Once the NFL went to 32 teams and the new formula for determining the schedule, differences within divisions became minor. Division teams now play a similar schedule with the exception of two games no matter where they finish. But in the AFC this year--and very likely next year--this difference has been--and will be--significant.

This year the Chiefs played Cleveland and Buffalo while we played Pittsburgh and Miami. The difference is significant and probably made the difference in the division. That is, without changing the outcome in Arizona or Jacksonville, if we'd simply swapped those games with the Chiefs, we'd have likely finished with the same record and won the tiebreakers.

And next year? Next year the difference is going to almost certainly be huge, despite how much teams tend to change from year to year. By virtue of San Diego beating Denver today (a big win for us in terms of the schedule), here's how things shape up in 2011:

Oakland gets Cleveland and Houston

San Diego gets Baltimore and Jacksonville

Kansas City gets Pittsburgh and Indianapolis

That strikes me as very, very big, given that all the other games will be the same for the three teams. If the Raiders take care of business in the division (4-2), they will be in great shape next year. 

Okay, most all of us feel great about the Raiders' picks. Filling needs, bringing in guys with high football IQs, high motors, and strong work ethics. Hell, we even took a guy in the 4th round people said we were going to take in the first. So a great draft all around. And, especially, given what happened last year, a big sigh of relief for all of us. But beyond that, we all feel so good for more reasons than that.

Consider what we went through last year and what most tormented us in order:

1. The Quarterback position: Obviously, JaMarcus was the biggest problem on the team. Probably the biggest problem for any team in the league. Well, we're done with that with today's trade. We have a replacement and we've sent the right message to the entire team and its fans.

2. Stopping the run: We didn't, for the most part last year. We haven't for the most part for many years. Our first two picks recognized this and began dealing with it.  Cable hinting at new schemes is promising too.

3. Chaos at receiver: The DHB disaster, Schillens' injury that never healed. The Javon Walker nightmare. All this with JaMarcus the guy throwing at them. Consider how we enter this season. DHB with a year under his belt--it can't possibly get worse than it was last year and Cable is raving about his progress. Chaz healthy. Murphy in his 2nd year. A new wideout added. A new quarterback throwing to them. 

4. Protecting the QB: First, this gets easier once JaMarcus isn't under center. We all remember the "friendly fire" game against the Redskins. We added two tackles, got rid of some dead weight. It's not going to be perfect, but it's going to be better.

5. Character and attitude: "No more knuckleheads," Cable said. We brought in guys with character last year. We added the same kind of guys this year. We have stability at coach. We didn't quit last year--except some of the second halfs when JaMarcus just took the life out of the entire team. I think the character stories will change with the Raiders this year. I think we're done with that.

These are all huge changes. There are plenty of reasons to feel very good about the upcoming season.

I've had a very tough time reading them. They put up strong games against the Chargers and Eagles, a good game against the Chiefs, a slightly below average game against the Texans (all big plays), and were poor against the Broncos, Giants, and Jets.

My sense is that they really were overmatched by the Broncos and Giants. But that in other games, their bad play is eventually a result of just being so demoralized by the play of the offense. I especially thought that was true against the Jets yesterday. 

I'm not really sure about the defense and may not be the whole year, given that we won't have an offense that leads to competitive games in which we can really measure them. 

Raider fans still out there, I want to ask you a question:

In the 17 losses JaMarcus has been quarterback in the last two-plus years (2 in '07; 10 in '08; 5 this year), how many times has he led us on touchdown drives? 

Again, in all his losses how many times has JaMarcus led us on touchdown drives?

Here are some conditions:

1) The drive can't include a 50+ yard touchdown. It has to be a drive of multiple plays with some time off the clock.

2) The drive can't be a short field of less than 30 yards.

3) The drive can't be when the other team has the game on ice (20+ point lead).

All right, given those conditions, how many touchdowns has JaMarcus led us to in our losses? Have an answer yet?

For comparisons sake, Alex Smith led the Niners on 3 such drives today. And in '07 before JaMarcus took over, McCown and Culpepper led us on 9 such drives in ten losses.

How many TD drives has JaMarcus led us on in his 17 losses that weren't short fields or quick strikes or garbage time?

I'll tell you how many:

1

That's right, in those 17 losses JaMarcus has led us on one touchdown drive that wasn't a short field or a quick strike or in garbage time when we were down by 20+ points. He did it in the second drive of the opener against San Diego this year. Every other touchdown drive has been a long pass, like the ball to Louis Murphy against San Diego; or a short field, like the one-yard drive against K.C. at home last year after a pick; or in garbage time, like the meaningless points we put up against the Broncos in the 4th quarter when they went up 27-0 in last year's opener.

That's probably why when the Raiders got down by 14 today, everybody knew the game was over. He can't lead us on touchdown drives. It's a remarkable statistic. It means that in losses the Raiders are never, ever controlling the ball. They either get lucky or they don't score. That's it. 

