Actually, we did this again in 2007. I’m still an oldest child and still sticking with my answer - Kit won.
Context doesn’t matter. That clip is very clear. Dottie drops the ball after being charged as hard as she possibly can be by Kit.
Kit won fair and square.
People who are saying that Dottie dropped it on purpose are probably the same types of people who got on Ernie Lombardi’s case (his so-called “Snooze”) when he dropped the ball during a very similar play in the 1939 World Series.
She had to have changed her mind while Kit was running because right before the hit, Dottie tells the pitcher how to throw it so Kit will strike out. She’s obviously trying to win the game at that point.
Because of that, I like to think that Kit wins legitimately. The movie is about doing what you love and succeeding at it even though everyone tells you you’re not good enough. Not just Kit, the whole league. Kit wanted it more.
Just a point of clarification, Dottie was already married before the movie opens.
I think it was accidental. Winning for Kit is only meaningful if she wins fair and square. Dottie, as her sister, of course was happy to see her happy, but to hand her the win would undercut what was so important to Kit about winning — that she could do it on her own merits with no help from Dottie.
Everything up to the end shows Dottie being balls-out about winning. She may not have thought winning was important to her, but as Jimmy Dugan* points out, she’s so good that she can’t not be excellent. What he was wrong about, though, was that she would do anything to continue.
- Kid, reading signed baseball: “Avoid the clap. — Jimmy Dugan”
Jimmy: “Hey, that’s good advice!”
I understand the point you’re making but I must add : yes, she told the pitcher, “high fastballs, can’t him 'em, can’t lay off 'em either.” But at that point, Dottie already made up her mind that Kit would win if given the opportunity like I said in my first post. Once Kit finally hit the high fastball, Dottie was going to make sure Kit won the whole thing.
And for the record, it takes about 16 seconds to run the bases…and in that span of time, yes, you can make a decision about whether or not to throw the game.
I’m a middle kid - I can see both sides of this argument. 
Kit really is unsympathetic.
Kit is too sympathetic. Dotties isn’t trying, but still manages to outshine Kit in everything. Kit really, really hates it, and she’s going to show she’s better one way ro another. So she does.
I was in that movie, too.
Leave David Letterman alone Rosie!
I think quitting was also a bad thing to do. She walked out on her friends when they needed her. Returning for the final game was Dottie’s realization that doing that was wrong.
Regardless, the difference between not helping someone succeed, and actively sabotaging them, is so vast, I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Yes. That’s why, when Kit knocks the ball out of Dottie’s hand at the end of the movie, it’s a legitimate victory and emotional high point.
Right. Her heart wasn’t in the game. Kit’s was, and in the end, that’s what determined who won.
This, and the preceding two points I edited out, are true, but aren’t evidence one way or the other for Dottie throwing the game.
This is really stretching. Sports movies, as a genre, are defined by the unexpected reversal and the unlikely win. When Bob Uecker flips out when the Indians win the World Series at the end of Major League, are we meant to understand that the Yankees had thrown the game?
Of course she’s happy. Her little sister has finally achieved something she’s always wanted: she’s beaten her big sister. She’s happy for her success, which is easy for her to do, because she wasn’t particularly invested in the outcome of the game. But the important part is that she’s happy that Kit actually succeeded. If you look at that scene with the interpretation that Dottie lost on purpose, it completely ruins it. This is the part where I really don’t understand the other side of the debate, because if I take your interpretation, I can’t watch that scene without wanting to hit Geena Davis in the face with a baseball bat. She’s just stolen the one thing in the world that matters most to Kit: proving herself better at something than Dottie. Even if Kit doesn’t realize it - even if she never realizes it - that’s an awful thing to do to someone. And if Kit ever finds out, she’s never going to speak to her elder sister again.
And that happens across the board in this movie, if you watch it with that interpretation in mind. It absolutely ruins every theme in the film, and turns Dottie into a tremendously unlikable person.
There are three main themes in the film: love of family (Dottie and Kit), love of friends (the other girls on the team), and love of the game. Under your interpretation, Dottie betrays all three loves. At the end of the movie, she’s patronizing her little sister by letting her “pretend” she won, she’s sold out her friends by throwing the big game, and she’s cheated as baseball. We’re left with the message that friends don’t matter, younger siblings can never exceed elder siblings, and that when it comes to baseball, all the heart and spirit in the world don’t mean shit next to natural talent.
I can certainly see why people come to the conclusion about this movie that you have. I just don’t see why you still think its a good movie. I prefer the one that ends with the protagonist repairing a breach with her friends by coming back at the last minute to help them win a game, trying her hardest, and yet still coming up short against someone with a true passion for the game - and being okay with that, because she’s still happy to see her sister succeed.
She dropped it on purpose. She knew what her future would be, and what her next steps were. She gave her sister a future with that one gesture.
It’s not a thing that would make any sense whatsoever in our times; but in context, she was saving her sister.
I don’t think we’re settling this debate.
I agree with everything Marley said.
I’m curious as to the highest level of competition the respondents have participated and the breakdown.
You mean, Miller, Snarky Kong.
I had to look back to see if Marley had posted in here…
Yeah, thanks. Stupid pagination.
The Indians don’t win the World Series at the end of “Major League.”
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making You’re saying she decided beforehand to set Kit up to fail, but also that if Kit got a hit, and if it was a not-quite-an-infield-homer, and if Kit forced a collision at home plate, she’d drop it? That seems pretty complicated.
Yes, you certainly could. But in the context of making a film, it’s a pretty odd choice to have a character do a full reversal and not give a clear indication that it’s happening.
I agree that the ending is somewhat ambiguous. But Kit winning legitimately seems to be the Occam’s Razor interpretation.
Okay, the Superbowl. Whatever.
I’ve always thought that Kit took her out during the play at the plate. She didn’t drop it on purpose.
No, you don’t understand; they didn’t go all the way. They made the playoffs, that was the big deal, but nothing was said about how they did in them.
You find out in the sequel that they were blown out of the ALCS by the White Sox.