PDA

View Full Version : Tip the cap to the '96 Jndjans...


A. Cavatica
04-17-2008, 12:22 AM
Take another look at the 1996 Cleveland lineup and ask yourself, how did this team never win a World Series? (How did this team lose to Baltimore in the ALDS??)

They had gone 100-44 in 1995 and they beat us by 14.5 games in 1996, but I never realized how talented they would look in hindsight.

C - Sandy Alomar - age 30, All-Star (six-time All-Star in career)
1B - Julio Franco - age 37, but played another decade (2586 career hits)
2B - Carlos Baerga - age 27, All-Star that year (1583 career hits)
SS - Omar Vizquel - age 29, (2598 career hits)
3B - Jim Thome - age 25 (510 career HR and counting)
LF - Albert Belle - age 29, 3rd in MVP voting (career cut short at 381 HR)
CF - Kenny Lofton - age 29, All-Star that year (2428 career hits)
RF - Manny Ramirez - age 24 (493 career HR and counting)
DH - Eddie Murray - age 40 (504 career HR; Hall of Fame)
bench - Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Giles, Jeff Kent...

That's three players who would reach 500 HR (assuming Manny makes it), three players who would reach 2500 hits (assuming Lofton makes it), three other starters who were All-Stars that year, and a fine bench.

It's not like they had no pitching. They had a rotation of Hershiser, Nagy, McDowell, Ogea, and Dennis Martinez; they had Mesa, Plunk, Assenmacher, Shuey, Tavarez, Embree, and Graves in the bullpen.

This could be the best team never to win anything.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 12:41 AM
It actually is like they had no pitching.

Nagy was their ace for years. That's why they never won it all. McDowell, Martinez, Hershiser...they were all well past their primes at that point. Let's not overlook that defense either: Belle in left, Ramirez in right, Thome at third (shudder), and Julio Franco at first. That's just terrible.

And now that they do have pitching they just find other ways to

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/ozzie-guillen-choke.jpg

The best team never to win anything is the 2001 Seattle team. They were an absolute machine. What a joke that they lost in the ALCS. They didn't even make it interesting--lost in 5.

HomeFish
04-17-2008, 12:45 AM
The 1996 Indians had more pure talent on paper than the 2001 Mariners.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 12:50 AM
The 1996 Indians had more pure talent on paper than the 2001 Mariners.

Certainly not in pitching. The Mariners were a good run better and they scored insignificantly fewer runs.

116 wins? Come on..

A. Cavatica
04-17-2008, 12:51 AM
The best team never to win anything is the 2001 Seattle team. They were an absolute machine.

They had a great year. Probably a fluke year. Certainly Bret Boone had a Fluke-with-a-capital-F year. They did have Edgar and Ichiro and Olerud, but Dan Wilson, David Bell, and Al Martin were regulars. And their rotation -- Moyer, Freddy, Sele, Abbott, Halama -- was a bunch of #3 starters having career years.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 12:55 AM
They had a great year. Probably a fluke year. Certainly Bret Boone had a Fluke-with-a-capital-F year. They did have Edgar and Ichiro and Olerud, but Dan Wilson, David Bell, and Al Martin were regulars. And their rotation -- Moyer, Freddy, Sele, Abbott, Halama -- was a bunch of #3 starters having career years.

Yeah but they were grinders. You should love them.

Basically, take the 2005 Sox, add a few 8 game winning streaks and have them wet the bed in the playoffs.

A. Cavatica
04-17-2008, 01:02 AM
Yeah but they were grinders. You should love them.

Basically, take the 2005 Sox, add a few 8 game winning streaks and have them wet the bed in the playoffs.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. They weren't even the most talented Mariners team ever. The '97 team still had A-Rod, Griffey, and Jay Buhner, along with Edgar. Randy Johnson, Moyer, and Fassero were a quality big three. Of course, the rest of the pitching staff was horrible.

HomeFish
04-17-2008, 01:05 AM
That entire 2001 Mariners team had a magical vibe to it. I remember they had a 1-0 victory against Baltimore where Ichiro threw a runner out at the plate from somewhere around the warning track.

It was definitely closer to being bunch of average to above-average guys each having a career year rather than a murderers row of talent.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 01:20 AM
Sorry, I'm not buying it. They weren't even the most talented Mariners team ever. The '97 team still had A-Rod, Griffey, and Jay Buhner, along with Edgar. Randy Johnson, Moyer, and Fassero were a quality big three. Of course, the rest of the pitching staff was horrible.

The 96 Tribe team you wax nostalgically about wasn't even the best of their run. The 95 team was better. I don't know what makes 96 stand out anyway. Look at the 99 lineup, it was ridiculous--they scored 1000 runs. They also had a better front three with Colon in his prime.

Lofton
Vizquel
Alomar
Justice
Thome
Ramirez
Sexson
Fryman
Alomar Jr


I don't care about talent. The 01 Mariners were unreal as a team. Anything you did, they had a better answer. In the relative baseball sense they were almost unbeatable.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 01:39 AM
Also, the 2006 Sox were better than any of these Indian teams top to bottom. It's really amazing that they finished third. How'd they **** that up?

I blame Buehrle.

Chilli Palmer
04-17-2008, 01:56 AM
It actually is like they had no pitching.

Nagy was their ace for years. That's why they never won it all. McDowell, Martinez, Hershiser...they were all well past their primes at that point. Let's not overlook that defense either: Belle in left, Ramirez in right, Thome at third (shudder), and Julio Franco at first. That's just terrible.

And now that they do have pitching they just find other ways to

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/ozzie-guillen-choke.jpg

The best team never to win anything is the 2001 Seattle team. They were an absolute machine. What a joke that they lost in the ALCS. They didn't even make it interesting--lost in 5.

