War of Jenkins' Ear

In a recent article, the San Francisco Chronicle's Bruce Jenkins managed to take some of the generally positive sentiment generated by the Rangers-Giants World Series match, and somehow mold it into a cynical evaluation of A's General Manager Billy Beane. I'm not questioning Jenkins' credibility as a writer by any means-he's written plenty of columns that collectively reflect his knowledge, and he's done so for a long time. What I am calling into question is what he seems to imply in the article. His argument seems so shallow that once you read the title, you might as well have read the entire article (minus the factual tidbits at the end).

(pictured above: Ron Washington congratulates Milton Bradley in 2006
Source: Bush, Darryl. San Francisco Chronicle, 2006)

Do I disagree with the point? No, I don't. I agree with Bruce Jenkins. I agree that Ron Washington would not have worked out as the Athletics' manager to the same extent that he has for the Rangers.

Like I mentioned earlier, what I don't agree with (or at least need clarification on) is what Jenkins' seems to imply. After pondering the amount of managerial consideration Billy Beane gave to Washington prior to the 2007 season, (Jenkins also describes Washington as "a man with a pulse, someone who speaks from the heart") he then writes "nobody wonders too long about that, because the answer is an emphatic NO." The latter portion is fine. Without question. But if nobody wonders about it, then why is it the point of your column, Bruce? Well, it looks like readers have to assume that the reason is the simplest of the simple - because it's a dog-eat-dog world we live in, so almost everything comes down to some sort of comparison when you break it down to the core (sports columns would be one of the last things exempt from this train of thought). So it's here, in Bruce Jenkins comparative entry, where the certainty of hindsight allows Ron Washington to be the great baseball manager with a heart (and a pulse to go along with it) while Billy Beane's authoritarian approach to organizational operations apparently make the imperceptible Bob Geren the ideal man to squeeze 81 wins out of a team that evidently overachieved (according to Bruce) by finishing 2nd in the AL West.

WHAT?!

Ron Washington has a pulse, and the Rangers finished in front of the A's, so he's the reason the Rangers are a good team. Is that what Bruce Jenkins means? I'm asking this because there isn't much else to go on . Where's the support? Wait...something else is missing...oh yeah! Where's the foundation? Ron Washington is a good baseball man, there's no denying that. But Bengie Molina could have player/coached the Rangers to a division title. The Rangers success and the A's mediocrity in 2010 was predictable three years ago. In fact, it's almost amazing the A's reached 81 wins just three seasons after having no significant big-league contributors and a depleted minor-league system. But Jenkins' article seems to give off the notion that if Billy Beane had loosened up the leash entering the 2007 season and hired Ron Washington, the 2010 Fall Classic would be a rematch of the 1989 series.

"It's just such a great thing that Washington left Oakland and joined a team he could really manage."

Is it such a great thing? Are we all simply astonished by Ron Washington's unique managerial approach to baseball? NO! That "NO" is more emphatic than Jenkins' "NO" regarding Washington's hypothetical managerial career in Oakland. At this point, Jenkins' seems to expose his own personal convictions more so than anything baseball-related. It's certainly a great thing for Ron Washington that he left Oakland and joined the Rangers. I don't know how great it would have turned out elsewhere. In some cases...actually no...in quite a few cases, it may have turned out horribly! Would Jenkins' have written this same article if Ron Washington had been in Trey Hillman's shoes the past three years? Maybe - if Ron Washington managed the Royals to the World Series. More importantly, would that have been possible if Wash' was in KC? NO! The cards Wash' was handed when he took the job were his greatest asset, not something he inherently possessed before he left the Bay Area nearly 4 seasons ago.

"There's no pervasive offensive philosophy on the Rangers, no strict directive to go up there and watch a million pitches pass by."

