First of all, I'm sure this has been mentioned on the site this week, but I thought it was worth highlighting on the front page. it is really refreshing to read something other than negative comments about the city of Oakland. Besides having the second coolest name in the Indians outfield circa 2002, Coco Crisp sounds very genuine with his comments here:
"I'm excited," Crisp told reporters in a conference call. "I have a lot of family in Oakland. I'm an Oakland Raider fan, too. So I'm excited and would love to help the team move up in the division and hopefully win the division. That would be nice."
Also, be sure to check out the nicely put together Fan Post highlighting the A's prospect lists from Kevin Goldstein and John Sickels.
In slightly more depressing news, Scott Ostler put together this piece, aptly titled "Still can't believe he didn't slide", as if A's fans needed any more reminders of that particular Gatorade moment.
Don't take it too hard, Bay Area sports fans. Anyone can have a bad-hair decade.
Major team championships were scarce (as in zero) in the '00s. The struggles were mighty, the frustrations profound. But we've still got 90 years to get this century on track.
There's no point wallowing in self-pity and negativism as we blast into a new decade. But on reflection, what grade would you give Bay Area sports for the 2000s?
On this judge's report card: C-minus.Why sugar-coat or over-complicate a decade that can be summed up in three words: "Slide, Jeremy, slide!"
Somehow when you see it all laid out like this, it doesn't look all that good for Bay Area Sports. The four major sports in the Bay Area had a combined total of zero championships in the decade. The Warriors had their moment in the sun--one out of ten years--the 49ers did not; the Raiders landed a SuperBowl appearance, the Giants came so close and yet so far (and then there was the Bonds scandal), the Sharks...and finally the A's.
The A's and general manager Billy Beane gave us "Moneyball," the brilliantly innovative approach to baseball. They gave us five trips to the playoffs, two MVPs and a Cy Young. But in the end they were playing no-money-ball.
Now here is the question: Is that really a failure? The A's were competitive more often than not throughout the decade. The turned out some incredible baseball teams; some elite pitchers, made it to the playoffs five times, landed multiple Rookie of the Years, two MVPs and a Cy Young. That's bad?
I know some will disagree, but I would rather field a competitive team year after year than have one fluke season where the team won it all; sandwiched in-between long stretches of losing seasons.
How would you rank the A's overall in the last decade? (And care to rank any other of the Bay Area teams?) Is winning it all really the only measure of a successful team?
0 recs | 176 comments
Solid B.
And clearly the most successful Bay area franchise during that period. I’d give them a B+ if it was an option.
jeepers - December 30, 2009
Sharks are a close second
Have closed out the decade having had strong teams, yet still always managing to blow when least appropriate
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
too easy.
mikev - December 30, 2009
that's some amazing restraint, mike
cityplANner - December 30, 2009
TWSS
mikev - December 30, 2009
I'll set the pins and you can knock them down
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
Well played
iglew - December 30, 2009
I thought it timely.
mikev - December 30, 2009
QOTM: Alley-Oop category
CaliforniaJag - December 30, 2009
I miss Poppy :(
mikev - December 30, 2009
I'd say Sharks run away with Bay Area Franchise of the Decade Award...
8 playoff appearances, an MVP, a Calder trophy early on for Nabokov and a franchise that is extremely dedicated to winning year in and year out.
That organization is run correctly. They have been able to bring a successful business to a place where many believed hockey wouldn’t sell.
In my book Sharks get an A-/B+. Hell, in 5 years they could easily have 2-3 Stanley Cups…
stranahanahan - December 31, 2009
B as well
MLBN’s “Hot Stove” ranked the top 10 all-decade franchises last night, and the A’s were in “snub” category along with the Dodgers and Marlins. I’d say that was appropriate as well.
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
OK-- let's take those 10
Yankees and Red Sox are givens.
Angels, too, given the title and their consistency since 2004.
Braves for all those division titles even though they never won a WS in this decade.
