Yeeehaaaa!

With the Rangers and Angels in the division I thought it was going to be a very long time before the A's made the playoffs again. What a crazy year.

Jeez, they will not die! All the attention has been focused on Baltimore and they just keep plugging away.

Jeez, they will not die! All the attention has been focused on Baltimore and they just keep plugging away.

Shhhhhhhh.
These ninjas wear green & gold.

I guess we'll find out if Beane's #### works in the play-ins.

I guess we'll find out if Beane's #### works in the play-ins.

Not if they win the next two.

I guess Moneyball really CAN buy you love...

Great job, A's.

$15 for View Level tickets behind the plate? Cripes, those aren't even bad seats. I'm officially ordering all Bay Area Primates to pick up some A's playoff tickets for themselves.

congratulations to the a's and their fans. quite a season

Well, I hadn't been as hopeless about an A's team since those crap teams they had in the late 90's so this year has come as a complete surprise. In all my years following the A's and Giants, I don't think I've ever been so shocked by how good one of the team's has been since I'm normally overly optimistic about them. Whatever happens now is just gravy.

And you're about to hear a lot of crap about the small postseason attendances (if they end up having any home playoff games) in Oakland to which I say who cares. The people who do show up are as passionate as any fans in the country and it matters to them.

Now everybody do The Bernie before it becomes completely annoying and played out.

Mmmmm... flounder.

Again surprised at the amount of celebration. I mean, you got two more games to try to win the division. Focus!

(half in jest, half not)

And you're about to hear a lot of crap about the small postseason attendances (if they end up having any home playoff games) in Oakland to which I say who cares. The people who do show up are as passionate as any fans in the country and it matters to them.

Considering the relatively inexpensive tickets and the attention they're getting locally as a Cinderella team, I wouldn't be surprised if they sell out fairly easily. There are definitely seats available for people on a budget, and you might even get some Giants fans crossing the Bay considering Giants tickets are going to be pricey and hard to get.

Plus you know, a lot of casual fans just root for both teams.

Great! Now win the next two!!

Interesting to note that Oakland has the lowest per game attendance of any playoff team this year at 20,409 but that they are well ahead of Tampa Bay's 19,346 (worst in the major leagues).

Still, Oakland started the year as a team without hope - eliminated by the time spring training started as far as many were concerned. Crowds of 10k were common in April. How has it been now though, playing Texas with a shot at clinching a playoff berth? Right when the excitement should be peaking? Er... 21,162. What about on the weekend? 16k/21k/21k. Ugh. For comparison the Jays, who have been out of it for months, had 25/36/31k this past weekend (yes, against the Yankees, but still that was for a team fighting for last place) and 12k for Monday's game against the Twins. The previous weekend (against Boston) the Jays out did the A's as well with 21/27/21k. So either Boston/NY are better attractions than winning or the A's fans really need to wake up and see that they have a good team.

Meanwhile Tampa has seen 2 games with 20k+ this month, just 3 in August and just 5 over 30k all year - 3 vs NY in April, a game vs Miami and an April game vs Minnesota (???).

If any 2 teams are to move I'd put Oakland and Tampa at the top of the list. Put those teams in Montreal and you'd see 30-40k a game this year (check attendance in 1994 when the Expos got people to believe in them).

If any 2 teams are to move I'd put Oakland and Tampa at the top of the list.

No offense, but no one's asking you. Go try to steal someone else's team.

Pretty much everyone in March: Why doesn't Billy Beane's sh1t work in the regular season?

If the lowest team attendance in the league is over 19,000 then MLB just had a fantastic year and has pretty much nothing to complain about.

And not to rain on the A's parade, but I'm contractually obliged to note that the play-in game is not the damn playoffs.

And not to rain on the A's parade, but I'm contractually obliged to note that the play-in game is not the damn playoffs.

I was wondering that myself and the consensus seems to be that it is, in fact, considered making the playoffs despite it being called the "Play-in" game which makes it sound like it's not. They should just call it the Wild Card game to reduce the confusion.

Pretty much everyone in March: Why doesn't Billy Beane's sh1t work in the regular season?

I lost my faith for a bit there. I wrote the team off after the 9 game losing streak, honestly. And then...BRANDON MOSS!!!!! sent Kila and his newborn infants ruthlessly back to the minor leagues. Thanks to Kila for taking one for the team.

If the lowest team attendance in the league is over 19,000 then MLB just had a fantastic year and has pretty much nothing to complain about.

It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...

It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I was wondering that myself and the consensus seems to be that it is, in fact, considered making the playoffs despite it being called the "Play-in" game which makes it sound like it's not. They should just call it the Wild Card game to reduce the confusion.

Both the consensus and MLB say that it counts as the playoffs, I just believe strongly that it shouldn't. It's not the playoffs its the interstitials.

It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...

I think the national TV money has gotten so big that teams won't want to cut that pie smaller for a small one year share of expansion fees. Before so much of their revenue was local, I think teams were willing to take some upfront money in exchange for dividing up future revenues smaller. I don't see expansion fees for a place like Portland would justify that, though.

