The Great 1989 A's

[LouGehrig]

They were one of the greatest, most dominant World Champions since World War II, yet they are almost never mentioned when outstanding teams are discussed. They were led by Canseco, McGwire, Henderson, and Parker.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_great_1989_as

[Captain Cold Nose]

They were one of the greatest, most dominant World Champions since World War II, yet they are almost never mentioned when outstanding teams are discussed. They were led by Canseco, McGwire, Henderson, and Parker.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_great_1989_as

Losing bookend World Series kind of takes the starch out of a legacy. They'll go down with the Orioles of the late 60's to early 70's in terms of regard.

[KCGHOST]

To paraphrase John Wooden "A lot of teams won one in a row".

[DoubleX]

A few reasons that might explain why there isn't much discussion about the '89 A's:

- The A's of that period as a whole might be considered more of a disappointment than a success as they were twice upset in the World Series by teams that were perceived as significantly weaker, and thus only once out of three years beat the underdog as they were supposed to.

- The steroids taint that McGwire and Canseco give to the team, and I think for at least some, the A's of the period mark the beginning of the steroids era.

- That the 1989 team won 99 games, which is not historically significant, and less than the '88 (104 wins) and '90 (103 wins) teams that were upset in the World Series.

[LouGehrig]

Great point. The sequence is important. The Yankees lost in 1960, but had one of their greatest seasons in 1961 and managed to win in 1962. They were swept in 1963 and lost in seven in 1964.

That was their SECOND streak of five consecutive pennants, but it is never mentioned because they lost 3 of the World Series.

Following the 1961 championship with another in 1962 helped the 1961 team greatly, but because of the home run chase, that team would be rated highly even if they lost the 1962 Series, which would have meant losing 4 World Series in 5 years. Interesting. Would the 1961 team be as highly rated if they lost the 1962 Series?

[DoubleX]

I think even if the Yankees didn't make the World Series in 1962, the 1961 Yankees can be distinguished as great on its own because the team did win an impressive 109 games and had the very memorable Maris/Mantle homerun race. Perhaps some of the luster would not be there without 1962, but I think that team would still easily stand above the '89 A's in terms of historical resonance. Also, while the '89 A's were loaded with big name talent, no one really had a remarkable year that season. Canseco missed almost 100 games, McGwire batted just. 231, and Henderson (Rickey) played half the year with the Yankees. Carney Lansford with his 131 OPS+ at 3B may have had the best season on the team. The A's of that year were really built on the strength of their pitching - they had three good starters in Stewart, Moore, and Welch, and a terrific bullpen led by Eckersley and a bunch of guys that no one remembers.

The '61 Yankees on the other hand, where not only laden with big names, but had big seasons. Maris won the MVP and combined with Mantle to put up arguably the most memorable season by two teammates. Mantle. a true all time great, was the best player in the league that year. Whitey Ford won the Cy Young, Elston Howard had one of the great seasons by a catcher, and Yogi Berra, as memorable as they come, was still around and plugging away. In sum, there's just a lot more going for the '61 Yankees that would cause them to stand alone as a great team, IMO.

[dgarza]

- That the 1989 team won 99 games, which is not historically significant, and less than the '88 (104 wins) and '90 (103 wins) teams that were upset in the World Series.Out of those 3 years, 1989 was the A's' least impressive.
1988 and 1990 saw more wins, more HRs, more RBIs, and a greater distance between them and 2nd place teams.
The Twins were 13 games back from the A's in 1988.

[Captain Cold Nose]

The one thing that stands out to me about the '89 A's was how on fire Henderson was once he joined the team. He seemed unstoppable in the post season.

[Iron Jaw]

Out of those 3 years, 1989 was the A's' least impressive.
1988 and 1990 saw more wins, more HRs, more RBIs, and a greater distance between them and 2nd place teams.
The Twins were 13 games back from the A's in 1988.

BUT.....that was the team that won it all, and that's what many remember more than anything. Now a real baseball historian may well regard one of the other two teams as the greater, but it's hard for the normal fan to do so because of the World Series losses.

