What If...?

[Dandy 0]

I have always considered the time off due to the lockout in 1994 was what prompted the huge outburst of steroid use in the majors. I am not disputing use and abuse before that time, but a lot of players came back much bigger and started putting up much bigger numbers after they came back.

 

With that theory, Bonds may not have passed Aaron by now, Marv.

 

Edit---To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Bonds' numbers immediately spiked up after returning or that he started using steroids at that time. However, I believe that steroids became more widespread during that time, and Bonds eventually started using so he could catch back up to those who had passed him because of the juice.

[Bored 0]

My favorite has always been, what if Roger Craig doesn't fumble in the final minutes of the 1991 NFC Championship game? Do the 49ers, with Steve Young at quarterback due to Joe Montana's broken hand, win their third straight Super Bowl or do the Bills win their first Super Bowl? Either result causes a huge change in history.

[Vampiro69 0]

Bored you led me into the next what if? What if Scott Norwood doesn't go wide-right against the Giants?

[Guest Vitamin X]

In that same vein, you make the point that history has shown that Bledsoe isn't anywhere near the level of Tom Brady in his play. Saying they were under .500 and implying that their season already was doomed when Bledsoe went down is a bit of a reach- he was only injured in the second game of the season and put up.. okay numbers throughout the season thus far. Brady played the rest of the season, but if you look at his stats, he wasn't exactly setting the world on fire. And consider it was Bledsoe that put the the Patriots in the Super Bowl that year- he took over for Brady in the AFC Championship away against the heavily favored Steelers. My point is, no one on that offense save for maybe Troy Brown and Antoine Smith was doing particularly great- the team offensive stats show that offensively, they didn't finish the top 10 in the league in any passing-related category. Again, it was their defense and their special teams that won them their first championship.

 

You kind of contradict yourself in those two statements. Yes, Bledsoe came in and threw that TD pass late in the first half, but he didn't throw another TD and was typical mediocre Drew (sub 50% passing (like 4-16), 66 passing yards total) in the second half. It was the FG block/TD return and the two or three INTs of Stewart that won the game.

 

If Drew had any future in New England and Brady wasn't perceived as the future of the franchise, Bledsoe would have retaken the starting job when he was eligible to come back in Week 10 or so.

Drew Bledsoe's performance in that AFC Championship game is overstated. I think it's just because people like to romanticize the idea of him coming in and saving the day in his last game as a Patriot. That was really all defense and special teams that won it for them.

 

My point to mentioning Drew's role in that AFC Championship game was that in that particular season, the QB play wasn't what won them the game, and that Drew stepped in Brady's role and performed perfectly fine. Brady's numbers his first year are kind of underwhelming, but decent for a first year starter: 63.9% completion (over Drew's 60.6%), 2,843 yards passing, 18 touchdowns, 12 interceptions. Bledsoe so far in 1 1/2 games had 400 yards, 2 touchdowns, and 2 interceptions. It's not too much of a reach to believe that Bledsoe might have more or less had the same type of season as Brady, and as we all agree on, it was the defense and special teams that won it for them, not necessarily the QB's play.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Perhaps I ask too much out of speedy players like Delino DeShields, but to me a table-setter should be on base at LEAST 40% of the time. A .400 OBP is not out of the question by any means, and I feel that a table-setter should have that as the norm. The reason he did not get to that point is because he struck out way more than he walked.

 

BB SO BA OBP

1990 66 96 .289 .375

1991 95 151 .238 .347

1992 54 108 .292 .359

1993 72 64 .295 .389

 

He did very well in 1993, as he cut his strikeouts down considerably. By that point, however, he had missed quite a few games, had never had an OBP of .400, and had struck out way more than he had walked. To me, you don't give up a promising young pitcher (Pedro and little brother Jesus were both considered to be better than big brother Ramon) for a speedy guy that can't put it all together. If you are hitting close to .300, you should definitely have an OBP over .400.

