2016 MLB Post Season Thread

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

So can Steve Bartman finally come out of hiding now? 

 

I wanna see him throw out the first pitch in game 3. 

[habsfan1]

15 hours ago, infrared41 said:

Yeah, I suppose the Indians are the villains down your way. 

 

I wonder how strange it must feel, during the Indians locker room meeting they're going to have. Everyone knows about the Cubs drought, but I suppose the meeting will be basically someone stepping in to say "No mercy! kill em' with fire!!"

[-Akronite-]

2 hours ago, Wings said:

Cleveland. "City of Champions" with a side order of Browns. Would Cleveland lose their $hit if the Browns got their act together and win a Super Bowl? or do you guys consider these Browns the "replacement" Browns and not the real team and it wouldn't have the same effect. 

 

For as incredible as LeBron winning the Cavs first title would be and as crazy as ending the Indians drought (the city's longest), the Browns would be another level entirely.

 

This is coming from someone who grew up caring more about baseball and currently worships the NBA. The Browns winning might actually lead to the city burning to the ground. These Browns are the only Browns we have so they count. And anyone that says they don't would change their tune if they could actually win on a regular basis.

 

The Indians have mostly been mediocre, not embarrassing. The Cavs were mostly an afterthought whenever they sucked. The Browns are a constant source of national embarrassment. A franchise run so poorly as a followup to an unlucky franchise that was swept away from us. Loads of history and bitterness lie in Browns fandom. It would be earth-shattering for them to change the tides and actually win the SuperBowl. We are so far from this fantasy that we can only imagine.

 

Hopefully, we get a double dose of trophies in place of a Lombardi for now. But it could actually be argued that the Browns winning would be bigger than BOTH of this year's championships. 

[Fishplatter]

It's such a sweet, nice feelings. The Cubs are National League Champions. Kings of the NL. Finally. Wow. What a relief. All those wretched years (2003, 2007, 2008). It's truly a nice feelings. 

[The_Admiral]

Iconic for sure.

[FGM13]

8 minutes ago, Fishplatter said:

It's such a sweet, nice feelings. The Cubs are National League Champions. Kings of the NL. Finally. Wow. What a relief. All those wretched years (2003, 2007, 2008). It's truly a nice feelings. 

Oh, but how heartbreaking for LA.

[Fishplatter]

3 minutes ago, FGM13 said:

Oh, but how heartbreaking for LA.

 

It's a tough loss. They'll bounce back in 2017 or 2018. 

[The_Admiral]

[infrared41]

4 hours ago, Wings said:

Cleveland. "City of Champions" with a side order of Browns. Would Cleveland lose their $hit if the Browns got their act together and win a Super Bowl? or do you guys consider these Browns the "replacement" Browns and not the real team and it wouldn't have the same effect. 

 

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but as hard as I tried, I could never get past the feeling that the current Browns are "replacement" Browns. As I've said a bunch of times before, it's like if your GF/wife left you and she was replaced by an exact replica. She may look and sound exactly like your original GF/wife, but you're always going to know she ain't the real thing.

 

My guess is it's mostly just older fans like myself that feel this way. Browns fans who are 30 or younger really only know this version of the Browns - which is unfortunate.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

What, you don't like our giant block of cement inspired "drink rails?"

[kroywen]

Honestly, even the original design would've looked pretty bad in execution. The navy blue walls would've clashed with the dark green motif of the ballpark, and generally would've looked out of place. The "fan deck" type area may have looked good, but the whole project would've been ugly. (Granted, not as ugly as the giant boxes they put up.)

 

If the Indians wanted to do an upper deck "fan deck" right, they should've replicated what the Rockies did at Coors Field. Actually tear out the stands, set up restaurants and standing areas with tables, put attractions out there, etc. I'd have even gone as far as tearing down the roof above that deck, so it wouldn't look quite as out-of-place (though it can look fine without the roof, a la Coors Field). Of course, tearing out stands and building an actual concourse if more expensive than slapping up ugly boxes, as if it were a damn warehouse.

[Silent Wind of Doom]

4 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

I wanna see him throw out the first pitch in game 3. 

 

See, the reason I don't want to see him until a post-championship Opening Day is that if they win the first two, then Bartman throws the pitch (OR IS EVEN IN THE BUILDING) and they don't win the series, he'll end up as a scapegoat all over again.  Let him live his life until they win and he can be blamed for no damage.

 

20 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but as hard as I tried, I could never get past the feeling that the current Browns are "replacement" Browns. As I've said a bunch of times before, it's like if your GF/wife left you and she was replaced by an exact replica. She may look and sound exactly like your original GF/wife, but you're always going to know she ain't the real thing.

 

My guess is it's mostly just older fans like myself that feel this way. Browns fans who are 30 or younger really only know this version of the Browns - which is unfortunate.

 

We had a similar discussion about relocated teams and whether or not new teams should be seen as continuous lineage in the other 2016 MLB thread.  While your personal relationship with the Browns is your own, and any discussion is unlikely to change that, I disagree with the idea that these Browns should be viewed as a pale imitation.  Here's my take on the whole concept, taken from that thread...

