WHAT IF…the 1994 strike never happened?
Posted by Andy on September 4, 2010
WHAT IF...is a new series on the Baseball-Reference.com blog. We'll pose a question and then propose a few things that might have occurred differently in the past or that might happen in the future. This is supposed to be fun and purely speculative. Readers are invited to add their own ideas.
What if the 1994 baseball strike never happened?
- Matt Williams, who actually hit 62 homers over a 162-game period from 1993 to 1995, hits 62 homers within the 1994 season, becoming the single-season record holder. He wins the 1994 NL MVP instead of Jeff Bagwell. Come 1998, there is much less focus on Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa given that the record is only 4 years old.
- The Expos, who had the best record in baseball at the time of the strike, go on to win their first full-season division title and win the 1994 World Series. Fan interest in Montreal spikes, the team never leaves for Washington, Larry Walker resigns with the team instead of leaving for the Rockies, and the team goes on to win 2 more titles in the 1990s.
What else can you come up with?
September 6th, 2010 at 11:09 am
I went to a bunch of Expos games, and trying to get excited was hard, despite quality teams. But if that's the case, where a crappy stadium and lack of fan support during contending seasons is enough to doom a team, whither Tampa Bay?
September 6th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
@TheGoof: That's what happened to the Brooklyn Dodgers in the early 1950s - they were genuine contenders every year but drew only 7,000 or 8,000 to crucial September games at Ebbets Field.
September 6th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
OK, since #68 mentioned Sotomayor, I'll provide political balance by mentioning something else.
Without the strike, and with some interesting races to make the postseason and with various players looking to set some records, America's focus is riveted on baseball and not on Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign, the voters go out to the polls shortly after the Yankees beat the Dodgers in a thrilling seven-game World Series and vote the incumbents back in for another term. As a result, what is now known as "ObamaCare" is passed more than a decade before, under the name "ClintonCare", of course. Its affect on baseball is that a lot of minor leaguers who would have given up on baseball before their time continue to pursue their dream because they don't have to get "real" jobs to be able to have decent, affordable health insurance.
September 6th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Stu Baron,
You're 100% correct.
The way people New Yorkers reminisce about the Dodgers and the "old days" at Ebbets Field you would have sworn that Ebbets Field was sold out every night. But in reality they were fairly low in the league in attendance every year. And to make it worse, this was a team that was a great.
There was a great essay by Bill James about the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants entitled "Sympathy for the Devil". The essay was basically about the reality of the Dodgers and Giants attendance during the early 50's the nostalgia people feel about it is much different than what was really going on back then.
September 6th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I live in Park Slope, about 2 miles across Prospect Park from where Ebbets Field, and 1 1/2 miles from Atlantic and Flatbush Aves, where Walter O'Malley proposed to build a domed stadium for the Dodgers before LA came calling. Ironically, the Barclays Center, future home of the New Jersey Nets, is being built on that very site as I write this.
September 6th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
*where Ebbets Field stood
September 6th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
@DoubleDiamond: What you say is BS - there are lots of people in the US who don't care a whit about baseball, so no World Series influences the political landscape that drastically. Take this year - the World Series will be played, but it won't prevent the balance of power in Congress from changing (or not changing) as a result of the midterm elections...
September 6th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Easy everyone. No politics or religion.
@104
John Q, your point about the nostalgia surrounding lost franchises is a good one..... Brooklyn Dodgers, N.Y. Giants, Expos (though the Expos didn't have the same radition). I wonder if leaving for California felt the same in New York as leaving for another country did to Expos fans in 2004?
I guess memory and oral tradition wear rose-coloured glasses.
September 6th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Stu-
Why is what DD suggested any less possible than all the other suggestions?
September 6th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
What would be interesting to think about would be what the ramifications for the CBA would have been if the strike was avoided. I don't know enough about the labor negotiations at the time or the ultimate settlement to speak to it, so I'd be curious to hear from folks that did. What were the major sticking points? Would we reasonably expected the agreement to have looked different if it was settled before a work stoppage took place? If so, what are the long-term ramifications of that?