Phillies for a WS title and runnerup.
Cardinals ditto and lots of contention.
Twins for continuing the run a bit longer than the A’s did.
Now it gets dicey— who were their final three? Detroit was horrific for several years. Cleveland never went to a WS and drifted in and out of contention. The White Sox won a title and were in contention some. I can’t rank any of those teams ahead of the A’s.
In the NL, it certainly can’t be the Cubs, can it? They’ve had three or four postseason years, but did they win as many games as the A’s did this decade? Houston did go to a WS and was in contention a fair amount— I could see them. I guess you have to put the Giants in there, tainted as it may be.
A’s got shafted by someone.
cool coltrane - December 30, 2009
You wouldn't rank the White Sox over the A's?
They only have 33 less wins than the A’s in the 00’s. I think a WS title trumps more wins in the regular season. The Marlins only have 811 wins (79 less than A’s, a seasons worth) but also won the WS in 2003.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
No
5 postseasons and 33 wins trumps one WS title and, i believe, only one other postseason appearance
cool coltrane - December 30, 2009
I think the players would disagree
but I respect your opinion and can understand where you are coming from. I have yet to celebrate a WS win as a fan since I wasn’t paying attention to baseball when I was 6 years old so I can’t really say how it would affect my outlook on the decade.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
really?
i’d think that while the rest of the achievements rank each other comparatively, a WS title is the one and only trump card. like imagine some baseball retirement home where an old(er) giambi is sitting there sipping a mint julep bragging about his 409 HRs and his 1330 RBis or whatever, and here comes, say, david eckstein with a ginger ale, 34 HRs, and his WS ring—who’s gonna be saying “dangit, if only” that night, huh?
AV - December 30, 2009
I agree
as mentioned below.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
doesn't MLB network usually do a Prime 9 instead of top 10?
I know they have been doing Prime 9’s for postion players of the decade.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
yeah I was just thinking that
It wasn’t on the show “Prime 9”, that’s for sure.
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
yeah, it wasn't a 30 min Prime 9 show
but a segment on the Hot Stove show. I love the MLB network!
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
Those who voted "A"
must have low standards (LOL)
I would give them a B-
Trainman - December 30, 2009
We're very bridesmaid-ey
here in the BA.
lynnzgal - December 30, 2009
Some of us are more "groom and doom"
Nico - December 30, 2009
Nico's one of those
“confirmed bachelors” from 1950’s Hollywood.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
iglew - December 30, 2009
by jove she's got it!
ak_A - December 30, 2009
I don't get the "Cs"
They made the postseason 5 times; Won 100+ games twice; Had the 2nd best record in the sport through 2006; And all with a payroll consistently in the bottom third— or lower— of the 30 teams. And even the mediocre teams win 75 games, not 60 or 65.
And that’s only worth a C? So if Jeremy slid and Long doesn’t lose that ball in the sun and Miggy and Brynsie touch home plate or Hudson doesn’t get in the fight or Mulder isn’t hurt or Foulke isn’t overused, etc….. it’s a B??
A C is the Brewers. or the Mariners given their postseason appearances stopped in 2001. Not the A’s.
cool coltrane - December 30, 2009
I voted C....but I almost voted B
The decade is C+/B-, imo.
The first seven years were a solid B+ (a team that never makes the WS can’t get into “A” territory, I’m afraid).
The last three years, however, were C- (at best).
Actually doing the math on this renders the decade a B-, I think. So perhaps I was a tad harsh.
GreenNGoldSooner - December 30, 2009
Yes, that's a 'C'.
The epic playoff fails and the rebuilding bungling… shoot, even having to completely rebuild from the bottom up in light of our allegedly infamous God-like leadership… brought them down. The higher the expectations, the harder the fall when you fail.
