World Series Games 7

[jserraglio]

NBC Sports
Craig Calcaterra

A World Series Game 7 is the absolute best thing there can be in sports. I don’t say this because I’m a baseball guy, I say it because it’s simple fact.
A Game 7 gives us the best sports experience imaginable. It has the winner-takes-all tension and finality of any Super Bowl, National Championship game or boxing match but it’s also the product of a slow, increasingly tense series between two evenly-matched rivals. Everything has built to this moment but, in some ways, it all can be forgotten as it all boils down to a single game.
We’ve been pretty lucky over the past several years. Tonight, for the third time in four years, we’re getting a World Series Game 7. When you add in the wildly entertaining six-game series in 2013 and stretch back to the epic seven-gamer in 2011, it’s fair to say that we’ve been on a great run of engaging and competitive Fall Classics.
Such a thing is not something one can always count on. Between 2004 and 2010 we went on a run of five straight World Series — and six of seven — which were either sweeps or five-game affairs. They were exciting and memorable for fans of the teams which won, obviously, but they didn’t offer much to the non-partisan. Now, though, the whole nation and a big chunk of the world will be watching as the Astros and Dodgers, both exhausted, suck it up for one last round. I’m not sure how fans of either team can function at this point, but those of us who are unaligned are enjoying the hell out of this.
We have less than 12 hours until Yu Darvish throws the first pitch to George Springer. In the meantime, let us look back at Game 7s of the recent past* to see what Houston and Los Angeles have to measure up to. As you’ll see, quite often, Game 7s are a bit anti-climactic, with the greatest moments coming in Game 6s or earlier.
That wasn’t the case in the most recent two Games 7s, however:
2016: The Greatest Game 7 in History?
Possibly. It certainly felt that way as we were watching the Cubs battle the Indians in Cleveland, and a year’s worth of perspective hasn’t caused many to push back too hard. A 5-1 Cubs lead. A questionable Joe Maddon decision, pulling Kyle Hendricks, who seemed to be cruising. A modest Indians comeback followed by a David Ross homer. A gassed Aroldis Chapman giving up that game-tying homer to Rajai Davis. Extra innings. A rain delay Jason Heyward gathering his teammates together to tell them “We’re the best team in baseball. . . for a reason. . . Stick together and we’re going to win this game!” Pinch-runner Albert Almora tagging up, Ben Zobrist doubling him in and Miguel Montero singling in Anthony Rizzo. Carl Edwards Jr. not quite nailing it down but Mike Montgomery finishing the job and with it, ending 108 years of futility for the Cubs.
2014: The Madison Bumgarner Game
Maybe it was the Madison Bumgarner Series? In this Game 7 Giants manager Bruce Bochy brought Bumgarner in on two days’ rest to protect their one-run lead in the fifth. And then he stayed in for the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth, holding the Royals scoreless and earning the longest save in World Series history. He also won his two starts that series. I covered this series in person and I have never borne witness to a greater performance on a baseball field.
2011: The Cardinals defeated the Rangers, 6-2, in St. Louis
Man, what a disaster that ended up being for the Rangers. Game 6 was the real disaster, but Game 7 was, obviously, where it ended. Chris Carpenter started his third game in a seven game series. Allen Craig of all people robbed someone of a homer in the field. David Freese‘s postseason legend was cemented with more RBIs and a World Series MVP. Overall not a competitive game, though. The highest drama had already gone down in this series. This is pretty common pattern, as we’ll see.
2002: The Angels defeated the Giants, 4-1, in Anaheim
This was a fantastic series, but Game 7 was a bit of a comedown here as well. The Angels’ big comeback in Game 6 when the Giants were eight outs away from winning it all traumatized Giants fans for a good bit. Obviously, three World Series titles since then have helped those wounds heal.
2001: The Diamondbacks defeated the Yankees, 3-2, in Phoenix 1997: The Marlins defeated the Indians, 3-2, in Miami 1991: Twins defeated Braves, 1-0, in Minneapolis
If we’re lucky, tonight we get one of these. All three ended in a walkoff with Luis Gonzalez, Edgar Renteria and Gene Larkin doing the honors, respectively. Of course, the men who hit the walkoffs weren’t necessarily the men most remembered for their exploits in the series or even the game. A Game 7 can certainly create heroes, but in 1997’s case, Jose Mesa and Tony Fernandez instantly became goats. In 2001, Gonzalez was a hero, but Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson became legends. In 1991, Jack Morris nearly became immortal, with his performance almost catapulting him into the Hall of Fame.
1987: The Twins defeated the Cardinals, 4-2, in Minneapolis
Fun footnote: This was on a Monday and was broadcast by ABC, which also broadcast Monday Night Football at the time. The Broncos-Vikings were scheduled to play the Monday Night game that week but it was moved to Tuesday due to the stipulations in the teams’ respective Metrodome leases.
1986: Mets defeated Red Sox. 8-5, in New York 1985: Royals defeated Cardinals, 11-0, in Kansas City
Two more instances in which all the drama — be it Bill Buckner or Don Denkinger-induced — happened in Game 6. In this year’s series we had a crazy Game 2 and a crazy Game 5, so we’re due for another nutso one tonight, right? One in which there are five or six game-tying homers and in which three relievers lose their arms to fatigue?
We won’t know until it happens. We never know. It’s what makes a Game 7 so damn special.
*_This is an updated version of a post I originally wrote on the eve of Game 7, 2014 and updated again last year. No one remembers anything on the Internet, so it’s OK to post it in a mostly-similar fashion two years later, right? Of course. Cool._
Follow @craigcalcaterra

