1995 Indians vs the 1997 Indians vs the 2016 Indians

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Cassity14

Gold Star Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
4,159
Reaction score
6,063
Points
113
Yeah I personally agree and think the 2017 was the best team of them all when factoring in the additions by the end of the season, like Jay Bruce.
 

Alabuckeye

Towel Waver
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
103
Reaction score
121
Points
43
The 1995 team was so fun because it was the first year(curses on the 94 strike) that the Indians were a team that was feared and considered dangerous in my years of following the team. Add in the drama of the boating accident in spring a couple years prior, and it was just a special time to be a fan.

That lineup was just unreal. No weaknesses, no breaks for a pitcher.

2016 was more a team of guts with enough talent to take advantage of the guts.

1997 I felt was our real chance to win one.....and somehow we lose to a club that still was in diapers.
 

Steve_424

All-Star
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
8,977
Reaction score
9,862
Points
113
I'm surprised by how little credit 2016 is getting. That team lost Brantley 11 games in and Carrasco in September and still won 94 games. That wasn't luck or just getting hot - that team was really, really good. To this day I believe they win a ring if Carrasco doesn't get hurt.

If you're looking at a team that got hot, it's the 97 group. They took the division with 86 wins - nobody else in the Central had a winning record. The "ace" of the staff was Nagy, who would've been the #4 starter on the 2016 team. Thankfully Jaret Wright got hot at the right time.

When comparing all three, starting pitching isn't especially close. The 97 team didn't have a starter with an ERA under 4 and I'll take Kluber/Carrasco/Bauer/Salazar/Tomlin over the 95 group without thinking twice.

The 95 and 97 bullpens were pretty similar with Mesa/Plunk/Assenmacher (adding Tavarez in 95 and Jackson in 97). They were all really good, but I'll take Allen/Miller/Shaw because I think the back-end was more reliable.

The 95 lineup is clearly the best, and I'd give the nod to 97 over 16 (but it's close).

Overall I'd go 95, 16, 97, but there's a bigger gap between 16 and 97 than there is 95 and 16 IMO.

By the numbers:

2016 - 777 (5th in MLB)
1997 - 868 (4th in MLB)
1995 - 840 (1st in MLB)

2016 - 3.86 (7th in MLB)
1997 - 4.73 (20th in MLB)
1995 - 3.83 (3rd in MLB)
 
Last edited:

browniebob

Situational Stopper
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
138
Reaction score
282
Points
63
I'm surprised by how little credit 2016 is getting. That team lost Brantley 11 games in and Carrasco in September and still won 94 games. That wasn't luck or just getting hot - that team was reaally, really good. To this day I believe they win a ring if Carrasco doesn't get hurt.

If you're looking at a team that got hot, it's the 97 group. They took the division with 86 wins - nobody else in the Central had a winning record. The "ace" of the staff was Nagy, who would've been the #4 starter on the 2016 team. Thankfully Jaret Wright got hot at the right time.

When comparing all three, starting pitching isn't especially close. The 97 team didn't have a starter with an ERA under 4 and I'll take Kluber/Carrasco/Bauer/Salazar/Tomlin over the 95 group without thinking twice.

The 95 and 97 bullpens were pretty similar with Mesa/Plunk/Assenmacher (adding Tavarez in 95 and Jackson in 97). They were all really good, but I'll take Allen/Miller/Shaw because I think the back-end was more reliable.

The 95 lineup is clearly the best, and I'd give the nod to 97 over 16 (but it's close).

Overall I'd go 95, 16, 97, but there's a bigger gap between 16 and 97 than there is 95 and 16 IMO.

By the numbers:

2016 - 777 (5th in MLB)
1997 - 868 (4th in MLB)
1995 - 840 (1st in MLB)

2016 - 3.86 (7th in MLB)
1997 - 4.73 (20th in MLB)
1995 - 3.83 (3rd in MLB)
When thinking of 2016 I think a lot of people only remember the 2016 playoff rotation and forget that Salazar and Carrasco were both out. At full strength the 2016 team had nasty starting pitching.
 

bob2the2nd

member 32
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
19,174
Reaction score
16,891
Points
123
The 1995 team was so fun because it was the first year(curses on the 94 strike) that the Indians were a team that was feared and considered dangerous in my years of following the team. Add in the drama of the boating accident in spring a couple years prior, and it was just a special time to be a fan.

That lineup was just unreal. No weaknesses, no breaks for a pitcher.