UncleLeo - December 30, 2009
Here are total wins by the decade
Which pretty much blows all the C’s and the Hot Stove “snub” out of the water
Just took all the decent teams
17 Arizona 805
16 CUBS 807
15 Mets 815
14 Tribe 816
13 Stros 832
12 M’s 837
11 Phils 850
10 Jints 855
9 ChiSox 857
8 Dodgers 862
7 Twinkies 863
6 A’s 890
5 Braves 892
4 Halos 900
3 Cards 913
2 EE2 920
1 EE1 965
Of course the postseason matters, but the A’s were clearly better, and for longer, than the teams ranked 7th or worse.
cool coltrane - December 30, 2009
Yep
I voted A (the post-ALCS drop-off was just utterly terrible injury luck and I don’t need a WS to consider it a very good decade). Bs I can understand given playoff frustrations. C and below is silly, since the A’s doing what they did (even without accounting for payroll limitations) is miles above average.
nevermoor - December 30, 2009
I just don't see how any team that hasn't won a World Series (or even played in one) can be an "A"
Making the playoffs at least once could/should put you in “C” range. The A’s did a great job, short of the last 3 years I could easily see the A’s in B+ range, the last 3 years sort of puts them in B/B- range for me, but I’m not even sure I’d give them an “A” even if they made the playoffs every season. There are lots of ways of having a good/successful year, but true greatness is the whole shebang. I just see a certain sense of perfection in giving an “A”.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
I agree...I would have voted B+, but perhaps I could be talked into A-
baseballgirl - December 30, 2009
With +/- added to the mix
I could see a case for the A’s being an A or A-. I don’t think I’d go that high personally, but it wouldn’t stretch the imagination for me to understand why someone would. A+ being reserved for teams with a good decade AND a World Series win. People giving C’s (or C+) or lower with what the A’s did this year would still just baffle me. Having just slightly lower standards (i.e. not caring as much about the World Series) makes an “A” sensible, having so high of a standard that you need them to be 1 of the only 10 teams to win a World Series to get above C+ is just mind boggling.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
grade inflation
If we get an A, then what do the Red Sox get? slegnA? I hate both of those teams with a passion, but you can’t argue with balanced success: 2 and 1 WS wins respectively, especially in a decade where no team won more than 2 titles.
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
If you play with a 10000 points
and you consider what the Red Sox did to be say, 10000 and what the A’s did to be a 9000, that’s still a 1000 point difference between the two, but still both in the 90% range. There are scales within the scale to know that, even in the breakdown, yes, those teams did better, but they still fall out within the same range. Most grading tends to be percentile breakdowns. Homeworks, quizzes/tests, mid-terms, finals all of which maintain a firm piece of a grade. (i.e. HW = 10%, quizzes/tests = 30%, mid-term = 30%, final = 30%). Depending how you break those down will depend on how the individual scores for each matter.
Since only 1 of 30 teams or 10 of 300 (3.33% of the teams actually win a World Series), while that certainly ups a score significantly if you win one, not winning one shouldn’t drop your score significantly. It’s like betting $1 on 00 in roulette, you’re going to get a high percent for that dollar, but when you lose, you’re still only going to lose a $1.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
I guess I'll buy an A- for the A's
and an A+ for the BoSox, but it just seems like winning it all ought to be worth more than a 1000 point spread. Especially when you win twice, and once you do it in history-making fashion.
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
As a professor, I NEVER give out an A-. In principle.
After all, it is internally incoherent. A = Excellent. a “-” = a little less than. It seems strange to on the one hand say “you did excellent work” and on the other to say “you didn’t do enough.” In my view, an A is an A. I will occasionally give out an A+ (about a dozen times in a decade), which obviously means “superlative.” So if someone has a grade in the 89-91 range, and I have a little wiggle room (what humanities professor doesn’t have wiggle room?), I should think long and hard about whether the work meets the “excellent” range or not. An A-, at such a point, is just a cop out.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
I'm sorry.
I’m sure this is covered ground, as my mind is essentially oatmeal, but what do you teach again, and where, if you don’t mind?