[RebLem]

I'm glad Houston won. They have never won before, and Houston has had a run of bad luck lately, and the folk there really need a win.

[John F]

I used to think like that, played baseball myself while in school, but now I confess that the game bores me, and I didn't know which teams were in the Series this year. English Premier League soccer is the only sport I follow regularly and closely. I won't make a case for it, just state it as a fact.

[jserraglio]

I used to think like that, played baseball myself while in school, but now I confess that the game bores me, and I didn't know which teams were in the Series this year. English Premier League soccer is the only sport I follow regularly and closely. I won't make a case for it, just state it as a fact.

For me, baseball is both true and beautiful--mirroring perfectly the proportion of something exciting happening to nothing much happening in the world outside the ball field.

[lennygoran]

For me, baseball is both true and beautiful--mirroring perfectly the proportion of something exciting happening to nothing much happening in the world outside the ball field.

First a disclaimer-I didn't watch any of the series-still you're right about baseball-it simply blows soccer out of the water! Regards, Len [fleeing]

[jserraglio]

For me, baseball is both true and beautiful--mirroring perfectly the proportion of something exciting happening to nothing much happening in the world outside the ball field.

First a disclaimer-I didn't watch any of the series-still you're right about baseball-it simply blows soccer out of the water! Regards, Len [fleeing]

Watch out for the Yankees next year. All they need is a free-agent starting pitcher and better defense from their kid-catcher Sanchez. Secretly, I thought they might win it all this year, and for that I was scoffed at by my fellow Clevelanders. Look what happened. Trump won the damn election, and for the umteenth time the Yanks knocked off the Tribe!

[lennygoran]

for the umteenth time the Yanks knocked off the Tribe!

Well on the Indian thing you're responsible for their loss-you alerted me to where the Yankees stood and in what bad shape they were in-I had no idea and got on the case immediately-turned things around-then I lost interest and next thing you know the Yankees were out of the Series. I just don't have the time to spend with them-I got a garden to take care of! Regards, Len

[John F]

Soccer isn't in the water. I'm not going to defend my preference, I'll just say that billions of others worldwide share it. Soccer rules. As for baseball...

[jbuck919]

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that at Academic Bowl last night there was this poor kid dying to hear the inevitable World Series question. I hadn't gotten three words into it before he buzzed in with Houston Astros. Early buzzing in is essential to playing the game well, but in this case the question was what are the only two teams never to have appeared in a World Series. (The answer is the Seattle Mariners and the Washington Nationals.)

[jserraglio]

Not only is soccer not in our water, next to the game of ball, it shouldn't even be classified as American. As for the billions of soccer fanboys, nothing keeps the masses from making asses of themselves, so the saying goes.

Back to the topic, baseball not soccer, the last two WS gave us all we could wish for. I recorded all seven games this year and will be watching them all again. Recorded them all last year too but my spouse erased them.

One is always free to garden, but baseball is the Garden, our earthly paradise, as Commissioner Giamatti once rightly termed it.

[lennygoran]

One is always free to garden, but baseball is the Garden, our earthly paradise, as Commissioner Giamatti once rightly termed it.

