Jump to content

Kirk Gibson's home run


Foolio

Recommended Posts

I watched it live. This moment has to go down as one of the most shocking in sports history. Not only was Gibson hobbling on a bad leg but the pitcher, Dennis Eckersley, was as dominant as closers can be. Although, after checking his stats I see he did give up 5 homers and had 8 blown saves that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched it? This is the play and the game that made me fall in love with baseball for good. I was 5. It's why I'm still a closet Dodgers fan (although obviously to a much more minor extent than my O's fanhood).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I'm about to say is absolutely sacreligious but...I don't get the hype.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...he was hobbling on one leg. Don't get me wrong, the feat itself was damn impressive.

But...it was Game 1. If we're talking Game 6 or Game 7, then it's a different story. But it was Game 1 and the Dodgers went on to beat the A's in 5 games. I suppose I'll get beat down with the argument of "But it set the tone for the series!!!" And maybe it did...but I still think the Dodgers would have won even if the A's took that first game and Eckersley beat Gibson.

Again, not taking anything away from the feat itself...but I don't see it ranking up there with Bobby Thompson, Joe Carter, Bill Mazerowski and Carlton Fisk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I'm about to say is absolutely sacreligious but...I don't get the hype.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...he was hobbling on one leg. Don't get me wrong, the feat itself was damn impressive.

But...it was Game 1. If we're talking Game 6 or Game 7, then it's a different story. But it was Game 1 and the Dodgers went on to beat the A's in 5 games. I suppose I'll get beat down with the argument of "But it set the tone for the series!!!" And maybe it did...but I still think the Dodgers would have won even if the A's took that first game and Eckersley beat Gibson.

Again, not taking anything away from the feat itself...but I don't see it ranking up there with Bobby Thompson, Joe Carter, Bill Mazerowski and Carlton Fisk.

It was an unexpected, miraculous, game-winning play in the grandest stage. It doesn't matter really if it was a game 6 or a game 7. At least it doesn't to me. It was a home run hit on basically one leg to win a World Series game. One of those goose-bump moments.

The Dodgers could've lost the series in 5 after that, and I think that homer is still pretty friggin spectacular. Just one man's opinion though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an unexpected, miraculous, game-winning play in the grandest stage. It doesn't matter really if it was a game 6 or a game 7. At least it doesn't to me. It was a home run hit on basically one leg to win a World Series game. One of those goose-bump moments.

The Dodgers could've lost the series in 5 after that, and I think that homer is still pretty friggin spectacular. Just one man's opinion though.

I hear what you're saying, but it's different if it's a homer to either send your team to the WS, buy your team another game when you're on the brink of being eliminated or ending the series altogether.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why it means so much to so many...I'm just wondering if there's anyone else out there who feels like me.

And there probably aren't. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I'm about to say is absolutely sacreligious but...I don't get the hype.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...he was hobbling on one leg. Don't get me wrong, the feat itself was damn impressive.

But...it was Game 1. If we're talking Game 6 or Game 7, then it's a different story. But it was Game 1 and the Dodgers went on to beat the A's in 5 games. I suppose I'll get beat down with the argument of "But it set the tone for the series!!!" And maybe it did...but I still think the Dodgers would have won even if the A's took that first game and Eckersley beat Gibson.

Again, not taking anything away from the feat itself...but I don't see it ranking up there with Bobby Thompson, Joe Carter, Bill Mazerowski and Carlton Fisk.

IMO, it's mainly famous because of what happened after he hit it... Gibson's limping and fist-pumping, and Lasorda running around like a maniac. It makes people think it was like Bobby Thompson or Bill Mazeroski, even though it wasn't the same thing at all.

If you took a poll about its significance, and if people didn't cheat, I betcha most people would think it won the WS, not Game 1, just based on the post-dinger reaction on the video clip. It's not the dinger, it's the post-dinger emote-a-thon, combined with walking-wounded lore...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an unexpected, miraculous, game-winning play in the grandest stage. It doesn't matter really if it was a game 6 or a game 7. At least it doesn't to me. It was a home run hit on basically one leg to win a World Series game. One of those goose-bump moments.

The Dodgers could've lost the series in 5 after that, and I think that homer is still pretty friggin spectacular. Just one man's opinion though.

It was also one of the most memorable plays I have ever seen in my life of watching MLB.

Some years ago, I was reading an *insider* account of this home run. Here is what I recall....

The bench coach sent Gibson into the tunnel between clubhouse and dugout to attempt a few practice swings so the bench coach could report to Lasorda whether or not Kirk would be able to pinch hit, if needed.

Gibson was in a lot of pain and could barely hold the bat, let alone swing. After a few feeble attempts at swinging the coach went to Lasorda and said "Yeah, he has one or two good swings in him." :D

Another thing I learned in the article was that the Dodgers advance scout was given a lot of credit. He reported to the Dodgers if Eckersley gets two strikes on you, he almost always throws a *back-door* slider off the outside corner to a LH batter.

Sure enough, two strikes on Gibson and the pitch is thrown outside and off the plate several inches (looks like a ball) but Gibson swings hard! The slider *back doors* its way in toward the plate and meets the sweetspot of Gibsons bat barrel..... and the rest is history. :laughlol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, it's mainly famous because of what happened after he hit it... Gibson's limping and fist-pumping, and Lasorda running around like a maniac. It makes people think it was like Bobby Thompson or Bill Mazeroski, even though it wasn't the same thing at all.

