I actually like Bauer. But whether you like him or not, he's not the reason we lost last night. We lost because we only managed to score two runs. That's just not going to cut it.

 

I'm not a Bauer fan (obviously) but as I texted my buddies, that 4th inning could have been worse; Bauer managed to get out of it with only a 2-run deficit despite being the 1st Indians pitcher to blow a lead in postseason...

 

A 2-run deficit for these guys is not insurmountable.  But we were 1-10 with runners in scoring position.  I was frustrated with Kipnis' at bat because Davis' running on base was clearly distracting Chapman who was throwing out of the strike zone.  But Jason kept swinging anyway when he should have walked.  Oh well, it just wasn't meant to be. 

 

Jake worries me tonight because he's a Cy Young guy with 2 no hitters these past 2 seasons and he no-hit us into the 6th inning in Game 2.  Obviously Jake's a tough nut to crack but we've got to have patient at bats because Jake has some wild periods where we need to force him to come over the plate... Hopefully we'll get another repeat Tomlin great performance in the friendly confines of the Prog... GAME ON!

Yesterday was exhausting, emotionally draining, and an overall letdown. What, does Davis have to steal home for us to score??

 

But to win at home, well, I think tomorrow I'll be jumping up and down again come evening.

Tribe did what they had to do and took 2 out of 3 on the road.  Just need a split and we are good.

Man, post-season baseball is so exciting.  I'm sure for the die-hard Indian fans, it was disappointing to not secure the win last night, but I think it would be so much cooler for the team to win in Cleveland. The Cavs won on the road, so it'd be nice to see a championship secured at home, and I do think it was nice to see the Cubs notch one WS win at Wrigley. Those are some long suffering fans too, so it was nice to see them have a moment following the game.  Also, Chapman pitching 2 and 2/3 innings to close it out was damn impressive.  Now Cleveland gets the added benefit of all the media attention, tourists, local economic boost, etc for (hopefully) one more game.  Barring a Reds style 2012 NLDS collapse against the Giants, where they were up 2-0, hadn't been swept all season, and then lost 3 straight at home- you guys got this! Go Indians!

^I agree.  It will be nice to hoist the trophy in front of the home crowd.

It's only because of the off-day that they were able to put Chapman out there for that long.  That's the whole problem with the baseball playoffs -- the off days permit managers to do things with pitchers they couldn't do all year.  Obviously, Monday Night Football is a big distraction and it would be a lot better for baseball if they negotiated a deal with the NFL to not have a Monday night game during the World Series. 

^Last night's baseball game destroyed Sunday Night football's ratings, but in any case, today's an off day, so no head to head with MNF.  Also, I don't view the extended bullpen usage in the post season as a problem. It changes the game compared to the regular season, but I think it's a fun wrinkle by making room for more managerial creativity.

Also, I don't view the extended bullpen usage in the post season as a problem. It changes the game compared to the regular season, but I think it's a fun wrinkle by making room for more managerial creativity.

 

I agree. I don't mind when world series games are a bit longer. To me it's exciting.

eye on the prize!

 

 

This is just crazy. Whatever the World Series outcome, MLB needs to investigate the umpires:

 

https://twitter.com/bottlegate/status/792229684276625408

 

Got pulled.

Charlie Sheen is officially throwing out the first pitch tonight..... carry on

Just kidding... its Thome

eye on the prize!

 

 

 

^ can someone explain this to me

^^One "eye" on the nose ring (prize).    It's pretty awful, and just one of the many reasons Chief Wahoo should slowly disappear....

Assuming we get Brantley back next year, what does the lineup look like?

 

Brantley - CF/LF

Kipnis - 2B

Lindor - SS

Santana - DH/1B

Napoli/????? - DH/1B

Ramirez - 3B

Chisenhall - RF

Almonte/Naquin/Guyer/Crisp/Davis - utility OF

Gomes/Perez - C

 

Does that seem about right?  I'm hearing doubts that Napoli will be back.  We will need another big bat (preferably a right-hander) to placehold until this Bobby Bradley kid is hopefully ready in another season or two.

Well that's that. I'm cautiously optimistic about next year, they'll be fun to watch again, but baseball is so unpredictable and you just have to seize on chances when you get them. Last night was our chance.

This isn't anything official but just listening to WKNR and it sounds like Brantley's shoulder is seriously messed up.

eye on the prize!