It's silly to look at a batting line like Deshields' in 1993 and say he wasn't worth acquiring. The move wasn't about getting a leadoff hitter, by the way. The Dodgers already had one of the game's great leadoff batters in Brett Butler. The Dodgers had Jody Reed who was a good defensive player but not very good with the bat. The Dodgers in '93 were a poor offensive team with Mike Piazza and Butler being their only above-average offensive players. It was a bad trade but defensible at the time. Pedro Martinez easily could have gotten injured and never reached greatness.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I have always considered the time off due to the lockout in 1994 was what prompted the huge outburst of steroid use in the majors. I am not disputing use and abuse before that time, but a lot of players came back much bigger and started putting up much bigger numbers after they came back.

 

With that theory, Bonds may not have passed Aaron by now, Marv.

 

Edit---To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Bonds' numbers immediately spiked up after returning or that he started using steroids at that time. However, I believe that steroids became more widespread during that time, and Bonds eventually started using so he could catch back up to those who had passed him because of the juice.

It wasn't the strike. The offensive spike occurred in 1993/94, before the strike. I maintain the greatest change in baseball at that point were the new ballparks, nearly all of which benefit offense more than defense.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Here are some that I'm intrigued by... (note: Not "Homer" teams)

 

#1: In 1987, the San Francisco 49ers acquired QB Steve Young via trade. What if the 49ers had never traded for Young or instead traded for a similar young QB like a Randy Wright from the Green Bay Packers?

 

#2: What if RB Robert Edwards hadn't gotten injured? Would Pete Carroll have found some more success as head coach? *Okay... slight homerism there*

 

#3: What if Morten Andersen missed the FG in the '98 Championship Game and the Vikings won?

 

#4: What if Barry Sanders didn't retire prior to the 1999 Season? The Lions had gone 9-7 in '97 with a Wild Card playoff game under HC Bobby Ross and went 8-8 in 1999 without Barry while losing another Wild Card playoff game under Ross.

 

#5: What if the New Orleans Saints had drafted a capable QB such as Jim Harbaugh at pick #11 in the 1987 NFL Draft? What about QB Chris Chandler with pick #25 in the 2nd Round of the 1988 NFL Draft? Would they have possibly made it to the Super Bowl?

[vivalaultra 0]

#5: What if the New Orleans Saints had drafted a capable QB such as Jim Harbaugh at pick #11 in the 1987 NFL Draft? What about QB Chris Chandler with pick #25 in the 2nd Round of the 1988 NFL Draft? Would they have possibly made it to the Super Bowl?

 

If Bobby Hebert couldn't do it, nobody could. I loved Bobby Hebert as a kid.

[Dandy 0]

It's silly to look at a batting line like Deshields' in 1993 and say he wasn't worth acquiring. The move wasn't about getting a leadoff hitter, by the way. The Dodgers already had one of the game's great leadoff batters in Brett Butler. The Dodgers had Jody Reed who was a good defensive player but not very good with the bat. The Dodgers in '93 were a poor offensive team with Mike Piazza and Butler being their only above-average offensive players. It was a bad trade but defensible at the time. Pedro Martinez easily could have gotten injured and never reached greatness.

 

 

Hey, I thought that DeShields was a good young player back then, but I just didn't see them giving up a very promising young pitcher. By your same reasoning, what if DeShields got hurt and never reached greatness? Butler was already older at that point, even though he was a tremendous lead-off hitter and the game's best bunter and could foul off pitches at will until he got one that he liked. I'm sure the intent was for DeShields to eventually take over the role that Butler held at the time. Looking at Jose Reyes' stats, I have softened my stance on the .400 OBP, somewhat, but there really should be no reason to be at .400 OBP if you are hitting right at .300. DeShields just struck out way too much for the kind of player he should have been. I know what you're saying, but I just don't think it was an even trade, hindsight be damned.

[Dandy 0]

I have always considered the time off due to the lockout in 1994 was what prompted the huge outburst of steroid use in the majors. I am not disputing use and abuse before that time, but a lot of players came back much bigger and started putting up much bigger numbers after they came back.

 

With that theory, Bonds may not have passed Aaron by now, Marv.

 

Edit---To clarify, I'm not suggesting that Bonds' numbers immediately spiked up after returning or that he started using steroids at that time. However, I believe that steroids became more widespread during that time, and Bonds eventually started using so he could catch back up to those who had passed him because of the juice.

