Let's Discuss the 1994-95 Strike

[AstrosFan]

Looking back, I still can't believe it happened. A World Series canceled? A season ending soon and starting late the next year? How could this be? I was twelve when the strike happened, and even though everyone was predicting it would happen, I was sure the people in baseball would figure something out. Surely they wouldn't let the season be canceled. Not a great season like this. Had they seen what players were doing? Griffey, Thomas, Bagwell, and Matt Williams had outside shots at breaking Maris's record. Williams, I believe, was on pace for 61. Tony Gwynn was chasing .400. The Montreal Expos had the best record in baseball! Being an Astros fan, that's not exactly what I wanted, but that strike probably destroyed baseball in Montreal. I understand that there were strikes in 1972 and 1981, but none as damaging to the game as this one.

[Iron Jaw]

The 1972 strike destroyed much of spring training and the first eight, regular season games. The impact was weak in regards to the season (they basically played a 154 game season), however, the lack of spring training clearly affected many hitters that season.

The 1981 strike destroyed 53 games, mid-season. I thought the split-season idea they came up with was absolutely ridiculous. They should have just made straight leagues and allowed the team with the best record to go to the World Series. As it was, with the split season, the teams with the two best records (Cincinnati and St. Louis) in the NL, didn't even make the playoffs. And when you consider that a team with a sub-.500 record (Kansas City) did play in the playoffs, it was really a "boneheaded" setup. I consider 1981 a "lost" season.

I think that Matt Williams of the Giants had the best chance of equalling or surpassing Maris' HR record in 1994. He had 43 when the players walked, three more than anyone else.

Now another category might be added: Would the Texas Rangers have won their division with a sub-.500 record (they were leading with a 52-62 record at the time of the strike)? Since the season ended at that point, the Rangers officially did win the AL West. 1994 was the maiden season of three-division/wildcard play in MLB.

It took several years for me to start watching MLB regularly again (and believe me, it wasn't the 1998 HR race that got me back in the fold - in fact, I'm still not 100 percent back like I was before.......really, the 1981 strike).

[Brian McKenna]

The 1972 strike significantly effected the end of the season. Due to the cancellation of the games during the strike period the AL East ended up:

Detroit 86-70
Boston 85-70, .5 games back

Boston didn't have the chance to make up that one game.

[abolishthedh]

Just recently, I read in the paper about the Rangers 'success' that year. The whole matter is still interesting in hindsight.

I still blame the players. Here is a summation of the argument I had back then:

All of us have to deal with greedy ownership of our employers at some level or another, and corporate greed is very much a part of our times. We also recognize that baseball has become a business. However, the players seem to think that they are above all of that. While we have to deal with management handing us unfair labor practices, the players believe it shouldn't apply to them. We are all underpaid, and its getting worse. And yet, if the players believe that they are underpaid, at least its getting better.

Most of all that still applies today, but the labor/management situation has cooled off because both sides recognize that times are hard. In recent weeks or months, the two sides signed a new labor agreement and it barely made a ripple in the news.

[AstrosFan]

I can see there is already a problem with the poll. Each set of two options was intended to be mutually exclusive. As such, I now see that I should have worded the first two options to indicate who you blame more for the strike. Like most of the few who have voted, I too blame both sides for the strike. But where do you think the majority of blame lies. If a mod could change those two options to reflect this, and perhaps reset the poll so people who voted based on my mistake have a chance to vote on the clarified options. Thank you.

[White Knight]

I believe the Yankees would have won the WS that year.

[Brian McKenna]

I really don't blame either party for the strike. Strikes happen - they're a part of doing business. Plus, I really don't have the right to involve myself in someone else's employment issues. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of third parties butting their nose into my business.

The aspect of the strike that does distress me is the inflated and seemingly intentional and institutionalized favoring of offense. Unlike many I guess, I don't bow to the almighty home run and awe at every aspect of it.

[Iron Jaw]

I really don't blame either party for the strike. Strikes happen - they're a part of doing business. Plus, I really don't have the right to involve myself in someone else's employment issues. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of third parties butting their nose into my business.
.