 

 

 

Chief Wahoo is the one real negative to me for the team.  I root for the guys and the team as representing Cleveland, but I can't forget this is a very racist symbol that offends a significant group of people (just is that horrible name the Washington NFL team is  called).  This is friggin' 2016!!! and I wish the Dolans, supported by (most of) the fans, would man up and finally ditch the Chief.  Unfortunately I'm not hopeful in this dingy Era of Trump where over bigotry and misogyny seem fashionable once again.

 

This isn't anything official but just listening to WKNR and it sounds like Brantley's shoulder is seriously messed up.

 

What are they saying?

This isn't anything official but just listening to WKNR and it sounds like Brantley's shoulder is seriously messed up.

 

What are they saying?

 

Emmitt Golden was hanging around the clubhouse and when he asked some of the brass if Brantley would be ready for the season he got some very sad looking shrugs in response.

 

Again, nothing official.

Emmitt Golden was hanging around the clubhouse and when he asked some of the brass if Brantley would be ready for the season he got some very sad looking shrugs in response.

 

Again, nothing official.

 

Gotcha. I think I heard something similar a few weeks back but was wondering if some more specific news came out recently. I hate to say it, but I'm not counting on him either way. However I'm still a big fan of Naquin, and I think they can pencil in Chisenhall to turn in similar solid production again. I believe Guyer returns as well if Francona wants to platoon in RF again. But what I'm most optimistic about is the possibility that top prospect Bradley Zimmer should be pretty close to being ready to move up from the minors to take a spot on the roster as an outfielder. His batting average isn't great, but he gets on base, has speed, and has some pop as well. Could be the next young star to make the jump.

Santana's on-base percentage was the fourth highest among leadoff men in MLB. Why mess with that?

 

 

Chief Wahoo is the one real negative to me for the team.  I root for the guys and the team as representing Cleveland, but I can't forget this is a very racist symbol that offends a significant group of people (just is that horrible name the Washington NFL team is  called).  This is friggin' 2016!!! and I wish the Dolans, supported by (most of) the fans, would man up and finally ditch the Chief.  Unfortunately I'm not hopeful in this dingy Era of Trump where over bigotry and misogyny seem fashionable once again.

 

They need to make the switch to the block C full-time, across the board.  None of this "throw back" or "alternate" crap.

Assuming we get Brantley back next year, what does the lineup look like?

 

Brantley - CF/LF

Kipnis - 2B

Lindor - SS

Santana - DH/1B

Napoli/????? - DH/1B

Ramirez - 3B

Chisenhall - RF

Almonte/Naquin/Guyer/Crisp/Davis - utility OF

Gomes/Perez - C

 

Does that seem about right?  I'm hearing doubts that Napoli will be back.  We will need another big bat (preferably a right-hander) to placehold until this Bobby Bradley kid is hopefully ready in another season or two.

 

Wonder if Napoli would take a pay cut to stay?  If not, who do they target?  Not sure what's going to happen with Brantley, but could they stick him (or another OF, maybe one with a bad arm) at 1B?

 

Do you think they'll keep Gomes and Perez?  I believe Gomes is locked up longer, but Perez really proved himself in the postseason.

 

Chief Wahoo is the one real negative to me for the team.  I root for the guys and the team as representing Cleveland, but I can't forget this is a very racist symbol that offends a significant group of people (just is that horrible name the Washington NFL team is  called).  This is friggin' 2016!!! and I wish the Dolans, supported by (most of) the fans, would man up and finally ditch the Chief.  Unfortunately I'm not hopeful in this dingy Era of Trump where over bigotry and misogyny seem fashionable once again.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

 

I would say "manning up' means sticking with him.  It's a small number of professionally offended and their hypersensitive allies that are complaining.  Seeking to be "offended" has given us both the more craven aspects of PC, and Trump's rhetoric as well.

 

By the way what is "racist" about the Chief?  He doesn't even remotely reinforce any negative stereotypes (unlike the pugnacious Notre Dame logo)

^^I think they'll keep Gomes and Perez.  Every team needs at least 2 catchers and Perez proved himself to be a good one.  But hopefully Gomes gets his swing back and we can use Perez less than we had to in the postseason.  As well as he played he still only hit .186 in the postseason. 

It is past time to retire Chief Wahoo. The image makes Cleveland look not only backward but resolutely backward.

 

The leprechaun of Notre Dame is an honorable figure, drawn from the folklore of a people who are very much a part of Notre Dame, past and present.