And I’d understand if you don’t wanna…
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Yikes! Nobody has asked me. My cover, my cover... Slide, Jason!!!
I’ll riddle you this. I teach at the Pondertorium, at what used to be Saint Ignatius College.
I have been attempting to turn healthy young minds into oatmeal for almost as long as the As have been trying to get back to the WS. OK, not that long. But since the last century, anyway.
Actually, I hope to take the oatmeal that is the product of 18 or so years of monotony and class resentment and turn it into sufficient guilt to make the world a slightly less terrible place, at least so long as it lasts.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
Google's no friend here.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Perhaps you should look in "The Clouds."
paris7 - December 30, 2009
Do you teach at the Antioch Epicopal Church?!
Or are you in LA?
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
I hate to say this (it was actually one of my very first AN posts):
But if I lived in LA, I would root for an LA team. The Dodgers, of course. I believe in supporting the homies. I have lived in Oakland since 2002 (yes, a relative newbie). I BART to work and take the #5 up the hill. Got it, yet?
paris7 - December 30, 2009
light bulbs!
Um, the closest association I have with that particular place is I once almost had sex with young sorority girl that went to the sister school down south.
Good school, though. Upon my return, I may come bug you some about my thesis.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
If it's on the Bloom fellow, or his sweet wife Molly, I'll have to send you elsewhere.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
But I've been thinking of trying to read it, successfully this time.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
I can help with that.
No, it’s on W.G. Sebald and memory and pictures and…it’s a mess.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
...and all my books are packed for cross-country travel.
sad panda.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
That's fine
I can totally understand a B range as in “good but never won.” My A is not 100% (that would, sadly, be the Yankees this decade) but it is a long string of very good teams, followed by an unforeseeably harsh collapse, followed by a likely-to-succeed aggressive rebuild.
Sixth most wins is really impressive, especially when you’re beating much better funded teams.
As for the WS part, we’ve had a lot of teams with reasonable shots at it. Playoffs are, for me, a crapshoot so one of the implications is that I’m not going to ding a great team that coughed up a 5-game series too much.
nevermoor - December 30, 2009
Right
I think that’s entirely fair. I’m certainly not dinging them too much on the crap shoot, but to me, it’s still the grand prize and both that and playoff wins do matter. Clearly they matter more too me than you (and personally, I’m willing to admit that I think I’m being overly aggressive in how I rate it, while you’re probably being more “fair”). I also seriously doubt anyone out there is really honestly giving them a high A (or a 100%). But it clearly needs to be recognized that they had a really great decade regardless of the playoff outcome.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
"A" 5-game series, or four in a row?
UncleLeo - December 30, 2009
I think this is a case of the glass half full people vs the glass half empty people.
The 3 losing seasons have come in the end and have been really bad and I think most sports fans have short memories.
The loss of 2 MVP’s, a Cy Young, and the disappearance of 3 ROY’s (be it a trade {Grieve/Street or not living up to their perceived potential {Crosby}), takes away some of the shine of the decade as the revolving door of established players does as well. The A’s have traded away some great talent this decade and a lot of fans, like my Dad, get really upset about it (even if it actually benefited the overall decade)
The career deflating injury to Chavez has hurt as well. In fact the A’s have had bad luck injuries this decade, besides the multiple Chavez injuries that have robbed him of a few seasons you have Ellis, Harden, Dye, Bradley, Duchscherer, Crosby, and Devine missing HUGE chunks of time to injuries. Some of the injuries have directly hurt the A’s postseason record (Hudson’s oblique, Ellis and Dye breaking bones).
The four straight (Lost LDS 3-2) and being swept away by the Tigers after winning their only postseason series is very deflating. Even though they had to be good to get their I can’t help but feeling robbed those years considering how great some of those teams were.
The stadium dilemma has been an issue, especially considering the shiney new stadium we though we were getting was taken away from us.