What he said.

chaerulez
04-17-2008, 02:57 AM
I think the '95 Indians were better than the '96 version as they at least made it to the World Series instead of losing in the divisional series. Also that team did win it's divison by 30 games. They had a killer offense and shutdown bullpen, and their starting pitching was good but not great. However, in the '95 playoffs at least their starting pitching was pretty good, it was their offense that could only manage just over 3 runs a game in that World Series against that killer Atlanta rotation. Their starting rotation kept them in the game, it's just a combination of the Indians lineup didn't come through and the Braves pitching was just that good.

chaerulez
04-17-2008, 03:04 AM
Also, the 2006 Sox were better than any of these Indian teams top to bottom. It's really amazing that they finished third. How'd they **** that up?

I blame Buehrle.

I hope that was suppose to be in teal. The 2006 Sox, while a decent team were not better than the 1995 Indians.

Another interesting thing about the Indians why did Sandy Alomar Jr. after playing 130 some games in '90 in his rookie year become basically a platoon guy never playing more than 89 games until '96? And he managed to go to All Star games in seasons he played in 51 and 89 games, one season in which he hit .217! Were the lack of catchers in the AL that bad then?

doublem23
04-17-2008, 06:12 AM
The best team never to win anything is the 2001 Seattle team. They were an absolute machine. What a joke that they lost in the ALCS. They didn't even make it interesting--lost in 5.

The Indians were a machine for the better part of a decade, the Mariners won 91, 116, 93, and 93 games from 2000-2003 before the wheels completely fell off.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-17-2008, 09:54 AM
I hope that was suppose to be in teal. The 2006 Sox, while a decent team were not better than the 1995 Indians.

Another interesting thing about the Indians why did Sandy Alomar Jr. after playing 130 some games in '90 in his rookie year become basically a platoon guy never playing more than 89 games until '96? And he managed to go to All Star games in seasons he played in 51 and 89 games, one season in which he hit .217! Were the lack of catchers in the AL that bad then?

The quality of catchers has vastly improved since those days. Back in 90's the top two were Piazza and Pudge Rodriguez after that it was practically nothing. I know we had Officer Karkovice behind the plate for us but when was up at it he was all or nothing. His best offensive season came in 1993 when he hit 20 HR's but had a Uribe-esque .228 average to go with it. Another guy I remember like that was Mickey Tettleton when he was in Detroit he was all or nothing too.

Nowadays you're expected to be a good hitter too to stay in the show.

TommyJohn
04-17-2008, 10:03 AM
Also, the 2006 Sox were better than any of these Indian teams top to bottom. It's really amazing that they finished third. How'd they **** that up?

I blame Buehrle.

I blame Bartman.

VeeckAsInWreck
04-17-2008, 10:10 AM
Also, the 2006 Sox were better than any of these Indian teams top to bottom. It's really amazing that they finished third. How'd they **** that up?

I blame Buehrle.

It would have been a repeat for us but Politte and Cotts could not find their 2005 form.

fquaye149
04-17-2008, 10:20 AM
A lot of those ballplayers have names that sound impressive but who weren't at the peak of their greatness either because they had yet to reach their greatness or were on the downswing :shrug:

Surely a great team, but we can't consider things like Eddie Murray being a HOFer as somehow counting for the indians being "stacked"

spiffie
04-17-2008, 01:07 PM
A lot of those ballplayers have names that sound impressive but who weren't at the peak of their greatness either because they had yet to reach their greatness or were on the downswing :shrug:

Surely a great team, but we can't consider things like Eddie Murray being a HOFer as somehow counting for the indians being "stacked"
He didn't do much for the 96 team, but damn he was on fire in 1995. At age 39 he put up a line of 323/375/516.

Elephant
04-17-2008, 03:30 PM
It would have been a repeat for us but Politte and Cotts could not find their 2005 form.

I hope that was suppose to be in teal. The 2006 Sox, while a decent team were not better than the 1995 Indians.


That was a slip. I would take the 06 Sox talent wise over any team but the 95 Indians.

06 Sox - AVG .282, R 868, ERA 4.61
95 Indians - AVG .291, R 840, ERA 3.83

The only thing they really trump the Sox in is pitching, but the starters' ERA's were in no way indicative of their talent. I'd take our 1-5 and take their bullpen.

PKalltheway
04-17-2008, 04:24 PM
This could be the best team never to win anything.
What about the San Francisco Giants teams of the 1960's that featured Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Orlando Cepeda? I know there was no playoff system until 1969 (which no doubt had to hurt them somewhat), but it still perplexes me as to why they only had one World Series appearance in the 1960's. Heck, they had the second most wins of any team in the decade behind Baltimore. That had to be a damn good team!

DSpivack
04-17-2008, 06:22 PM
What about the San Francisco Giants teams of the 1960's that featured Juan Marichal, Gaylord Perry, Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, and Orlando Cepeda? I know there was no playoff system until 1969 (which no doubt had to hurt them somewhat), but it still perplexes me as to why they only had one World Series appearance in the 1960's. Heck, they had the second most wins of any team in the decade behind Baltimore. That had to be a damn good team!

Same could be said of the Sox in the 50s and 60s. 17 consecutive winning seasons, one trip to the playoffs/Series.

chisoxfanatic
04-17-2008, 07:13 PM
Same could be said of the Sox in the 50s and 60s. 17 consecutive winning seasons, one trip to the playoffs/Series.

I really wonder how many extra times they'd have made it and how many titles they could've potentially won if they had a playoff system like the one that they have right now back then.