Ray Ratto commented on the A's broadcast the other night that neither the 49ers nor the A's would be able to raise the money to complete their proposed stadiums.  This is certainly true as it pertains to the A's.  There is not going to be public monies to support a new A's stadium in the Bay Area, or any where else for that matter, due to the economy.  And private money is not going to invest the 100's of millions required for such a new stadium, realizing that it is a losing proposition.  Hopefully the A's owners will catch on to this and change their direction.  The A's will be in Oakland in this stadium for many years.  So get rid of Lew Wolff and his inane commitment to a new stadium as the number 1 priority of management.  Bring on a new lead owner who repudiates Lew's past, and commits to a winning baseball team in Oakland.  Commit again to rebuilding a fan base in Oakland.  It's the only logical strategy.  How long will it take ownership to realize that?

This is the fourth year of Lew Wolff’s tenure as owner and managing partner of the A’s.  It’s pretty clear that the results are bad, very bad.  Lew inherited a franchise that was performing well on the field.  The previous four years showed two first place finishes, and two second place finishes—two 100+ game winning seasons, a 96 and 91 win season.  And of course the setting of a major league record for winning streaks, at 21 games.  Attendance had grown to 27,000+ per game, not great but improving.  Oakland was a little less than average in the major leagues—19th out of 31 teams.  Playoff results had been disappointing, and there had been fan disappointment with the loss of some high performing and loved players—Giambi and Tejada for example.  But in my view, and I believe many fans at the time, we were excited about the teams prospects.

Continue reading this post »

All of us know we can't count on Hardin.  On the one hand, when he pitches, the guy is unbelievable.  If he ever had 30 starts in a season, he would finish with a win/loss of 20-5, an ERA of 2.5, and the Cy Young.  But what breaks our hearts, is that is never going to happen--never.  What is going to happen is that he is going to get somewhere between 3 and 10 starts--and probably the same W/L ratio, and the same ERA, and of course no Cy Young. I would propose that we can count on him for 5 starts, with 3 wins and 1 loss.

Since a # 2 or 3 starter, whatever, gets 36 starts a season, and Hardin gets 5 of those starts, that means the un-Hardin gets 31 starts.  The un-Hardin will have an ERA of something like 6.5, and in those 31 starts will go 7-14, with 10 no decisions--at best.  Unfortunately he will be death on the bullpen, but it's hard to capture that in the stats.  But his average start will be about four innings, meaning that in 31 games the bullpen will have to pitch 5 innings--ugly!

So the combined Hardin/un-Hardin will have a W/L of 10-15.  He will have an ERA of 6.0. So for the 5th starter, it's not too bad.

But the Hardin/un-Hardin is a not too bad 5th starter.  We don't have a Hardin #2, or whatever, starter.  We have an average 5th starter, who is composed of a great #2 starter combined with a #6 and #7 starter.

It's just the way it is with Hardin.  Accept the reality. 

The 2007 debacle with subprime mortages and plummeting housing prices will kill the new ballpark in Fremont.  The A's will have to rethink their planned move, and likely remain in Oakland.

Continue reading this post »

For a true baseball and A's fan, it is just so incredibly frustrating to watch Crosby and Chavez bat.  It's been wonderful for me watching a game without the frustrations of watching them at the plate.

Continue reading this post »

Huston Street is not ready to go over two innings, but there he was in the bottom of the 9th, two out--having pitched 2 1/3.  He was mainly there because our key set up guy, the Duke, was hurt and couldn't play.

The previous game matched Kenny Rogers against our true #1 pitcher, but Harden was in spring training form, just--due to injury.

Both pitchers would have looked directly behind them up the middle, and not seen the fielding range that might have been, with Ellis (should be Golden Glove) and Crosby,,both out with injuries.  Ellis in particular was missed at the plate as well as the field--he was not only hitting .286 for the last 30 days of the season and the Divisional playoffs, but his ability to work the count and get 10 pitch at bats was critical--a stat that doesn't make the box score.  And his two errors all season were matched by two errors by his replacement in the LCS--but that didn't cover it, because he would have reached a number of other balls, that is replacement did not.  I think two or three moe balls--would that have changed anything?