Similar to the Baltimore Oriole, three-pennant run of 1969-71. The 1969 team won 109 games, swept the first ever ALCS, and then, lost to the Mets in the World Series. Never mind the Mets were indeed a very good team that won 100 games......only very good teams win 100. And the 1971 team won 101, swept the playoffs, featured four 20-game winners - but lost in 7 to the Pirates (after leading 2-0). The 1970 team won 108, swept the playoffs, but won the World Series over the first (and most statistically potent) of the Sparky Anderson versions of the Big Red Machine . Impressively too - four games to one. Thus, the '70 version is considered by many, the best of the three. Really, all three were pretty much the same team, with a couple of changes here and there, but not much.

[RuthMayBond]

They were one of the greatest, most dominant World Champions since World War II, yet they are almost never mentioned when outstanding teams are discussed. They were led by Canseco, McGwire, Henderson, and Parker.

http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_great_1989_asThey were great in a short postseason but as far as the regular season, they had an ERA+ of a whopping 103 (and the batting of their great sluggers was only a 105 OPS+)

[LouGehrig]

I'm not certain about the differences between a baseball historian and a normal fan, but I think both are in short supply, which is fine.

I consider myself an atypical fan primarily because most typical fans and I do not agree quite often. Of course, I have been watching baseball much longer than most typical fans, which means nothing since I have been following politics longer than most and know very little about it. I have been watching females even longer, and know almost nothing about them.

The regular season is merely an ends to a means. For the team that wins the pennant, it is an ends to the chance to win the World Series.

Fans and historians can debate endlessly, but they must have a basic premise from which their arguments grow. My basic premise is simple. The team that wins the World Series is the better team. I will not follow that with supportive statements other than to say that the pressure in the World Series is the defining factor.

Yes, the 1960 Yankees destroyed the Pirates statistically in the Series, but the Pirates won the four close games. The 1987 and 1991 Twins were not as good as the Cardinals in 1987 or the Braves in 1991, but they were World Champions. And the 1988 Dodgers were not close to the A's when comparing regular seasons, but they were the World Champions.

You have the right to reject my premise, but the ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and recognizing all the variables involved in winning it -- see Tony Kubek's throat, Bill Virdon's ground ball, and Jim Coates being out hustled by Roberto Clemente when each was running to first base in the eighth inning of Game 7 --I must consider the team that wins the Series the better team.

Yes, that is simplistic, but it is true. That's why the team that wins the Series is called the World Champion.

[RuthMayBond]

I'm not certain about the differences between a baseball historian and a normal fan, but I think both are in short supply, which is fine.

I consider myself an atypical fan primarily because most typical fans and I do not agree quite often. Of course, I have been watching baseball much longer than most typical fans, which means nothing since I have been following politics longer than most and know very little about it. I have been watching females even longer, and know almost nothing about them.

The regular season is merely an ends to a means. For the team that wins the pennant, it is an ends to the chance to win the World Series.

Fans and historians can debate endlessly, but they must have a basic premise from which their arguments grow. My basic premise is simple. The team that wins the World Series is the better team. I will not follow that with supportive statements other than to say that the pressure in the World Series is the defining factor.

Yes, the 1960 Yankees destroyed the Pirates statistically in the Series, but the Pirates won the four close games. The 1987 and 1991 Twins were not as good as the Cardinals in 1987 or the Braves in 1991, but they were World Champions. And the 1988 Dodgers were not close to the A's when comparing regular seasons, but they were the World Champions.

You have the right to reject my premise, but the ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and recognizing all the variables involved in winning it -- see Tony Kubek's throat, Bill Virdon's ground ball, and Jim Coates being out hustled by Roberto Clemente when each was running to first base in the eighth inning of Game 7 --I must consider the team that wins the Series the better team.

