Well, if there's any team to choke away from a 3-game series lead, it's San Jose. And if there's any team that can climb back from a 3-game deficit, it's Detroit.

With that said, I highly doubt it's going to happen. I can see San Jose winning this series in 5 games.

But if it were to happen, then San Jose fans need to stop being little bitches when people joke about their team being choke artists in the playoffs. They don't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to that I've found...

Fans and writers just LOVE to be able to call certain players or teams "chokers". If a talented team has a rough time with a supposedly weaker team and loses to them, they automatically must be weak mentally, and therefore chokers. This has got to be the most shallow line of thinking in sports, but it sells stories better, and then it makes it easy for people to categorize teams and players exactly how they want to.

Every playoff game or series in any sport brings a different set of circumstances, players and coaches involved, etc. On top of that compare the up and down swings that teams go through in the course of a season (and how long they can last) to the relatively short span of a playoff series. We already know that some better teams just have a hard time with certain lesser teams, and then we have a 4-7 game sample that we just so badly want to define a player or team with. Even expanding that to several playoff series, it's just not logical or accurate to do so.

I picked San Jose to beat Detroit without a second thought. They are the better team, and probably more motivated considering the "choker" BS they've had to put up with. Past failures don't predict future ones, no matter how badly some fans and writers want to sound so smart about themselves to say so.

ankles were shot. but he had good speed still, and his bat was almost hall of fame worthy. i read alot about the 86 mets, which of course covered buckner. "the bad guys WON!" FANTASTIC read.

the guy just doesnt deserve the shit he gets, the deck was stacked against him anyways.

I wonder how much different it would be if he got the ball but couldn't get the out at 1... I'm not too familiar with the game, would they have still lost?

dunno. ray knight would have held at third, and with two outs, its possible the next batter flys out. the ball rolling out to shallow right field allowed knight to score, yes, where he wouldnt have if buckner kept the ball in front of him.

buckner? buckner wouldnt have made the play anyways. no one was covering first, and mookie wilson was too fast. buckner wouldnt have gotten to first had he fielded it cleanly. game 6 was not buckners fault.

We've talked about this before, and I still disagree that he had no chance to make the out at first. If would have been a close play for sure, but with is momentum taking him towards the bag, he had a shot.

Regardless, the relievers that couldn't bring a 2 run lead home are the ones that have to shoulder the blame. I'm glad Buckner got the ovation he did in 08 throwing that first pitch out.