More than anything, this for me is a reason to bench the guy permanently this year. He's completely incapable of leading a touchdown drive. Give him too many plays and he'll screw it up. Like on the pick in the end zone today. 

We need a quarterback who can manage the ball and lead us down the field. JaMarcus so far appears incapable of doing that.

He's been awful. I know that. He doesn't inspire confidence with anything he says. I realize that, too. He's regressing. I get that, too. 

But what I want to ask is this: Haven't fans seen anything (last year or at times in pre-season) that gives you any confidence? Versus Miami, Denver, Houston, and Tampa Bay, Russell was very good last year. That's four of the final seven games. And against New England he also had a strong statistical game, but that was a blowout, so let's ignore it. I'm asking why those games seem to mean nothing. Why do the previous three games (which included two potentially late game-winning drives and one TD stolen by the refs/rules) weigh so heavily against him?

This overwhelming disgust with the guy has to go beyond just his in-game performance because, as I pointed out, he had some real success last year. So what is it that makes fans so certain that this guy is such a complete bust?

I'm asking this honestly of the hardcore fans--of which I'm one--who read and respond here. 

This from SI.Com:
"He is possibly the worst overall first pick in league history."
For the record, through his first 16 games he had the third highest passer rating for any QB taken first overall--and it wasn't like he was in a great situation. 
For the record, Alex Smith was also drafted first. As was Tim Couch. As was David Carr. As was Ki-Jana Carter. As was Jeff George. As was Aundray Bruce. Of those players, he will certainly be better than all but Jeff George, and he will very likely be better than him.
For the record Jim Plunkett was drafted 1st by the New England Patriots in 1971. After playing there and for the 49ers, he came to the Raiders when no one else wanted him in the late '70s. When an injury forced Plunkett into the starting line-up for a 2-3 Raider team going nowhere in 1980, he led them to the Super Bowl, where he was the MVP. He won the Super Bowl again in 1983, and his Raider-led teams were consistently in the playoffs. 
Nine years after being taken first overall, Plunkett flourished. But after one season and two games of starting the jury is already in on the broadly perceived to be dumb, lazy, fat, physically gifted, fur-wearing black guy from the South who the Raiders drafted.
JaMarcus's passer rating for his last 7 games of 2008: 
88.4 149.1 51.5 42.0 85.7 128.1 98.9
Average Rating: 91. 9
It's ridiculous to say that he's the worst pick ever. The guy has had two shitty games to open this season. He's playing with two rookie receivers and his favorite receiver is out. He's led two touchdown drives in the final three minutes to put his team ahead. But the perception is that in every game he has ever played he has been absolutely awful. 
Why is that?
Look, I'm not sure how JaMarcus Russell will turn out. I hope he returns to end-of-last-season form today against the Broncos. 
But the excessive criticism of the guy has gone so far off the rails on a national level that it's become completely unbelievable.  It's hard not to think it has a little to do with race and a little to do with an "anything the Raiders do has to be a disaster" mentality.

I'm not writing with blinders or rose-colored glasses on when I say this: The season has been a big success so far. And here's why:

If I had told you the Angels were going to have the pitching staff they do and 5-6 guys hitting over .300, I don't expect you would think that we would contend with them. And, of course, how they perform is out of Beane's and the A's control, right?

Now let's look at us. Could you possibly argue that the A's were really going to win 90-95 games this year? They lost Zito and Thomas, and then had to depend on healthy years from typically unhealthy players (Bradley, Harden) plus hope for improvement and health from just about everyone else (Chavez, Crosby, Johnson, Swisher, Kendall, Ellis, and the pitchers.) That wasn't a realistic expectation. And, obviously, it hasn't happened. And we shouldn't go into a season thinking it will happen. Crosby is who he is, not who people thought he would be. Chavy will never be a big star. Swisher is great, but not MVP caliber yet. It would be easy to go on.

Continue reading this post »

Back surgery and likely three months missed.

Milton Bradley should be the A's centerfielder--this is just me talking--with Swisher and some combination of other bodies filling the remaining two spots. Of all the A's likely injured--Harden, Chavez, Crosby, Bradley--Kotsay is, for me, easily the most acceptable. But the key is that Bradley remain healthy.

Juan Pierre's. 5 years, $44 million.

And don't even bring up anybody else. Like Mike Hampton. Or Denny Naegle. At least they'd done something, albeit minimal. At least there was some reasoning, albeit idiotic, for the Rockies throwing all that ridiculous money at them.

But this. This defies any logic at all. You just gave $44 million to a guy whose limited skill set will likely decline. You just gave $44 million to a guy who, throughout the life of his contract, you will almost always have some better option than. You just gave $44 million to a player who will normally be a net minus.

Unbelievable.

In other news: You all know that Gary Matthews Jr. is 32 with only one very good season to his credit, right? Angels and Giants went for him. Man, that was a bidding war a hardcore A's fan couldn't lose.

