Which is better?

[SWC75]

I was listening to Orange Nation and they started a discussion I've heard before but never understood. The subject was brought up in relation to the Cub' 0-6 loss in the first WS game: What if they have an embarrassing performance and get swept after all the hype? Is it better, (or worse) to barely lose or better to get blown out so you won't have the pain of almost making it? It was suggested that if the Cubs get swept, it would have been better to lose the NLCS so Cubs fans didn't have to experience that. The subject of Keith Smart's jump shot was brought up. Wouldn't it have been better to lose to Indiana by 20 than to lose like that?

Of course it wouldn't. it's much better to to almost obtain your goal, knowing that with a little improvement, a little more effort and a little better luck, you have a strong chance of obtaining it next time. If you get blown out or don't even get to the championship game or series, you have farther to go and may never get there.

Talk show talk...:crazy:

 

[orange79]

Personally, losing a hard-fought close game/series is gut-wrenching, and frankly I think I would rather it not be close (emotionally speaking). But in a series, you never want to get swept.