However, no matter how you look at it, in the world of professional sports, the third party, the fans who pay for the game to exist, is the major player in the issue. Without that third party the game itself, as a paid professional sport, would not exist (we can always find new owners and new players - Reggie Jackson once said "there are only 600 of us who do what we do as well as we do it," in justification of high salaries. Of course, Reggie forgot, that before he played there were 600 others and after 600 and after that another 600, another 600..adjustable due to expansion.....and so on). Thus, as a fan you are directly involved (whether you attend the games, watch it on TV or buy products advertised by the sponsors that pay for the game to exist on TV......sponsors who depend upon the viewing public to purchase their advertised products) as one who does your part in financing the sport.

And of course, our careers as fans are considerably longer than the player careers on the field. And when players on the field quit, they become fans too as they were before they made it in the pros (I would presume).

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

A big deal was made out of Tony Gwynn's .400 bid and the guys who were matching Maris' pace, but I personally think that they all would have faded in the last third of the season. This is just my opinion mind you, but I think we would've seen Tony Gwynn hit .380something and 3 or 4 guys hit 50-60 homers (which would've still been very significant at that point). The guy who I think, in typical unassuming fashion, was cost the most by the strike overall is Greg Maddux. He put together two of the best seasons in recent memory by a starting pitcher in '94 and '95. If not for the strike, I think he'd have two 20+ win seasons with sub 2.00 ERAs on his resume.

[EdTarbusz]

The biggest surprise for me during the strike was that after about two weeks went by, I didn't really miss baseball. I was upset at the beginning because I was watching the first really good Indians team in my lifetime, but by the end of August I moved on to other stuff.

[brett]

A big deal was made out of Tony Gwynn's .400 bid and the guys who were matching Maris' pace, but I personally think that they all would have faded in the last third of the season. This is just my opinion mind you, but I think we would've seen Tony Gwynn hit .380something and 3 or 4 guys hit 50-60 homers (which would've still been very significant at that point). The guy who I think, in typical unassuming fashion, was cost the most by the strike overall is Greg Maddux. He put together two of the best seasons in recent memory by a starting pitcher in '94 and '95. If not for the strike, I think he'd have two 20+ win seasons with sub 2.00 ERAs on his resume.

I agree about Maddux. He probably would have gone 21-8 and 22-3 with sub 1.90 ERA's and 250 innings.

I actually think that Barry Bonds would have matched or exceeded Hack Wilson's NL home run record of 56. Bonds was white hot in the last 5 weeks before the '94 strike. Lost 40 steals too. Also would have won the MVP seeing that Bagwell was out.

[Iron Jaw]

The 1972 strike significantly effected the end of the season. Due to the cancellation of the games during the strike period the AL East ended up:

Detroit 86-70
Boston 85-70, .5 games back

Boston didn't have the chance to make up that one game.

Really, since an average of only 6-8 games were lost, they should have forced the players to make up each lost game - with double headers (making a four-game series a five, etc.) or playing on days off.

But they didn't. And the BoSox paid.

The Orioles, fresh off three pennants, fell to 80-74 in 1972. They had strong pitching, but one could tell their hitters really were hurt by the loss of a portion of Spring training. Particularly the aging hitters, like Don Buford and Brooks Robinson. Some of their younger hitter also turned tailspin - such as Merv Rettenmund (who hit .322 and .318 the two previous seasons) and Davey Johnson (who would hit 43 homeruns for Atlanta a year later). Boog Powell also had an off-year at the plate, as did Paul Blair. And trading Frank Robinson to the Dodgers didn't help. I do think the loss of Spring training made 1972 more of a pitcher's year - not like 1968, but a pitcher's year indeed.

[Brad Harris]

One question I have about the strike is how prevalent are former fans who trace their break with the game back to that strike?