Yes, that is simplistic, but it is true. That's why the team that wins the Series is called the World Champion.Some teams in Japan etc would dispute their claim. So what's the big deal, they won the World Series, like about a hundred and three other teams

[Iron Jaw]

I'm a Cardinal fan. The Cardinals won the World Series in 2006. The team had 83 wins and backed into the playoffs. They got hot for a couple of weeks. The Cardinals were not the best team in baseball in 2006. The simply got hot for a couple of weeks. Even the last place team in a league has hot streaks.

The 2004 Cardinals that lost to the Boston Red Sox in the World Series was a much better team than the 2006 version.

The 162-game season is a better indicator of a great team than a short series is. As stated, ANY team can get hot for a few games. 100+ wins takes the effort of the entire organization, from majors to minors.

Which is why I don't like the ALCS, NLCS or any playoffs. I like the 162-game marathon to decide the league champion.......then the World Series is a reward for the effort and winning it is for league pride.

[Extra Innings]

- The A's of that period as a whole might be considered more of a disappointment than a success as they were twice upset in the World Series by teams that were perceived as significantly weaker, and thus only once out of three years beat the underdog as they were supposed to.

Very true. Oakland won their WS championship in '89, but look at what happened in '88 and '90: Gibson's HR, the Nasty Boys, Hershiser, the Reds sweep. Those are lasting impressions of WS past where the underdog prevailed. Most of the time people like to root for the team not favored. The '89 A's steamrolled through the playoffs in a way that just wasn't as exciting as the other two years. Not to take anything away from the team; they were very good, but in comparison to their other two appearences it just doesn't seem as memorable.

[KHenry14]

One Giants fan needs to speak up here just for a moment. The 89 A's did benefit from the earthquake by allowing them to start Stewart and Moore and no one else, and the Giants couldn't handle them. Many people felt that the Giants could beat Welch, Davis and Young had they had the opportunity. I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, just that the circumstances were totally different than any other series.

[dgarza]

I My basic premise is simple. The team that wins the World Series is the better team. I will not follow that with supportive statements other than to say that the pressure in the World Series is the defining factor.

If you are not really going to use supportive statements, why write an article?

This article is full of facts that just fill space. Many do not corroborate your premise :

"They scored "only" 712 runs, which is not considered much in today's game of arena baseball, but it was fourth best in the 1989 American League."

"Oakland management agreed with the fans' when they gave him the most lucrative contract in history in 1990." - actually, the whole paragraph has almost nothing to do with 1989, but bringing salary into this is meaningless

"Storm Davis won 19 games, but that was an anomaly which merely illustrates that won-lost record is often not highly correlated to pitching effectiveness."

"Carney Lansford led the offense with his .336 average, but since it has been discovered that the ratio of hits to at bats is a highly overrated, almost irrelevant statistic, and Lansford hit only 2 home runs, perhaps it should be concluded that Mark McGwire, Dave Parker, Jose Canseco (who missed one half the season due to a broken bone in his hand), and Rickey Henderson, whose services were acquired in June from New York, were the offensive leaders" - Lansford was much more valuable than Parker

[soberdennis]

The 89 A's were part of a pretty good stretch of three years. But as some have already pointed out, they were less impressive than their bookend seasons.
But
Why is the 29 A's mdntioned among the all time greats, while the 31 version, which may have been superior, is ignored?
Why do people mention the 55 Dodgers over the 52 team which was certainly just as good, if not better?
The answer to both is the World Series.
I think the only reason the 06 Cubs are always mentioned over the 07 or 08 versions is the win record.
I even look at the Reds of the mid 70s. The 75 team won 108 games and dominated the League. The 76 team wasn't quite as dominant. But because the latter team swept the WS, it is usually mentioned over the former.

[LouGehrig]

I'm a Cardinal fan. The Cardinals won the World Series in 2006. The team had 83 wins and backed into the playoffs. They got hot for a couple of weeks. The Cardinals were not the best team in baseball in 2006. The simply got hot for a couple of weeks. Even the last place team in a league has hot streaks.

The 2004 Cardinals that lost to the Boston Red Sox in the World Series was a much better team than the 2006 version.

The 162-game season is a better indicator of a great team than a short series is. As stated, ANY team can get hot for a few games. 100+ wins takes the effort of the entire organization, from majors to minors.