(The following assumes you know the quotes from Kendall, Kotsay, Zito, and Haren.)

I liked Macha as a manager--much more than many of you.

I think things could have been much worse (also better, of course).  What I liked about Macha was how he handled the pitching and the fact that he didn't make dumbass in-game decisions like so many managers do. Joe Torre ever letting Derek Jeter bunt--that's one dumbass in-game decision. He didn't do idiotic things like that, so I've been grateful.

But once you hear he's lost the team in the way he had; well, he's pretty much doomed.

Macha isn't a bad guy or a stupid guy. He just is generally pessimistic and uncommunicative, and that worked against him. He's too much Eyore to be a leader of men.

Because apparently it does matter that somebody comes out and bitches about a call. It does matter that now and then the skip buoys you up. It does matter that he makes you feel like a part of the team. It does matter that he has energy and confidence that you can draw energy and confidence from when times get tough. Macha fell short in these areas.

So I don't mind Kendall's comments about him not having fire so much. He's just identifying one of Macha's flaws, and one that, whether we fans want to believe it or not, harms the team.

Zito and Kotsay--they sound like pretty typical ballplayers who can't see beyond their own martyrdom (Zito) or inflated sense of self (Kotsay).

Kotsay, in particular, just seems like at times he isn't a very nice guy. He handled a post-game interview at the Coliseum like an absolute prick one time, and his quotes just scream out that he's self-centered, petty, and thus divisive. Remember when he bitched about being pulled from first late in one game in Baltimore?

That was the game after which Urban wrote about Bradley. Bottom line: If Kotsay were black he wouldn't be an ultra-competitive gamer, he'd be a problem. But Milton Bradley gets that role. And really, what a dick Michael Urban seems like in all of this for calling out Bradley repeatedly this year. Yeah, Bradley was the problem in the clubhouse. No, Michael, you tool, Kotsay and Kendall--two likely sources for your bullshit--are the problems, if anybody is.

Kotsay should have sat in Games 1 and 3 vs. Detroit. But he's too clueless to know that. I'm sure Macha would have sat him if he could go back now.

And Danny Haren. He just comes off like the stupid young guy who's following the lead of people it would be better not to follow. Danny doesn't get that Kotsay shouldn't be playing. Glad he saves you occasional runs, dude, but Kielty fricking mashes and gets you runs. So let's just ignore Danny saying that Kots should never have a day off vs. lefties.

Taken together, then: Macha--who again, I liked--needed to go. And in the process of his leaving, we learned some things about some of our players.

Let us pause a moment to consider the pathetic Yankees.

1. Look what $220,000,000 buys: Jack shit.
2. Fastest change from "Best offense ever" to "Most overrated offense ever." Joe Morgan: Wrong again (said this was greatest offense ever).
3. Regardless of who we want the A's to play, it's great to see these 25 Grade A assholes and their management lose. After Game 1, everybody thought it was over and Cashman was on ESPN sounding smug as hell.
4. Congratulations to Jason Giambi, who took the money to go to a team that benched him in an elimination game. Enjoy the view from the bench. I'm sure it's miserable.
5. Congratulations to A-Rod on becoming the most miserable and maligned player in major league baseball. Life is so much better for Marco Scutaro than you right now. No, wait, life is so much better for Antonio Perez right now.  
6. Is there anything funnier than Wright-LIDLE-Bruney-Proctor with the season on the line. And your payroll is $80 million higher than the next closest team? So great to see this pathetic collection of mercenaries humiliated.
7. Barry Zito is making, like, 10 million more dollars than he already would have because of this series. Steinbrenner is going to drive the price of pitching insanely high. Hope Zito doesn't go to them, though. He'll be miserable--too.
8. Yankees record in post-season since 2000 is awful. No World Series wins and plenty of embarrassment.
   
2001. Blowing a lead to Arizona in the 9th inning of Game 7.
      
2002. Having their ass kicked by the Angels.
      
2003. The choke job against the underdog Marlins--in six.
      
2004. The biggest ever choke job against the Red Sox. The only team ever to blow a 3-0 lead.
      
2005. Another loss to the Angels--who even remembers a play from that series, and it was all in prime time.
      
2006. And now this: losing in four game to a team that bumbled into the playoffs, having just been swept by the Royals, their pitching in shambles.

So, really, fuck the Yankees. They're worthless, pathetic, overpaid losers.

Shouldn't we have a diary chronicling or at least commenting on our erstwhile leftfielder? Anybody who saw his debut performance before and after Game 2 of A's-Twins had to be just blown away by the ironies and, sorry Eric, the lame analysis.

Two standout moments:

1. Eric picking against the A's. Dude, isn't this the team that raised you?
2. Eric saying something like, "You know, I say just go for it" about Torii Hunter's suicidal play. Uh, Eric, that was the most costly defensive decision in baseball so far this year. In hindsight we know the options and the consequences. We have the benefit of reflection. Torii shouldn't have gone for it.

