegas designed a solid patch for their primary jerseys. Yet, it isn't enough to consider this a great jersey.

A shoulder patch can't save a jersey with this sleeve design.

On the other hand, Seattle had something brewing with their unique colors and a decent primary logo. Sadly they decided to add the most-overused object in logo history with the anchor. If there was any hope left, they botched the execution, forcing me to call this a bad jersey.

Just get rid of the patch and this jersey is that much better. And yeah get rid of the piping too.

That said, let's review the essential attributes for a complimentary shoulder patch.

Presence

Many iconic jerseys have no shoulder patch—and that's fine. Jerseys that are going for a clean, simplistic look should be wary to introduce something that can be detrimental. Take the Maple Leafs as an example. Maybe the most iconic hockey jersey of all time. They've experimented with shoulder patches, with no success.

Neither the “TML” patch nor the detailed leaf patch enhanced the jersey, although I'd like to see the leaf (with no copy) as the main logo.
That's better. Also cool to see a shoulder patch done right in the background.

Another aspect to consider is what kind of striping / pattern you have on the shoulder. Any jersey that keeps the shoulders free should first consider no patch, as sizing and fit become harder to perfect.

3 jerseys with no shoulder patches. All iconic.

Likewise, jerseys that have a different color on the shoulders should default to having a patch. This is why the one team I think should immediately consider a patch are the Oilers.

This jersey is almost begging for shoulder patches.

Size

In the 80s shoulder patches were comically small.

Buffalo's patch is the smallest I've come across, which I believe were 3in in diameter.

In the 90s they went jumbo.

Patches in the 90s could reach up to 5.5in in length or width.
Pittsburgh might have the record for the biggest patch the NHL ever saw...and I'm not hating it. Side note: I later mention shoulder patches should not be a primary logo, but in 1992 the “Robo-Penguin” was brand new (as a shoulder patch on their aways and as a main logo for their homes).

Since the mid-2000s we've sort of settled somewhere in between.

We should situationaly explore sizes closer to the 90s, with the option to size down. Shoulder pads are no longer getting bigger, but the players are, meaning the patch to jersey ratio is inching closer to what we had in the 80s. No bueno.

Sabres' “B-Sword” patch from 1996-2006 was massive and glorious.
The size difference between the old patch (left) and the new patch (right). I don't know anyone who would objectively choose the right.

Fidelity

This attribute is very much tied to the main logo. While both logos can be simple, they both should not be complex.

Most successful jerseys opt for the balanced approach. If the main logo is detailed and/or has copy, the shoulder patch will be more simple, with no copy. And vice versa.

From 2000-2006 the Flames followed this rule to a tee. The basic “Flaming C” as the main logo had “Blasty” on the shoulders. Roles were reversed on the black jerseys, which were their home uniforms for 3 years.
When the Bruins do have a shoulder patch they do a good job keeping the fidelity balance. With the traditional B logo you'll see them use the “Meth Bear” or “Pooh Bear” for their patch. When Pooh Bear enters the limelight they hit the shoulder with a basic wordmark.

Shape

Circular patches are easy. They require limited creativity, and are guaranteed to fit on the shoulder.

Yet they come off as unnatural, forgettable, and...what were we talking about again?

The Avalanche, Ducks, and Wild all have (near perfect) circular patches. Each one more pathetic than the next.

What ends up working well are logos that are close to being circular, but still have their own unique shape.

All three patches would fit nicely inside a larger circle, and work very well on the shoulder.

The high-risk, high-reward strategy is to stray further from a circle, while not making it look like a complete mess. Better to have popouts making the patch taller rather than wider. For two reasons: one, this isn't football, and two, there is just more surface area that doesn't force warping.

“Blasty” with the long face and the “B-Sword” are legendary, tall, patches that in no way would work for the main logo. Even the “State Border” patch dips below the border of where a traditional patch would be.
Preds opted for vertical patches early in their tenure. The Bridgestone Arenas spire vertically stretched Nashville's inaugural patch, while the “Mustard Cat” third jersey had a skull and team name vertically aligned.

The low-risk, low-reward strategy is to have most of the patch actually be a circle, with a small popout or two.

The Sharks and the Sens probably started with a legit circle and then realized they had to do something to “spice it up”. The Avalanche were probably more reactive, covering up the foot with a circular background. Huge mistake.
The Coyotes and Blues almost making me eat my own words here as I do like these patches. That being said, if you remove the dark side of the moon and pop out the trumpet I think we see even-better results.

Color

I've only seen one patch rock a color that is nowhere else on the jersey, and that's the Bs with their “Pooh Bear”.

The brown color on the patch is seen no where else on the jersey.

Suffice to say, you really shouldn't try this unless it smacks you in the face.

Relationship to main logo

The best shoulder patches should, of course, relate to the main logo. Whether it's adding to the story, or just reinforcing a point, the theme should be the same. This sentiment aligns well with my section on Fidelity.

While I'm not in love with either patch, they undeniably give more context to each team's story. The Blue Jackets' “Bug Eye” patch gave an image to their mascot, while the “Take Warning” patch depicts what locals see when an actual hurricane is upon them. Both add more context to abstract main logos.

What the shoulder patch should not be is a duplicate of the main logo, or the main logo from a past generation. This doesn't “add” anything.

The patches are slightly different than the main logo, but not different enough to be intriguing.

Faux pas

Number on the shoulder

Football doesn't have the luxury of a full sleeve and yet some of their best jerseys still found a way to have their “patch” (really just a logo) on the shoulder.

These designs stand the test of time.

So for the NHL there is no excuse to go off script. Outdoor game jerseys can get a pass I guess, but don't be the Panthers, who continue to find ways to ruin their jersey.

This jersey wouldn't be that bad if the numbers and patches switched locations...and if they made the stripe go around the whole torso. And made the stripe smaller...actually removed the stripe—went back to the old colors.

Unbalanced shoulders

We see one single patch when a team is paying homage, like to their home country or to a team's anniversary. I'll admit, I was OK with the idea of this for years. But one day something triggered me to say “why” and I've never gotten a good answer.

Forsberg deserves better. Lindholm is turning into a billboard.

If you have two different patches (like Calgary above), choose one. I'm all for representation, but there's only so much a jersey should convey. You can't be that desperate for representation if your next jersey has zero patches.

If a patch doesn't work for both shoulders, then consider putting it on the right chest, which has been home to many legendary patches.

NHL league patches are so swaggy.

A note on my “bias”

For those of you who think nostalgia has blurred my view on jersey design, leading to a bias for the late-80s to early-2000s:  

1. Read this quote from Paul Lukas.

Because old uniforms were designed to answer the question, ‘What looks good on the field/court/ice?,’ while new uniforms are designed to answer the question, ‘What will 18- to 34-year-olds want to buy?’ Simple as that.

2. Look at these jersey comparisons

Jerseys from back in the day vs from 2024.

If you still think I'm biased then I can't really help you.