It seems as though Bruce is attributing a ton of Ron Washington's success to the moment the Rangers apparently became the Burger King of MLB front offices and told their skipper "have it your way, Wash!" By comparison, it's a given that Washington has far more control over the Rangers than he would have had he been named manager of the Athletics. But Jenkins seems to be under the impression that either the A's are the only team that implements specific philosophical approaches from the GM on down, or the Rangers are the only ones who don't. I don't know if he did it intentionally or not, but Jenkins' was correct when he mentioned that there isn't any offensive philosophy implemented by the Texas front office (that is public knowledge at least). If that was indeed intentional, it's probably because Jenkins is aware of Nolan Ryan's emphasis on pitcher stamina, which minimizes the significance of pitch counts, but is a big reason the Rangers' staff stresses year-round conditioning to their pitchers. The rational effect of this approach undeniably alters such state-of-the-game decisions regarding how, when, and where to use which pitcher, and therefore, the managerial approach taken by Ron Washington.

I could go on to criticize Jenkins' article in a thousand more words than it was even written, but that would ultimately detract from my objective. Although, when Jenkins implies that Ron Washington is courageous because he confessed to his own personal weakness after testing positive for cocaine use prior to the start of the 2010 season, it seems as though Bruce is using the most arbitrary details of Washington's off-the-field life to accredit his managerial success. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge Ron Washington fan, and I think he's a terrific manager. I think there's plenty of in-game decisions that make that evident. I also think that someones' personal life and professional life are two entirely different entities, and therefore should be kept separated in their respective analyses. I don't think Ron Washington is a bad person because he tested positive for an illegal narcotic. I don't know the man! I know little about his personal life other than Eric Chavez gave him one of his 6 Gold Glove Awards, and that his New Orleans home was ruined by Hurricane Katrina and Jason Giambi helped him recover in the aftermath. Beyond that, I could say nothing about Ron Washington that doesn't have something to do with baseball. His character is what distinguishes his status as a "good" or "bad" member of society, so only people who know Ron Washington could judge him in that respect. It's in that same respect that we can't accurately judge Ron Washington's professional career based on the decisions he makes in his personal life. We have an infinite number of metrics we could choose from to evaluate Ron Washington's effectiveness as a manager, so why would we throw in some anecdotal nonsense that isn't even close to baseball-related? Bruce Jenkins may not agree with that particular idea, and that's fine. But citing a positive drug test as an event that ultimately revealed Ron Washington's courage to the public and somehow tying it back to the Rangers playing in the World Series is ridiculous. The last I checked, it was a bad thing to test positive for illegal drugs. Jenkins goes on to say that Billy Martin and Tony LaRussa have proven that not-so-good life decisions don't have to get in the way of success on the field. Yes, once again, I agree with the idea, but what is Bruce implying in that statement? I'd like to point out that, although Tony LaRussa may have been arrested for DUI, he's one of the most respectable individuals in society - not just in baseball. He's an animal rights advocate, and I admire him more for his personal ideals and contributions to society (such as ARF) than I do for his contributions to the game...other than maybe the 89' World Series. I'm a far greater supporter of LaRussa outside of baseball because of all of the work he's done to protect animals. I actually can't stand his strategic approach to baseball...but LaRussa's managerial decisions are a completely different topic...just like they should be.

In Case He Ever Reads It (within the next few weeks)

You're covering the World Series, Bruce. Giants fans will probably appreciate a column about what you think they're doing right a lot more than A's fans will appreciate a column about what you think they're doing wrong. I hope you realize that. Go A's.

PLAYOFFS?!

Well the A's obviously aren't in them but quite a few A's fans probably can't seem to get away from playoff fever. I'm talking of course about the local buzz surrounding the National League neighbors of the Athletics, the 2010 NL West Champion San Francisco Giants. Although "playoff fever" is probably something the more bitter, envious, and spiteful A's fans would like to see turn into typhoid fever, it's undeniably an exciting time if your teams apart of it. And besides, any baseball is better than no baseball.