This needs to be said:

Vince Cotroneo's call of Kotsay's inside-the-park homerun was unbelievable. It was as good as it could possibly have been, and the most memorable call since Korach's call of Tejada's homer for the 18th win of the 20-game streak.

If you missed it, listen to the warm up on Friday to hear the call.

Cotroneo's been criticized some this year, but this is definitely a time to praise him.

You are no threat.

Can we just stop pretending that a team that's 6 games over .500, a team that hasn't been much better than that all season, a team that could only split at home against the Boston B-team and the Yankees' 5/6/7 starters, a team that can't field, a team that can't take a walk, a team that pitches poor Scott Shields two innings in any game it has a chance of winning, a team that hasn't put together a meaningful stretch of good baseball, a team...

I could go on, but please can we stop pretending that that completely average and uninspiring team is any threat to us. Can we stop with the "If the A's play .500 the rest of the way" scenarios, as if there is any chance that the Angels will possibly play 10 games over .500 the rest of the way.

I, for one, am sick and tired of pretending that the Angels are worth a shit. I'm sick of being afraid of Jared Weaver and whoever else they're tossing out there. I'm sick of pretending I'm threatened by their sorry-ass lineup of Chone Figgins and a bunch of other slap-happy dink hitters. I'm sick of hearing about  their youth that's amounted to one pitcher and one hitter this year--the rest has been crap. Saunders, Napoli, Morales...who cares about these guys?

They'll be good next year, you say. So what? I don't give a crap about next year right now.

The Angels haven't done a damn thing the whole season. Haren put them in their place a month ago and they haven't been heard from since. Their big moment was when the Royals swept us 10 days ago. Well, I hope they enjoyed it because that's a distant memory now.

So to the Angels and their fans I say this:

Go away, you don't matter any more.

This year is nothing like 2004--not even close.

Any comparison is pointless, mostly because the A's are such a radically different team.

But I thought it would be worthwhile to point out that the A's collapse that year revealed that they were in fact a pretty bad team. Beane saw this and, god bless him, acted.

How bad were the "September, 2004 Oakland A's"? We all, of course, can point at Mulder and Mecir and Hatteberg, but truly it was a team-wide failure.

Consider these numbers:

*In their last 26 meaningful games that season the A's went 9-17.

*7 of those 9 wins were by one run.

*The A's were outscored by an amazing 57 runs during that stretch: 153-96.

They were truly awful, one of the worst teams in baseball by season's end.

This year, of course, the A's aren't anything like that. All signs indicate that they will be a very good team all through Septembrer. Every single aspect of this team--starters, bullpen, offense, and defense--is better than the 2004 squad.

When I look back at that September, I always think to myself that being so very awful actually saved the team. It led Beane to act. And the team we have right now is, in part, a result of those actions.

That horrible month was very likely the best thing that could have happened to the organization.

Nobody's taking notice, right? And those who do are often being dismissive. That's okay. They're missing a story that we're all seeing firsthand, a story that they will eventually catch up to.

It's funny to see the Dodgers post essentially the same record as the A's for 17 games, but be at the center of ten times the number of stories. Everybody loves the Dodgers, it seems; yet everybody wants to explain why the A's don't really deserve any love.

Take the story at Baseball Prospectus today (paid content). As Salb detailed in the DLD it misanalyzes the A's in some significant ways. But that's to be expected. The guys at BP often write with an undeserved authority. Joe Sheehan, who wrote the article, is definitely one who does. Sure, there are many good insights to be gleaned at BP, but an overview of our team isn't going to be worth much to most of us. And that goes for the stuff at ESPN, the Hit Lists and Power Rankings, the flippant columns by the likes of Bill Simmons. It's all going to tell us much, much less than we already know.

Because most of us know the team better than BP and ESPN and the rest do. We watch them much, much more; can contextualize statistics; we know the difference in performance between now and, say, April; and we see beyond run differential to how they're actually winning. We know about Swish's weight loss, about Chavy's forearms, about Haren's last five starts, about Loaiza's slight improvement, about Calero's value, about Frank Thomas since Chicago, and on and on.

The very, very obvious story to write about the A's right now and that most people are writing--if they even bother--is that they'll win the West but nothing more. That they're no real threat. Whatever. That's now. That story will change. Dan Haren will likely be a developing story. The A's offense "since the return of Bradley" will be a developing story. Their bullpen and Frank Thomas will get more of the attention they deserve.

If the A's continue to win, their winning will need to be explained beyond, "They're lucky and they play good defense." They will have to be reckoned with--by both the media and by their playoff opponents.

Beyond just having a more favorable schedule than the Angels, the A's will also be catching a couple of breaks in two of their next three series, and then likely in another series in September.

Against Seattle they'll miss the suddenly hot King Felix for the second straight time (let's hope he delivers against the Rangers in Texas tonight).

And barring something really strange, the A's are almost sure to miss Halliday, who's scheduled to pitch the Sunday before we arrive for a three game series.