 

On 3/30/2016 at 1:44 AM, SFGiants58 said:

My rule of thumb with relocations centers on the team name/colors. Did the name and/or colors stay the same? They should actively acknowledge the franchises' past. If the name and/or colors changed? They are free to do what they want with their past. Honor it, downplay it, ignore it, etc. As long as the record books don't change, things should be good.

 

I think this is the best way of looking at these things.  The New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to California, and they took their name, their look, their identity, and their legends with them.  Willie Mays, the face of the franchise, made "The Catch" in the Polo Grounds and then played 14 years in San Francisco.  I don't think you can argue with this being one continuous franchise.  The Giants are the Giants, one of the Classic Eight.  I've seen five championships in my day, but that doesn't mean I don't love and appreciate the things that came before, the theatrics of Reggie, the importance of Thurman, and the strength of Gehrig.  I appreciate my franchise's history.  Do those who argue [otherwise] feel that the Dodgers should forsake Jackie Robinson?  Is he of no importance to the team because they skipped off to LA?

 

The Giants, Dodgers, and Athletics all fall under this category.  Now then we look at other situation.  The Pilots became the Brewers, but both the team and the city seem to hold that history in their hearts.  That's nice.  The Pilots were important.  They were the first Major League team in Seattle.  These one-to-three-year teams who don't matter much in the long run often are viewed like this.  Others are forgotten to time.  I can tell you right now that in all the years I've followed my team (which claimed a 100-year anniversary in 2003) I've never heard anything about their 1901-1902 time as the Baltimore Orioles except on the Wikipedia article.  They've abandoned that time, changed everything, and there's a team in Baltimore with that name who are welcome to honor that history.

 

So, let's talk about that part.  Should the Washington Nationals honor the history of Washington baseball and market themselves with it?  Yes.  Washington was one of the founding cities of the American League, and has a long baseball history.  People were very upset when their team was taken away from them.  There was a hole, which was filled somewhat by the Orioles, but there was still a hole there.  Now a team moves in.  They're smart to take a name, look, and logo that had been abandoned.  They're a part of a lineage of Washington baseball, a lineage which had been forsaken by two other teams.

 

The Expos don't have a new team taking their place, so they're still a part of the Nationals' history.  If Tampa moved there, though, I'd have no problem for them to take the Expos identity if Washington doesn't want it.  I'm totally okay with the Hornets switch because their beloved team was taken away from them.  Then, the franchise decided they didn't want to be the Hornets anymore.  They ditched their identity, and they were more than willing to give it away to the city of Charlotte.  What's wrong with that?

[Alex Houston]

Is that what the heck those things are supposed to be? I was super confused when I saw them because when I went to The Jake back in 2007, I was in the upper right field bleachers for a Sox/Tribe match and I didn't think the seats were too bad. So when I saw those "bricks" my initial thought was they were removing seats similar to the Sox and Rockies to make the stadium seem more accommodating. The renderings do look much better than the final product.

[infrared41]

55 minutes ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

 

We had a similar discussion about relocated teams and whether or not new teams should be seen as continuous lineage in the other 2016 MLB thread.  While your personal relationship with the Browns is your own, and any discussion is unlikely to change that, I disagree with the idea that these Browns should be viewed as a pale imitation. 

 

You may have misread my post.  I never said the Browns "should" be viewed as a pale imitation. I don't feel that way at all. My point was simply that despite all my efforts, I was never able to connect to the "reborn" Browns in the same way that I connected with the...pre-dormant...I guess, version of the team. That's just the way it worked out for me. FWIW, I have no problem with Browns fans who don't feel the way I do. The truth is, I wish I didn't feel the way I feel about the Browns. I'd much prefer to be as big a Browns fan as I was before the team "suspended operations" in 1996. But I'm not.

[KittSmith_95]

Cuubies VS Indians. 

 

 

I'm going Cubs in 6. Gives us a good duel & as much baseball as we need this year. 

[Cosmic]

Sad that the Cubs' only chances to win at home are in a short series... because of who won an all-star game.

[smoke072]

53 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Sad that the Cubs' only chances to win at home are in a short series... because of who won an all-star game.

#IGuessTheAllStarGameMattered?

[AnPheitseog]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

Sad that the Cubs' only chances to win at home are in a short series... because of who won an all-star game.

hey, under the prior system the cubs still wouldnt have home field, because it is an even year.

 

Still a better system than the current, however.

[Cosmic]

17 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

hey, under the prior system the cubs still wouldnt have home field, because it is an even year.

 

Still a better system than the current, however.

Ah, see, I'm a baseball novice. I just assumed they did best record before.

[AnPheitseog]

13 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Ah, see, I'm a baseball novice. I just assumed they did best record before.

Nope, and it doesnt make sense in baseball. Baseball has only 20 interleague games a season, so a max of 40(i didnt take the time to calculate that it could be less than this, so went with 20+20) would be interleague. Less than 1/4 of the season doesnt give you an accurate representation of who is better.

 

Not to mention the main reason of the AL and NL historically being seprate leagues with no interleague at all, just isnt fair.