(The last play in A's postseason history from the 2006 ALCS is pictured above)

The seemingly inescapable talk about the 2010 MLB Postseason among Bay Area baseball fans is a direct result of the Giants success at the end of the regular season and through the playoffs so far. There are sure to be some A's fans who are genuinely mutual rooters of the Giants, and others who clench their teeth at the very thought of their success. What I might find hard to believe however, is that there are A's fans without an opinion on the matter-with the exception perhaps being those living outside of the region. Otherwise, your indifference can't be conditional, and the success of another team within the A's market cannot be ignored. The Giants were good this year, and their strong September play proved beneficial when the Padres decided October baseball wasn't for them.

As an A's fan, it's hard not to be a little jealous, especially since this is the first time since 1997 that the A's didn't make the playoffs while the Giants did. With that said, you can't hate someone for cheering on the team they grew up watching, and outside of the ballparks, I'm a fan of anyone wearing their team colors. It's also always good to see people who are fans of baseball in general. (This is a completely different conversation, but in a film-sport analogy, Michael Bay films are to football, as Stanley Kubrick's films are to baseball. That's a reference to both popularity and intellectual quality. Don't get me wrong, I've followed the NFL in the past as well as the NCAA in the more recent past, but I grew up in a Niners household and they're pretty much becoming the Royals of the NFL.) Growing up on the peninsula has forced me to accept that being an A's fan means I'm going to be in the minority, even within my own social circle. Personally, most of my close friends are very intelligent and loyal Giants fans. For them, I can be happy if the Giants succeed in the playoffs. Those I refuse to be happy for, and those I will insist on detesting, are the people who have just started following the Giants over the past eight weeks. I refuse to acknowledge these people as baseball fans, and if the Giants go on to win the 2010 World Series, it will make me sick to know that these people have the privilege of believing they were apart of something as special as a World Series. I understand that people like this are apart of almost every team to make a playoff run, but I'd feel the exact same way if it were the A's.

Another adverse effect this should have on the A's is from the media's standpoint. The Bay Area media practically refuses to acknowledge the very existence of the A's as it is. Even when the A's are good it seems as though they need to win twenty consecutive games, or have their starting pitcher throw a perfect game just to remind the local media that they reside in the same region. The amount of excessive discussion in 2011 alone that will come as a result of the Giants' postseason success is already a given. At this point it's merely a matter of how much bigger the already (and literally) "Giant" shadow hovering over A's will actually become.

Although some A's fans might say they refuse to root for a team whose owners allegedly want the A's "out" of the region, (a thought substantiated by the Giants attempt to "block" San Jose from the A's) there's little proof beyond speculation that Larry Baer and Bill Nuekom want the A's to depart from the region. While they obviously wouldn't have a problem with the A's moving elsewhere, it's important to note that Giants ownership said nothing about the Fremont development, or the A's excursions within their own territory. Thanks to a post on NewBallpark.org, it's theorized that Baer and Nuekom apparently made a deal with Jon Fisher in which the A's majority owner claimed he would not pursue any ballpark developments in San Jose. That information is something most A's fans following the topic have been left in the dark about, and it also makes the Giants ownership not seem so merciless. As businessmen, it's understandable why they'd like A's ownership to honor their agreement. From that same business aspect however, it would also be nice to see the Giants take a more marketable approach to the situation if the A's can't find a new home in the East Bay, especially since the A's are the ones who granted the Giants their rights to the South Bay (it was previously mutual territory) back when they were in danger of moving to St. Petersburg.

Just For Fun

And of course for the more jealous A's fans (and any other A's fans surrounded by victims of the playoff-fever epidemic), it's still consoling to point out that even if the Giants win it all this year, the A's still have more trophies in ten less years spent in the Bay Area.

Here are a few facts about the Bay Area MLB franchises and their history in the region-just to sooth the pain of envy

• As I mentioned earlier, this is the first time since 1997 the Giants have made the playoffs and the A's did not
• Since the A's moved to Oakland in 1968, the Giants have made the playoffs just 3 times in years the A's have not, including this year (1987, 1997, and 2010)
• The Giants have made the playoffs 8 times, including this year, since 1968
• The A's have made the playoffs 15 times since 1968
• The A's have won the World Series 4 times in 6 opportunities since moving to Oakland
  
• The Giants have not won a World Series in 3 opportunities since moving to San Francisco

While these facts are fun to acknowledge, and prove the A's have the historical edge, what matters right now is that the 2010 NL West Champion Giants are a win away from their 4th pennant since moving to the Bay Area, and the Athletics are watching it on television. We can all point to history as a means of relief, and the historical facts are certainly a legitimate assertion. But we desire relief in large part because we wish we could all be where they are right now.