September 6th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
The big issue was that owners were demanding a salary cap and players refused to entertain the notion. It's unlikely a strike could have been avoided unless the players were willing to accept some form of cap, which they wouldn't then and won't now.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
The difference with the '94-95 strike/shut down was that it so complicated because it wasn't a clean Players vs. Management battle. This Battle was a two prong battle with Players vs. Management and Small Cities vs. Big Cities. Bill James referred to this as the "T.V. Money War" in his Baseball Abstract. Owners wanted a salary cap but Small teams wanted t.v. revenue sharing similar to what the NFL does with their teams. Essentially the Players and Big City teams won because the Small Market teams were duped into going along the Big City owners and the players held their ground.
The 10-15 small market teams should have locked out the game until they came up with a form of t.v. revenue sharing similar to the N.F.L. Then the owners in solidarity should locked out the game until the players agreed to a salary cap.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Montreal would have won the World Series against Seattle, who would have slid into the playoffs by getting hot enough to overtake Texas and "win" the AL West with a 80-82 record. Fred McGriff would have won the NL MVP by carrying the Braves to the Wild Card and Game 7 of the NLCS. Tim Belcher would have lost 20 games, and so would Andy Benes--the latter doing so despite striking out 300 batters.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
So, if we imagine that the strike was avoided because of the players caving and accepting a salary cap and/or television revenue sharing, I think the league would look drastically different, moreso than any of the previously envisioned scenarios. Hard to say for sure whether that would be a good or bad thing, but it certainly would be different.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
We could also imagine the opposite scenario, where the strike never ended, MLB dissolved, and Baseball-Reference never came to be.
September 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Thankfully BSK that didn't happen
September 6th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Oh, of course! I thought that went without saying.
September 6th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
I dont think anything too drastic would have happened in 94, although it is a lot of fun to play what if?
The Expos had a good team that year, not convinced that they could have outlasted the Braves in the postseason, or even the division race. Atlanta was leading the wild card when the strike hit, but after the way the Braves rallied to beat the Giants in 93, Im not convinced Montreal even would have made the playoffs.
I think Atlanta would have won the Series that year, giving Bobby Cox and that cast of players 2 rings instead of 1. New York had a great lineup but their pitching stunk, as others alluded to.
I dont believe that Matt Williams would have broken or tied the home run record. I think he would have come close, I could see 55-58, but not 61.
What would have been interesting to me, was potentially seeing 2 losing teams make the postseason. The ultimate crazy and unlikely scenario would be those teams matching up in the World Series.
As somebody already mentioned the Rangers were leading the AL west at 52-62, as bad as that division was, I think 73-75 wins could have won that division. Oakland was in 2nd when the strike hit, and they stunk. Hell, the Angels were 21 games under .500 and only 5.5 out. Seattle was only 2 games back, the Mariners might have had their miracle run a year early.
I think Seattle would have won the west in 94, but thats just me. Another what if, Junior Griffey gets hot in leading the Mariners to the AL west title, and in the process challenges Maris' home run record. If anyone was going to challenge the home run record that year, I think it would have been Griffey.
In the NL west the Dodgers were in first and only 2 games above .500, the Giants were 3.5 out at 55-60. First team to 80 wins would have taken that division. You could have potentially seen an 80-82 team matched up against a 75-87 team in the World Series. Wouldnt that have been some ****?
September 7th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Speaking of stars who missed playing time due to service in world conflicts, how about Willie Mays? Missed half to two-thirds of what would have been his second season, and all of what would have been his third; then returns and hits 41 and 51 HR in the next two seasons. Using his career HR/162 ratio of 36 -- which includes the lean years later on -- we're looking at another 60 HR in that period, enough to pass The Babe. His HR/162 for the "Polo Grounds" Giants years was more like 40, so it could have been even slightly higher. If he averaged more like 45 -- namely, the average of his first two seasons back from service -- for the missing period, I come up with 75 additional dingers, getting him to 735 for his career. Sure, I know it's all just playing around with numbers, but wow!