Who knows with Chavey?  Playing with injury,,,,was he prevented from making plays he normally makes.  Ron Washington said he turns that double play in the 2nd Tiger game "10 out of 10 times"--but just off the tip of the fingers of the glove.

Kotsay, Harden, Bradley, and Duke,,,,,maybe they are just injury prone,,bad backs, etc.  So maybe that's an ongoing problem, and they come with that.  Crosby too?--I don't think so, but looking at the record you have to consider that.

But the irony of Huston on the mound in the final game 9th inning, due to injury--it capsulized the whole season for me.  Yeah some would say injuries are part of the game, and it's true.  But this was an injury plagued horror show.

Most would agree this was an excellent season, and I somewhat agree.  But my expectations were at the top--when I saw the roster, I thought it was a World Series team, and with the weakness of the NL, likely a World Series winner.  Good that we got past that jinks of the first round,,,yes for sure.  But I'm disappointed right now.

The vagaries of the schedule have dictated that the A's have already played some of their tougher intra-league opponents, and the Angels have some key challenges left.  Specifically, the Angels have 10 games left with the Yankees and Tigers, while the A's have finished with those teams and done well, 6-3 and 3-3 respectively.  (Details in earlier post.)So now there is opportunity (opportunity, not guarantee) to stretch the lead this weekend, when the Angels play the Yankees, carrying over to a fourth game on Monday), while we play Tampa Bay at home.  These are the opportunities that division winners need to take advantage of--really beat up on the weaker teams!

The Angels are also 14 games through a tough period of their schedule, in which they play 24 games in a row.  They are 7-7 so far, and have lost some ground to our guys.  They lost the last two to Cleveland by a combined score of 18 to 2.  (Gloating material except we split the last two giving up 20 runs and scoring 7--funny ole game, baseball.)

Like most of you, I think the season is likely to come down to the last 10 games, of which 7 are the A's vs. the Angels.  It's just someone is going to have a lead going into that period, and I'm thinking it could be the A's with a 6 game lead or better,,,,,if we can take advantage of our schedule advantage (hard earned advantage, I should say.)

I think, and I believe most on the site agree, that the race for the Western Division will be between the Angels and A's--as in recent years.  Looking at the schedule for the rest of the year, clearly the most interesting feature is the last 10 days of the year, where the Angels and A's face off in 7 games.  This is as it should be in baseball, and will likely be incredibly dramatic.

But,,,,who will come into those last 10 days with the lead--a 1, or 2 or 3 game lead?  If these two teams are very equivalent talent wise, the schedule may play a role in this, and there are very interesting aspects.

Continue reading this post »

My impression in watching Huston pitch is that he has been well taught, probably by his dad, to focus completely on only those things you can control.  I have watched Huston get some horrible ball/strike calls, and when he does, he goes through his exact same routine of catching the ball from Kendall, turning to his left and walking around the back of the mound, getting on the mound, getting the signal, and throwing another pitch.  In other words, he doesn't lament the bad call, get all worked up about what might have been, etc. etc.  He just completely focuses on the only thing he controls--his next pitch!

Sort of like the Serenity Prayer;
God,

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

You can't change the last call.  You can only change the next pitch that you throw!

Contrast this to Blanton tonight.  Roaming around the mound, feeding on his anger and frustration, becoming moreso.  If anything pissing off the umpire, rather than persuading him to become a better umpire, or whatever he thought he was doing.  Mind you, I understand he was getting bad calls,,,,but the real question here is what do you do that most improves your situation.  IMHO, it's Huston's approach, and not Joe's.

I remember reading that Ted Williams' had a fantastic eye at the plate.  But he very rarely argued a call with the umpire (as opposed to arguing with the press and the public which he constantly did).  The article said he just accepted that umpires were human.  (and probably as a star he tended to get the benefit of the calls, so let's not get too carried away with this theory).  But still, it's the result that counts,,,,and letting yourself get upset just doesn't help the result--it just puts you outside the zone.

Were I Macha, I would try to get this lesson deeply ingrained in all of my young pitchers.  And the assignment for letting the umpire know your dissatisfaction with poor calls would be with my veteran catcher, Kendall in this case, and the coaches and the manager.

I know how unfair this comment is.  I've been positive all year on this team.  It's the "worst team we'll have for the rest of the decade".  But waiting for Chavez to come up and look like an idiot in the 9th, on 3 pitches--I knew he would do that!!  

I guess it's just being a diehard fan.  I'll be at every home game the rest of the season (except one).  And we still may overtake those Annaheim losers.  But man, this team is so, so painful to watch when they are at the plate--I watched the '69 Cubbies blow it to the f,,,,,ing "miracle mets".  and believe me, these are similar feelings.

Erik you make me sick!! on offense.  I admit I love the D.  But can't you work with someone one going the other way???  What is this all about?

Last week and this one coming are mirror images of each other.  last week the Angels played two top flight teams in the Red & White Sox, and they went 4--2.  The A's played two teams out of everything, Seattle and Texas, and went 3--3.

this coming week the situation is reversed with the A's playing the contenders (Indians and Red Sox) and the Angels playing the losers (Seattle and Detroit).  Dropping two games in the standings here will likely build a hill too high to climb.

The odds are obviously against us--but hey, teams beat the odds.  Our bats have to step up, and now.  The fifth starter slot is a problem, so trying some creative ideas like the 5th starter is two pitchers-- Kennedy (4 innings)/Cruz (until he gives out--may be called for.  (an idea mentioned by Bambi on the Cruz starter diary).

this has been a great year, looking at the rebuilding aspects coupled with the injuries.  Hopefully it's not over this week, but it could be.

Ok, so it doesn't rank with "Dewey beats Truman".  But this is the headline on the Chronicle website under sports-A's:

Back On Track
Zito solid as A's beat Rangers 9-5.
Notes: Harden takes first steps
Box score | How they scored
A's vs. Rangers (5 p.m., Ch. 36

Looks like the Editor who wrote the headlines decided the game was over in the middle of the 9th and went out for a drink.

I thought you wouold get a chuckle out of this, and there's not a good thread to use, so it's a weak diary, but a laugh.

last night was a huge mental error.
I was watching the game with friends on TV last night, and we screamed "Go!", as we watched Erstad go halfway over the railing making that catch in foul territory.  We were shocked to see Bynum running back to 3rd as the camera moved over to him.  We were surprised on only hearing passing comments on the tube, and then little comment on the radio replays later, or in the papers--I noticed this morning a few comments on the thread.  Here is what we thought, and I'd appreciate any comments.
o  Obviously a bonehead play on Bynum's part, as there is nothing productive he can do other than tag up on 3rd with the ball in foul territory.  He's got to be ready to run.
o  The thinking in advance of the play on Wash's part should have been be aggressive in this situation.  One run would likely win the game with Street in the bullpen.  It would be difficult on the bullpen to have back to back extra inning games, especially with the next 5 games with Angels & Yankees.  We've just pinch run for our top bat with a speed guy.  And if the chance of scoring is even reasonable, it's better than the alternative of runner on 3rd with 2 outs.
o  With Erstad running hard with his back to the infield, anticipation from Bynum and Washington should have been building to go on the catch, realizing that the chance of scoring is perhaps 50/50.  Put pressure on the defense!!
o  Erstad making the catch while doubling up over the rail should have cinched it, and Bynum should have been off!!  Of course it wasn't a sure thing, but you've got to go for it there!!
o  As it turns out, I think the play would not have been close, because Erstrad under pressure, and recovering from his position on the rail, makes a poor throw, well off the plate.

I couldn't tell if Wash was yelling at him to get back and tag or not.  I tend to put the blame on Bynum, because a professional, rookie or not, should know to tag on that play and give the 3rd base coach the option to send him, or not.

I'm interested to know what others think here.  I hate mental errors, and I think this was one.  Reminds me of 3rd game in Boston playoffs a few years ago--not touching home, not running out the play, etc.  I've seen far fewer mental errors this year than in previous years,,,,but I'll never, ever forget that Boston game, which IMHO had 5 or more significant mental errors--and should have clinched us moving on in the playoffs.

AN'ers are pretty good at predicting results, so make your choices in the poll, comment on your rationale, and let's see who we think will make it.  For the poll, I made the assumption that though they could make the wild card, Toronto and Minnesota will not.  They are too far back, and have too many teams to climb over to make it.  So there are 8 choices to choose from, plus a 9th if you don't buy my elimination of Minnesota or Toronto.  (I think I had to do this because I don't think you can have more than 9 choices--probably too complicated anyway with more.)  Note you're not specifying who the wild card winner actually is, you're just saying which four teams get in.

Continue reading this post »

A lot of us seem to have written this off, and are banking on our best shot being the Wild Card.  And I'd admit, the odds against us here are probably in the 10--1 area.  But I'm going with my heart, and some logic on this one.
1) we are suddenly on 7.5 back of the Halos, rather than the seemingly 9.5+ we seemed to have forever.
2)we play these guys 13 games in the second half.  we split with them in the first 6 games, and we're a far better team now, and still improving.  while optimistic, going 9--4 is possible, and then you are 2.5 back.
3)anything can happen if you are 2.5 back.

4. we're pitching much better than the Angels over the last 30 days--our 2.74 ERA vs. their 3.96, and our 1.07 WHIP vs. their 1.27.  Remember Sciossa said we had a better pitching staff this year than last due to the bullpen improvement, and he didn't know about Street when he said that.
   
5. we're also hitting about the same, our .296 ERA vs. their .299, and our .835 OPS and their .801.
   
6. the A's history of 2nd half closes--is that just coincidence, or is it just being a younger ball team that is fresher late in the season, and continues to improve since they're so young.  Well this is a really younger ball team, so we'll see.
   
7. I think the intangible factor of the experience, maturity, and grittiness of Kendall and Kotsay will really help this team.  I think their contribution on this factor is far better than what the A's have had the last 5 years.

Post game coverage, Sox comments, and today's newspapers paid well deserved respect to the A's.  Here are a few quotes from the two Chicago papers this morning:
-----------------------------
Maybe it's not a West Coast thing after all. Maybe it's an Oakland thing.

 After the White Sox had lost 20 of 24 games to the A's on the West Coast, they figured maybe they could get something going back in the Midwest.

 They figured wrong.

 The red-hot A's got them again, this time 4-2 before a Friday night fireworks crowd of 33,623 at U.S. Cellular Field.

 "I don't think it's a jinx, I think they have a pretty good pitching staff," Sox manager Ozzie Guillen said.
------
 Three A's pitchers "held" the Sox to nine hits Friday, but the A's hitters knocked around possible All-Star Game starter Jon Garland for eight hits in five innings.

"They made him work," Guillen said. "When you face the Oakland A's, they're going to make you go deep in the count. You know when you face Oakland you have to throw the ball over the plate."
-------
It was another loss to the A's.

 "In the past you can say it was [Barry] Zito, [Tim] Hudson and [Mark] Mulder, that was the jinx," Guillen said. "Now they're pitching good again and they know how to play the game."
--------
But in the Oakland Athletics, the Sox have a heck of a problem.

''I threw some good pitches, but they battled and made me throw a lot of pitches,'' Garland said. ''They had a game plan and stuck with it. Luck wasn't on my side tonight.

 ''They made us work for outs. The ball rolled their way tonight.''

 This time, the Sox' offense couldn't get going against right-hander Kirk Saarloos (5-5), who benefitted from several fine and timely defensive plays.
---------------------------------
The same respectful tone was true of the post game analysis on the White Sox channel, both from Hawk and his sidekick in the booth, and the two analysis guys.  Also very positive post game comments from Guillen, some covered in the above newspaper quotes.

This is a big change from the previous two series, where A's victories were really ascribed to bad luck, poor calls, strange ballpark, etc, etc.  This should happen of course--we've taken 5 out of 7,,,,,,but still it's nice to see.

It's interesting to look at Chicago, and the Cubs and White  Sox, as a point of comparison to the Bay Area.  Here's a very interesting article.

Even with best record, White Sox run second in Second City
Posted: Wednesday Jun 22, 2005 5:32 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/alerts/baseball/mlb/  

CHICAGO (AP) - The Chicago White Sox are the best team in the majors, with no idea what second place is like this year. They're a likable, entertaining bunch, and their manager is one of the most colorful in the game.

Anywhere else, they'd be the toast of the town, adored by casual fans and diehards alike. But the White Sox are the second team in the Second City, consistently underappreciated while their neighbors on the North Side are showered with love no matter how dismal their record.

"It's always been that way,'' said Bill Hyde, 68, a lifelong White Sox fan.

In Chicago, South Siders root for the White Sox, North Siders for the Cubs and that's all there is to it. Allegiances are handed down from generation to generation, and they aren't switched or shared, even when crosstown moves, marriages or politics are involved. Richard Daley may be mayor of all of Chicago, but his loyalties are on the South Side. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich remains a committed North Sider.

With more than 7 million people in the Chicago area, though, there should be more than enough fans to go around for both teams. Yet here the White Sox are, with a seven-game winning streak and a 49-22 record, and they're still trailing the Cubs in attendance.

The White Sox had drawn 885,906 through Tuesday night's game, an average of 24,609 per home game. The Cubs, who began the day just three games above .500 and 8 1/2 games behind St. Louis, have already drawn 1,354,376, an average of 37,622 per game.

"The Cubs, they draw regardless of what type of team they put on the field,'' said White Sox slugger Frank Thomas, who qualifies as an expert after spending his entire career on the South Side.

"It's always more of an event over there to see a ballgame,'' Thomas added. "Over here, it's about winning. When we win here, we draw very, very well. When we don't play well over here, we don't draw well. That's just the way it's been.''

Attendance has picked up lately. The team averaged almost 31,000 fans over the last five games, and they're sure to get another bump with this weekend's visit from the Cubs.

But on a warm, sun-splashed afternoon, only 24,544 turned out for Wednesday's 5-1 victory over Kansas City. While that's the largest crowd the White Sox have drawn on a Wednesday this year, it's still well below the 39,000-plus who were at Wrigley a week ago.

"It's a shame, because they're in first place,'' said Lisa Lopiccolo, a longtime White Sox fan who goes to about a half-dozen games a year. "I don't understand, because they pack them in at Wrigley.''

The reasons are varied, but lore and location can be blamed for most of the White Sox's attention deficits.

The White Sox have gone almost as long as the Cubs without a World Series title - 1917 to 1908 - but the Cubs were so inept for so many years that fans couldn't help but root for them. They weren't just losers, they were lovable losers, and the curse of the billy goat only adds to their folksy charm.

Bill Veeck tried all kinds of gimmicks to sell the White Sox - remember those uniforms with the shorts? - but their history isn't quite so endearing. There was the Black Sox Scandal, when Shoeless Joe Jackson and seven other players were suspended for throwing the 1919 World Series, and a near riot on the ill-fated Disco Demolition Night.

In 1994, Chicago had one of the best records in baseball when the strike occurred. Only Montreal was hurt worse by the work stoppage.

"The strike didn't help,'' said John Klepitch, who brought his 11-year-old daughter Shelly to a game earlier this week. "It took me a few years to come back.''

It doesn't help that the Cubs play in a shrine, a must-see for fans of any team. Wrigley Field is the second-oldest ball park behind Boston's Fenway Park and still looks much as it did when it opened in 1914. The ivy on the outfield walls and picturesque upper-deck views of Lake Michigan give Wrigley a quaint, old-time feel, and the dozens of bars and restaurants nearby turn games into a daylong party.

"The Cell'' can't compare. When it opened in 1991, the topmost upper-deck seats were so dizzyingly steep they should have come with a Sherpa, and the outfield concourse was little more than a bland stretch of concrete. The view was of one of the city's meanest housing projects, and there were few bars or restaurants nearby to entice fans to come early and stay late.

"They have a unique thing going there, playing in a shrine, in a great neighborhood,'' said Brooks Boyer, vice president of marketing for the White Sox. "But we think the experience we provide fans when they come here ... is second-to-none.''

The White Sox have taken fans' complaints to heart, starting with a wide-ranging makeover of The Cell. In the last five years, eight rows were taken off the upper deck, and the dated, slanting roof was replaced by a flat one, giving the park a more cozy feel. The bullpens also were moved so fans could see pitchers warming up; a multitiered batter's eye with a "Fan Deck'' - and ivy - was added; and this year, the three-story "FUNdamentals'' was put up in left field, complete with a child-sized diamond, batting and pitching cages.

The team has also tried to make games more affordable, with ticket deals most Mondays and Tuesdays.

"The ballpark right now is family friendly,'' manager Ozzie Guillen said. "That's how you create fans. Make sure the kids are White Sox fans.''

While the White Sox aren't about to replace the Cubs as the city's favored team just yet, there are signs they're gaining ground. With attendance up about 12 percent so far, the White Sox are on pace to have their best attendance since 1994, and Boyer said sponsorships are at an all-time high.

When the White Sox traveled to San Diego and Colorado earlier this month, left-hander Mark Buehrle was stunned at how many White Sox fans they saw - and heard.

"We'd be coming around the bases and we'd be like, `Are we at home or on the road?''' Buehrle said. "You're seeing more Sox gear, more stickers on cars, people wearing shirts and hats.''

But to win over a city like Chicago, the White Sox know their best bet is to just keep doing what they're doing.

"Our fans, much like us, we're tired of second place. We've got to prove to them they're coming out to a see a winner,'' general manager Kenny Williams said. "That's something to aspire to.''

Blez, we're 25--37, not 24--36.  (I wish you had some kind of an email where we could send something to you, like this,,,I'd rather just point it out to you only.)  But if you, we, are trying to be somewhat accurate, classy, bright, in our discussion of our beloved A's, the site has to be up to date.  

I know you're busy with a ton of things that we all greatly appreciate (great articles on the draft for example, truly wonderful things like a first child, etc. etc.).  So if things on the website like the AL standings can't be kept up to date, just leave them off.

Maybe with Nico involved now you could give us a way to make suggestions in a private way.  I'm a little embarrassed to write this, but this has bugged me for days.

I doubt this is possible this year, (duh, some of you may say).  Our youth, and our bullpen are going to prove to be awesome.
but looking to '06 and beyond, 3 questions

1.  Chavey not being able to handle the outside pitch.  (TB didn't take advantage of this like others will.)  Something is big time amiss here--why is this still going on?
   
2.  Kendall/young pitchers allowing too many steals.  Actually I think they will work this out, or maybe hope they will.
   
3.  Can we get a high enough OPS to really win?  BB may need to pull a big time OPS guy in, at year end or before '06/'07.

Can one of you defend Macha's stubborn insistence in hitting chavez at 3 or 4?
How many times do we have to watch him strike out (bases loaded, no outs, 1rst inning at Cleveland last night) again, and again, and again.  At least last night on the first two strikes he tried to go opposite field--but give me a break, he is ,,,,,killing us.  You must watch this like me and just go,,,,crazy!!!

I actually like Chavez.  He's a great D 3rd base (at least before being crucified by Macha in this slump with Macha's ,,,,inane insistence at keeping him at 3 or 4 in the order).  He's at best a .275 hitter with power, low self confidence, and good D--and in retrospect we overpaid him.  Probably a wonderful person, good family man, great guy to have a drink with....).

But what in the......,,,,,is this guy doing, after asking to be moved lower in the batting order, batting in the middle of the line up?  

I'm going crazy with this!  Don't you understand what an incredibly demoralizing signal this is to other team members?  Perform like s...., but who cares??  Do it over and over, but who cares???

I have never, ever, seen a manager do this!!  Can one of you give me an example?!  And other A's fan mocks my comment on the Jack Welch book,,,,any respectable CEO would have made this change!!  What is happening with the A's, and with our "oh well, it's the injuries, it's the....".

Yes, I know and agree that the injuries have been hurtful to the team, and I am actually very positive on the pitching (1,2,3 and closer), and on BB.  So I'm not a raving negative lunatic.  

But how, oh how, can you defend the ludicrous Macha?  Am I crazy, like Lear, ranting on the plains!!  Someone must give us, or maybe not us, but me, a rationale for this absurdity--and not things like Chavez always starts slow so we should bat him 3rd even though he doens't want to bat 3rd.

There are things outside of management's control ( injuries to some extent), but there are other things in managment's control--like who plays and the batting order!!!!

Excuse me fellow AN members, I know there are some that agree with my rant, but I'm just so incredibly frustrated with Macha, not fixing the things under his control, and with others on this board excusing him.

Macha should explain his absurd decisions, or BB should fire him!  

Are we in some nether-netherland?  This is absurd!!  I am out of my mind watching Chavez come up and striking out in key situtionsl.  The fact that Macha doesn't move him down in the line-up is ridiculous.  Fire the guy!!  There is no excuse!  None, chavez has even asked to be moved down!!  Macha is frozen in ineptitude!  Stop torturing us!!!  Macha's lack of common sense on Chavez only opens the door on the foolishness, the ineptitude, of his other decisions.

I think BB is great in many ways, and I, like Blez, am a real fan.  But BB, give me a ,,,,,break!!  Macha's decision on chavez is so absurd, he gives you no choice.  

Beyond Macha, can't you see the results of the loss of Peterson.  I knows it's hard to fire people you have gotten to know, but if you are going to be "competent", you are going to have to show some toughness!!

And if it's your decision not to hold these guys accountable, you need to be put on a program--get your head on straight!!  If not, you should be moved into a different role--not fired, yet.

BB, would you read Jack Welch's book on winning!!  You are turning a wonderful story into a farce!!  WAKE UP!!!!

First, my answer is I sure hope so.  But now that we have a new owner, who hopes to keep the team here, what's the realistic answer to this.  He's going to look at the numbers, and over the next several years make a decision.  What is he going to see?

Attendance:  between 2001 and 2005 season-to-date average attendance per game has ranged from 27,365 in 2003 down to a low of 25, 173 per game--the low number being this year, and hopefully it will pick up.  Among the 30 major league teams our ranking in attendance has been between 17th (2003) and 19th (2001 and 2004), with this year at 18th so far.  (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2005&seasonType=2)

Ticket prices:  these figures are less available, but the latest numbers I could find were for 2001, and show what we all probably suspect.  The price per ticket makes the A's an incredible bargain.  In 2001, the average ticket price for the A's was $11.72--averaging bleachers, box seats, etc.  Only two teams were below us--Minnesota and Montreal who were each slightly below $10.00.  Hmmm, Montreal, huh?,,,,,  And this year's box seats of $30 are the lowest I have seen around the league.
(http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1294)

Revenue:  the combination of ticket price and attendance put the A's at 25th out of 30 teams in 2001.

On the field performance:  With 91 wins or more the last 5 seasons, 4 playoff appearances, 3 division championships--you've got to say the record is very good.

So if you were the new owner, would you keep the A's in Oakland?

A's former starters have 3.28 ERA vs 4.75 ERA for the current starters.  I noticed that in looking at the top 35 pitchers in MLB in terms of Innings Pitched season-to-date, that six of them were former A's starters, or in Jerry Bonderman's case, a potential former starter.  That list included Mark Redman, Bonderman, Mark Mulder, Aaron Harang, Tim Hudson, and Kenny Rogers.  I wanted to compare 5 starters to our current starters (determined by most innings pitched this year), so I dropped Kenny Rogers, since he was traded quite a few years ago--dropping him hurt the former starter's stats, since he is off to such a great start.  For the A's the starters are Zito, Harden, Haren, Blanton, and Saarloos.  The statistics were very interesting, and somewhat dramatic, but not surprising to me--and I doubt they will be to you either.

The ex-A's have a 1.5 advantage in ERA.  They have started one more game on average than the current starters--9 games started versus 8 for the current starters.  They have achieved a far better won and loss record.  The ex-A's have won 21 and lost 11.  While the current A's have won 5 and lost 18.  Obviously this is heavily influenced by the A's bottom dwelling on all major hitting statistics.

Many managers consider it a quality start if the pitcher goes at least six innings and allows 3 runs or less.  On average the ex-A's are over achieving on both points.  They are going 6 2/3 innings, and they are only giving up 2.43 runs over those 6 2/3 innings.  The current A's are not quite achieving quality starts on average.  They are going 5 2/3 innings and giving up 2.99 runs over that period.  (Actually I was a little surprised the A's starters were that close to quality starts, but then realized that a 4.5 ERA implies quality starts, and interestingly that's about the average ERA in the American League.  That makes me wonder if the bar is set too low for a quality start, because it implies that the average start is a quality start.)

This of course is pretty significant for their respective team's bullpen.  The ex-A's are asking the bullpen to pitch 2 1/3 innings each game, while the A's are asking the bullpen to pitch 3 1/3 innings--an extra inning per game, 50% more innings out of the bullpen over the course of a year.  They also are leaving the game, having given up .56 fewer runs even though they have pitched the extra inning.  And since on average over the big leagues, I think the bullpen has a lower ERA than the starters, theoretically this extra inning is higher risk of yielding opposition runs.

It was interesting that if you determined the ex-A's pitching rotation based on their current ERA's, Hudson and Mulder would be the fourth and fifth starters.  The Big 3 would be (in order) Redman, Harang and Bonderman.  On the other hand Mulder even with his highest ERA of 3.71 would have the best record at 6--1, though this clearly has something to do with the power house hitting Cardinals.  I wouldn't expect this ranking to play out this way over the course of the year, but who knows?

The ex'A's would likely rank second in the American League in ERA.  Currently the White Sox lead with a 3.20 ERA, and the Twins are second with a 3.56 ERA.  The ex-A's would need about 50 innings of bullpen work, and I think it's safe to assume the bullpen would not lower the ERA to pass the Sox, but also would not be so disastrous as to lower the overall team ERA from 3.28 to 3.56.

I do not mean to imply that BB has blown it with his policies.  Clearly we couldn't afford to keep Mulder and Hudson.  And clearly the other three were traded for good reasons at the time, and we've probably got some pretty good players as a result.  Also this kind of analysis is of the "perfect hindsight" variety.  But still, we baseball fans love our statistics, and our "what if's".  

Actually as I look at our young pitching staff--current staff, the DL, and Sacramento--and how it might develop, I'm extremely excited about our pitching prospects for later in the year and the balance of the decade.  I think we may end up with one of the most complete pitching staffs (starters, bullpen, and closer) in the majors over the next few years.