Finally, if Liriano really is out for an extended time, it makes the Twins a much less formidable opponent. The A's could go into Minnesota, regardless of the rotation marshalled against them, thinking reasonably about taking two of three.

Little things like that matter a lot, of course, when you're in a close race. And all of these are very favorable for the A's.

Ken Macha, endlessly and often harshly criticized at AN, is doing a superb job this season.

Let's consider why:

1) We're in first place.

He has a team atop the division that has been devastated by injuries and that has had several key players underperform.

Specifically: no Bradley; no Harden; no Ellis; Duke and Kennedy gone for a long time; Street, Chavy, and Thomas out for a while--and yet he has the team in first place.

2) Riding out the storm

These injuries and the horrible performance of many key players in April and May (DJ, Thomas, and Crosby, being the best examples) meant that Macha had to do much, much more than just fill out the lineup card every night. That's what Ozzie Guillen and others have done. Macha had to react almost weekly to the loss of players, to horrendous slumps, to disastrous outings by starters. And he reacted well in terms of Blanton, Loaiza, DJ, Crosby, and Street--being patient when he needed to, tough when he needed to.

Today with Loaiza was a perfect example. He let him hit in the 5th when many of us were likely hoping he'd be hit for and yanked. Then, he kept Halsey up, clearly sending the message that the game was Loaiza's to win but that there would be no charity if he showed signs of coughing up another lead. The result: a complete game that helps the pen, restores some confidence in Loaiza himself, and likely builds the team's confidence in him. I thought Macha was brilliant in how he handled Loaiza today.

3) Juggling the outfield/1st base situation.

We'd all have to agree, I think, that Macha's handling of DJ/Payton/Kielty has been excellent. He's been patient, and he's mixed them all in so well that we and they all feel they're integral to the team's success.

And this point can extend to the team as a whole. I know many complain on this site of the underuse of Melhuse, or even Perez. But I think Macha has used the whole bench very well. He's put out lineups--like today's maybe--that many of us have likely looked at and thought we had little chance to win with. And yet we've won many of those games, and everybody seems to be making a contribution.

4) Handling the pitching staff

Faced with the losses of Harden, Loaiza, Duke, Kennedy, and Street for a time, Macha has patched things together well. I think he's found the right roles for Halsey and Gaudin. I think he's taken the right approach with his LOOGY's--even if it hasn't always led to success. I think his use of Street is superb. He'll put him in with the game tied, or even down a run (Colorado last week)--which is the right thing to do. He'll bring in Street in the 8th--also the right thing to do (best example Minnesota game when Street, who had been struggling, got a brilliant 6-out save). He adjusted to having to use Calero as more than a righty-specialist, and Calero has flourished.

I feel good about this bullpen and about how Macha will use it the rest of the season. I also feel good about how long he's willing to let our starters work. I like his decision with Zito in Cleveland, with Loaiza today, with letting Blanton take a shot at some complete games. My guess is that the whole staff has a good sense of their roles and of their manager's confidence in them. My guess is they feel good about both.

5) In sum, then, I think that Ken Macha has been excellent this year in a very tough situation. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for the success the A's are having.

I know it's early in the season and all of that. But if you're anything like me, the A's lack of offense might have you ready to let loose.

Tonight's bottom of the 9th against Tyler Walker was especially instructive. It had front and center two of the biggest problems so far this year: Crosby (hitting third; that could have been Swisher there) and Thomas.

So, if you want to participate, here's the deal. Let loose. Let is out. Blow off some steam.

What part of the A's offense do you want to rant about?

And here they are:

1. The offense is very likely to improve. I think it might not be what we'd hoped--that's why the team feels so bleak now; nothing is what we'd hoped--but I think it's certain to get better. Many of the hitters will get closer to career norms, and the A's could likely get a huge year out of either Swisher or Chavez.
2. The injuries can't get worse can they? Let's hope not. Let's hope Bradley and Street and Harden and I guess even Duke get better sooner rather than later. It is frustrating the way you continually have false hope with A's injuries, though. Street is always coming back and never does. Bradley hurts a new body part every day. But my sense is that the pervasive gloom most all of us likely feel over this recent injury plague is not something that can possibly hold. With the exception of Thomas, every single player we had concerns over has already gone down (Crosby, Bradley, Harden). This won't be the case in July.
3. The starting pitching just got better. Harden is a tremendous blow, I realize. He's pitched much better than his ERA. But eliminating Loiaza and a certain loss every five days is pretty significant. Furthermore, Haren's K/BB ratio suggests good things ahead, and there's reason to have faith in Zito simply because of his career. Blanton I'm not too sure about. And we do have depth for the other two spots. I'm not saying we're a frontline rotation; I'm saying it's likely we'll pitch collectively better than we have in the first 24 games.
4. The bullpen is better than last year--if Street is healthyl. We have a better lefty and a better long man (Kennedy over Rincon; Sarloos over Yabu).
5. Most important of all, the other teams in the division just aren't that good. Look at them. Nothing to fear. So if we can just struggle along, right ourselves a bit, get some guys going, and get healthy, we should win because we are the best team.
6. Because it turns out that those projections of us winning this thing by 10 games were right. If the A's were healthy and if everybody was playing to his norm, we would run away with this thing. We're not healthy I know, and we're not even playing well and we're still in a dead heat. This bodes well.