It wasn't the strike. The offensive spike occurred in 1993/94, before the strike. I maintain the greatest change in baseball at that point were the new ballparks, nearly all of which benefit offense more than defense.

 

 

Yeah, the offensive stats were gaudy the year OF the strike, not after. I'm just talking about the players being able to take whatever they wanted and work out as much as they wanted while the strike was going on. You had a much longer offseason, and I've just always suspected that is when steroids became more common. Just a crackpot theory I've had since the whole steroids thing came about.

[Bored 0]

To add to the DeShields talk, using paperofrecord.com which has a big archive of old Sporting News there was this note about the trade a week after the trade was made:

 

Expos President Claude Brochu interrupted his vacation in Florida to blast critics of the Delino DeShields-Pedro Martinez trade. Calls to Montreal talk shows were overwhelmingly against the deal, and the organization found itself skewered for announcing the deal one day after season-ticket renewal payments were due. "This was a baseball trade, not an economic deal, and it will stand on its own like that," Brochu said, after General Manager Dan Duquette had used the phrase "powerful economic move" in describing the transacation. "If Pedro Martinez wins 15 or 16 games, I think we'll have come out all right." Brochu said the Expos' payroll was going to increase 50 percent to $21 million "with or without Delino DeShields."

But again most average fans always hate a trade of an established player for a prospect.

 

It should be noted what caused the Dodgers to trade for a second baseman was due to incumbent Jody Reed passing on a three-year contract offer from the Dodgers. So it's all Jody Reed's fault the Dodgers traded Pedro Martinez.

[CanadianChris 0]

And here's one for my guys U of L:

 

--What if the 1983 Final Four was held somewhere besides the high altitude of Albuquerque? The intense, up and down level of play left U of L sucking wind against Phi Slamma Jamma, but at sea level it may well have been a different story. And would U of L have choked against NC State the way Houston did?

 

Albuquerque.... high altitude? Meh. Denver or SLC you might have an argument, but Albuquerque?

Uh, Albuquerque is way higher than Salt Lake City, and nearly as high as Denver.

[Steve J. Rogers 0]

Mets

 

-What if Doc Gooden & Darryl Strawberry had not succumed to their demons.

 

-What if the Mets had won Game 3 of the 1988 NLCS. They go up 2 games to 1 and many feel Scioscia's homer against Gooden was the start of the downfall for that era

 

-What if the Mets either don't make the Kazmir for Zambrano trade or trade someonelse that the media/fans wouldn't create the mother of all shit storms with the backlash after the trade falls apart. Is Jim Duquette still the GM? Is Art Howe still the manager? Are the Wilpons still pulling way too many strings?

 

-What if the Mets end up losing Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS, do they beat Mike Scott the next day? Several Mets are still of the belief that they would have found a way to win.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

What if Interbrew never bought out Labatt in 1995 and gotten the Blue Jays (a team they didn't even want) as a result of deal?

[Brett Favre 0]

What if Buck Showalter was manager of the '96 Yankees? Would he still be manager of the Yankees today?

[Guest Vitamin X]

How about this one- Back when Shaq was demanding a trade from the Lakers to somewhere else, the Heat initially offered Dwyane Wade in their package deal along with EITHER Odom or Butler.. The Lakers ended up taking Odom, Butler, and Grant (who was going to just be a sitting duck with an expiring contract to make salaries match anyways) instead. What if the Lakers instead took Wade, Butler, and Grant, and left Odom in Miami?

 

Consider that when that trade happened, L.A. got stuck with this huge influx of forwards, and no solution at the point, which is still plaguing them to this day (and even going as far back as to their collapse in the `04 NBA Finals). Wade and Bryant in the backcourt would just be absolutely ridiculous, but who knows if either one would've gotten the ball enough to be as effective as they are on their real life respective teams.

[Ripper 0]

What if Danny Ainge had stayed at home on John Paxon and not leave to double Horace Grant in the 93 finals.

 

What if Danny manning hadn't blown up his knee two years in a row with the suns. When he first got to the suns, they were pretty much unbeatable until Joe Kline fell on his knee.

