Speaking of the Expos...

Rick Monday. 1981.

 

Some candidates, in chronological order: the 1906 Chicago Cubs, the 1954 Cleveland Indians, the 1971 Baltimore Orioles and the 2001 Seattle Mariners.

 

Naw, Seattle overachieved to win 116 games (or whatever the final number was). Then reality set in. I think they nearly got beat by Cleveland in the first round, if memory serves correctly. They were good, but not great like the 1998 Yankees.

 

They didn't overachieve horribly -- 109 pythagorean wins. They had a winning record against every team they played that year. But playing an unbalanced schedule in a very weak AL West that year and going a combined 30-9 against the Rangers and Angels didn't hurt.

 

Montreal 74-40 .649 ----
Atlanta 68-46 .596 6.0
NY Mets 55-58 .487 18.5
Philadelphia 54-61 .470 20.5
Florida 51-64 .443 23.5

D'oh!

Even better "final" standings from that season came from both West Divisions:

LA Dodgers 58-56 .509 ----
San Francisco 55-60 .478 3.5
Colorado 53-64 .453 6.5
San Diego 47-70 .402 12.5

Texas 52-62 .456 ----
Oakland 51-63 .447 1.0
Seattle 49-63 .438 2.0
California 47-68 .409 5.5

 

Dick Willliams also said in his book that he knew players on the team were doing drugs. He even told the story of him walking into the bathroom and finding a player snorting a line.

And to the subject of '94, that was the first year of the three-division format, and I remember a lot of people criticizing Selig for switching from the two divisions, and citing the AL West as the main reason. There was major concern, prior to the strike, of a losing team making the playoffs, which had never happened in the two-division format.

 

The late 1940s Red Sox never showed a lot for all of their hitting talent. Williams, Jensen, Dimaggio, Stephens, Pesky and Doerr combined for one pennant and a lot of second place finishes.

Also was Montreal a hitter's park? I ask because that was a knock on the late 1940s Sox is that they put up great number, but it was somewhat of an illusion because of the park.

 

I wouldn't say they didn't show a lot. They lost a one-game playoff to Cleveland for the pennant in '48 and by one game for the pennant to the Yankees in '49. ] I'd say they showed plenty, they just came up short.

 

The Big O was generally a pitcher's park (that place was a cavern) although baseball-reference rates it as a slight hitter's park that year.

 

True. But their talent (hitting wise) was amazing.

 

Never underestimate the effect of drugs in MLB in 1982-84. Until the Pittsburgh Drug Trials in 1985... it was brewing in the game in nearly every clubhouse.

The '82 Expos probably had major drug problems but look at the NL East (and World Series) champions, the 1982 Cardinals. They had Keith Hernandez, Lonnie Smith, Joaquin Andujar and Darrell Porter -- ALL of whom had a major, positive role in the title run. Maybe their drugs were just better than the Expos.

In the NBA, I think the cokehead days of the early 1980s had a major negative effect on half the teams. In baseball, I'm not so sure if the effects were that atrocious -- baseball is a different sport that doesn't require the same long-term "concentration" of the NBA. In baseball, you only need to concentrate a handful of times.