|
Post by anthonyrocks on Aug 30, 2019 7:17:39 GMT
Honestly, I really think that the 2016 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians is a Really DISGUSTINGLY Underrated World Series.
It definitely deserves a lot more credit than it gets when it comes to what should be on the list when it comes to All of the Best World Series that have ever been played.
What does everybody else here think ?
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Aug 30, 2019 7:56:12 GMT
Honestly, I really think that the 2016 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians is a Really DISGUSTINGLY Underrated World Series.
It definitely deserves a lot more credit than it gets when it comes to what should be on the list when it comes to All of the Best World Series's that have ever been played.
What does everybody else here think ?
First of all, and most importantly, series is both singular and plural, so you don't need to say "series's." Secondly, from my understanding plenty of people consider the 2016 Series one of the best ever. However, it's worth noting that the series, while certainly entertaining and massively significant in terms of cultural impact (for modern baseball, at least) did have its fair share of blowouts that, to my mind, lessens its quality when compared to a series like 2017.
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm ๐ on Aug 30, 2019 9:19:01 GMT
a classic.
|
|
|
Post by FrankSobotka1514 on Aug 30, 2019 13:20:24 GMT
Would it be considered an all-time great series if the Cubs werenโt involved? Say if it was Indians Cardinals or Indians Giants instead but with the same exact results otherwise? Doubtful.
|
|
SportsFan19
Junior Member
@sportsfan19
Posts: 2,848
Likes: 2,249
|
Post by SportsFan19 on Aug 30, 2019 14:32:52 GMT
Would it be considered an all-time great series if the Cubs werenโt involved? Say if it was Indians Cardinals or Indians Giants instead but with the same exact results otherwise? Doubtful. Every series the Cardinals are in is an all-time great!
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Aug 30, 2019 15:12:26 GMT
Honestly, I really think that the 2016 World Series between the Chicago Cubs and the Cleveland Indians is a Really DISGUSTINGLY Underrated World Series.
It definitely deserves a lot more credit than it gets when it comes to what should be on the list when it comes to All of the Best World Series's that have ever been played.
What does everybody else here think ?
First of all, and most importantly, series is both singular and plural, so you don't need to say "series's." Secondly, from my understanding plenty of people consider the 2016 Series one of the best ever. However, it's worth noting that the series, while certainly entertaining and massively significant in terms of cultural impact (for modern baseball, at least) did have its fair share of blowouts that, to my mind, lessens its quality when compared to a series like 2017. "series is both singular and plural, so you don't need to say "series's."" ------------------------------------------- I Edited my OP and fixed it, Thank You for correcting me.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Aug 30, 2019 23:13:43 GMT
Classic series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 0:34:38 GMT
I think it's really looked favorably upon because of how game 7 played out. It had everything. Drama, tight game, the rain delay allows for people to question whether or not the Indians win that game if not for the Jason Heyward ra ra speech to the Cubs during rain delay, and of course the ending of the long tortured Cubs championship drought. It had 2 teams against each other both with long droughts (I think #1 and 2 longest if not mistaken) and went to 7 games with a drama filled 7th. I don't think anyone looks back upon it negatively outside of people upset that the Cubs fans got to celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Aug 31, 2019 0:41:46 GMT
Any seven game series had its moments. But only Game 7 was a classic. Kind of like the 1960 WS. The 2016 games weren't the blowouts that you had in '60 but only the deliciously weird "Mazeroski Game" was memorable. It had the hex factor helping it. 1908 v. 1948
|
|