I know Nico had a Hudson thread yesterday, but if I posted this there it would be too late.

I have a very inside source on the A's medical staff who told me during this off-season that Tim Hudson's future was as a closer, that the oblique strains would never go away as long as he remained a starter, and that his value as a starter would just continue to decrease--or the injury pattern become so overwhelming--to the point where he went to the bullpen. The person who told me this worked on Timmy a lot and seemed very confident in what he was saying.

Side note: This same doctor told me that with Mulder the last few years it's all been in his head. But I guess we sort of knew that by watching.

To me, what's most interesting about all of this is how well Beane read both situations.

Glenn Dickey's column "Bonds/Steroids: Much Ado About Nothing" (click here), dismissing as insignificant the upcoming book about Bonds is predictably misguided.

Somone at AN called Dickey's piece "measured analysis." Now that's funny.

Every point he makes is specious in some way--a red herring, a false dilemma, an absurd analogy.

In order, let's take his arguments apart:

1. Giants fans cheer for Bonds anyway.

All sorts of people who should still be subject to criticism and examination get cheered for by partisans. How is that a defense? Why does that mean it's okay that he cheated? Or that his cheating doesn't matter?

2. Those who oppose Bonds now, always did.

I didn't. Others didn't. We enjoyed his achievements and admired his monumental talent. But the more it's become clear he cheated, the less we admire him. We're not just bitter or envious; we care about baseball, about the integrity of its play and the meaning of its history.

3. Bonds numbers went up with steroids, but Larry Walker's numbers went up in Colorado.

What point is he even making with this? It's nonsense. It undermines his own argument. He's trying to show that it takes more than a bandbox or steroids to be truly great. That Walker, and Helton after him, do in Colorado what other Rockies don't. And by extension, Bonds does on steroids what other juicers don't. Yes, we get that. But Bonds is still cheating. He did what un-juiced Bonds never could. It's more damning that he started near the top and then rose far beyond others to the position of singular prominence in the game. It's not a point in Bonds favor. And, as for Larry Walker. His numbers DON'T carry that much weight because we know they're a product of the park in large part. Same for Bonds: He's a product of the juice and his numbers thus don't and shouldn't mean much. They're an illusion, a shadow. Not the real thing.

4. Bonds' behavior doesn't really affect high school kids.

Because, Dickey points out, it's their parents' job, not Bonds' to guide them on the path of life. Well, yeah, it is their parents' job; we know that, Glenn. But Bonds and other athletes have an effect, too. Both things can be true at once. Dickey honestly doesn't understand this, that sometimes two things can both matter. That one doesn't rule out the other.

5. Steroids aren't as bad as crack cocaine or heroin and Bonds isn't taking crack cocaine or heroin.

That one is just funny. Yes, and baseball isn't as important as the Middle East, but we still spend time caring about it and its integrity. I get that Bonds hasn't committed a crime against humanity. How exactly does that exonerate him from the charge that he cheated?

6. This is a case of the press imposing its values on people.

Yes, and the Congress tried to impose values on Nixon in the early 70s. Was that a bad thing? I'd say that integrity and fairness are good values--essential values--to try to impose on baseball. Does anyone disagree with me?

It would be easy to go on, as it would with anything Dickey writes. There's a reason he's widely disregarded by other sportswriters and works on the fringes of the internet.

In the end, It's irresponsible of him to say that a comprehensive documentation of Bonds' cheating on the part of two reporters--something he'd be wholly incapable of--is not really news. Of course it is very important news. We should be grateful that somebody in the sycophantic world of sports reporting took it upon themselves to thoroughly dig into the biggest cheating scandal of our time and document its most significant cheater.

We owe those two guys thanks. Not a smug dismissal.

With the season coming to a close, I'd be interested to hear about what games people thought were big wins and big losses.

I'll start:

Biggest win--Zito over Colon in Anaheim

Biggest loss--No runs for Haren in Boston last weekend

I could elabarate, but I won't. I am hoping that's what some of you will do, though. I'd like to hear your reasons.

It's been  a great season--one that isn't yet over. I'm hoping of course that it has seven or eight more key wins in it.

Really, those who want us to stay positive about this team, you're just repressing the truth.

Tonight was one of the most disappointing games of the year. And it was truly Chavez's most disappointing.

That was an easy win and a guaranteed split. It didn't happen because Billy Beane has constructed a crap offense built around a child (a very nice, talented child--and Miggy was a child, too). It didn't happen because Ken Macha not only thinks Scott Hatteberg should play, but that he should hit clean up. It didn't happen because Dan Johnson gets one swing per at bat. It didn't happen because Nick Swisher has disappeared since...well, since you know when.

