Historically who is a better team, A's or Giant's ?

Question

Iam an A's fan. I really like Eckersley, (cant spell it though) Tejada, and Hudson, too bad they traded him

Answer 1

The A's are second behind the Yankees for most AL appearances in the World Series, so historically, I believe they would be considered better. They also beat the Giants in the 1989 World Series.

Answer 2

whoever said 'it depends on how far back you want to go' is correct.

The Giants and the A's were dominant teams at the turn of the (20th) century...

The Giants beat the A's in the second World Series ever played (1905)...that was the year that Christy Mathewson pitched 3 shutouts in the 5 game series, a record which will not be broken.

The A's came back to beat the Giants in the World Series' of 1911and 1913, and were the superior club, by far, at that time.

The problem with the A's though, was that Connie Mack would sell off his stars periodically, and the team would collapse.

The Giants were a great team in the 1900s, and had a great rivalry with the Cubs at that time...they annually battled it out for National League supremacy almost every year from 1905 to 1913.

The Giants won pennants in 1904 (no world series was played that year) 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 before they had a little bit of a tailspin. The won pennants in 1933, 1936 and 1937, but none in the 40s.

In the 50s, they won in 1951 and 1954, and in the 60s won in 1962, but lost Game 7 to the Yankees, 1-0.

The A's won pennants in 1905, 1910, 1911, 1913 and 1914. They didn't win again until 1929, but won the pennant in 1929, 30 and 31. I believe their next pennant was in 1972, and they also won the 72 73 and 74 World Series. They later own 3 AL pennants in a row 1988, 1989 and 1990.

So if you're talking prior to 1970, the Giants would have a slight edge in my opinion, having won pennants in almost every decade.

Since 1970, I think the A's have been better overall, and the 3 peat World Series and 3 peat Pennants in the late 80s have not been matched by any Giants team since the '4 in a row' Giants of the 1920s.

The A's have also had more recent postseason appearances, although the Giants actually made it to the series in 2002.

EDIT: The Giants do have more Hall of Famers, but this is partly due to some errors in judgement by the Veterans Committe during the 1960s and 70s. Freddie Lindstrom, for example, is only in the Hall of Fame because he was a close friend and team mate of Bill Terry, who was on the Veteran's Committee at the time Lindstrom was elected. Terry felt bad about a feud that the two men had had in the 1930s, and Terry paid Lindstrom back, 40 years later, by putting him in the Hall of Fame.

Rube Marquard, another Giant, is probably the worst starting pitcher in the Hall of Fame. His selection was also a mistake, and he really wasn't a Hall of Famer on the best day of his life.

First Baseman George Kelly, a Giants player from the 19-teens and 20s, is probably the worst position player to make the Hall of Fame... he got in because of his relationship with Frankie Frisch (a legitimate Hall of Famer), who was on the Veterans Committee when Kelly was elected, and lobbied hard in his favor.

Ross Youngs is yet another Giant player from the same era who was elected to the H.o.Fame due entirely to the fact that he was a teammate of Frisch and Terry.

These men (Marquard, Lindstrom, Kelly and Youngs) were all teammates of Terry and/or Lindstrom in the 1920s, and were all elected to the Hall of Fame in the 1970s, when Frisch and Terry served on the Veterans Committee.

Catcher Roger Bresnahan is yet another Giant who is in the Hall of Fame, but shouldn't be...he was elected in the 1940s, just after his death (his death put his name in the news, which gave him the push he needed to get over the top).

Answer 3

They're pretty much dead even, although I'd give the edge to the A's. Sure, the Giants have Bonds & BALCO, and SanFran went to play in the World Series 4 years ago, but unlike the Giants, Oakland can win on the West Coast. Back in the late 80's when the A's had the Bash Brothers (Canseco & McGwire, respectively), Oakland was considered a powerhouse contender, which they were. Even though the Athletics lost to the Dodgers in '88, they rebounded from that loss, and BEAT THE GIANTS one year later, and the bayside series belonged to Oakland. A few years ago, the A's had the next best pitching threesome (Hudson, Mulder, Zito), and they had MVP-caliber players like Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada, Jeremy Giambi, Jerrmaine Dye, among others. Now, unfortuantely, the A's have Bobby Crosby, Jason Kendall, & Huston Street. They're not bad, but Oakland was better off a few years ago.

However, I'm going to give some daps to the Giants because they have All-Stars such as Barry Bonds*, Jason Schmidt (whom I saw on a rehab stint in San Jose in 2003), Omar Vizquel, Moises Alou & Pedro Feliz. Still, they have never been able to finish on top consistently, and that flaw in their game plan will CONTINUE TO PREVENT SAN FRANCISCO FROM PLAYING BASEBALL PAST SEPTEMBER. However, the Giants were better off in New York, and they only moved to San Francisco because the Brooklyn Dodgers were to go to Los Angeles, and they wanted a Giant-Dodger rivalry, but this time (even to this day) on the West Coast.

BOTTOM LINE: A's are better than the Giants, within reason...

Answer 4

Oakland Athletics, also the Philadelphia A's and the Kansas City A's had a total of 7870-8343, not counting the 15-9 record in the playoffs and world series.
The Giants, are 10037-8548, 20-5 in the post season, and have also been in the game since 1883, 18 years longer than the Athletics, as well, the A's played a horrendous stretch, in Philly and KC that saw them lose for over 20 straight years, until they moved to Oakland, and saw Charlie Finley revamp the Club...and the help of Reggie Jackson, Vida Blue, Catfish Hunter, and Rollie Fingers, they won 3 straight World Series, the first team to do so since the Yankees won 5 straight.

Answer 5

World Series-wise, the A's are better, going 9-5 in their 14 World Series appearances (5-3 in Philadelphia, 4-2 in Oakland), while the Giants are 5-12 (5-9 in New York, 0-3 in San Francisco). The Giants have a lot more Hall of Famers, with 23 (by far the most of any major league team), vs. the Athletics with only 9.

Answer 6

I have to agree with John D. The key word is "historically." How far back are they comparable? Also, they are not in the same league, so they can't be measured by a common standard. The Giants were more successful by far before the teams moved. Since 1970, the A's have the definite edge.

Answer 7

All-time (prior to the '06 season), the New York/San Francisco Giants have a record of 10037-8548, for a winning percentage of .540. The Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics have a record of 7870-8343, winning percentage of .485. So, it looks like the Giants.

Answer 8

Historically? Depends. If you're only counting San Francisco then the A's win by a mile. If you include the years the Giants spent in NY, they may have the edge.

Answer 9

If you go back to the beginning of each team you have to pick the Giants for there time in NY, if you are only talking about each teams time in California, then the A's are the clear winner.

Answer 10

The Giants.