San Diego Padres 2020 Rebrand Discussion

[LMU]

Below are the debut years (as I went through Dressed to the Nines) of every franchise (including Federal League)'s first use of pinstripes.  Bold teams still use them.  12 teams used them before the Yankees first broke them out.

 

1907 Cubs

1909 Philadelphia Athletics

1911 Giants

1912 Senators/Nationals

1912 (Trolley) Dodgers

1912 Pirates

1913 White Sox

1913 Boston Braves

1914 Federals

1914 Rebels

1914 Terriers

1914 Reds

-----

1915 Yankees

-----

1915 Indians

1915 Tip-Tops

1915 Packers

1917 Red Sox

1918 Tigers

1918 Cardinals

1921 Phillies

1961 Kansas City Athletics

1961 Twins

1961 Senators 2.0

1962 Mets

1969 Atlanta Braves

1978 Brewers

1985 Padres

1992 Expos

1993 Rockies

1993 Marlins

1997 Angels

1998 Diamondbacks

2000 Astros

 

How are they Yankees-exclusive again?

[gosioux76]

13 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Sole intent of emulating the Yankees?  No.  But I do think that's part of it. 

 

Just as the Padres have tried to emulate the Dodgers' look on a couple occasions,  Openly, one of those times.

I'll buy that in certain examples. But it can't be treated as a rote assumption for every team. The "We Are Fami-lee" Pirates of the late '70s shared absolutely nothing visually with the Yankees, even with the addition of a single pinstriped jersey. And if the Twins were trying to parrot the Yankee mystique they'd have just placed the TC on the front of the jersey and skipped the wordmark. 

 

The trouble is, there's no way to really ascertain intent, and I refuse to believe that the move to pinstripes is subconsciously triggered by a desire to emulate the Yankees. It's possible they just really liked pinstripes. 

[Gothamite]

4 minutes ago, LMU said:

How are they Yankees-exclusive again?

 

Exclusive?  @hawk36 didn't say "exclusive".  Quite the opposite.  People trying to poke holes in his argument were the ones who said exclusive.

 

Pinstripes are not and have never been exclusive to the Yankees.  However, they have long been synonymous with the Yankees in a way unmatched by any other team.

[gosioux76]

7 minutes ago, LMU said:

How are they Yankees-exclusive again?

 

I'm not even sure that exclusivity is the argument. The argument is that pinstripes have become synonymous with the Yankees more than any other franchise, so much so that other teams' adoption of stripes is done in some form of team-based hero worship. 

[Gothamite]

2 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

I'm not even sure that exclusivity is the argument. The argument is that pinstripes have become synonymous with the Yankees more than any other franchise, so much so that other teams' adoption of stripes is done in some form of team-based hero worship. 

 

I would actually say the argument is that pinstripes have become synonymous with the Yankees more than any other franchise, so much so that other teams' adoption of stripes is done in some form of trying to emulate their merchandise sales.  

 

 

 

But no, exclusivity has nothing to do with it.

[Ray Lankford]

Blue’s synonymous with the Dodgers so the Cubs are doubly pathetic.

[gosioux76]

2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

I would actually say the argument is that pinstripes have become synonymous with the Yankees more than any other franchise, so much so that other teams' adoption of stripes is done in some form of trying to emulate their merchandise sales.  

 

 

 

But no, exclusivity has nothing to do with it.

Oh man, if that's their intent then those teams are failing miserably. Pinstripes are ugly.

[Gothamite]

1 minute ago, gosioux76 said:

Oh man, if that's their intent then those teams are failing miserably. Pinstripes are ugly.

 

That.  Is a whole separate issue.   

[Brian in Boston]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

But neither can we deny that they are most identified with the Yankees today.

I can only speak for myself. I don't most identify pinstripes with the New York Yankees. Why? Because, over the course of my lifetime as a baseball fan, I've known at least two other big league franchises - the Cubs and Phillies - that have had pinstriped uniforms as a component of their sets for as long as the Yankees have. As a result, I can honestly say that I equate pinstripes with the Cubs and Phillies as much as with the Yankees. Truth be told, the couple of seasons that the Mets ditched pinstripes are such a drop in the bucket compared to their 54 seasons with pinstripes, that (gasp!) I identify the Mets with pinstripes as much as I do the Yankees.

  

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

They’re different pinstripes. The pinstripes dominate the Yankees’ identity in a way that they don’t for the Cubs or any other pinstripes team. The Cubs have the “Cubbie Blue,” the White Sox are whatever they choose to be (“pale hose?”), the Diamondbacks has the purple/teal/black, the Marlins had the light teal, and the Rockies have purple. They have distinctiveness in their identities that are unrelated to pinstripes.

 

The Yankees can be called “the pinstripes” because they don’t place an identity behind a color. Nobody says “Yankee Navy.” Besides, if they truly “owned” pinstripes, they’d have road pinstripes.

 

Pinstripes doesn’t mean “Yankees wannabe.” 

