1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

World Series or Super Bowl: Which ending was more heart wrenching?

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by HandsomeHarley, Feb 19, 2015.

  1. HandsomeHarley

    HandsomeHarley Well-Known Member

    Hearing Russell Wilson's anguish regarding the 1-yard line play in the Super Bowl has me thinking:

    Which was the greater heart wrenching moment, the end of the Super Bowl or the end of the World Series?

    As a lifelong, die-hard Royals fan, I still say Alex Gordon would have scored. He was between second and third when the center fielder picked up the ball. He would have had to relay to the shortstop, who was in the outfield, and would have had a long throw to home.

    I don't care what the college kids did with the re-enactment. I say Gordon would have scored and Mike Jirschele, the third-base coach, is a coward.

    Think back to a similar play, when Omar Infante ran through one of Jirschele's stupid holds and scored. Jirschele has a bad habit of playing conservatively, and it cost them.

    Even if Gordon would have been out, it would been a hell of an ending, instead of a weak pop foul.

    All that said, if we had the ability to replay both scenarios, I think more people would vote to run the ball from the 1 than send Gordon.
  2. Steak Snabler

    Steak Snabler Well-Known Member

    I say Super Bowl. Had Gordon been thrown out at the plate, the World Series might have been worse.

    Even if he had scored, that would have only tied the game. The Seahawks were 1 yard from winning outright.
  3. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Seahawks and other fans had plenty of anguish. I thought Wilson was by far the LEAST anguished.

    He said "oh man", and later on, "I hate losing" - in the same tone of voice i'd use if I lost a wii game to my nephew.
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Then you're wrong.
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    No, it would have been a stupid ending. The third-base coach would have been fired. And people would forever - rightly - talk about how the Royals took the bat out of the hands of the one damned guy in the lineup who can actually hit.
  6. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Thinking Gordon would have scored is batshit insane.

    I love any debate that is started with "I don't care what anyone else says".
  7. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    I posted it on another thread recently, but a good throw gets Gordon easily. The argument breaks down like this:

    1. Was KC better off putting the onus on the outfielder and maybe cutoff man to make a decent throw? Maybe the odds were better that one of those guys would screw up than if you put the ball back in the hands of the pitcher having one of the best World Series ever. Maybe not.

    2. Salvy was coming up and he A.) had already come up with a big hit in a similar situation swinging at a pitch out of the zone in the Wild Card game, and B.) was one of the very few guys who hit Bumgarner in the postseason. But he was hurt and gassed after catching so many innings. Bumgarner knew he was going to chase bad pitches and he did.

    So Kansas City was only going to tie it if somebody in a grey uniform made a mistake. Whether it was the right decision comes down to which mistake you think was more likely to happen. That takes some of the heartbreak out of it for me, as does the fact I literally wept with joy multiple times in October witnessing things I never thought I'd see as a Royals fan. Just being in a Game 7 of a World Series was more than I ever dreamed of for Kansas City baseball.
  8. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    I say Super Bowl.
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    I don't think they're even in the same realm. The Seahawks won last year and are the odds-on favorite to do it again next year. The Royals hadn't sniffed it in 30 years and might never do it again.

    Also, Dick's right, and anything predicated on the idea that Alex Gordon would have scored is incorrect.
  10. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    The difference is the Royals faced two unpalatable choices, running into an out (insane) or taking hacks against Bumgarner (lousy odds, still best choice). The Seahawks threw away their best choice trying to be smart. If I were a fan of either team, the latter would drive me into a frenzy, where the former would be more being sad, but whaddagonna do?
  11. Jake_Taylor

    Jake_Taylor Well-Known Member

    Maybe it's crazy, but know what I would have liked? A pinch hitter. Everything was a long, long shot, but why not send one of the speedsters up to the plate? Hell, send Gore to run for Gordon and put Dyson in to hit and squeeze it. It probably wouldn't have worked, but it would have been more satisfying seeing them go down in a blaze of glory trying to make something happen than watching Salvy go up there with no shot or to lose on what would have been a simple base running mistake.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    What would be the justification for sending up a worse hitter than the hitter due up?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page