On the plus side, no one has mentioned the 6 Gold Glove awards won by Chavez and his 2002 silver slugger. Giambi also had 2 SS awards in 01 and 02 (oops,02 was in New York. See the complaint about losing players). I can’t think of any other player that won a SS though (Tejada won 2 with Baltimore and Dye hasn’t won any).
Also on the plus and negative side. The A’s have had some great radio play by play men (Bill King and Ken Korach) but have bounced around stations all decade. They also finally landed a decent TV deal (for those fans with Comcast).
I voted C but would have picked B minus if it were an option. Wait! Has anyone considered the A’s award winning TV commercials? Crap, that puts them at an A+ ;-)
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
Let's face it --
The A’s are a “beginning of the decade” team. Let the good times roll again, gentlemen and ladies!
Nico - December 30, 2009
I was thinking the same thing.
Billy’s been putting off contending so that he can give it his all for the new decade.
LoneStranger - December 30, 2009
well
except for that 89 World Series title.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
And I think you have to include revenue/payroll in this discussion
Only the Twins approach the A’s success vs. payroll for this decade. To downgrade that type of performance to a “C” because of a) a tough one-game loss to the two-time defending WS champions; b) an even tougher one-game loss to the three time defending WS champions; c) an upset defeat to the Twins, affected by a key injury (Hudson); d) a one-game loss to one of the two Evil Empires, again affected by a key injury (Mulder); and e) a blow out to Detroit after a sweep of the Twins is just wrong.
Crapshoot wrong
cool coltrane - December 30, 2009
That is an EXCELLENT point
You have to curve the grade, so to speak, on what the A’s had to work with
baseballgirl - December 30, 2009
I'm working on a post involving teams of the decade
But here’s a teaser: If you account for payroll, the A’s were the most efficient team in all of baseball from 2000-2009.
danmerqury - December 30, 2009
can't wait.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
You must be assuming some baseline of wins as "free"
as opposed to pure wins per dollar.
Which team scores best depends on where to set that baseline. If it’s zero, then the cheapest team is most efficient, even if they totally suck.
iglew - December 30, 2009
Yep.
The baseline worked out to be around 66 wins, which came from the intercept of a linear regression trendline of wins plotted over payroll.
danmerqury - December 30, 2009
except
they would have had a better chance if they didn’t make STUPID mistakes like not sliding, touching home plate, or stopping in the middle of the basepaths during a play to point fingers. It would be different if it was just losing to a better team.
And revenue/payroll also affects the con side since it means losing a ton of good players.
I respect what the A’s accomplished in the 00’s but can’t look back without remembering the pain along with the joy.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
If you couldn't remember the pain
then the joy wouldn’t be as sweet.
LoneStranger - December 30, 2009
true
it is better to loved and lost than to never loved at all.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
I wouldn't quibble about exact wording, except
that the rhythm is so lovely in the original.
Tennyson is all about the rhythm.
iglew - December 30, 2009
TWMTS
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Michael Taylor??
iglew - December 31, 2009
Mrs. Tennyson, but thanks for playing.
Here’s a copy of our home blog.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
I was close :-)
thanks iglew
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
TRY IT
mikev - December 30, 2009
try loving the A's more?
or try losing someone you love?
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
I would also like to say that my vote is not considering other teams
compared to other teams this decade it has been better to be an A’s fan than not in most cases. I would much rather be an A’s fan.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
Bingo!
Payroll/revenue has been adopted as a crutch by way too many fans who are choosing to not see that 1) it doesn’t affect bonehead plays on the field by otherwise good teams/players, and 2) has it’s own very real negative effects. Too many have have actually embraced the small market mindset as their rationalization, IMO.
UncleLeo - December 30, 2009
hey!
someone who sees my point of view, how refreshing.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
don't get used to it.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
that is impossible to get used to on AN
or on the internet for that matter.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
I disagree.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
now you sound like my wife
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
.....
I’m not, am I?