Which is why I don't like the ALCS, NLCS or any playoffs. I like the 162-game marathon to decide the league champion.......then the World Series is a reward for the effort and winning it is for league pride.

I agree with you, but when there were two leagues with 8 teams and only 2 of the 16 teams qualified for the WS, it was a much better indicator of the best team in baseball.

The 2006 Cardinals could never GET to the WS in 1946. It is the wild card, three divisions in each league that allows a mediocre team the chance to win the World Series.

[RuthMayBond]

The 2006 Cardinals could never GET to the WS in 1946. It is the wild card, three divisions in each league that allows a mediocre team the chance to win the World Series.Thank you, you just proved my point

[LouGehrig]

If you are not really going to use supportive statements, why write an article?

This article is full of facts that just fill space. Many do not corroborate your premise :

"They scored "only" 712 runs, which is not considered much in today's game of arena baseball, but it was fourth best in the 1989 American League."

"Oakland management agreed with the fans' when they gave him the most lucrative contract in history in 1990." - actually, the whole paragraph has almost nothing to do with 1989, but bringing salary into this is meaningless

"Storm Davis won 19 games, but that was an anomaly which merely illustrates that won-lost record is often not highly correlated to pitching effectiveness."

"Carney Lansford led the offense with his .336 average, but since it has been discovered that the ratio of hits to at bats is a highly overrated, almost irrelevant statistic, and Lansford hit only 2 home runs, perhaps it should be concluded that Mark McGwire, Dave Parker, Jose Canseco (who missed one half the season due to a broken bone in his hand), and Rickey Henderson, whose services were acquired in June from New York, were the offensive leaders" - Lansford was much more valuable than Parker

I assume the reader can think for herself.

712 runs is NOT a high total in 2008. It was fourth best in 1989. So?

The fans evaluated Canseco as a great player. The A's management and the fans agreed on that. That's quite simple.

Do YOU think Davis was a good pitcher in 1989?

Stating Lansford hit only 2 home runs reeks of facetiousness. In my opinion, Lansford was the best, most effective hitter on the team, but with devolution of baseball, an Adam Dunn type season would be preferred by most fans today over a 1989 Carney Lansford.

[LouGehrig]

Thank you, you just proved my point

You're welcome.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I agree with you, but when there were two leagues with 8 teams and only 2 of the 16 teams qualified for the WS, it was a much better indicator of the best team in baseball.

The 2006 Cardinals could never GET to the WS in 1946. It is the wild card, three divisions in each league that allows a mediocre team the chance to win the World Series.

It was also an indicator of archaic geographic bias.

[LouGehrig]

It was also an indicator of archaic geographic bias.

What are you talking about? Where were the Jets (not the football team)?

[Captain Cold Nose]

What are you talking about? Where were the Jets (not the football team)?

The same place the Sharks were.

There were no teams further west than St. Louis until the late 50's. It's very easy to only have eight teams in a league where you ignore half the country. More teams is not an indicator of lesser team ability. You have to actually beat out more teams to get the wild card than to win a pennant in 1946.

The above was not an endorsement nor a condemnation of the wild card.

[dgarza]

712 runs is NOT a high total in 2008. It was fourth best in 1989. So?

The fans evaluated Canseco as a great player. The A's management and the fans agreed on that. That's quite simple.

Do YOU think Davis was a good pitcher in 1989?


None of these have anything to do with the 1989 A's being great.
(Some are evidence against the 1989 A's being great.)
These are just non-supporting facts, filler.
Might as well say California is sunny and the A's worse green, yellow, and white uniforms. True, but so what?
Why not talk about Mike Gallego?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

One Giants fan needs to speak up here just for a moment. The 89 A's did benefit from the earthquake by allowing them to start Stewart and Moore and no one else, and the Giants couldn't handle them. Many people felt that the Giants could beat Welch, Davis and Young had they had the opportunity. I'm not saying the outcome would have been different, just that the circumstances were totally different than any other series.