I was complaining about how few fans there were at the game just two days ago, but my Facebook feed suggests that Oakland A's fever is approaching some sort of critical mass. All sorts of comments about last night's game after an entire year of silence.

Dear Angels:

Games in April actually count.

Sincerely,
Shredder

Records since April 27th:
Texas: 78-62
Oakland: 81-58
Angels: 83-57

Undone by one really shitty month. As much as it pains me to say it, I'd love to see the A's beat out the Rangers and then have the Rangers go down in the wildcard game.

I'm going to try to go to the game tonight, and at least one home playoff game if I can. Last nights game was pretty exciting. even the guys at the giants bar would transition from mocking excitement to actual excitement.

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!

And thanks to everyone for their congratulations and well wishes.

YOU NEED CORE STRENGTH TO BERNIE LEAN

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Woot!

So now the second act of the Billy Beane bashing will begin.

The six games the A's had with the Giants vs. the six games the Rangers had with the Astros are being felt now.

Woohoo!

Balfour was electric last night. Everything looked like so much fun; wish I could have been there.

If the A's win their final two games, and the Yankees lose at least once, the A's would be the top seed in the AL.

Blackley will be on the shortest leash ever tonight, no?

Rangers Yankees WC play-in would be great.

If the A's win their final two games, and the Yankees lose at least once, the A's would be the top seed in the AL.

That's just bonkers. What a crazy year.

AS someone who's three favorite teams are the Nationals, A's, and Orioles, I kind of don't know what to do with myself.

Playoff vs. play-in, my 2 bps:

If they get a check for the play-in game, it's a playoff. If no check, then it's game 163, regular season.


I have to admit I ignored the A's in April & May. They were ON PAPER a AAA team by design. Lew Wolff was winning his battle with me. He turned me, a passionate fan, away.

But Lew & I were both wrong. Me, joyfully. Him, not so much.

The playoffs is free money for Lew, which nobody would ever look sideways at, and if the team still fails to sell out, it would perhaps even strengthen his argument that Oakland and the Coliseum are unsuitable.

Blackley will be on the shortest leash ever tonight, no?

I think so. Melvin has had a very short leash the last week or so with starters.

If they get a check for the play-in game, it's a playoff. If no check, then it's game 163, regular season

I think it has to be a postseason game, because it'll typically be played by teams with records more than a game apart, and the winner will sometimes still be behind the loser in the regular-season standings. That's a perfectly fine postseason outcome, less so for a Game 163.

What I'm worried about is that player records will start to include a separate line for "Division Play-In Game" or whatever they'll call it. Bad enough when it went from separate WS records to WS + LCS and then to three lines for every guy who played for a pennant winner. It's reaching the point where a single postseason line per year might be reasonable (as well as legible). Who's Who in Baseball is going to look ridiculous. And on B-Ref, one can get detailed game logs at a click anyway.

Everyone should have my worries, I realize :)

I think the national TV money has gotten so big that teams won't want to cut that pie smaller for a small one year share of expansion fees.

Agreed. Expansion happens only when it _increases_ the TV money. Like Mexico and New Jersey.

This should finally silence those "Wolff Conspiracy" theorists, I mean it's not like...

Lew Wolff was winning his battle with me. He turned me, a passionate fan, away.

But Lew & I were both wrong. Me, joyfully. Him, not so much.

(CLEARLY you missed the postgame party)

The playoffs is free money for Lew, which nobody would ever look sideways at, and if the team still fails to sell out, it would perhaps even strengthen his argument that Oakland and the Coliseum are unsuitable.

*sigh*

HOW can anyone still think that stadium isn't a genuine problem? Notice the attendance...even when they win?

*smh*

Nevermind

AS someone who's three favorite teams are the Nationals, A's, and Orioles, I kind of don't know what to do with myself.

Drink.

The playoffs is free money for Lew, which nobody would ever look sideways at, and if the team still fails to sell out, it would perhaps even strengthen his argument that Oakland and the Coliseum are unsuitable.

I think at this point, given that it is basically a football stadium, the Coliseum is unquestionably unsuitable. Oakland may or may not be.

And good for the A's, I hope to see them at Yankee Stadium on October 7th. And not a day before!

HOW can anyone still think that stadium isn't a genuine problem? Notice the attendance...even when they win?

It ain't the stadium, it's the region. The A's have always drawn poorly relatively to the league, even in the 70s when the team was awesome and the stadium conditions weren't an issue yet. People remember the late 80s and think that's the normal condition, but the A's have always been a poor draw. The East Bay is small and there's a bunch else to do. They either need to build a new state of the art stadium in the East Bay to maximize revenues there and accept that they're still going to be on the league's dole even so, or move and reboot.

43 - I agree, it's a confluence of factors , NONE of which were orchestrated by the "Evil Genius Wolff". The area sucks, the stadium sucks. All I am saying, is that it's no conspiracy.