 

What if the Suns had traded Tom Chambers in that trade for Barkley instead of Jeff Hornecek.

 

What if Cedric Ceballos wouldn't have gotten injured in the playoffs that year (93).

 

What if Richard Dumas could have just said no.

 

What if Mike D'Antoni realized that he is allowed to play more than 7 guys in a game. I might be looking at a back to back title right now.

 

What if Robert Sarver hadn't been such a dumb fucking bitch and resigned Joe Johnson for the low instead of waiting to see if Quentin Richardson would work out.

[Dandy 0]

What if the Dolphins had a quarterback for the past 6 years?

[megaadvice 0]

What if football (soccer) had established itself in America in the early part of the 20th century, like it did in almost every other part of the world. I would imagine if that had happened then many of the worlds best players would be playing in America right now at their prime and the whole structure of football would no doubt have and would be completely different to how we know it today.

 

 

[alfdogg 0]

What if the Pacers never traded Ron Artest.

 

What if Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley weren't crippled during the 2004 playoffs (or ever since then, for that matter).

 

What if the Pacers had drafted a backup PG last year instead of Shawne Williams. Rajon Rondo, Mardy Collins, Marcus Williams and Daniel Gibson are notables who were picked after Williams. It's a little early to judge Williams, of course, but I think it's still a fair question to ask.

[Maztinho 0]

And here's one for my guys U of L:

 

--What if the 1983 Final Four was held somewhere besides the high altitude of Albuquerque? The intense, up and down level of play left U of L sucking wind against Phi Slamma Jamma, but at sea level it may well have been a different story. And would U of L have choked against NC State the way Houston did?

 

Albuquerque.... high altitude? Meh. Denver or SLC you might have an argument, but Albuquerque?

Uh, Albuquerque is way higher than Salt Lake City, and nearly as high as Denver.

 

Then all the years of New Mexico players complaining of the altitude adjustment against BYU and Utah in every sport ever I heard over the years was just misleading banter.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

How much of a difference does the altitude actually make? Both in terms of cardio as well as things like carrying the ball further for the Rockies? I always thought it was exaggerated but maybe no?

[Maztinho 0]

I think that in the past (read 80's maybe early 90's) it was at least somewhat of an issue, at least mentally. I know that the early 80's BYU teams would murder alot of "sea-level" teams and the losing coach would blame the altitude.

 

I know that my high school did a home-away "tour" against a supposed Nebraska powerhouse high school football team and we killed them at home because all the kids got winded easily here.

 

I think at higher level sports it's negligible now because of better training schedules, but there is a difference in the air at higher altitudes. When I got back from Brazil to SLC off the plane I felt a definite pressure on my lungs for the first few days that likely was the altitude.

[Guest Vitamin X]

It makes a pretty big difference. In terms of cardio, Massito mentioned it, but the thin air makes it difficult to breathe, just the same as air being too thick would be difficult to breathe as well (which is why Miami at 90 degrees is much worse than the Southwest U.S. at 100+). It definitely makes a difference in any ball sport- all if not most field goal kicking distance records have been set in high altitudes, and of course the Rockies and Coors Field are notorious for being homerun prone.

[Guest Smues]

What if Ichiro started in the majors, how many hits does he get. Does he pass Rose?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What if Ichiro started in the majors, how many hits does he get. Does he pass Rose?

It depends on when he gets started. Ichiro collected 1,434 hits in Japan. He started at age 18 however. Given the differences in the systems, he would have spent a couple formulative years in the minor leagues. Then you have the differences between leagues that would case him to lose a few hits. I think 700-800 hits is a fair estimate. That puts him slightly ahead of Rose's pace. The thing is, Rose got his hits by holding on far past his prime. The only guys who collected near as many hits after age 32 were Rose, Sam Rice and Cap Anson. All held on well into their 40s. It would be a question of whether Ichiro was willing to play that long, and that is something we will find out eventually.

[BruiserKC 0]

For the steroid issue...I think it would still have come to the forefront eventually but it was definitely ignored by the owners after '94. Especially if you look at what really brought baseball back to the public eye was the McGwire-Sosa HR chase in '98. I know for myself I stopped watching baseball for three years and the HR chase brought me back.