I have to admit when I went to baseball games in person the green of the grass always impressed me-not nearly as much as golf though-golf, that's real landscaping -I played golf when in college growing up in Brooklyn-no garden experience to speak of--the golf probably effected me when my wife made me get into gardening-I discovered I was a natural at gardening! I'll state further that when I did get into gardening it turned out I'm the Mozart in ours while sue is only a Salieri! Regards, Len

[barney]

More evidence to me of American insanity! Not least the arrogance of calling it the world series. Solipsism gone mad.
The soccer world cup actually is a world event, it's just that Americans are not very good at it. And they're not much interested in things they don't win.
Very interested in the line that baseball matches the world outside, long periods of not much, then bursts of activity. It's an elegant proposition but surely the point of entertainment is that we avoid the long periods of boredom?

[jbuck919]

More evidence to me of American insanity! Not least the arrogance of calling it the world series. Solipsism gone mad.
The soccer world cup actually is a world event, it's just that Americans are not very good at it. And they're not much interested in things they don't win.
Very interested in the line that baseball matches the world outside, long periods of not much, then bursts of activity. It's an elegant proposition but surely the point of entertainment is that we avoid the long periods of boredom?

Baseball, the only team sport I have ever had any interest in, may seem to have long periods when nothing is happening, but if you know the game, that is never true. I hate to quote the conservative columnist George Will, a great baseball fan, but it is a thrilling and dangerous game played by great athletes.

It is true that Americans do not appreciate soccer very much. John F is among those who do, but I am not. Going back and forth trying to get a ball into a goal, now that is boring.

[barney]

I'm entirely prepared to accept that there are subtleties in baseball that I do not get, and that the more one knows and understands the more one enjoys it. But I feel about it as you apparently do about soccer: life is too short, and there are too many things I actually want to do.
I feel like that about jazz too, while acknowledging (unlike baseball) that it is a noble art form.
But the world series, Jbuck? Come on....

[barney]

What it tells the rest of the world is that, to Americans, we don't have a meaningful existence. Only America matters, it and the world are co-terminous (plus, what is it, one Canadian team?).
It reminds me of a famous remark by former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating: "If you don't live in Sydney you are merely camping out." Everyone else, especially Melburnians, were instantly outraged. As the wily old curmudgeon would have known.

[barney]

But wait! There's more...

You've got me pondering, Jbuck, as I try to avoid working. Baseball is the only team sport you follow. Is it not the case that baseball (like cricket) is only half a team sport because it is essentially a series of individual contests between two people (pitcher and batter) that sometimes involves others (catcher, fielders, runners on bases) but only if something happens (a miss for the catcher, a hit for everyone else)? It's hardly a team game at all.
OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but isn't there something to it?

[Belle]

I'm entirely prepared to accept that there are subtleties in baseball that I do not get, and that the more one knows and understands the more one enjoys it. But I feel about it as you apparently do about soccer: life is too short, and there are too many things I actually want to do.
I feel like that about jazz too, while acknowledging (unlike baseball) that it is a noble art form.
But the world series, Jbuck? Come on....

I feel exactly the same about jazz, much to the horror of my trombonist mate who was president of the local jazz club for 10 years. I do like George Shearing and this sort of jazz, though I suspect the purists would say it isn't jazz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyS1FsUV__8

And this (others included):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYS1QMorSxg

I can't stand trad jazz/Dixie!! Or, as my friend calls it, "NO" (New Orleans).

I know nothing about baseball - or really any sport except tennis, which I enjoy. Lucky you in Melbourne for the Australian Open!

[jbuck919]

But wait! There's more...

You've got me pondering, Jbuck, as I try to avoid working. Baseball is the only team sport you follow. Is it not the case that baseball (like cricket) is only half a team sport because it is essentially a series of individual contests between two people (pitcher and batter) that sometimes involves others (catcher, fielders, runners on bases) but only if something happens (a miss for the catcher, a hit for everyone else)? It's hardly a team game at all.
OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but isn't there something to it?

Barney, it is no such case at all. Don't they play cricket in Australia, an even more complicated game? If Chalkie is reading this he will ream you out for making such a comment.

I admit that I cannot stand any goal-oriented sport, which eliminates most of them, including basketball and hockey, not to mention American football. Racquet sports are a different thing, as Belle implies when she mentions that she likes only tennis. Back in grad school I played (not competitively) both badminton and squash. I may not have been very good, but they were also thrilling. (A true badminton "birdy" is a cork with real feathers inserted. I will never have that much fun again.)