Hey, webmasters, great feature, this "What If". Great responses also, great ideas from many folks. Looking forward to keeping up with future entries!
September 7th, 2010 at 12:14 am
@ 98 John Q
But the big difference John between the Expos and the Mariners as Neil pointed out is the money situation.
The M's have now for a long time have had Nintendo money to throw around if they so desire and a lot of times in the past 10-15 years Seattle has been a top 10-12 payroll team.
The Expos were never able to do that in their wildest dreams due to, comparably speaking, a fiscally poor ownership situation and a crap revenue stream based on poor attendance and the worst stadium in baseball.
The closest team to the Expos today is easily the Rays.
They play in a crap stadium in a market and state that really doesn’t support baseball and doesn’t want to finance a new stadium for the team.
The have an owner that does not have very deep pockets and like the Expos of ’79-’83, the Rays have been good the last three years but due to money they are going to start having a fire sale of the team this off season.
Their payroll is around 70+ million dollars, and based on those leaked financial documents a few weeks ago, the team likely lost money last year and will lose money this year.
Without a new stadium the Rays will be back to being the fourth or fifth place Rays because it doesn’t matter how good their current team is because if you can’t sign other teams FA and you can’t resign your own FA then you’re screwed.
It will be like a hamster on a wheel:
1. Hopefully draft well
2. Wait 3-5 years for draft picks to mature in minors.
3. Be a bad team with young players for 3-5 years.
4. Be a good team for 3-5 years
5. Blow up and sell off parts of good team and wait 10-12 years for window of opportunity to recycle. (Assuming that you drafted well)
That’s the Rays fate on a payroll of 45-50 million like they will have next year.
Same thing would have screwed the Expos forever without a new stadium, a fan base that game a damn about baseball, and a deep pocketed stable ownership group.
September 7th, 2010 at 1:09 am
Lefty 33,
You make some very valid points. The Rays should really play in New Jersey but the Yankees and the Mets would never allow that.
I think like you said that the Expos were probably doomed whether the won or not in '94. They really should have gotten to a least 1 WS from '79-81. And they really should have won 3 division titles during those years. Blame Dick Williams for giving Rodney Scott 1700 plate appearances from 1979-1981 with his .225/.312/.283 line. And then Scott had a .167/.211/.167 line in the '81 post-season. And Scott wasn't even a good defensive player. Maybe the Expos build a fan base with WS success from '79-81.
Here's another what if? What if Rodney Scott never played for the Expos?
September 7th, 2010 at 1:38 am
GhostToMost (#119),
Seattle winning the West -- and possibly advancing -- is not all that ridiculous. The Mariners were on their endless road trip, after the ceiling tile fell fron the Kingdome roof.
Once on the road for a while, they really pulled together as a team. In fact, many of the guys credit that with helping them to hold things together in '95 while Junior was on the DL.
What was intersting was the fact that, when the lockout took place, the Mariners had won nine of 10 to pull within two games of the Rangers, with the A's sandwiched between them. They were the hottest team in baseball.
They had scored 76 runs in the nine wins (the one loss was a shutout), while surrendering just 36 runs in the 10-game stretch.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:21 am
Hey Rodney Scott received 1 vote for MVP in 1980, that means he was good right? 🙂
That could be another topic, name the worst players to ever receive MVP votes.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:31 am
@JeffW (122)
Thanks for the post. I completely forgot about that, imagine playing 20 consecutive road games. Yikes! And Randy Johnson pitched a complete game in what turned out to be the very last game of the 94 season, beating the A's 9-1. I remember the highlight of him striking out the last batter was all over the news the following day.
But yeah, the Mariners could have definitely made a run that year.
Another what if. What if Junior wins a World Series in Seattle and never leaves?
September 7th, 2010 at 4:06 am
Thanks, GhostToMost.
Lefty33 (#120),
The M's also had no money, until the Nintendo group bought the club. Up until that time, the Mariners had had more ownership groups and threats to move than winning seasons in it's history.
In '94, they were almost gone for good (again). Management had no money, and was threatening to sell, or move the team. They wanted a new park, and the public was saying "Hell, no!"