 

Here's a boxing one that I find interesting...what if Cus D'Amato hadn't died when he did in 1985? I think Mike Tyson would have turned out a lot differently. I could see Tyson obviously still winning the world heavyweight championship, but he would have destroyed Buster Douglas instead of getting knocked out as Tyson would have been ready to fight instead of taking him very lightly. Also, I see Tyson dismantling Holyfield, George Foreman, and Riddick Bowe. Instead of an anticlimactic battle with Lennox Lewis, I could picture Tyson-Lewis being the Ali-Frazier of this generation. And when it's all said and done, we're mentioning Mike Tyson in the same breath as all-time great HW's along with Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Marciano, etc.

 

If Don Denkinger actually makes the right call in Game 6 of the '85 World Series, the Cardinals go on to wrap up the game and the championship...I also picture them really giving the Mets a run for their money for the next few years. Granted, I know the Cardinals did win the NLCS in '87 and came close in '89 before succumbing to the Cubs, but the Cardinals could have become the power of that time. And that would also happen if Vince Coleman hadn't been injured in the '85 NLCS by a runaway tarp.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

f Don Denkinger actually makes the right call in Game 6 of the '85 World Series, the Cardinals go on to wrap up the game and the championship...I also picture them really giving the Mets a run for their money for the next few years. Granted, I know the Cardinals did win the NLCS in '87 and came close in '89 before succumbing to the Cubs, but the Cardinals could have become the power of that time. And that would also happen if Vince Coleman hadn't been injured in the '85 NLCS by a runaway tarp.

 

They likely win the '85 World Series as then it's one out and none on, and most teams go on to win at that point. Still, Jack Clark dropped a foul ball and Darrell Porter allowed a passed ball later in the inning. The tying run was on but the winning run was still at the plate, and the Cardinals from the moment that missed call occurred played ten of the most classless innings ever seen in postseason ball.

 

That said, one loss does not cause a team to lose personnel. The Cardinals were completely dominated at the plate in that series, scoring 13 runs over all seven games, just two runs in the last three. Losing Coleman may have hurt a bit, but he was a left fielder with a .320 OBP. His replacement (Tito Landrum) went 15 for 39 in the postseason. If there is a moment that causes the Cardinals to slip, it's losing Jack Clark to free agency following the 1987 season. They could not replace his offense and that left the Cards with just one player above a .400 slugging percentage.

[NoCalMike 0]

What if the Oakland A's Front Office doesn't dismantle the dynasty of '72-74 after they win their third World Series in a row?.......how many more World Series would that team have won?

 

If Joe Theisman doesn't get his legs broken by LT......is he still the starter in '87....does he lead the Skins to the Superbowl win in 87 or was that just a magical year for Doug Williams?

 

The Sacramento Kings make their free throws in game 7 against the Lakers.....was it pretty much a lock they win the NBA title if they make it past the Lakers?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What if the Oakland A's Front Office doesn't dismantle the dynasty of '72-74 after they win their third World Series in a row?.......how many more World Series would that team have won?

 

First, let's date the dynasty at 1975. The A's actually had a better winning percentage than the 1972-74 clubs but lost in the ALCS. The first loss was Catfish Hunter but he went to crap after his first season out. The Reggie Jackson trade occurred just before the 1976 season, but the A's got Don Baylor and Mike Torrez in return. The big losses were November 1, 1976 when Sal Bando, Bert Campaneris, Don Baylor, Rollie Fingers, Joe Rudi and Gene Tenace left via free agency.

 

The question then is whether that core could compete with the 1970s Kansas City Royals. Comparing the win shares of the 1976 A's (in 1977) with the '77 Royals, the Royals were clearly better at catcher, shortstop, third base, center field, designated hitter and right field. The A's pitching of the dynasty didn't last while the Royals produced pitching off the assembly line. I think the Royals of the late 70s beat out the preserved Athletics, who would grow old sans a rebuilding project. If they had made the World Series in '76 the Big Red Machine would be waiting so that's likely a no. I think the A's win no further World Championships without a firesale.