Who wins 1981 World Series without strike?

[DTF955]

We've had the 1994 poll, but never the 1981 that I can find. So...

Who wins 1981?

One thing people forget is that Johnny Bench had a very good year, but that he was sidelined by an injury near the strike date and would have been out for two months anyway. They needed his bat, and would not have played .625 ball the whole way. .600? Well, that's 97 wins, fairly unlikely.

I think theCardinals got shafted more than the Reds. The Expos looked bad that first half, just playing .500, I don't know if they could have recovered as well the 2nd half. THey went on to win next year, while the Reds were last. I don't know if that's indicative of how they really were as teams or not, I'll admit it might color my judgement a bit. But, I don't think the Reds were a 97-win team. 90-92, wins, I can see.

My picks: Dodgers (Lasorda gave his regulars lots of rest in the 2nd half, and Baker, Monday, etc. had very good years) versus Phillies or Cardinals in the NLCS, Dodgers probably winning.

In the Al.L., the Yankees were like the Dodgers, but the Brewers and Orioles (and the team with the great Strat cards, the Tigers) had a chance to catch them, if the Yankee offense didn't pick up; that club was built on pitching.With the Brewers' righty bats against the good Yankee lefties, I can see them. Orioles were a .500 club by their run differential.but Weaver would have kept them close. Tigers and Yankees tie for 2nd I think, Orioles 4th, but maybe only about 5 out.

Don't know about the West, the A's arms might not have held up under all that strain for a 2nd straight year, but the Ranges often faded in the Texas heat, too. The White Sox? Tough one, I think the Brewers win easily, but lose to the Dodgers in the Series.

[baseballPAP]

The Reds still had the remnants of the machine together, with Bench, Griffey, Concepcion and Foster all still there and still productive. The pitching was Seaver and Soto and 2 more capable guys, plus a solid bullpen. A year before Dick Wagner blew up the ship, they were still the best team in the NL IMO. LA was aging faster than the Reds, ATL wasn't quite together yet, Houston is probably the second best team that year with that killer staff and solid offense. Over in the AL, I see it as Brewers/Yanks too, but the Yanks always found a way to win back then when it was close. Reds over the Yanks as the strong Reds RH lineup is too much for Guidry and Co., 4-2.

[iPod]

It's just plain stupid that the Reds didn't make those playoffs.

[Iron Jaw]

It's just plain stupid that the Reds didn't make those playoffs.

Especially considering, they allowed the KC Royals to play in it with a sub .500, 51-53 overall record. The split-season concept to save face was idiotic at best.

I thought they should have just scrapped the playoffs that season and given the WS to the teams from each league with the best record (like they did prior to 1969). But then, that's what I think they should do today.

[DTF955]

I think the 2 half winners were good to revive interest, but they also needed to reward the total winners with home field. Here's what I would have done:

Reward Cincinnati, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and Oakland with home field in a best of three series against division winners.

K.C.. and New York still make the playoffs because they were division winners, but I don't just mean the Brewers and A's get home field advantage - I mean home field *throughout* the series. These games are played Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, with the winners playing each other in the ALCS the next week.

Now, the Reds and Cardinals won both halves, so they are rewarded with a few more days' rest. Phillies and Expos play a three game set to see who advances to play the Cardinals Monday-Wednesday, while the Dodgers and Astros do the same to see who plays the REds. Then, the winners play the Reds and Cardinals Friday, sAturday, and Sunday.

This has 2 advantages:

1. Everyone gets something - fans get more baseball (just like the NFL's 8-team playoffs in each conference after the strike), winners of each get something, renewed interest in 2nd half like baseball wanted, and so on.

2. It might have created such confusion that they wouldn't dare put in a wild card system 13 years later :-)

[Ubiquitous]

I think in the NL with no strike it would have been Houston vs Montreal in the NL.

In the AL I think Oakland could have held on, but it would be a tough one to pick between Baltimore and Milwaukee. Both were good teams at the time, so its a coin flip on them. I'll go with Milwaukee.

Simming it out we have the Expos winning in 4 games against the Astros, and the A's beating the Brewers in 4. So the matchup would be Expos vs A's. With the Expos coming out on top.

[Redondos]

Simming it out we have the Expos winning in 4 games against the Astros, and the A's beating the Brewers in 4. So the matchup would be Expos vs A's. With the Expos coming out on top.

A's beating the Brewers in 4? Yeah right! They got SWEPT by the Yankees in the actual ALCS. And the Yanks weren't even the best team in the AL East that year.

[Ubiquitous]

Yeah and the A's also swept the Royals in the division series, and the Brewers lost to the Yank's in division series as well. So we have both the A's and Brewers losing to the Yank's in the playoffs, so I don't really see how the A's getting swept by the Yanks is any kind of evidence against the A's beating the Brewers in 4 games.

[Redondos]

Yeah and the A's also swept the Royals in the division series, and the Brewers lost to the Yank's in division series as well. So we have both the A's and Brewers losing to the Yank's in the playoffs, so I don't really see how the A's getting swept by the Yanks is any kind of evidence against the A's beating the Brewers in 4 games.

"Evidence?" Why is it that whenever I post an opinion that is contrary to that of someone else's in this forum, people start throwing out terms like "evidence" or "proof." C'mon! It's all speculation from you as it is from me. I happen to disagree with what you stated. Live with it.

As far as the issue at hand,... yeah, the Brewers lost to the Yanks in the ALDS. But going all the way to FIVE games. The Brew Crew did not roll over to NY. Could have easily gone either way. Not so when the A's bats went dead in the ALCS. They would have gotten steamrolled, whether they were pitted against NY, Milwaukee, or even Baltimore.

[Imapotato]

The Phillies would have repeated...and in 1994, they would have went again

So hard being a Philly Phan, when owners AND circumstances of 2 strikes kill your dreams

[NeverJustAGame]

The Phillies would have repeated...and in 1994, they would have went again

So hard being a Philly Phan, when owners AND circumstances of 2 strikes kill your dreams

I agree Mike Schmidt was unstoppable in 1981 and in 1994 the Phillies could have won on 90% heart and 10% tobacco.

[Redondos]

The Phillies would have repeated...and in 1994, they would have went again

So hard being a Philly Phan, when owners AND circumstances of 2 strikes kill your dreams

The strike in '81 didn't kill the Phils' mission to repeat. The Expos did that on the field. If anyone should have been bellyachin' about the strike, it was the Cards with the best overall record in the NL East, but with nowhere to go in the postseason.

[Ubiquitous]

"Evidence?" Why is it that whenever I post an opinion that is contrary to that of someone else's in this forum, people start throwing out terms like "evidence" or "proof." C'mon! It's all speculation from you as it is from me. I happen to disagree with what you stated. Live with it.

As far as the issue at hand,... yeah, the Brewers lost to the Yanks in the ALDS. But going all the way to FIVE games. The Brew Crew did not roll over to NY. Could have easily gone either way. Not so when the A's bats went dead in the ALCS. They would have gotten steamrolled, whether they were pitted against NY, Milwaukee, or even Baltimore.

Don't unload your baggage on me, I'm disagreeing with you and I'm telling you why.