I used to know lots of people who quit following baseball after the '81 strike, but who eventually got back into the swing of things. One, however, after the '94-'95 strike has completely cut himself off from the game (and this is a guy who named his first son after Brooks Robinson) until, as he puts it, "every one of those [colorful adjective's] are out of the game." He actually keeps a list of everyone who played in the 1994 season (when the players voted to strike) and has me update his list each year with the names of those who've retired since the last update. He's down to around 100 or so names, I believe.

[abolishthedh]

One question I have about the strike is how prevalent are former fans who trace their break with the game back to that strike?

I used to know lots of people who quit following baseball after the '81 strike, but who eventually got back into the swing of things. One, however, after the '94-'95 strike has completely cut himself off from the game (and this is a guy who named his first son after Brooks Robinson) until, as he puts it, "every one of those [colorful adjective's] are out of the game." He actually keeps a list of everyone who played in the 1994 season (when the players voted to strike) and has me update his list each year with the names of those who've retired since the last update. He's down to around 100 or so names, I believe.

Interesting, Classic. One of my favorite players today as of that time is still Tom Glavine. He was a player representative at the time, and very much in the forefront of the strike's news. He was obviously very much in favor of the players, but I never held it against him. Forgive and forget, mostly because life is short and my love of the game is too great. Summer isn't summer without baseball. Glavine is still a favorite, and although I still blame the players I've let it go.

And again, as I had stated back then, the strike was to baseball fans what it was when your girlfriend (and a girlfriend who you truly love) cheats on you. Do you take her back or not? The difference is that with the girl, there is a limit and other conditions apply. With baseball, at least in my case, my love of the game is unconditional.

[AstrosFan]

I might argue that the strike was the most devastating thing to baseball since the fixed 1919 World Series. And in both cases, baseball was saved to a great extent by the home run. When the Ruth revolution swept baseball, purists howled that he was ruining the game by replacing science with brute force. But fans packed the parks to see Ruth's mighty clouts. The emergence of the home run turned out to be one of the best things that happened to baseball. After the 1994-95 strike, Mac and Sammy captivated the nation with their chase for 62 in 1998. The record-breaking season was credited for bringing fans back to baseball. But once again, people were complaining the home run was ruining baseball. It was becoming too easy, with juiced players, parks, balls, strike zones, etc. We had become desensitized to the long ball. What does it mean if a middle infielder who bats sixth in the order can hit 30+ homers? The home run has been a savior of baseball. But it has shown us that there can be too much of a good thing.

I didn't think the home run record would be broken, though I was rooting for Jeff Bagwell to do it. I really wanted to see him win the Triple Crown, but it didn't look like Tony Gwynn was slowing down. Gwynn was hitting so well that year, I was sure he would nudge his average over .400 by the end of the year if the strike hadn't happened. But I've calculated that the probability of Gwynn hitting .400 that year was less than five percent. Finally, I think the Expos would have won the World Series that year. Just a hunch.

[White Knight]

I didn't think the home run record would be broken, though I was rooting for Jeff Bagwell to do it. I really wanted to see him win the Triple Crown, but it didn't look like Tony Gwynn was slowing down. Gwynn was hitting so well that year, I was sure he would nudge his average over .400 by the end of the year if the strike hadn't happened. But I've calculated that the probability of Gwynn hitting .400 that year was less than five percent. Finally, I think the Expos would have won the World Series that year. Just a hunch.

I calculate it at 35-40%. 5% is way to low. He was hitting .394 in almost last August. Plus, Gwynn was the premere BA hitter in the game.

[AstrosFan]

Gwynn was on pace for 580 AB that year. To hit .400 he would need 232 hits. As it stood, he had 419 AB and 165 hits. So he would need to go 67 for 161. The probability that he would do so is easily calculated as 1-BINOMDIST(H,AB,trueBA,TRUE), where BINOMDIST is the binomial distribution, trueBA is the true talent level of Gwynn as a hitter for average in the 1994 season, and TRUE means you want it calculated as a cumulative distribution function, meaning it will calculate the probability of Gwynn hitting at least .400, rather than exactly .400. I calculated true talent level by regressing his current average onto his career average, which is a little misleading, since Gwynn's career average was probably a little higher in 1994 than what he finished with. In that calculation, I have him a little over 5%, rather than under, as I originally said. Even if we assume his true talent level is .394, which is rather absurd, it's still only a 25.5 percent probability. The highest I could go would be about 10%. 35-40% is way too high.