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
+1
Regardless of how we construct our team, I want to win championships. If we can do it on the cheap, great, but simply having a winning record is not good enough
cuppingmaster - December 30, 2009
had to bring up the touching home plate thing.
years later the slightest thought of October 2003 spikes my blood pressure a bit and my lips reflexively purse to spew profanities.
ak_A - December 30, 2009
I can't complain about losing players
when they sign absurdly stupid contracts with other teams.
It’s one thing to lose good players who don’t go sign massive albatrossic contracts (Hudson, Haren, Swisher), but another thing to lose good players who sign contracts that would easily cripple the A’s (Giambi, Zito).
And I can’t be bitter about losing Mulder.
Blicks - December 31, 2009
I'm not so sad about Zito
but I think Giambi might have been worth it, maybe. If he signed they wouldn’t have kept Chavez though. Eh, your probably right.
micdog2001 - December 31, 2009
6th winningest baseball team of the decade
7 seasons of the 00s have been competitive. 4 AL West titles, 1 Wild Card berth, 1 ALCS appearance. I can’t see how anyone with a better memory than a goldfish can give this decade a C or an even lower grade.
Manstein - December 30, 2009
What makes goldfish especially dumb is that they will never stop to ask for directions.
Nico - December 30, 2009
I would resent that remark...
except it’s kind of true. I hate asking for directions.
goldfish - December 30, 2009
plus, you're very, very yummy, so I'll overlook that shortcoming.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Please don't overcook the shortcomings.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
It makes me wonder what
twice-baked goldfishes would taste like…
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
A bit like a potato, if I recall properly.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
Burnt
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
Well Choke starts with a "C"
and that is what the A’s best teams did in the playoffs.
I would definitly call the decade a success from an entertainment perspective, besides the last 2 years it has always been fun.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
Bay Area Sports
It certainly was tough for all the teams, really. It started off really well in the early years, but then it turned really sour at the end except for our Golden State Warriors who finally did something.
As for the A’s, I’d go with a solid “B” for our grade. If we had made a World Series, I would have gone with an “A” grade. I think “B” makes sense.
Rated-R Superstar - December 30, 2009
OT question
Are Blevins and Petit out of options?
TBRMKane - December 30, 2009
I want to know how someone can vote D or F
something must really be getting you down for voting that.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
They did lose the last game of the season in 2009.
Nico - December 30, 2009
The last 7
My memory of anything prior to that is fuzzy.
goldfish - December 30, 2009
Trolls
Anyone can vote.
Rated-R Superstar - December 30, 2009
true
it was probably a covert G-nats fan or someone who hates Billy Beane.
micdog2001 - December 30, 2009
But their fingers are too big to use the keyboard...
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Mention of Trolls, plus your sig line,
makes me want to play Medieval Madness.
iglew - December 30, 2009
What's that, then?
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
PINBALL!
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
MM is one of the all-time top ten, surely.
iglew - December 31, 2009
I'm seriously contemplating buying
pinball machines and learning to restore them.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
That is the most awesome thing I've heard in a long time
I remember they had a Star Trek: TNG pinball machine at the local bowling alley when I was a kid. I have yet to find another one to play (but it can apparently be had to purchase if I had about $3K to blow)
cuppingmaster - December 31, 2009
anybody ever been here? it’s easily the coolest thing in the east bay that i always forget to do when i’m bored on a weekend night.
AV - December 31, 2009
that's awesome
I’m going to have to find an LA equivalent
cuppingmaster - December 31, 2009
Let me know when you find that!
baseballgirl - December 31, 2009
I thought I heard that Juju was closed!
I would have stopped by if I had known. I was even in Alameda.
iglew - December 31, 2009
Shorty's has ST:TNG
iglew - December 31, 2009
Dude, I love you.
Definitely go say hello to the folks at PnatB when you’re in the Bay Area.
iglew - December 31, 2009
We should recall this concept when it comes to voting in general.