The Nintendo group stepped forward to make an offer on the club, which was almost refused by MLB because of the issue of foreign ownership.
It was finally accepted in Nov. '94, when Nintendo agreed to allow for more American representation in the ownership group, thereby making the sale palatable.
It looked like a referendum to create the funding for a new ballpark was going to fail in mid-'95, but the M's put on their famous "Refuse To Lose" September rally, making up 13-1/2 games.
It was in the final stretch run that the vote went down to defeat -- narrowly. The Legislature then decided to cobble together a new package that would not be subject to a public vote.
I vividly remember my 20 years in the Navy, when I never knew if I would still have a team waiting for me when I finally came home. I retired in March of '95, immediately bought a 20-game plan, and a ticket for Opening Day.
That was the first full season I was ever home to see my team play. My dad bought me the entire postseason package as a gift, so I was at the Dome for all the playoff games against the Yankees and Indians.
Previously, I saw a few games here and there, when I was home on leave. I missed seeing Randy Johnson's no-hitter by one day (I had a layover in Norfolk, VA, that delayed my arrival).
Whenever the team gets into a rut (like this year), all I have to do is remember back to the days when I never knew if I would even have that.
September 7th, 2010 at 7:29 am
@BSK: Because as popular as baseball is, there are millions who don't follow it or care about it. All of us who take the time to visit this site and post on here are part of a very small, self-selected group, so our views can be quite myopic. In New York City alone, even when the Mets and/or Yankees are in the World Series and baseball interest is at a peak, hundreds of thousands of folks are going about their daily routines without giving baseball even a passing thought. I seriously doubt that who plays in a given World Series, or whether that series is even played, has much influence over election outcomes.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Jeff W,
Good points all around.
I had a friend who lived in Washington State so I remember that whole time period. It's kind of amazing in retrospect how close the Mariners came to leaving Seattle. If they don't go on that '95 playoff then that new ballpark is never built. And that '95 playoff run really came down to the Angels having a monumental collapse, which is hardly remembered today.
I think the Nintendo people leave Seattle without the new ballpark.
Lefty 33,
Another thing that was not often talked about that hurt Montreal was the exchange rate at the time. I think the Canadian dollar was something like 1.35/1.00 to the American dollar. The Expos revenue came from the Canadian dollar yet their primary expense (Players) was set by the American dollar.
Toronto offset the exchange rate problem by having the first all enclosed "Mall type" ballpark. The Blue Jays lead the A.L. in attendance from 1989-1994 and they were 1st in MLB from 1989-1992 and they were second in MLB from 1993-1994.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Anybody criticizing another commenter here is way off base. The whole point of this post is to have a little fun with wild speculation. I don't even mind the political stuff when it's just speculation, although I surely will not entertain serious debates about actual politics or religion.
September 7th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Barry Bonds hits 15 more HRs that year and then his career total should be 777.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Stu @ 126 wrote:
"I seriously doubt that who plays in a given World Series, or whether that series is even played, has much influence over election outcomes."
This reminded me of the coincidences that get bandied about as a stat every once in awhile where the Yankees haven't won the World Series while a Republican was a sitting President since 1958, going 0-5 in World Series in which they appeared in that stretch. Meanwhile they have gone 9-2 in World Series they have appeared in over that stretch. There have been 50 World Series played since that 1958 Series and Democrats have occupied the White House for 20 of them, while Republicans have occupied for the other 30 years, so it is an interesting coincidence, but without a serious dose of conspiracy theory it is hard to see any causal relationship there.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:24 am
@123
Worst player to ever recieve a MVP vote...
Sam Dente 1950... -2.0 WAR that year
September 7th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Andy (#128),
Sorry if my last couple of posts may have crossed the line, as regards the political climate. Unfortunately, politics often plays a huge part in our pastime.
That was simply the situation in Seattle at the time. Even the new ownership group was talking about moving the team, if a suitable ballpark (with all the modern amenities) was not built for them.