 

It generally matters less for two reasons:

 

1. Both teams in this town wear pinstripes.

 

2. There hasn't been a major free agent acquisition for the South Sides since.... Oh.. Oh no. 

 

[IceCap]

On 11/7/2019 at 12:15 PM, Dodgeryaqui8016 said:

It is because green is a neutral seat color that a lot of teams implemented in the 90's for the retro park era.  Even the White Sox ditched their royal blue seats and walls for dark green to what they thought would "add character" to their park.  

Check out this post.

 

Only ten MLB teams have seat colours that match their uniform. One of the 20 that don't? The Pirates have navy seats despite wearing black and gold. So I think you're very much overblowing the fact that the Padres will have blue seats while wearing brown and gold. It won't matter in the slightest.

 

[FiddySicks]

4 hours ago, bcon_731 said:

Im nowhere complaining but at what point will it be a slippery slope where we start asking for the #BRINGBACKORANGE

 

Never, because: 

 

1). Orange ALWAYS looked like :censored: on the Padres.

 

2). They have a division rival that wears orange prominently (Yeah yeah, I know. That didn't stop them last time. But it should have). 

[axiom20xx]

7 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Wait, I thought more than anything people wanted consistency from the Pads? Now people want them to ditch the pinstripes? 

 

hold your horses, I never said I want them to get rid of pinstripes.

[McCall]

15 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Never, because: 

 

1). Orange ALWAYS looked like on the Padres.

 

2). They have a division rival that wears orange prominently (Yeah yeah, I know. That didn't stop them last time. But it should have). 

Not to mention, the only other team in all of the major sports leagues that has brown as it's primary color, uses brown and orange. Why have both brown teams be brown and orange when 1. yellow/gold was your original color, 2.  looks better for your team and 3. separates you from the other brown team? That's 3 wins right there! They don't need to sign a high dollar free agent. This color combo has a 3 WAR. Boom. Mic drop. Out.

[jn8]

I’ve been trying to position myself on this “pinstripes” discussion and I’ve tried to think of an analogy that works and I’ve sorta come up with one. It’s not perfect, but maybe it’ll help clarify some things. 

 

In racing, the number 3 is synonymous with Dale Earnhardt. Even non-racing fans know that, just like non-baseball fans know the Yankees wear pinstripes. But Dale Earnhardt wasn’t the first driver of the 3, that was Bill Snowden in 1949, 32 years before Earnhardt, just like the Yankees weren’t the first team to wear pinstripes. Since Earnhardt, several drivers in many series across the globe have used the number 3, and many of them use it because of Earnhardt, but there are some who use it for different reasons:

Quote

“While the No. 3 is synonymous with seven-time Cup champion Dale Earnhardt, [Jordan] Anderson was inspired to race the number based on Junior Johnson's history with it”

 

There are undoubtedly many teams that use pinstripes because they want to look like the Yankees, like many racing drivers use the 3 because of Earnhardt, but that doesn’t mean that’s why EVERY team that wears pinstripes does, just like not every driver chooses number 3 for the same reason. 

 

Is the 3 synonymous with Earnhardt? Yes

 

Are pinstripes synonymous with the Yankees? Yes

 

Does everyone who uses number 3 or every team that wears pinstripes do it because they want to emulate the more synonymous use? NO

 

Hopefully this at least helps to clarify this discussion a little. Or maybe I just made no sense at all. 

[FiddySicks]

FWIW, I still really hate that NASCAR didn't retire the #3 for Sale Sr. I know that others used that number before him, but none of them were Sr. And considering the circumstances, that number should've been Jackie Robinson'd/Wayne Gretzky'd. 

[HeyNineteen]

9 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Wait, I thought more than anything people wanted consistency from the Pads? Now people want them to ditch the pinstripes? 

 

13 hours ago, axiom20xx said:

 

I wish you would've never said this, because as much as i've been an advocate for pinnies, that jersey would look beautiful without them as well. hopefully we can add that a couple years down the road.

No, I'm not saying get rid of the pinstripes. Just that if I had a wish list for the perfect Padres uniform, pinstripes would be a ways down the list. No big deal. I just feel it would be a cleaner look without them. 2 cents.

 

It won't dampen my enthusiasm in seeing Manny Machado walk out from behind a curtain in them tomorrow, nor will it stop me from spending probably more on Padres merch in the next couple of years than I have in the last 20:).

 

[MilSox]

2 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Never, because: 

 

1). Orange ALWAYS looked like on the Padres.

 

2). They have a division rival that wears orange prominently (Yeah yeah, I know. That didn't stop them last time. But it should have). 

 

Funny you mention this... I started following baseball when the Padres were in brown and orange. One of my first uniform curiosities I ever recall having was why the two "San" teams had such similar colors and cap logos.

[bosrs1]

3 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Never, because: 

 

1). Orange ALWAYS looked like on the Padres.

 

2). They have a division rival that wears orange prominently (Yeah yeah, I know. That didn't stop them last time. But it should have). 

Correction, Orange and Brown looked like :censored:. In no small part due to the same design firm doing both Padres ‘85 unis and the contemporary Giants unis. It’s a large part of why they were so similar. But when the Padres modified the unis in ‘91 they were much improved. Also helped the Giants modified their unis around that time to the more old time aesthetic they still wear today (albeit further modified). 

[Shumway]

Looks like a view of the [mostly or entirely unchanged] wordmark at the end...I'm so pumped!