I love every player I just named. But no one leads, no one has swagger, no one has the relentlessness that we need right now. Just our same happy go lucky A's, never too far up or too far down.

And, God, I'm sick of it. Can I please read in the paper tomorrow that someone destroyed a water cooler or upended a buffet table or punched a teammate. Anything.

Who even wants to see this team in the playoffs. I mean yes, I'll watch every game, almost every inning, the rest of the way, but there is no way to believe in those nine guys that are our lineup. Consider how much better Cleveland's lineup is for a second. Or anybody's for that matter.

I'm with Oaktoon--who has been completely vindicated in his belief that additions should have been made. That Daric Barton or whoever else should have gotten the at bats that Hatteberg gets.

And about that: Hatteberg (another great guy, really--we all love Hatte, me included) was just horrible at the end of last season. He never should have returned. And yet we've wasted another year with him. And it is making a real difference. Just consider last night's double play. Or the dp he hit in the ridiculous Saturday night loss to KC about a month ago at home.

What else? Somebody should chew Chavy's ass out. Should get up on a bus and call him out the next time he opens his mouth to concede something. He's the king of the concession speech, year after year, week after week. You all know that. But did you hear on Fosse's show when he said that after the birth of his son he could have cared less if we won or not. What a dick. You can think that, but you can't say it. And really, you shouldn't even be thinking it. You make millions of dollars, and you should care. You had a child. It's a beautiful thing. But that means you can't care. Shut up and get a hit.

After games like tonight, I feel like Chavez. It's hard to care about this season and this team. It's just too much of the same torture that we've been undergoing for 6 years.

I like to think I'm reasonably critical and genuinely skeptical. Not in the least a pollyanna always trying to look on the bright side.

But the way many of the fans on this site discuss bullpen moves and the unpcoming schedule is blindly unforgiving in the case of the first and self-pityingly pessimistic in the case of the second.

Every time Macha makes a bullpen move and runs score he has failed (unless he put in Street or Duke) according to many of you. What nonsense. Do you think Witasick should pitch only when the game is decided. And Rincon. And Kennedy (oh, wait, Macha's initial faith in him proved many of you wrong). And Yabu (well, okay, he does do this with Yabu). My God, don't you realize that games are often tight and sometimes in tight games these guys will be out there? Can't you allow that just maybe in the 7th inning of a one-run game in Baltimore Jay Witasick might give up a run? Or is he dead for you now because of a few struggles. Should we just Yabu all our pitchers who might just not have an ERA under 2.00? It's insane.

And as for the schedule. Okay, we have to play the Angels and the Yankees and the Red Sox. And maybe when we face Seattle the one guy you fear might be on the mound. Deal with it. Don't you want us to earn our way into the playoffs? Shouldn't we have to beat these teams head to head to, uh, beat these teams out in the end and make the playoffs? Aren't you looking forward to the Yankee series? I think our schedule is a good thing and I for one welcome it. Let's go to Fenway and see what happens. Let's take on the Indians the same week. If we don't win more than we lose and miss the playoffs, so be it.

Like the rest of you, I won't love the team any less.

Last night (yes, before tonight's win) I had an epiphany. Admittedly, it was a pretty obvious epiphany, but amidst all the losing I was often having trouble seeing the obvious.

And here goes: The good thing about the last two weeks is that we know who we are, warts and all. We go into the off-season (playoffs or not) better knowing our flaws and what needs to be done.

This matters a great deal. Last September Beane found out something about his then-team, and he acted. The two off-season trades were made, in large part, because Beane believed we weren't likely going very fair as then constituted. Yes, the Huddy trade was in anticipation of his coming free agency, but clearly the Mulder trade was a trade Beane thought would better the team--whether Mulder had been locked up or not. I liked at the time that he realized the need to remake the team. I like even more how it has worked out.

And now--especially after the last few weeks--it's clear that more needs to be done. Very clear. The A's need two more bats. That's the unmistakable truth of the team. The bats can be a corner outfielder and DH/first baseman--the easiest places to fill. I think it is more certain than ever that next year we will have those bats. I don't think we'll go into another season with the crossed fingers we entered this one. No more Thomas/Byrnes/Kielty/Rookie for two spots. No more aging injured players for two spots. Johnson and Swisher get two of the four nods, and very likely the other two players will be a clear and unmistakable upgrade over what we've had for a long time. I think the A's will be significantly better in these spots.

And there's more good news from the last two ugly weeks. Haren and Blanton continue to pitch exceptionally well. Especially Blanton, who very few on this site have ever seemed completely sold on. He really appears to be better than we thought he was. And Haren can just be wicked at times. The rotation seems to be very strong--stronger than I thought it was two or three weeks ago.