Some voters are trolls. If some voters are trolls, then we should either restrict access to the vote or not hang anything of importance on the outcome of a vote. But, we should not restrict access to voting, since we cannot guarantee that access restrictions won’t be based on legacies of prejudice or hierarchy. Therefore, nothing of any significance, ever, should hang on a vote.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
I sense the need for a Venn diagram here.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Truth table will be easier, but I assure you it is a valid argument.
The soundness of the argument, of course, will depend on whether the premises are true or not, which is subject to empirical verification. And there my usefulness ends. Probably, before it even began!
paris7 - December 30, 2009
So you teach Philosophy,
more specifically Formal Logic of some sort.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
yup.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Yikes, formal logic?
Nah, they make all of us learn that stuff. I teach postmodern philosophy and science fiction. Good gig, if you can land it. Keeps ya busy, though.
paris7 - December 30, 2009
I agree
But I think we should take a vote on that.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
Vote early, vote often!
paris7 - December 30, 2009
vote randomly!!!
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
Now you're just being redundant.
Nico - December 30, 2009
Ow! Truth hurts!!!
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
rise to vote, sir!
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
Sit on a potato pan, Otis!
iglew - January 2, 2010
If I had a hi-fi...
Leopold Bloom - January 2, 2010
I was aiming for a theme of ones that tell people what to do.
Cigar? Toss it in a can! (It is so tragic.)
iglew - January 2, 2010
that one is AWESOME.
Okay…lemme reach into my bag of tricks…
one for Mr. nothing, it would seem:
Yo Bob, mug a gumbo boy!
Leopold Bloom - January 2, 2010
Caption this
“Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas!”
iglew - January 2, 2010
Murder for a jar of red rum!
Go deliver a dare, vile dog!
Leopold Bloom - January 3, 2010
Draw, o coward!
Lay a wallaby, baby! Ball away, Al!
iglew - January 3, 2010
"Someone tell Richard Pryor I owe him a bottle of rum."
Nico - January 3, 2010
Angels fans and trolls.
Blicks - December 31, 2009
Again, redundant.
Zing!
Nico - December 31, 2009
Hey
B+ to your franchise for the decade. Anyone who could make something out of nothing deserves a lot of credit and you bastards are great at it. Of the 3 other teams in the division, i dislike you guys the least. Happy New Years!
princeton11loveshalos - December 31, 2009
really?
An Angels fan hates the Rangers (understandable) and the Mariners (really? the Mariners? That’s like hating a puppy or your little brother) more than us.
huh.
Happy New Year, Slegna.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
I hate my little brother
But in fairness I think a lot of that has to do with him not actually existing. But I llllooooveee puppies. Except God’s Puppy. Don’t love me some Jeter.
DMOAS - December 31, 2009
Oh I can hate the Mariners
they have figgins :*(
princeton11loveshalos - December 31, 2009
Well, we're coming at it from different points of view, but I agree.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
I'm not positive, but my impression from the next room is
that the Idaho football team is coached by Cookie Monster.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Solid B.
Hey, considering my decade, self-graded, is a C plus and without the A’s and AN it would surely be closer to a D.
ak_A - December 30, 2009
My life mirrored the A's.
Except for 2006. 2006 sucked for me.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Awwwww....
baseballgirl - December 30, 2009
I put B
Whoever put D needs to go spend a decade in Kansas City or Pittsburg
9Custs - December 30, 2009
Agree on both counts
baseballgirl - December 30, 2009
And whoever put F
needs to go to Nebraska just for punishment.
Nico - December 30, 2009
I voted A.
For lots of reasons.
Perhaps the most important: they are the A’s.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
To me, a "B" was kind of an obvious choice
The failures to advance in 2000-03, and 3 losing seasons in 2007-09, preclude an “A,” but it was in every other way a great decade. Ergo, a “B” from the Neekster.
Nico - December 30, 2009
Did you give the Giants an A?
Traitor.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
Giants
I would give them a “B” as well even though they’ve earned an “F” in my likability area.