[paulsonj72]

Really, since an average of only 6-8 games were lost, they should have forced the players to make up each lost game - with double headers (making a four-game series a five, etc.) or playing on days off.

But they didn't. And the BoSox paid.

The Orioles, fresh off three pennants, fell to 80-74 in 1972. They had strong pitching, but one could tell their hitters really were hurt by the loss of a portion of Spring training. Particularly the aging hitters, like Don Buford and Brooks Robinson. Some of their younger hitter also turned tailspin - such as Merv Rettenmund (who hit .322 and .318 the two previous seasons) and Davey Johnson (who would hit 43 homeruns for Atlanta a year later). Boog Powell also had an off-year at the plate, as did Paul Blair. And trading Frank Robinson to the Dodgers didn't help. I do think the loss of Spring training made 1972 more of a pitcher's year - not like 1968, but a pitcher's year indeed.

Reason they didn't make up the games is that if they had owners would ahve had to pay the players. And the owners(in that case) stuck it to the players and they didn't care if there was an unbalanced schedule. They just didn't want to pay the players.

[EdTarbusz]

Really, since an average of only 6-8 games were lost, they should have forced the players to make up each lost game - with double headers (making a four-game series a five, etc.) or playing on days off.

But they didn't. And the BoSox paid.

The Orioles, fresh off three pennants, fell to 80-74 in 1972. They had strong pitching, but one could tell their hitters really were hurt by the loss of a portion of Spring training. Particularly the aging hitters, like Don Buford and Brooks Robinson. Some of their younger hitter also turned tailspin - such as Merv Rettenmund (who hit .322 and .318 the two previous seasons) and Davey Johnson (who would hit 43 homeruns for Atlanta a year later). Boog Powell also had an off-year at the plate, as did Paul Blair. And trading Frank Robinson to the Dodgers didn't help. I do think the loss of Spring training made 1972 more of a pitcher's year - not like 1968, but a pitcher's year indeed.

The players were willing to make up the games, but the owners said no way. They had no intention of paying the players for the time missed. I believed that because of the strike the players salaries were pro-rated to how many games the teams actually played rather than being for the full season.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Good feeling to see that the usual line does not prevail here.....................put the blame on the greedy owners, they are the bad guys, the players the good guys.
Too many fans equate themselves as the players the working group and the owners just like their employers, the greedy one's always asking for more and more and not willing to give on the money.

[redban]

The McGwire-Sosa HR chase of 1998 blew away all the ill-effects of the strike.

[GiambiJuice]

I believe the Yankees would have won the WS that year.

I agree. It was so much fun watching Paul O'Neill scorch the ball that season. It sucks that we will never know whether we might've had 28 World Series championships instead of only 27

[EdTarbusz]

Good feeling to see that the usual line does not prevail here.....................put the blame on the greedy owners, they are the bad guys, the players the good guys.
Too many fans equate themselves as the players the working group and the owners just like their employers, the greedy one's always asking for more and more and not willing to give on the money.

My father is a staunch union guy and he always sided with the owners in any work stoppage involving sports.

[Los Bravos]

Good feeling to see that the usual line does not prevail here.....................put the blame on the greedy owners, they are the bad guys, the players the good guys.
Too many fans equate themselves as the players the working group and the owners just like their employers, the greedy one's always asking for more and more and not willing to give on the money.

That has not been my experience.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

That has not been my experience.

Same here, I never put all the blame on either side and I don't think every fan did.
Not speaking of this strike alone, speaking of all the times there was even a chance of a strike.
The gut feeling I got from many of the comments and posts, seemed to put most of the fault on the greedy owners.