So, I think there has been some good news to come out of all this recent ugliness. And, the truth is, we're still very much alive this season.

Yes, folks, it's mostly bad luck that has us where we're at right now. Stick with me and you'll see.

Remember post-All Star break when the A's weren't really hitting and went 23-5? Many here kept hinting at the fact that certain players were in pretty protracted slumps (Kendall, Crosby, Kotsay, even Chavez).

Johnson, Swisher, Ellis, and incredible good fortune were carrying the offense and the team. (I don't mention the pitching because it's remained so constant.)

The games that could have gone either way went our way again and again--the extra-inning win against Texas on the Kielty homer; the Payton catch in Texas; the Kendall tag at the plate; the comeback against Wickman that we eventually won with a two-out, nobody on  rally in extras; a one-run victory over Santana by Blanton; the two comebacks at home (including the sulk-off) against the Angels. And all the Payton 3-run shots at just the right time. A lot of wins that could have gone either way went ours, and all the while many were worried because the many guys weren't hitting.

Well, the offense is clicking a bit less (Chavez and Kotsay are hitting more, but Johnson and Ellis' torrid pace has slowed; and Kendall and Hatteberg have now completely disappeared). But the real difference is how much the luck has changed.

Look at the recent streak:

Two one-run losses to the Twins, the second of those in the 9th when Joe Mauer's lead-off, opposite-field double falls a foot fair.

The inning from hell in the first loss to the Orioles. The 0-2 hbp, the Sammy swinging bunt, the critical error.

The second loss to the O's in which the ump blows a call horribly and it leads to three runs, in which the A's waste two one-out, bases loaded situations, including in the 9th when they seemed sure to win.

Last night's loss--clearly the least lucky of them all--in which they strand 13 (twice on lines drives by Swisher) and are beaten by a bloop double fielded by the first baseman.

Of course, it's luck combining with bad hitting and bad play. But the bad hitting was often there when we were winning--we acknowledged that on this site.

What I think this all means, then, is that when the luck gets more even--which it likely will--we won't look like the 120-win team or the 60-win team.

We'll look like the 90-win team.  Which, plus or minus a few wins, is exactly what this collection of A's is.

We'll just have to find out if that's enough.

This interview should be a good one. And you have a chance to submit questions before or during.

And get this: I know it's a subscription site, but they're offering a free preview for the next week. So beyond the Beane interview, you can read their other excellent work about the A's and baseball in general.

Tell me again all you sports commentators how tough it's going to be for the A's to jump over all those teams for the wild card. Here are the records since we lost the final two in Toronto:

A's:         12-2 (10 on road)

Yanks:     8-6 (11 on road)       -4
Angels:    7-7 (4 on road)        -5
Twins:     7-8 (8 on road)         -5 1/2
Red Sox:  6-8 (7 on road)         -6
Orioles:   5-8 (10 on road)       -6 1/2
Jays:        5-8 (6 on road)         -6 1/2
Indians:   5-9 (3 on road)         -7
Rangers:  5-9 (4 on road)         -7

So, we played more on the road along with the Yankees; we played the toughest schedule along with the Yankees; and we made up this kind of ground. This has to be unheard of.

Consider that when we won twenty straight three years ago, we only gained 3 or 4 games on our closest pursuer. This time in an incredibly tough 14 game stretch we've gained from 4 to 7 games on the eight teams we're competing with. In part, this is because when they weren't beating each other or being beaten by us, they were losing to Tampa and KC and Seattle and Detroit and the White Sox. (Tampa, 7-3 since the break; KC, 6-5).

This is all unimaginable. And it has positioned the A's to be the favorite the rest of the way, given the schedule.

We've gone from just hoping we could compete, to finally winning, to starting to think we were in it, to reaching .500 in the first 35 games of this streak.

And then, blink, after the next 14 games, we find ourselves at the top.

Unbelievable.

No, really, this will be cathartic and pretty good fun.

Byrnes is inextricably tied to this question of course.

But for me, the most painful moment was the next day. Dye had homered to put us up 4-2. And after Rincon surrendered the bomb to his first hitter (Todd "Babe" Walker) he pitched through the sixth and seventh. Nursing a one-run lead, something we'd never had after the third inning in any of our previous seven series-clinching games, Foulke was brought in to get the final six outs. You know the rest. Nomar off the monster, and then the Ortiz bomb just out of Dye's reach. When the go-ahead run crossed the plate, I wept. I'm totally unashamed to admit this. I wept for four years of not moving forward. I wept for T-Long losing the ball in 2000; for the 1-0 loss in 01; for somehow not defeating the Twins in 02; and for what was happening before me, what had happened the night before, and what I accurately imagined might happen the next night in Oakland.

That moment crystallized the pain of those four years for me. It was my most painful moment.

And again, I just think this is kind of interesting, not depressing at all. These memories are part of our shared experience, part of our love for this great team which feels so full of possibility now. So, please, beyond just voting, feel free to share your own story, if you would.