 

^ I'm sure most of the country couldn't care less. Certainly not the millions of people sporting Chief Wahoo gear.

The college of Wooster also needs to change their mascot, the "Fighting Scots" insinuates all people of Scottish descent are fighters and have large mustaches, very degrading.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before. But I've seen Native Americans in New Mexico, Arizona and California sporting the Wahoo hats. Just found that interesting.

 

I'm wearing the logo right now. But I'd like to see more "block C" from the team next year. I'm just tired of the debate.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before. But I've seen Native Americans in New Mexico, Arizona and California sporting the Wahoo hats. Just found that interesting.

 

I'm wearing the logo right now. But I'd like to see more "block C" from the team next year. I'm just tired of the debate.

 

What's strange it that there seemed to more contention over Chief Wahoo in '95 and '97 then there was for this series and we're supposedly in a more "enlightened" age.

 

Maybe it's because the Cubs took all the limelight whereas, especially in '95, the Indians garnered most of the media attention.

 

By the way what is "racist" about the Chief?

 

The fact that you are even asking this question (in a serious manner, I assume) shows your naivety.

I don't understand the urges of people to utilize false equivalencies.  It detracts from your argument.  Go ahead and argue that the logo is not offensive, but don't equate it to the ND or Wooster logos.  Please.

 

I don't get the history argument either.  It's not like Chief Wahoo has stayed the same.  If history was important, why not go back to the (more) offensive older version?

 

In actual news, Commissioner Manfred and Dolan are planning to discuss the continued use of the logo - http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/cleveland-indians-mlb-to-discuss-chief-wahoo-logo-w448512 

I don't understand the urges of people to utilize false equivalencies.  It detracts from your argument.  Go ahead and argue that the logo is not offensive, but don't equate it to the ND or Wooster logos.  Please.

 

I don't get the history argument either.  It's not like Chief Wahoo has stayed the same.  If history was important, why not go back to the (more) offensive older version?

 

In actual news, Commissioner Manfred and Dolan are planning to discuss the continued use of the logo - http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/cleveland-indians-mlb-to-discuss-chief-wahoo-logo-w448512 

 

Hts121, I'm assuming your history argument knock was at me. You need to take a breath and reread my post. I'm not defending the logo, I'm just surprised at the lack of attention it got in 2016 vs. 1995.

I need to take a breath?  Seriously?  I don't know if you hyperventilate at your keyboard, but that is not my style.  I wasn't directing the comment at anyone in particular.  Not sure I even read your post.

The comparisons between Chief Wahoo and the Fighting Irishman of Notre Dame and the Fighting Scot of the College of Wooster are not valid. The Notre Dame and Wooster mascots are truly rooted in the schools' histories. Irish Americans have played and continue to play major roles in the culture of Notre Dame and the broader culture of Catholicism in the United States. The College of Wooster was founded by a Presbyterian minister, a religion that has roots in Scotland. Its sports teams used to be called the Presbyterians.

 

The mascots primarily represent sports teams, so it makes sense that a fighter would be used in such a representation. The mascots don't suggest--at least not in any negative way--that Irish people or Scots are always fighting. In the case of Notre Dame, if a negative stereotype of Irish Americans was used in the university's branding system--a drunk Irishman being loaded into a paddywagon, for example--then I am sure there would be some people calling for a change, but, because Irish Americans have great influence over and involvement in decisions made by the university, it is unlikely that a mascot or logo depicting Irish Americans in a negative way ever would have come about.

 

There is no significant connection between Native American culture and the Cleveland Indians, and there is not a large presence in Greater Cleveland of people who would fall into the census bureau's "American Indian or Alaska Native" demographic category.

 

It is easy to argue that Chief Wahoo is an insulting depiction of Native Americans, regardless of whether it was consciously intended to be.

 

It's unfortunate that some people have grown tired of this controversy, because it will go on. 

 

 

 

 

What's strange it that there seemed to more contention over Chief Wahoo in '95 and '97 then there was for this series and we're supposedly in a more "enlightened" age.

 

Maybe it's because the Cubs took all the limelight whereas, especially in '95, the Indians garnered most of the media attention.

 

There is kind of another pressing issue for the community at the moment.