Rated-R Superstar - December 31, 2009
F
for “F those MFers”
cuppingmaster - December 31, 2009
Heart.
As in I heart you.
67MARQUEZ - December 31, 2009
Right back atcha for the "memory lane" posts of seasons past
cuppingmaster - December 31, 2009
The Neekster?
I either must laugh or cry…
baseballgirl - December 31, 2009
It's my nickname at school
Every Monday, there’s a trivia question posted, called “The Neekster Sneakster.” You can win a Snicky Way, which is one bite size Snickers and one bite size Milky Way. Sometimes I’m out of Snicky Ways, but can still usually find a Milkers.
Nico - December 31, 2009
I'm thinking that Fer needs to go Alaska.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
he's in Idaho now.
Colorado let him leave.
Leopold Bloom - December 30, 2009
That was nice of you to let him inside you.
Though I’m not sure you’re a ho, lots of other things, but not a ho.
DMOAS - December 30, 2009
ho ho ho
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
Upon reflection, screw Scott Osler.
He brings up “the slide” for us and Barry Bonds in court for the Giants. Really? Being up 5-1 in the seventh inning of the clinching game of the World Series and BLOWING IT is less of FAIL than Barry Bonds in court? You bring up one of our worst memories and don’t have the decency to bring up the Giants significantly more memorable implosion.
You bring up the tuck rule game for the Raiders and the death of Bill Walsh for the 49ers. Really? How about the whole debacle around TO leaving? How about the Yorks destroying the team? How about the very public firing of winning coach Mariucci for the likes of Dennis Erickson and Mike Nolan? At least Al got draft picks for Gruden. How’s about can’t-miss prospect Alex Smith? How’s about the storied franchise the 49ers were in the 80s and 90s becoming the putrid product they’ve put out there THE WHOLE FUCKING DECADE?
But then again, I guess you sell a lot more papers in SFO than the OAK.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
And this is why I love you.
Well, there’s that other reason, too.
67MARQUEZ - December 31, 2009
Speaking of,
I may have to sleep on your couch for three or four months.
Well, until you threaten to call the cops on me, anyhow.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
If you promise to make me bacon, no problem.
67MARQUEZ - December 31, 2009
Geez guys, get a room!
Mine’s available. {call me}
Nico - December 31, 2009
I am pretty sure the three of us aren't allowed in the same place at once.
Two of us, sure. But all three? Well I guess it would kill the notion that LB and I are the same person.
67MARQUEZ - December 31, 2009
What led you to believe there would only be three of us?
Nico - December 31, 2009
We are Nico. We are many.
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
My place is like Verizon: Join in!
Nico - December 31, 2009
Verizon is of the devil?
Leopold Bloom - December 31, 2009
Some further thoughts....
1) Grading the decade is not grading 2000-2006. That’s only part of the grade.
2) The A’s “small market” status makes whatever grade they get more impressive. It doesn’t earn them a better grade.
3) I love being an A’s fan. I wouldn’t root for any other team. That being said, my love of the A’s also doesn’t make their decade any better (or worse) than it was.
So I’m stickin with B-/C+.
GreenNGoldSooner - December 31, 2009
Hmm...#2 suggests one shouldn't grade on a curve.
I would argue that grading on a curve is reasonable here.
Nico - December 31, 2009
Agreed (Obviously)
I just wanted to say so because it felt good when someone agreed with me.
micdog2001 - December 31, 2009
I want to give a B+
6th winningest team in MLB this decade.
7 contending seasons out of 10. Made the playoffs in 5. And the AL West wasn’t a joke for most of this decade.
Team’s in a good position to succeed in the next decade.
Blicks - December 31, 2009
I voted D
Because I read the article about grading Bay Area Sports as a whole and then jumped down to the poll without reading that it was just for grading the A’s. For just the A’s I would go with B.
throwmonkey - January 4, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Athletics Nation to post a comment.