Brown is Back and So is the Padres Identity

Being a fan of a sports team is more about identity than it is about winning. How else do you explain the long-suffering Cubs fans who stayed true to their team despite a 108-year World Series championship drought? Or the fans of the Detroit Lions who have gone 58 years and counting since their last championship? Or the Atlanta Hawks who have gone 48 years without a championship? Winning, it seems, is not in fact the only thing despite what former UCLA football coach Red Sanders is famous for claiming.

Being a true fan of a team means that team is in your blood. It’s a part of you and a part of how your friends perceive you. Ask 100 people what they know about me and I suspect one of the first things most of them would think of is that I’m a Padres fan.

The identity of a team includes the vibe of its community, its traditions, its great players, its uniforms, its logo, and yes, its colors. When you think of the Dallas Cowboys you think of the blue star. The Yankees? Black and white pinstripes. The University of North Carolina? Carolina blue. When you think of the San Diego Padres? Okay, nobody really thinks of the San Diego Padres. But if you did, you’d swear they were always brown and you’d recall that iconic swinging friar!

But the Padres have been some various shade of blue for the past three decades. It has never felt right. And yes, I grew up in San Diego in the 70s and early 80s when the Padres last wore brown as their primary color. So of course there is some nostalgia involved. But it’s more about identity than a longing for the glory days of the past because there were no glory days of the past. The team has been around for 50 years and despite two trips to the World Series they’ve never won a championship.

I’ve always hated the Padres in blue. I understand why they switched to blue, orange and white in 1991. Marketing. Brown is not exactly a popular color. But blue has always been a mistake and yet decade after decade they’ve doubled down on it, finally moving to plain old blue and white for the past few years. But blue is the color of their biggest rivals, the Dodgers. You don’t try to look like your rivals. Could you imagine Ohio State changing its color scheme to blue and maize? No. They wouldn’t. Because it’d be stupid. Which is why the Padres changing to blue in 1991 was stupid.

I know what you’re thinking. Brown is an awful color for a sports team. It’s why there are so very few brown sports teams. You have the Cleveland Browns of course. And the Baltimore Orioles are brown and orange. The University of Wyoming is brown. But it’s not a popular color. Hell, Brown University uses silver and red as its primary uniform colors.

But when I think of the Padres I think of brown and yellow. I think of Ozzie Smith, and Nate Colbert, and Dave Winfield. I’m not saying the Padres should bring back those god awful brown and mustard uniforms. When the Astros decided to move on from the rainbow uniforms of the 70s and 80s they didn’t switch to green. They modernized their look using their primary colors of blue and orange.

The Padres should be brown. They should have always been brown. And I’m thrilled they are bringing back the brown permanently starting with the 2020 season. Is it going to make them a better team? No, of course not. But it will bring back their identity and frankly give them something to hang their hat on that not a lot of other teams have — a unique look. When you see the Padres moving forward you’ll think of brown. And that’s as it should be.

I don’t love brown. But I love the Padres and they are brown. Maybe you don’t think you look good in brown? I don’t care. You know who does? Manny Fucking Machado.

And you know who else looks great in brown. The franchise — Fernando Tatis Jr.

I can’t wait to see the Padres new uniforms when they are released. I can tell you as well that my Christmas list will be full of nothing but brown Padres merchandise. I love that the Padres are going to be distinct again.

Brown is back, baby!

The Dilemma of Pete Rose

PeteRoseI’m just about finished with my Spring ’15 baseball read, Pete Rose: An American Dilemma. Here are my conclusions:

  1. Pete Rose is one of the greatest baseball players of all-time and his on-the-field performance is worthy of being recognized in the Hall of Fame. This is indisputable.
  2. Pete Rose bet on baseball and on the Reds while he managed the team. This much he admitted. Because of this he was placed on baseball’s permanent ineligible list.
  3. In 1991, the Hall of Fame voted formally to exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Rose is the only living member of the ineligible list.
  4. Pete Rose is an asshole. He cheated on his wives. He wasn’t a good father. He gambled. He was arrogant. He hung out with some rough people.
  5. There are worse guys in the Hall of Fame. Drug addicts. Gamblers. Racists. Cheaters.
  6. There is no proof that Rose ever cheated in a game as a player or manager. There is no proof he made any managerial decisions based on his bets. It’s hard to imagine though that it didn’t play into his decisions in some way, even if only subconsciously.
  7. Tons of cheaters are at least eligible to be voted on for the Hall of Fame. Mark McGwire. Sammy Sosa. Rafael Palmeiro. Barry Bonds. Etc. It is unlikely that they will ever get enough votes to get in, but they are eligible.
  8. Anyone who has bet on baseball should not be allowed to be around the game to any significant extent. By this I mean manage, coach, scout, etc. I have no issue with a guy like Pete Rose attending games in the stands or even being honored on the field. He has been, at least twice, since being placed on the ineligible list. Apparently the baseball gods think it’s better for an admitted cheater to coach, but not a gambler (see Mark McGwire). Steroids and gambling both mess with the integrity of the game and should be treated equally, don’t you think? As for Rose, there is no proof he ever bet against his own team and frankly it doesn’t seem to be in his nature to do so. Which is worse? Betting on your team to win, or pumping yourself full of performance enhancing drugs to get an edge?
  9. Pete Rose should have his day in the court of public opinion. By this I mean let the writers vote on his induction to the Hall of Fame. That seems fair. He may not get in, but I bet he’ll get a lot more votes than McGwire and Bonds.

I was fortunate to grow up during a time when Pete Rose played baseball. I hated Pete Rose, but not because he was an asshole — I hated him because he was on the other team and he could beat you single-handedly. He was without question one of the toughest competitors I ever saw play the game. Pete Rose holds something like 17 major league baseball records, including most career hits (4,256) and most games played (3,562). His on-the-field performance was the stuff that legends are made of. He won three World Series titles, one World Series MVP and appeared in 17 all-star games. He was the NL MVP and Rookie of the Year. Nobody ever played the game with more intensity.

Yes, Pete Rose bet on baseball. And like I said, he shouldn’t be allowed to manage, coach or otherwise interact with young players because he is in fact a bad influence. But he deserves to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot and let the voters have the opportunity to vote for him, just like the steroid guys and just like Gaylord Perry (who admitted to cheating his whole career). Rose didn’t cheat, so what he did on the field has integrity.

It’s an easy fix. It can be done without removing him from the ineligible list. All that has to be done is the Hall of Fame must remove the 1991 language about ineligible players not being eligible for the Hall of Fame. After all, they added it to keep Pete Rose out of the Hall and they can delete it to let him have his day in the court of public opinion.

Oh, and for the record, if I had a vote for the Hall of Fame he’d be a yes.