If you took a poll about its significance, and if people didn't cheat, I betcha most people would think it won the WS, not Game 1, just based on the post-dinger reaction on the video clip. It's not the dinger, it's the post-dinger emote-a-thon, combined with walking-wounded lore...

Much like people think the Bill Buckner play cost the Red Sox the World Series in '86.

As far as the Gibson Home Run goes, he was thought to be out for the Series, and never did bat again if I'm not mistaken. Also, Eckersley was unhittable that year which made it even more dramatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much like people think the Bill Buckner play cost the Red Sox the World Series in '86.

As far as the Gibson Home Run goes, he was thought to be out for the Series, and never did bat again if I'm not mistaken. Also, Eckersley was unhittable that year which made it even more dramatic.

Buckner didn't cost the Sox in 86. The game was tied when he made that error...one could argue that if he made the out that they still could have had a shot to win it in extra innings...but thats flimsy.

Gibson's homer was his only plate appearance in that Series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckner didn't cost the Sox in 86. The game was tied when he made that error...one could argue that if he made the out that they still could have had a shot to win it in extra innings...but thats flimsy.

Gibson's homer was his only plate appearance in that Series.

That's what I'm saying..I wasn't even referring to the fact that the game was tied, but that's a good point too. A lot of people don't realize that it was only game 6..They still had to play a seventh game. That's what I meant. People think Buckner's error cost them the series, when in reality, the series was 3-3 after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm saying..I wasn't even referring to the fact that the game was tied, but that's a good point too. A lot of people don't realize that it was only game 6..They still had to play a seventh game. That's what I meant. People think Buckner's error cost them the series, when in reality, the series was 3-3 after that.

It is no guarantee that Buckner would have beaten Mookie Wilson to the bag even if he fielded it cleanly.

Stapleton was often used as a defensive replacement at 1B for Buckner during the season and in the prior WS games.

Sox fans will always wonder why didn't McNamara stick to that plan in game 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were any of you watching the game when Gibby hit his famous walk-off home run in '88? What was your reaction?

I was 12 and watching with my Dad. He said something along the lines of "Even if hit lines it somewhere in the outfield, they still could throw him out at first" When he hit that pitch both my Dad and were both like WOW.

I know what I'm about to say is absolutely sacreligious but...I don't get the hype.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...he was hobbling on one leg. Don't get me wrong, the feat itself was damn impressive.

But...it was Game 1. If we're talking Game 6 or Game 7, then it's a different story. But it was Game 1 and the Dodgers went on to beat the A's in 5 games. I suppose I'll get beat down with the argument of "But it set the tone for the series!!!" And maybe it did...but I still think the Dodgers would have won even if the A's took that first game and Eckersley beat Gibson.

Again, not taking anything away from the feat itself...but I don't see it ranking up there with Bobby Thompson, Joe Carter, Bill Mazerowski and Carlton Fisk.

I think it was more that it was off of Eckersley, who was the best closer in the in the league in 88. Plus Eckersley had 4 saves in the sweep of the Red Sox in the ALCS. At least that's what I always said to myself :)

I little off topic, if Mazerowski strikes out in that game does he still get in the HOF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • At SS, I agree. I wonder if he had been primarily played at 2B or CF if you would feel the same way. Guess we'll never know.
    • I wasn’t referring to him overall as a player. I meant that is the type of play that might happen with a -10 defense guy.
    • But how does it damage or delay things?  What’s the time period for that?   Let’s say by Sunday, Holliday is 3-45 and they send him down.  He was up here for what, 2 weeks at that point? Was he delayed?  Did that hurt his development? Did Cowser’s development get hurt or damaged last year?  Did GRod get damaged? Thats the thing.  To me, using words like that sound to me that they are career altering.    For me, if that occurs, the player wasn’t going to be mentally tough to handle adversity no matter what his development was..that’s a big reason why I don’t believe in “rushed”.  
    • If Stewart had been that guy with a bat we wouldn't have cared that much. He was a 0 bat -10 glove guy. A better example would be Nelson Cruz maybe.
    • Personally I take rushed to mean something a bit milder. I think you're using the word more absolutely than many do, and that's the disagreement.  I would call a player rushed if they were brought up before they were ready to perform, and it damaged or delayed their development. Particularly if there was reason to doubt their readiness before the callup. But it doesn't have to be something that ruins them or that they never recover from for me to be willing to call it rushing.  Now I'm not sure they rushed Holliday under either definition, since there was tons of evidence supporting the idea of bringing him up. 
    • IMHO defensive prowess at premium positions generally benefits your pitchers to a more significant degree than offensive prowess. So C, CF, SS, 2B are positions that I would be OK with one or two players who profile +10 D/-10 O. I think the corners, (LF, RF, 3B and 1B) are where you can have one or two +10 O/-10 D types. 3B tends to be a corner spot where a stellar defender can change the course of a game or series, however.  I also believe that defensive skill is more highly correlated with superb athleticism; whereas offensive skills are less highly correlated with athleticism.  In other words, it's rare to see a great defender who is not a great athlete; but there are many excellent hitters who are not very athletic.  I think the O's like players who can defend at a very high level. I think they like exceptional athletes who are versatile defensively. They have been fortunate that many of their prospects are superb on both sides of the ball.   
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...