To those above who would argue that Chief Wahoo is not offensive, or only disliked by "professional protesters" (which isn't true at all), I would ask you to imagine a mascot that featured a caricature of an African American similar to the cartoon drawings common in the 20's and 30's with the exaggerated features. How about a team called the Asians with a mascot caricature of an Asian wearing a pointy hat and having diagonal lines as eyes?  Both of those scenarios would be incredibly offensive and you can bet the name of the team and the mascot would be changed by now. Chief Wahoo is the same thing.

 

It is a caracature of a race of people.

If we can't make comparisons with the Fighting Irish, then let's also put a moratorium on the comparisons with caricatures of black and Jewish people.

^One is a blatantly false equivalency, the others are not.  Go ahead and make the comparison, but be prepared for people to tell you why it doesn't advance your position, especially the Fighting Irish logo which is a caricature of a mythical creature that hoards pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before. But I've seen Native Americans in New Mexico, Arizona and California sporting the Wahoo hats. Just found that interesting.

 

I'm wearing the logo right now. But I'd like to see more "block C" from the team next year. I'm just tired of the debate.

 

It's a good place to push back against hypersensitivity.  Should we all change our behavior because a few people may decide something is "offensive"?  That can go lots of places none of them good. 

 

I'm sure I've told the story of the Sioux machine operator at a customer in Wisconsin that always wore a Chief Wahoo hat at his machine.    We got him a new one "from Cleveland".  Also, Amerind gangs in the west have been known to wear Indians, Redskins, and Florida State gear as "colors".   

 

What "stereotypical" features in this caricature are being exaggerated?  The red skin?  Red is one of the Indians' colors, and also note the survey above.

 

He's no more inherently "offensive" a caricature than the Notre Dame Leprechaun or the San Diego Friar.

If we can't make comparisons with the Fighting Irish, then let's also put a moratorium on the comparisons with caricatures of black and Jewish people.

No one has called for a moratorium on making comparisons. I am arguing that the comparisons are not valid. There are many reasons why the comparisons between Chief Wahoo and the mascots of University of Notre Dame and the College of Wooster are not valid, some of which I wrote about above.

^^Chief Wahoo is not a behavior.  Nobody is calling on you to stop wearing the logo, just like Eddie Robinson was free to show up at the Indians game wearing the logo from 1948. 

 

By the way what is "racist" about the Chief?

 

The fact that you are even asking this question (in a serious manner, I assume) shows your naivety.

 

This is the typical answer and is indeed symptomatic of knee-jerk PC as practiced in the 21st Century.

 

What is racist about the Chief? 

^It is a caricature of an entire race which draws largely from stereotypes of that race.  Go ahead and argue that Native Americans aren't offended generally (although you can't argue that a significant number of them are), but I would think before suggesting that the symbol is not racist.  That's just silly.  If it's not racist, then what caricature WOULD be racist?  seriously.  Answer that one.

 

Back on to the false equivalency angle, check this out from Notre Dame....

 

“We have not gotten information from any group that represents Irish or (anyone of) Irish ancestry ... that they believe that image is hostile and/or abusive,” Charlotte Westerhaus, NCAA vice president for diversity and inclusion, says

 

What makes the Fighting Irish different? Why do we cringe at old ads for Aunt Jemima pancakes but smile at the Lucky Charms leprechaun? Many would say — like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography — an offensive nickname is hard to define, but “I know it when I see it.”

 

http://scholastic.nd.edu/issues/53167-is-fighting-irish-offensive/

 

I think that is very accurate.  The article goes on and dives into several of the arguments you see here, some of which I agree with and others I do not, but the ultimate conclusion is, as the author states, "spot on".  That conclusion is the Fighting Irish logo is a "prideful self-identifier"

honest injun :roll:

I really would like someone who thinks Chief Wahoo is not racist to show me a caricature which would be racist.  Anyone?  Bueller?

To those above who would argue that Chief Wahoo is not offensive, or only disliked by "professional protesters" (which isn't true at all), I would ask you to imagine a mascot that featured a caricature of an African American similar to the cartoon drawings common in the 20's and 30's with the exaggerated features.

 

It is a caracature of a race of people.

 

I think you've got a good argument here. I understand it. I completely understand why some or many people find it offensive. Still I'm not personally offended by the logo. It's probably because I firmly do not believe the message behind it is racist; the intent isn't there.

 

Now do I think it's time to change it? Yes, I think so. 

 

 

^yes, I suppose the image is redolent of a racial stereotype, but it's really more of a warm, if somewhat comic, homage to the American Indian than anything that could be really construed as hateful.