Almost every seat in the Oakland Coliseum seems to be far away from the action, It's the anti-AT&T Park.

The A's have always drawn poorly relatively to the league, even in the 70s when the team was awesome and the stadium conditions weren't an issue yet.

Uh, are you familiar with the history of the Coliseum? The stadium was very poorly maintained during the 70s.

Ignoring the Wally Haas era, when the A's drew when they won and drew decent crowds when they didn't, is pretty high up on the levels of parsing the statistics. The A's had a solid TV and radio presence, the Coliseum was well maintained, even pretty, and the A's ran a large payroll. Haas was rewarded for that with solid support when the team was good, and a respectable core when it wasn't.

The 70s? The stadium stank and was difficult to get to (BART wasn't really functional until the mid to late 70s, after the three-peat), the A's were barely on TV and their radio station was frickin' college radio. Finley was a baseball genius, but he was a parsimonious jerk.

The 90s had endless whining over a taxpayer funded ballpark while the Giants were building a palace with their own money and the A's spent most of the decade rooted to the bottom of the AL West.

The 00s saw the A's blow off most of their free agents (admittedly this turned out to be wise more often than not), fail to win playoff series, and saw just as much whining over getting a taxpayer funded ballpark. In the meantime the Giants were a marketing/PR machine, won a pennant and contended for several seasons with the most transcendent player since Ruth, and played in that self-financed palace.

The 10s have seen the A's try and bail from the area completely to San Jose for a ballpark that has at least some taxpayer assistance and the A's fail to spend more than the bare minimum on their team.

This reminds me a lot of Montreal, where MLB/ownership's failings got glossed over in favor of blaming the victim. I mean, seriously, there's a bunch else to do? Well #### it's a major metropolitan area, of course there are other things to do.

Get the A's some decent ownership, stop stonewalling Oakland and go from there. If they end up in San Jose then fine but Wolff is after an obvious money grab, he won't even take most of Oakland's proposals seriously unless they buy half of downtown's real estate as a gift.

#46 - Oakland wanted to play hardball, they lost. Why is that so hard to fathom? You make it sound as though Oakland was willing to work with the team at any point, they wouldn't, which is why the team was sold to Wolff to begin with. The prevailing thought was that if anyone could do something, it would be him. They (City of Oakland) cared more about keeping the Raiders content. They made their bed and can now lie in it. IF there had been good faith negotiations from Oakland, you might have a valid point. There NEVER was.

The 10s have seen the A's try and bail from the area completely to San Jose for a ballpark that has at least some taxpayer assistance

Aside from the rest of the revisionist history, I like how you left out that the part where the Giants did the same thing--that is, when they weren't trying to move to Florida.

And that right now, the only thing stopping the A's from "building a palace with their own money" is the Giants.

Oakland wanted to play hardball, they lost. Why is that so hard to fathom? You make it sound as though Oakland was willing to work with the team at any point, they wouldn't, which is why the team was sold to Wolff to begin with. The prevailing thought was that if anyone could do something, it would be him. They (City of Oakland) cared more about keeping the Raiders content. They made their bed and can now lie in it. IF there had been good faith negotiations from Oakland, you might have a valid point. There NEVER was.

Schott and Hoffman never made any serious proposal to Oakland that involved the A's paying for their own stadium, which I would consider pretty much the starting point of good faith negotiations.

The city doesn't care about keeping the Raiders, it's the return of the Raiders that made the political climate so hostile to publicly financing a ballpark. I guess if Wally Haas bought it up in 1992 then he might have gotten something done, but nobody at the time thought the Coliseum was a dilapidated stadium. It was a pretty nice park back then.

Aside from the rest of the revisionist history, I like how you left out that the part where the Giants did the same thing--that is, when they weren't trying to move to Florida.

And that right now, the only thing stopping the A's from "building a palace with their own money" is the Giants.

Well that and their refusal to negotiate in good faith with Oakland, including the frankly laughable claim that Howard Terminal is not a suitable site for an MLB stadium when Wolff is willing to build a Triple A-sized stadium in San Jose (money grab!).

I don't see what the Giants were doing in the 80s as relevant, unless you want to state that the Giants playing footsie with moving to San Jose or out of the area entirely fueled part of the glory years of A's attendance. Something I wouldn't really disagree with.

Let us try an exercise that requires FACT, not OPINION:

Can you, without relying on assumption and opinion, actually back your claims? I do not think you can, and the most telling part of your entire argument is this:

I don't see what the Giants were doing in the 80s as relevant

Of course not, is that why you left out the 80's on your post? Correct me if I am wrong, however, I am pretty sure that was your post in 46. You made correlations between what the Giants were doing and what the A's were doing....you can't backtrack on that when it no longer fits your argument. The Giants have EVERYTHING to do with this situation, as if not for their opposition, this wouldn't even be something we would be discussing.

If you have to reach and construct your argument in such a fashion (conveniently cherry picking when to include the Giants, picking what is relevant based upon your opinion, etc), maybe it's time to re-evaluate your position?