An Athletics Prophecy Based on Postseason History

Here's a playful prediction keeping with the theme of Bay Area baseball. Consider the following:

• As of right now, the Giants lead the NLCS 3-2 over the Phillies
• The last time the Giants led the NLCS 3-2 was in 1987 versus the St. Louis Cardinals (the Cardinals came back to win the sixth and seventh games)
  
• That same year, the A's finished 81-81 and failed the make the postseason
• The following year, 1988, was the first of three consecutive seasons in which the Athletics made the World Series (only winning it 89')
  
• This year, 2010, the A's also finished 81-81 and failed to make the playoffs
• The ONLY times in San Francisco Giants franchise history in which they led the NLCS 3-2 were in 1987 and this year, 2010
• The ONLY times in Oakland Athletics franchise history in which they finished 81-81 were in 1987 and this year, 2010

This obviously means the A's are headed to the Fall Classic in 2011, 2012, and 2013. You read it hear first. (Of course I say this jokingly but if it happens I won't let anyone I know hear the end of it)

And the American League Side of it

Perhaps focus should be shifted off the Giants and over to the league the A's actually play in. Sure, a lot of people said the Rangers were going to win the West coming into the season. After the month of June it started looking like it would be difficult for them not to win it. But a lot of people also said they were going to get booted quickly from the postseason too. No team was as frustrated with Texas as the A's were, and A's fans probably share that same sentiment. Regardless of your feelings about it, the Rangers are going to the World Series. I rooted as hard as anyone possibly could have against the Rangers this past season, but it's hard to resent them when it was a miracle the A's were able to stave off elimination until a week left anyway. When you watch the final out, it's also hard not to be happy for Ron Washington. Not only that, it's also hard not to look twice when CJ Wilson lifts up Bengie Molina around the 1:17 mark. As much grief as I gave bandwagon fans earlier in the post, it's nice to see Texans give as much attention to the Rangers as they do the Cowboys. San Francisco's always been as good a baseball town as it is a football town, but the Rangers almost always take a backseat to the Cowboys (maybe not this year since they're 1-4).

(Rangers winning the American League Pennant pictured above)

The 2010 A's vs Who's Left

Seriously, with the Rangers winning the American League Pennant, and the Giants a win away from taking the NL Pennant, it's a tough call for A's fans on who to root for (or who to root against more). On one hand A's fans could root for the Giants and argue they're doing so because the Rangers were the only team standing between the A's and a division title. On the other hand, the Giants share the same market, and the media frenzy as a result of a trophy on the west side of the bay may quite possibly become the most irritatingly inescapable provocation to ever exist for an A's fan. Either way, if the Giants do indeed play the Rangers in the World Series, one things for certain-A's fans will not hear the end of it, no matter who wins.

The Rangers clinched the AL West on September 25th in Oakland

How did the A's fair against the leftover playoff teams?

• They went 0-0 vs the Phillies

• They went 3-3 vs the Giants

o The A's took the first three at the Coliseum while the Giants took the last three at AT&T Park

o The A's and Giants both looked like different teams when the series switched venues. The A's were 1st in the West when they played host, and three weeks later they left San Francisco losers of 5 of their last 15, never to rise higher than 2nd in the standings for the remainder of the year

• They went 9-10 vs the Rangers

o This series was a close one, and was in the A’s favor for most of the year

o 10 of the 19 games were decided by 3 runs or less

o The A’s lost the final three games of the series, the second in which the Rangers clinched the division

Take what you want from this. This is an A's blog, so excuse the perceived biases. Go A's.