Good point KHenry. I think the Giants could have taken a few games sans the Earthquake. Perhaps the A's win 4-1 or 4-2.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Stating Lansford hit only 2 home runs reeks of facetiousness. In my opinion, Lansford was the best, most effective hitter on the team, but with devolution of baseball, an Adam Dunn type season would be preferred by most fans today over a 1989 Carney Lansford.
That's actually a reasonable assertion. In '89 Canseco was injured, McGwire hit .231, and Rickey only played 30 regular season games for the A's. Langsford was probably the A's most productive hitter over the entire season. I have no idea what "devolution" means but hitting .336 with 2 HR was probably more valuable in '89 then it would be today.

[LouGehrig]

Why not talk about Mike Gallego?

OK. What would you like me write about him?

[LouGehrig]

hitting .336 with 2 HR was probably more valuable in '89 then it would be today.

Explain why.

[MattD1972]

They were one of the greatest, most dominant World Champions since World War II, yet they are almost never mentioned when outstanding teams are discussed.

They get left off because t was a traumatic year for baseball (The Rose scandal and Giamatti's death) and a traumatic World Series (the earthquake). They were a very good team that couldn't have happened at a worse time.

[dgarza]

Stating Lansford hit only 2 home runs reeks of facetiousness. In my opinion, Lansford was the best, most effective hitter on the team, but with devolution of baseball, an Adam Dunn type season would be preferred by most fans today over a 1989 Carney Lansford.
Landford was the most valuable full-time offensive player on that team. (131 OPS+ / 148 games)
Henderson and Canseco had their value, but neither really played more than half the season with the team.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Explain why.

I don't see how a player hitting .336 with 2 HRs and 51 BBs is more valuable than a .266 hitter with 46 HRs, and 108 walks in today's game. The later player is generating far more runs for his team than the former player. The late 1980s were much lower run scoring leagues. So a high average hitter with limited power isn't as disadvantaged against the power hitters of that time. For the '89 American League season the team with the most HRs only hit 145 HRs.

[AstrosFan]

I remember the '89 A's well. The 1989 season was when I began following baseball, and while my team was the Astros, the A's seemed a certainty to win it all throughout the whole year. Not only were they stronger top to bottom than everyone else, they had swagger. I enjoyed watching them thoroughly, and no one on the team gave me greater joy than Rickey Henderson. He was the most exciting player I'd ever seen, and he gave that team the spark it needed to overcome the 1988 disaster. Everyone expected the A's to roll over the Giants in the World Series, which they did. There were other teams that won more games after that, or had better winning percentages, but until the 1998 Yankees came along, I always said the 1989 A's were the best team I ever saw.

[STLCards2]

I remember the '89 A's well. The 1989 season was when I began following baseball, and while my team was the Astros, the A's seemed a certainty to win it all throughout the whole year. Not only were they stronger top to bottom than everyone else, they had swagger. I enjoyed watching them thoroughly, and no one on the team gave me greater joy than Rickey Henderson. He was the most exciting player I'd ever seen, and he gave that team the spark it needed to overcome the 1988 disaster. Everyone expected the A's to roll over the Giants in the World Series, which they did. There were other teams that won more games after that, or had better winning percentages, but until the 1998 Yankees came along, I always said the 1989 A's were the best team I ever saw.

I remember everybody hating them. Everybody thought they were one of the best teams ever at the time. They did have a swagger about them that rubbed people the wrong way. They were percieved as being big, mean, men who acted like bullies. Even though their relative slugging stats an ERA+ are not incredible, people were intimidated bu them. They probably weren't quite as good as everybody thought at the time. Everybody is right, the quake/steroids/Caseco's asent into absurdity/upset WS losses had a huge impact on their perception.

