114 Responses to “Exciting World Series Game Sixes”

1. Nash Bruce Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 6:28 am

   sighs.

2. Stu B Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 6:35 am

   Speaking of playing championship games on Saturday, I've wished for years that the NFL would move the Super Bowl to Saturday night.

3. Stu B Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 6:37 am

   As I posted in the other string, as Freese's dinger sailed over the wall, I said to my fiance, "And this is why we watch baseball."

4. zuke Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 8:23 am

   @102

   or turn monday into a national holiday. either way.

   i think the job by the umps last night warrants mentioning. some really tough calls were made involving batted balls and it looked like they got them right, without resorting to a lot of meetings/review. i think there should have been a runner's interference at one point, but the no-call was understandable, and it didn't end up making a big difference anyway

5. Cabriael Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 9:18 am

   104) As much as I hate umpires, I have to say that yesterdays' game was officiated well.

   However that means the chance of a crucial gaffe has been increased, just by that. We will see.

6. Mike Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 9:52 am

   Try again 105 posts later ----- unless I missed it..... what does the # matching represent?

7. zuke Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 9:56 am

   @106

   i think it's number of players with an aLI > 1.25. i don't think it was clearly posted anywhere

8. Jimmy Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 10:12 am

   Add Game 6 of the 2011 World Series to this list

9. pauley Says:
   October 28th, 2011 at 10:24 am

   @93- Yeah, he's only hit 8 home runs in the last 12 games, who needs him? Cruz didn't give up the double to Pujols or walk Berkman and didn't throw a 1-2 cupcake to Freese. So he lost the series singlehandedly for the Rangers. When was the last time a World Series game had 3 blown saves by one team? But yeah, the Rangers will be a lot better off without Nelson Cruz.

10. DanFlan Says:
    October 28th, 2011 at 11:15 am

    @99

    I would never say 714 is larger than 762. I would just bet that way more people know 714 off the top of their heads. But you're right about 755: 5-5-7 would have been more fortuitous.

11. Jason Says:
    October 28th, 2011 at 11:30 am

    Stu B-

    we can argue 755, but no way does 762 surpass 714 in fame.

    infamy maybe.

    Which number means more to you?

    61 or 73?

12. Lawrence Azrin Says:
    October 28th, 2011 at 11:46 am

    @44/ Stu B -

    "@11 JoeC: The '86 game was wonderful - should be no. 1 on the list!..."
    Stu - Not if you're a Red Sox fan!

    "... @35 Lawrence Azrin: There are plenty of good reasons that the '75 game is so high on the list, but Peter Gammons using it in a book isn't one - it's just his opinion."

    Stu, I wouldn't put Gammons' book high on the list, but it was one of the most prominent of a number of media pieces that perpetuated the feeling that G6 of the 1975 WS was amongst the greatest games ever.

    Game six yesterday had enough excitement for the entire WS. With all the errors and other questionable plays, but also great defensive plays like Napoli's pick-off at third, it reminded me of Dickens famous intro:

    "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

13. SocraticGadfly Says:
    October 28th, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

14. Mike Says:
    October 31st, 2011 at 8:05 am

    @62

    Thanks Donny, forgot all about that