I'lk repeat what I said in the other thread. It's so much fun watching a team of nobodies dominate the overrated bunch from North Texas. Love watching Texas choke yet again.

Thread is a bit early, as Texas does have the type of team that could make a big comeback, but boy is it fun to watch. 12-5 going to the top of the 9th (Beltre/Cruz/Young due up), Texas has just one more time at bat to try to save their division title and avoid a do-or-die game against either the Yankees or Orioles.

Boy would that be nice, two big spenders facing off in a do-or-die battle for the right to face the Orioles or A's or Tigers. Tigers are a big spender, but a market that makes Toronto look gigantic.

Given Oakland's surprising pitching this year, I vote for "Miracle WHIP". The taste of victory is...tangy.

Is it too soon to proclaim the Athletics as the present day 1969 Mets?

Yes, obviously. First the A's need to win the World Series, or else it's not that big a deal. Oakland improved by 20 games, which is impressive, but there is no shortage of teams improving by a similar number of games and getting into the post-season. Most years feature such a team. In 2012, we also have Cincinnati (18 or 19 games) and Washington (18 games), headed to the post-season. Not to mention the even more impresive Orioles (24 games). Last year's Brewers improved by 19 games. The 2008 Rays improved by 28 games (and lost the WS); the 2006 Tigers improved by 26 games (and lost the WS.)

But even so - the 1969 Mets improved by 27 games and won the WS. Since then, the most impressive similar feats would be the 1991 Twins (21 games better) and the 2002 Angels (20 games better.) Which is closer to what an A's championship would resemble. So maybe it's not too soon to just say...no.

Yes, but how many teams win 94 games while not having a winning record any of the previous 5 years.

I had to answer my own question:

Since 1969, there have been 18 teams (by my count) that have had at least 5 season of .500 or lower baseball and then won at least 90 games (actually its 17, but I give 1994 Cleveland credit for 94.6 prorated wins).

Only two have won the World Championship - the Miracle Mets and the 2003 Florida Marlins. The Marlins improved by 12 games and won "only" 91 games before riding Josh Beckett's arm to the title.

Since the Miracle Mets, only one team in our list has won at least 100 games - that was the 1988 Athletics who won 104 after no winning seasons from 1982-97.

Seven teams lost in the World Series:
1984 Padres (92 wins)
1988 Athletics (104 wins)
1991 Braves (94 wins)
1993 Phillies (97 wins)
2006 Tigers (95 wins)
2007 Rockies (90 wins)
2008 Rays(97 wins)

Two teams made the playoffs, but not the World Series:
1984 Cubs (96 wins)
2010 Reds ( 91 wins)

Three teams missed the playoffs
1978 Brewers (93 wins)
1979 Expos (95 wins)
1984 Mets (90 wins)

And one team had thier season ended due to work stoppage (1994 Indians).

That brings us to this season: three teams have joined the list - the Nats, Orioles and Athletics, something that happened only once before  (1984 - though only two of three teams made the playoffs).

In 2011 the A's had 3 pitchers worth 2 WAR. 2 of those 3 were traded in the offseason for minor leaguers, and the 3rd only pitched 111 innings this year.

Only 48 of 162 games this year were started by a pitcher who spent more time in the majors than minors last year.

I can't believe any team with this profile has ever made the playoffs.

On a side note, and a tragic note, A's reliever Pat Neshek's son passed away today, one day after he was born. Neshek, a sidearmer formerly with the Twins, had a sub-2 ERA and was a good candidate to be in the A's bullpen during the postseason. He still may be, but I don't think anyone would blame him if he wasn't prepared to pitch.

Tough season for the White Sox. With a thin farm system and some aging or departing veterans (Peavy, Konerko, Dunn, Pierzynski, Youk), they could be in for a rough ride over the next couple of years. Although counting KW out never seems like a good idea...

Which site was it that was doing their division winner calculations back in May, and had the Rangers at 100%? Hasn't everyone figured out that until it's over, you can't guarantee anything in this wonderful game?

Oakland is ann amazing story for sure, definitely the As are my team to pull for in the playoffs.

Good read on how the platoon advantage worked for them this year over at Fangraphs.  Sounds like the Carter / Moss 1b combo and the Smith / Gomes LF / DH combo generated almost 3 extra wins this year, although based on past performance it's closer to 1 / 1.5 wins projected.  Still, I wish that AA would look at ways to take advantage of platoon options to maximize the roster we currently have.  On that note, does anyone know a good source for minor league lefty / righty splits?  

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/oaklands-platoon-advantage/

Mike Napoli is a pretty similar player to Jonny Gomes, but quite a bit better.  Used as a companion to Adam Lind, platooning when Lind is healthy and playing everyday when he is not, and getting the occasional catching gig, you could get him 450 PAs with a wRC+ of 125 or so, in an average year.

I don't think I'll be able to root for Oakland until they move to Santa Clara or wherever.

Can't see myself rooting for anyone in the AL, actually, probably won't watch.

Sure.  He has more defensive value than Gomes, in addition to more offensive value.  My point was that this club could have really used a player in a semi-platoon role (as Gomes was used this year), and they had a better one than Gomes in their clutches. 

That would be Baseball Prospectus. I give them credit for owning up to it in an article yesterday though.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18517

Mentions how they had the A's at a 1-40 odds of winning the west on September 25th.

Better is - http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18532 - where they confess to having the A's at 0.0% chance of winning the west 46 times this year between April and July. 3 times the Orioles were also at 0% before they finally finished 2nd on the final day of the season. Their staff picks (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=16245) had 100% of voters putting Baltimore in dead last of the AL East too.

I'm just trying to get my head around how a team that spends $214M on a free agent in 2012, and whose payroll has ranged from $107M to $138M in each of the last five years, is in need of a "competitive balance" pick in 2013.

The picks I can live with if the team is in a small market or a depressed one (which Detroit is). Whats weird is how they can spend $214 million on a free agent while the Jays, in a much bigger market, talk about 'payroll parameters'.

Mike Ilitch loves to win. Once the NHL set a spending cap on his Red Wings, he started pumping more money into the Tigers. They might not be as profitable as the Jays, but I envy their fanbase.

Because it's not the market that's dictating it, but the owners themselves. Mike Illich had no issues putting that contract out, while Rogers... is the opposite.

The Tigers drew over 3 million fans this year.  They aren't exactly hurting for money.

Kinda weird to use Holland in relief when you could fill up your roster with relievers.