That is, are they a team that gets to the playoffs and then fails over and over? It's been three years in a row now that they lost the Division Series in the fifth and deciding game. If you're the A's, what do you do to get over the hump?

I don't think the A's will be up to doing it for quite as long as the Braves. They play in a much tougher division. And ownership can't/won't wpend the money that will eventually be needed to keep the core of the team together the way the Braves have.

But they really have to be a bit shattered by this year's loss in particular. No shame in losing to the Yanks, but I'm sure they felt they were going to roll over the Twins. Clear cae of taking an opponent too lightly.

And Art Howe has to stop with this 3 man rotation. These guys today can't do it, plain and simple.

Stat time-Lifted from the current Sports Illustrated. Not counting this season's playoffs, since 1996 there have been 20 games where the matchup was a pitcher on 3 days rest vs. a pitcher that was fully rested. Only 1 pitcher on short rest recorded a win and the teams were 5-15 overall.

Agree with GVF. I think the A's need to win at least one series before you can even begin comparing them to the Braves (talk about damning someone with faint praise!) And the whole 3-days rest for a picher who has thrown 200+ innings on 4-days rest is incomprehensible to me; why tamper with the formula that got you to the playoffs? I see the A's as being somewhat like the Mariners of last year and the Rangers of 97-99; several years of getting to the postseason, frustration at not getting very far, followed by a slide into irrelevance that accelerates as your better players get fed up and move on.

To answer the question in the subject heading: No. The Oakland A's 2000-02 are the new Earl Weaver Era Baltimore Orioles.

The currently-constituted Oakland A's are known for two things: (1) an offense built around home runs and walks (and deep pitch counts) and (2) great starting pitching. This is a prototypical Earl Weaver team in so many ways.

The offense is the classic Earl Weaver. Draw a lot of walks, then hit those baserunners in with three-run homers. You don't bunt or steal bases because those will cost you outs. There is no such thing as a "productive out" in this offense, because even one additional out makes it less likely that you'll have baserunners when the home runs happen. (Davey Johnson, a Weaver disciple, in his early years with the Mets ran this offense too: those Met teams never bunted.)

And, as for pitching, the A's have Mulder, Zito and Hudson. The O's had Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar and Dave McNally. Mark Mulder even looks like a young Jim Palmer. (Anyone wanna see Mulder model some bikini underwear?)

The Earl Weaver O's used to run up gaudy regular season records, then underachieve in the playoffs. They appeared in four World Series and won only once (1970 against Cincinnati). They lost the ALCS two years in a row (1973-74) to an AL West team with an inferior record (back when the AL East was FAR superior to the AL West).

Why? Better pitching, maybe, exposing the weaknesses of the uni-dimensional offense. They would face a steady diet of good quality pitching that wouldn't give up so many cheap walks or stupid HR's. I think that, come playoff time, the O's had tired starting pitching, since Earl Weaver did not know how to handle a pitching staff (just ask Jim Palmer: he still LOVES to remind people about that). I don't get the feeling the Art Howe is mishandling his staff, even though pitching Hudson on three days rest was a serious mistake. (Was Cory Lidle that bad of an alternative? Guess so.)

But this is the analogy I'm sticking with.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Great analogy. We ought to know by now that 3-run homers don't usually win playoff games. Most teams with great pitching who win championships end up having to scratch out runs to do it.

And the analogy goes even further.

Both have been unappreciated poor-drawing small market teams playing in butt-ugly football stadiums in football-obsessed towns. Baltimore never turned out for Orioles games back then. The team was always for sale and on the verge of moving. The Colts owned Baltimore (as anyone who's seen "Diner" knows). The O's didn't start drawing until the Colts snuck out to Indianapolis in the middle of the night back in 1984 or so.

I think the results of SHORT series -- especially 3-of-fives, over a mere *3* years -- are being overrated here. Basically, Oakland lost this year cuz Hudson stank twice, the Twins got a great starting pitching job in Game 5, and Billy Koch threw a fat one to AJ. Sometimes you just lose a game -- it can't be prevented when you're building your team. (Steinbrenner will never learn this.)

And, to be a shameless second-guesser, Howe should've begun the series with Zito!

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill W ]

Nah, after last night's game, the Atalanta Braves still have a lock on that title. The "new" Atlanta Braves are still the old Atlanta Braves.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn't talk. Not with a monicker of MARINER duck boy.

CharlieITTrees: [quote](Anyone wanna see Mulder model some bikini underwear?)

---

Oh, Lord, please, I beg of you. I'm on my knees and everything. That man is one long tall cool drinka water. (I met him briefly once. He seemed very modest and shy, which makes him all the more attractive.)