[Iron Jaw]

I don't see how a player hitting .336 with 2 HRs and 51 BBs is more valuable than a .266 hitter with 46 HRs, and 108 walks

1982 World Series..............the speedy, powerless Cardinals (67 homeruns.....200 stolen bases) against the Brewers, known as Harvey's Wallbangers (216 homeruns).........................Cardinals won, 4-3. :)

[Honus Wagner Rules]

1982 World Series..............the speedy, powerless Cardinals (67 homeruns.....200 stolen bases) against the Brewers, known as Harvey's Wallbangers (216 homeruns).........................Cardinals won, 4-3. :)

You cut off my sentence that ended "in today's game". The game of 1982 was very different from today's game. And what does the Cards '82 World Series win really prove? If you flip one game with the Brewers winning that wouldn't prove anything either.

[White Knight]

A few reasons that might explain why there isn't much discussion about the '89 A's:

- The A's of that period as a whole might be considered more of a disappointment than a success as they were twice upset in the World Series by teams that were perceived as significantly weaker, and thus only once out of three years beat the underdog as they were supposed to.

- The steroids taint that McGwire and Canseco give to the team, and I think for at least some, the A's of the period mark the beginning of the steroids era.

- That the 1989 team won 99 games, which is not historically significant, and less than the '88 (104 wins) and '90 (103 wins) teams that were upset in the World Series.

No evidence Mac used steroids in '89. Canseco most definatly did though.

[Danielh41]

I remember everybody hating them. Everybody thought they were one of the best teams ever at the time. They did have a swagger about them that rubbed people the wrong way. They were percieved as being big, mean, men who acted like bullies. Even though their relative slugging stats an ERA+ are not incredible, people were intimidated bu them. They probably weren't quite as good as everybody thought at the time. Everybody is right, the quake/steroids/Caseco's asent into absurdity/upset WS losses had a huge impact on their perception.

I remember hating them as well. I know I saw them play the Rangers in Arlington that year. Nolan Ryan notched his 5000th career strikeout in that game, and pitched really well. He gave up two runs and struck out 13. But he lost 2-0 because the Rangers couldn't score off Bob Welch and (in the 9th) Dennis Eckersley.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The '88-'90 A's were this close to immortality. How they lost to the Dodgers and Reds puzzles me, especially the Dodger loss. The Reds at least had that hard throwing bullpen, a kind of bullpen the A's really didn't see in the AL. Plus Jose Rijo and Eric Davis were players.

[White Knight]

The '88-'90 A's were this close to immortality. How they lost to the Dodgers and Reds puzzles me, especially the Dodger loss. The Reds at least had that hard throwing bullpen, a kind of bullpen the A's really didn't see in the AL. Plus Jose Rijo and Eric Davis were players.
How did they lose to the Dodgers? Two words: Kirk Gibson. After that HR to win the game (most dramatic in my liftime), I don't think even the '27 Yankess could have stopped them.

[dgarza]

The '88-'90 A's were this close to immortality. How they lost to the Dodgers and Reds puzzles me, especially the Dodger loss. The Reds at least had that hard throwing bullpen, a kind of bullpen the A's really didn't see in the AL.
If you believe pitching wins championships, then you could say the A's had an easier time handling the Giants. The Giants had the weakest pitching staff out of the 3 teams the A's faced in the 1988-1990 WSs.
The Giants' bullpen was not a dominant one, and their best starter was really Scott Garrelts.

[Iron Jaw]

You cut off my sentence that ended "in today's game". The game of 1982 was very different from today's game. And what does the Cards '82 World Series win really prove? If you flip one game with the Brewers winning that wouldn't prove anything either.

To me, 1982 seems like yesterday.:shhh: Anyway, the subject is still the same whether played in 1982 or 1952. Can speed, defense and pitching beat power. The Dodgers of the 1960's proved it more than once. It doesn't always work, but it does work sometimes. The Brewers hit 216 homeruns. That was a powerhouse team and 216 would still be a lot of team HR's in today's game.

The 1982 Cardinals hit the fewest homeruns in MLB in 1982. They played a speed, pitching, and defensive game and won 92 games. They were good.

Now can a team based on speed, defense and good pitching win in 2008? Since we really don't have any teams today that rely on that as a primary way to win, it's hard to say. But I think it would work if that was the team style and the team had the players to do it.