"Baseball's Costliest Walk"

That's the headline on this Wall Street Journal article, a good analysis of the 1994-95 strike and its aftermath.

Comments

I think the Expos would have gone on to at least win the NL East over the Braves back in 1994. With Larry Walker, John Wetteland, Moises Alou, and Pedro Martinez, they had quite the team. The Expos had the best record in baseball that season.

Ironically enough, the Expos made the playoffs in a strike season, 1981. That year, the Reds had the best overall record in the majors and didn’t make the playoffs because Cincinnati didn’t win either half in the NL West. The Cardinals had the best overall record in the NL East but didn’t make the playoffs. The Expos beat the Phillies in a "division series’ before losing to the Dodgers in the NLCS in 1981.

"The big possums walk late." - Harry Caray

by memphiscub on Oct 28, 2009 5:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Expos' dominance in 1994 is totally overrated

When the strike was called, they were 6 games up in the NL East on August 11. Over the Braves, who had won the previous three division championships. In case you were wondering, the Braves looked like this:

C Javy Lopez, 1B Fred McGriff. 2B Mark Lemke, SS Jeff Blauser, 3B Terry Pendleton, LF Ryan Klesko, CF Roberto Kelly, RF David Justice

Replace Kelly with Grissom and Pendleton with Jones, and you have a World Series winner.

’94 Expos: C Darrin Fletcher, 1B Cliff Floyd, 2B Mike Lansing, SS Wil Cordero, 3B Sean Berry, LF Moises Alou, CF Marquis Grissom , RF Larry Walker

Umm, yeah. Give it another 7 weeks, and they may have held on. Or they may have been yet another version of the AAAA team they always were. The strike made it explicit, that’s all.

So, W00t! Go 1994 Champion Expos! Except not. And probably never.

"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root

by Clutch16 on Oct 28, 2009 11:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

However...

…. remember, that was supposed to be the first season of the wild card. Had the Expos not won the NL East, they almost certainly would have won the wild card — at the time of the strike, there were only three teams outside their division over .500 (the Central-leading Reds, the 2nd place in the Central Astros, and the West-leading Dodgers).

The Expos had good starting pitching and TWO potential closers (John Wetteland and a before-he-blew-up Mel Rojas). They would have been a formidable opponent in the postseason.

"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra

by Al on Oct 29, 2009 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

1989

The Cubs won with “Undecided” as the #4 starter, a 3B combo of Law/Salazar and Girardi and Wrona behind the plate for much of the second half.

There are no guarantees.

I'm singing, "GO CUBS GO! GO CUBS GO!" -- DrCrawdad on Jun 12, 2009 7:23 AM CDT

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Oct 29, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great article!

I disagree, however, with the last sentence about how the small market teams are never competetive — ie: 2008 Rays, ’07 Rockies, and ’03 Marlins

"I always tell the truth -- Even when I lie"

by calicubfan on Oct 29, 2009 12:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It's not...

that small market teams are never competitive, its mostly that it’s harder for them to be as competitive. For reference, from 2000-2009 the Yankees have spent just shy of $1.7 Billion on player salaries alone. The Cubs have spent $851M in that same span.

by CubFan81 on Oct 29, 2009 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This aspect of baseball is funny to me

What I’m referring to is the inequalities that continue to exist in this sport versus others. DH in the AL but not the NL. 6 teams in the NL Central, 4 in the AL West, 5 everywhere else. No salary cap so that there is a significant difference between the haves and the have nots. And still a fairly big difference between the Yankees, Red Sox, and everyone else.

Sure, there have been examples of teams beating the odds and winning pennants and a few titles with minuscule payrolls. Yet, that’s an exception – generally speaking, teams with more money simply do better. Looking at championships alone may make the picture seem more balanced, but playoff appearances is probably a better indicator of team success. Teams with smaller payrolls have to hope they don’t suffer injuries or players regressing otherwise they fall by the wayside on the race to the finish.

The Cubs didn’t win the previous 2 division titles because of any exceptional management (it was just decent IMO), they won because they had some good luck and, more importantly, significantly more resources than their division rivals.

Why is it that baseball continues to be okay with these inequalities? Why does half of the league play by one set of rules than the other? Why is it significantly less likely a team will win the NL Central (16.7% odds, assuming all things are equal – which we know aren’t) than the AL West (25%)? And why isn’t more done to balance out the payroll gaps between the haves and have nots? The luxury tax isn’t enough.

by madcow256 on Oct 29, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You make it sound like these inequalities have been around since the beginning of time.

The payroll inequality wasn’t as big a deal until free agency came about in the 70s.

The divisional inequalities are a relatively new issue, as is the unbalanced schedule. Up until 1977 baseball was about as fair a sport as you could find, alignment-wise.

by cubsforever on Oct 30, 2009 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs