OK. They are a "crapshoot", in BB's immortal words. I get it. Extremely small sample size, though it is growing for one Nicolas Thompson Swisher. But at some point the numbers start to matter.

Example A-- it mattered that between 1980 and 1997 the AFC won a grand total of 1 Super Bowl. Whether it was the 49ers dynasty, the Bears great season, the Redskins or Giants dominance, or "How bout them Cowboys!!", the simple fact is that one conference was clearly superior to the other, just as from 1969-80 the NFC had only two Cowboy victories to brag about.

Example B-- it matters that in the last 40 years the Big 10 (including just those Penn State years in the conference) has only one and a half national championships in football, mythical though they still may be: Ohio State's disputed victory over Miami and Michigan's split-verdict title with Nebraska in Tom Osborne's last season. That conference was supposed to epitomize the sport, and yet they have been badly outstripped by competition to their west and south.

So I do think we should note that since Robby Alomar went deep on Eck, ending a 5 year run of World Series appearances for the AL West, the A's division, in either the original or newly constituted form, has had a grand total of 1 WS participant, the Angels in 2002. They have never been back despite making the playoffs in 2004, 05 and the last three seasons. The A's, of course, never got there in any of their 5 appearances between 2000-2006. Neither did the Rangers in their brief run atop the division in 1996, 98,99. Nor the Mariners in their multi-year playoff run between 1995 and 2001. For 17 years now this division has bombed out in the postseason in one fashion or another. A team with Johnson, Griffey and Edgar Martinez never got to the World Series? Or with ARod? Or Ichiro? The wonderfully strong "fundamental" team in Anaheim hasn't been back since 2002? Not to mention the A's famous first-round disasters.

The overall postseason series record since 1992 for the 4 current AL West teams is 9-18. That's a .333 success rate. 6-18 not counting the 2002 Halos. The division hasn't produced a Wild Card team since the WS champion Angels in 2002.

Now of course you are muttering "but what about the Yankees and the Red Sox?" Of course. They both got smart or smarter to go along with their wealth. But somehow the Rays made it to a World Series. Somehow the White Sox made it to a World Series. And the Indians got there twice in the 1990s and came closer in 2007 than any AL West has done in the past 7 years.

And will it change anytime soon? We won't know probably until 2011 at the earliest whether the next iteration of playoff Oakland baseball (assuming there is a next iteration, that is) is better than the last. We won't know if Texas will shed 10 years of mediocrity and climb the mountain into the postseason with their young talent and what might happen if they get there. Or if LAAAAAAA can keep their roll rolling, only playing better in October. Come to think of it, since Tampa still has all that talent and the Yankees and Red Sox aren't getting dumber, it's doubtful that all three of these teams (and I'm not even considering the M's) even get to the postseason more than once in the next 5-7 years. The drought may last a while.

Lots of hue and cry today over the inequity of the playoff format where a wild card team gets Games Three and Four of the opening best of 5 series at home, and only plays one fewer home games than their division-winning opponents. Never mind the fact that on several occasions that wild card team has had a better record than at least one or more of the division winners.

So various alternatives are tried out, including a "play-in" series involving 2 WCs in each league, a best of 5 where the division winner gets either the first 4, or all 5 games at home, and the extension to a best of seven format. Former A's 1Bman (twice now) Jason Giambi is quoted as saying that with the depth of the A's starting pitching in the early 2000s such a shift (the 7 game  opening series) would have meant a WS in Oakland. Presumably he means more than just the two playoff series he participated in, 2000 and 2001. So let's take a good hard look at all four of the postseasons involving the Big Three.

The first point that jumps out at you is that it was a Big Playoiff Three only once, in 2001. That vaunted starting pitching depth Giambi references was true in the regular season, but not in the playoffs. Mulder missed both the 2000 ALDS in his rookie season and the 2003 ALDS due to injury. Hudson was rendered mainly ineffective in both 2002 and 2003 by injury, the latter either caused or exacerbated by a late night barroom brawl in Boston.

In 2000, due to the Mulder injury and Hudson pitching the season-ending clincher vs. Texas, the A's rotation was headed by Gil Heredia (who won Game One and lost after an early KO in Game Five), followed by Kevin Appier (who lost Game Two to Andy Pettite), Tim Hudson (who lost Game Three in the Bronx to El Duque) and Barry Zito (who won Game Four in New York) The Yankees were forced into a 3 man rotation with a horribly ineffective David Cone as their 4th starter and a mediocre Denny Neagle as their 5th. They used Roger Clemens going for the kill in Game Four and then Andy Pettite in the decider back in Oakland the next night, both on three days rest.

Would New York have rolled the dice this way in a 7 game series? I doubt it, given that Clemens would then have had to come back again on 3 days rest in Game 7 back in NY. This was a different Roger Clemens than the version that steroids helped bring back to prominence later in the decade. I think New York would have sacrificed Game Four with Cone or Neagle (a game the A's won anyway) would still have beaten Heredia (though perhaps not to a TLong misplayed "sunball" in the first inning) in Game Five in New York, and then would have been up 3-2 going back to Oakland with Pettite and El Duque set to finish the A's off. vs. Appier and Hudson. These were the two time defending champs, mind you. I think in all likelihood the series ends in Six with Pettite besting Appier again. But who knows?

In 2001 the Yanks had the same trio of starters plus Mike Mussina, while the A's were substituting Cory Lidle for Appier. If you recall the 9/11 attacks caused a one-week delay in the season, which allowed the top teams to set their playoff rotations well in advance. The A's-- a 100 win wild card team-- elected to have Mulder and Hudson open up in the Bronx, followed by Zito and Lidle. Obviously there is no reason to think that series would have been any different through Game Four, when El Duque and the Yanks pounded Lidle and the A's and Jermaine Dye busted his leg. Without Dye the A's lost back in New York-- Mulder losing to Clemens. I do believe that was a winnable game if it had been played in Oakland, and since it wasn't a clinching game (couldn't resist this one) the A's might very well have won. Then Dyeless could they have won once in New York (Hudson v. Pettite and Zito v. Mussina)?

I think it would have been the best bet in all these scenarios, but I also hasten to add that the Mariners would have become clear favorites facing an A's team in the ALCS without Jermaine Dye. And given the problems that Hudson would go on to face in each of the next two postseasons, one has to wonder just how effective he would have been against Seattle. And we'll never know if Cory Lidle (RIP) could have overcome his scab status and earned the team's trust by winning a big game vs. the Mariners.

For those two realities doomed the A's in 2002. Hudson was hurt and the A's lost both games he started, in part because of his own insistence, backed up by Mulder and Zito, that they shift to a 3 man rotation and leave Lidle out of the mix, despite Lidle's great close to the season including a long scoreless inning stretch. In a best of 7 that was split in Oakland, do the A's win Game Five in Minny with Mulder? The same game they lost in Oakland??  Probably not. They would then have to win both Games Six and Seven returning home with Zito on short rest for the first time in his career (and remember he was the CY winner that wasn't selected to pitch in Games One or Two in order to avoid ths very short-rest situation) and a less than optimum Hudson on short rest again. I think Lidle would have been in the mix somewhere but I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

Forget 2003 with no Mulder and, then, curiously, no Hudson either. The Sox were the better team and would have ground the A's down in a 7 game series.

I guess I'm saying Giambi's claim is doubtful, except perhaps in 2001 and even then I don't think the A's get past Seattle, who after all did win 116 games though they would lose to the Yankees.

I really hesitate to join what certainly appears to be a very spirited debate. But as an agnostic I would like to see those on each side of the Cahill issue react to the following, which I must admit sort of blew my mind.

Trevor Cahill pitched three relatively strong games at the beginning of the season. He faced 77 batters. None of them hit a HR. His GB/FB ratio was 1.19/1 (31 GB and 26 FB)

Then over the course of 20 starts Cahill was lit up. He faced 481 batters and 25 of them hit HRS. That's 1 HR every 19 hitters. Unless you are named Bert Blyleven or Brad Radke that rate of gopherdom is not a ticket to staying in the Show. His GB/FB ratio in those starts was .8/1 (170 GB and 209 FB).

Then... and here's where the drum roll or something comes in... Cahill over his last 8 starts faces 190 batters and allows all of 1 HR. 1HR per 190 batters. That's giving up a longball at exactly one-tenth the rate of the previous 20 starts. I have not studied this particular aspect of pitching all that closely, but this seems to me to be an extraordinary development. But maybe not. Is it the same as David Ortiz showing no power for most of the first two months of this year, and then reverting to prior form for most of the rest of the season? Except do we really know where Cahill's level lies whereas we've seen Ortiz establish a track record and can speculate about age and no steroids causing a downturn in his power production? And not surprisingly Cahill's GB/FB ratio in these last 8 starts has been 1.45/1, a substantially greater weight to GBs than in the "Bombs Away" period. Roughly 30% of batters are hitting fly balls lately off of him; it was over 40% previously.

My own admittedly amateur take on this is that it must go beyond sheer randomness or blind luck. He must be doing something much different in the last 6 weeks or so compared to the three months prior. Does it mean real improvement and a portent of things to come? I don't know, but I'd really like to hear from the real statistical pros around here on this one.