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.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)
Not to mention the 50 come from behind wins, 25 of which (or something like that) happened in the final inningThe 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.
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.2007 happened, right?
1994 is a fun what if.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.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.
2007 happened, right?
Nap Lajoie in the three hole is pretty nice....back then the team was named after him, too.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.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.
Thanks for catching that. Always read before you hit post! I meant 1995.Nap Lajoie in the three hole is pretty nice....back then the team was named after him, too.