2016 was more a team of guts with enough talent to take advantage of the guts.

1997 I felt was our real chance to win one.....and somehow we lose to a club that still was in diapers.
Not to mention the 50 come from behind wins, 25 of which (or something like that) happened in the final inning
 

WhoAzcue

Situational Stopper
Joined
Mar 26, 2020
Messages
237
Reaction score
380
Points
63
2007 happened, right?
Yeah, this is my point. We had more than a half dozen teams--at least--which could have easily won World Series, and 2007 was at the top of the list. 1998, 1999, 2001, c'mon...we've had LOTS of chances, and not winning one has nothing to do with anything except the vagaries of short series baseball. Heck, that 1994 team was COMING...I had tickets to a twi-night doubleheader with my Dad against the Angels in September and I just knew we were going to run down the White Sox and leave 'em in the dust--didn't you?--and then the strike hit. And I never did see a game with my Dad at the Jake after that.
 

MadThinker88

Sixth Man
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
904
Reaction score
1,024
Points
93
Yeah, this is my point. We had more than a half dozen teams--at least--which could have easily won World Series, and 2007 was at the top of the list. 1998, 1999, 2001, c'mon...we've had LOTS of chances, and not winning one has nothing to do with anything except the vagaries of short series baseball. Heck, that 1994 team was COMING...I had tickets to a twi-night doubleheader with my Dad against the Angels in September and I just knew we were going to run down the White Sox and leave 'em in the dust--didn't you?--and then the strike hit. And I never did see a game with my Dad at the Jake after that.
1994 is a fun what if.

I was never confident that the Tribe would have run down the ChiSox in 94. It would have been interesting to see if the team would have held onto the WC that year.

People seem to forget the rotation was beginning to struggle. Jack Morris was toast & had been jettisoned in the weeks leading up to the strike. The bigger issue was the recent loss of Mark Clark to the line drive/ broken pitching hand that had happened in the days before the strike.

The remaining rotation was Dennis Martinez / Chuck Nagy / Jason Grimsley / a couple of question marks.
The bullpen was a little shaky & I think that was part of the reason the Tribe had 17 complete games before the strike happened.

The offense was very potent so it would have been fun to watch.

The lack of that race may have hurt the team growth later but the absence also fueled that core to smash & pitch its way to the AL title in 1995..
 
Last edited:

Obscured By Clouds

Milk, milk, lemonaide.........
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
1,053
Reaction score
1,711
Points
113
Yeah, this is my point. We had more than a half dozen teams--at least--which could have easily won World Series, and 2007 was at the top of the list. 1998, 1999, 2001, c'mon...we've had LOTS of chances, and not winning one has nothing to do with anything except the vagaries of short series baseball. Heck, that 1994 team was COMING...I had tickets to a twi-night doubleheader with my Dad against the Angels in September and I just knew we were going to run down the White Sox and leave 'em in the dust--didn't you?--and then the strike hit. And I never did see a game with my Dad at the Jake after that.
I said it in 2007 and still believe it. That 2007 ALCS was the World Series. Yes, 'anything can happen in a short series' but whoever was coming out of that ALCS was all but the World Series winner.
 

Steve_424

All-Star
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
8,977
Reaction score
9,862
Points
113
2007 happened, right?

Personally, I can't say a team that didn't reach the World Series was better than 3 teams that did. Had a chance to out the Sox away at home with their top pitcher on the hill and couldn't get the job done.

Fun fact - I was at that game AND Game 6 in 2016 :confused:
 

prf100

NBA Starter
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
1,702
Reaction score
4,229
Points
113
Love this thread! So many names that I competely forgot about - Mark Clark! He was the man in ‘94. Until this thread, I don’t think I’ve had that name enter my mind since 1995.
 

Mott the Hoople

Sixth Man
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
866
Reaction score
1,107
Points
93
The 1995 Indians were one of the best teams in the history of baseball. Greatly underrated. Nothing anybody says will convince me otherwise.
100 - 44.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
5,732
Reaction score
7,580
Points
113
The 1905 Indians were one of the best teams in the history of baseball. Greatly underrated. Nothing anybody says will convince me otherwise.
100 - 44.
Actually they were 76-78. Addie Joss won 20 games for us that year. They were called the Naps at that time. I don’t think they were one of the greatest teams of all times but I understand you can’t be convinced otherwise.
 

RCF Reserves

Total amount
$245.00
Top