As a result, we have one of the most beautiful parks in the Major Leagues. But we also have a rage just below the surface amongst some in the voting public, because the legislature made an end run to get it built.
They say, "We said 'no', and they still built it." That, despite the fact that the reworked package was designed by law to not require a public vote.
I was on phone banks the final days before the vote, hoping against all hope that the public would approve the original package. I remember how much anger there was, when even those who said they would vote 'yes' were not happy. More millionaires asking for handouts, as they saw it.
Unlike some ownership groups, the Mariners' new management team did invest more money, and built the club that won 116 games in 2001. Since, then, however, they've been more ham-fisted than efficient.
This does bring to mind another great "what if" scenario: What if Junior, Randy and A-Rod had stayed?
I feel the club would have never reached the pinnacle of success that they did in 2001. Each forced his way out when he didn't get his own way.
Junior felt the club didn't make Safeco enough of a hitters' park (widely felt among the regulars, after spending so many years in that pinball-arcade of a Kingdome). Ironically, Safeco turned out to be a lefthanded pull hitter's dream.
Johnson said the M's wouldn't give him a fair (big enough) offer, ignoring the fact that he was in his mid-30's and one year removed from major back surgery.
A-Rod simply wanted mo' money, mo' money, mo' money (sorry, been watching my In Living Color DVDs recently).
With those guys off the payroll, management brought in John Olerud, Mark McLemore, Stan Javier, Bret Boone, Arthur Rhodes, Jeff Nelson, David Bell, Aaron Sele, Kaz Sasaki and Ichiro. Plus Mike Cameron, Freddie Garcia, Carlos Guillen, John Halama, and even Bret Tomko in the Griffey/Johnson trades.
With the remainder of the much-beloved core group (Martinez, Moyer, Wilson, and Buhner), all played a significant role on the 2001 team, and the chemistry was much better.
September 7th, 2010 at 11:58 am
JeffW, I wasn't referring to your post or any other post on this thread. It was purely hypothetical. I have no issue with anything you wrote.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
@ 127 JohnQ
Great point. I totally forgot that about the exchange rate and how players would always have it written into their contracts to get paid in US dollars and not in CDN.
That really was a drag on what the Expos could spend and what kind of talent they could attract.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Lefty 33,
I remember reading about the exchange rate in an article in the New York Times around 2000. I think Jeffrey Loria was making the point that aside from a host of problems the Expos had in Montreal, one problem that's never brought up was the exchange rate. The Blue Jays offset this problem by having that cash cow (Skydome) all those years.
The irony in this story is that the Canadian dollar is now slightly MORE valuable than the U.S. dollar so go figure.
Another problem they had was that Le Stade O'lympique was still not paid for by 2000 so the voters had no interest in approving that new proposed "Labatt Centre" for the Expos.
The financial disaster of the '76 Olympics was another reason that's rarely brought up as to why the Expos left Montreal.
September 7th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
@135
John Q, you gotta be from "La Belle Pvovince".
September 7th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Stu-
Now THAT is what I was looking for. Good stuff. Not sure I *ENTIRELY* agree with it, but you make good points. My issue with your initial post was not the position you took, but the lack of evidence to back it up.
I would argue that sports, like many other things, does have a way of factoring into the public consciousness in a way that can lead to impacts outside of itself. Whether that rises to the level of actually impacting elections is unlikely. But I do think it's possible. And definitely MORE possible in '94 than it is now. The lack of the 24/7 news monster meant it was harder for stories to permeate. That can cut both ways, obviously. But I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that an event that could potentially impact an election coinciding with the Super Bowl or the World Series in '94 gets pushed to the back burner and has its impact mitigated. We'd never see it nowadays, since the event would simply get airplay ad nauseum after the fact. But it MIGHT have happened in the '90s.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
Dodgers could've won it, Expos could've won it, anyone that was in the race then could've won it. (meaning world series of course. lol.) but yeah it would have been interesting if all of the 1994 mlb season played out as usual. It be a great idea if they decided to play the rest of the 1994 mlb season. lol. i wonder how that would've played out.