[Belle]

I played that exact badminton myself when I was 14 and it was huge fun. You had to lob it over a high net. My girlfriend and I used to ride our bikes there every Saturday afternoon and play with others. That's where I got my first invitation out from a boy; he was also 14 and when he asked me I said "eeew, no"! (What a tactless goose I was.) Anyway, mother thought it would be good to play sport so it was badminton and tennis lessons. She had been terrible at tennis herself and wanted at least one of her four children to succeed and it surely wasn't going to be me; ("Mary, as a tennis player you're a very good pianist" mother's instructor used to say to her!).

[barney]

But wait! There's more...

You've got me pondering, Jbuck, as I try to avoid working. Baseball is the only team sport you follow. Is it not the case that baseball (like cricket) is only half a team sport because it is essentially a series of individual contests between two people (pitcher and batter) that sometimes involves others (catcher, fielders, runners on bases) but only if something happens (a miss for the catcher, a hit for everyone else)? It's hardly a team game at all.
OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but isn't there something to it?

Barney, it is no such case at all. Don't they play cricket in Australia, an even more complicated game? If Chalkie is reading this he will ream you out for making such a comment.

I admit that I cannot stand any goal-oriented sport, which eliminates most of them, including basketball and hockey, not to mention American football. Racquet sports are a different thing, as Belle implies when she mentions that she likes only tennis. Back in grad school I played (not competitively) both badminton and squash. I may not have been very good, but they were also thrilling. (A true badminton "birdy" is a cork with real feathers inserted. I will never have that much fun again.)

I suppose my stricture can apply to many sports, which are a series of one-on-one contests. Cricket certainly is: bowler and batsman, with the bowler supported by 10 others only one or two of him will be involved in any particular play, or delivery. This is not to demean cricket, my first sporting love. I became a journalist when I realised I would never be good enough to play at a high level, so I could write about it instead. And I did.

[barney]

But wait! There's more...

You've got me pondering, Jbuck, as I try to avoid working. Baseball is the only team sport you follow. Is it not the case that baseball (like cricket) is only half a team sport because it is essentially a series of individual contests between two people (pitcher and batter) that sometimes involves others (catcher, fielders, runners on bases) but only if something happens (a miss for the catcher, a hit for everyone else)? It's hardly a team game at all.
OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but isn't there something to it?

Barney, it is no such case at all. Don't they play cricket in Australia, an even more complicated game? If Chalkie is reading this he will ream you out for making such a comment.

I admit that I cannot stand any goal-oriented sport, which eliminates most of them, including basketball and hockey, not to mention American football. Racquet sports are a different thing, as Belle implies when she mentions that she likes only tennis. Back in grad school I played (not competitively) both badminton and squash. I may not have been very good, but they were also thrilling. (A true badminton "birdy" is a cork with real feathers inserted. I will never have that much fun again.)

I suppose my stricture can apply to many sports, which are a series of one-on-one contests, eg ball-carrier and tackler. Cricket certainly is: bowler and batsman, with the bowler supported by 10 others only one or two of him will be involved in any particular play, or delivery. This is not to demean cricket, my first sporting love. I became a journalist when I realised I would never be good enough to play at a high level, so I could write about it instead. And I did.

[jbuck919]

But wait! There's more...

You've got me pondering, Jbuck, as I try to avoid working. Baseball is the only team sport you follow. Is it not the case that baseball (like cricket) is only half a team sport because it is essentially a series of individual contests between two people (pitcher and batter) that sometimes involves others (catcher, fielders, runners on bases) but only if something happens (a miss for the catcher, a hit for everyone else)? It's hardly a team game at all.
OK, I'm being deliberately provocative, but isn't there something to it?

No, there is nothing to it at all. I don't follow baseball anymore, but it is the only game I ever did, and its complicated rules far exceed those of other sports. Like every other New York State kid, I had to go through seasonal physical education every single year until I graduated from high school. Having to deal with so-called touch football, soccer, basketball, etc. all that time is still an unhappy memory. My coaches gave me an A for effort and because I always dressed (which not every student did), but it was hell. I was also not very good at baseball, but at least I was interested in it at the time, and I knew all the rules. I am sorry that you cannot appreciate it, but it is a team sport par excellence. Every player needs to know everything that is going on in the field all the time. The center fielder might be able to throw out a man trying to steal home.