The major leagues first showed an interest in Oakland in 1947.
It was difficult to understand why. Oakland was only the 27th-largest city in the nation at the time. It was smaller than 16 other cities that lacked big-league teams, including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Houston, and San Francisco.
The last place on that list would prove to be the key.
The National League commissioned a panel in the fall of 1947 to investigate possible expansion options along the West Coast. The committee completed its work in December. Its submission, the so-called Frick-McKinney Report, was not made public.
The secrecy was undoubtedly for the best, given the absurdity of some of the panel’s pronouncements. It warned, for example, that San Diego was “utterly unready” for major-league ball, partly because of its demographics. “At the moment,” said the report, “the population has a high percentage of Negroes and Mexicans.”
But the Frick-McKinney analysis was bullish on Los Angeles and San Francisco, determining that the latter city “offers rich opportunity.” And it was surprisingly upbeat about Oakland, located 10 miles east of San Francisco.
“From a major league standpoint, an Oakland-San Francisco set-up would induce much the same rivalry that now exists between New York and Brooklyn," said the committee, which had no way of knowing that the National League’s two New York teams would simultaneously relocate 10 years later — to the two largest cities on the West Coast.
“Like Los Angeles, the San Francisco and bay territory could, we believe, support two major-league clubs,” the Frick-McKinney Report concluded in 1947, thereby establishing Oakland as an expansion target.
Two decades would pass before baseball finally hit the bull’s-eye. Los Angeles and San Francisco joined the majors in 1958, though Oakland was forced to wait until 1968, when Charlie Finley moved his Kansas City Athletics to the new Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum.
And there the A’s have remained — same city, same stadium — to this day. Their run in Oakland has reached 56 seasons.
But it might soon be coming to an end. The Athletics announced last month that they intend to purchase land for a new ballpark in Las Vegas.
Subscribe — free — to Baseball’s Best (and Worst)
A new installment will arrive in your email each weekday morning
Critics immediately accused the team of ineptitude and insensitivity. Peter Hartlaub, a culture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, tweeted, “The A’s ownership doesn’t deserve these great fans.” Ken Rosenthal, a senior writer for the Athletic, said, “Yeah, they draw 5,000. And you know why? Because the owner, John Fisher, has wrecked the club.” Even Rob Manfred, the baseball commissioner who gave a green light for the move, admitted that he feels “sorry for the fans in Oakland.”
There is cause to doubt the viability of Las Vegas as a baseball market — a subject for another day — but there is no reason to jump on the bandwagon of pity for Oakland.
Why not? Here are four points to consider:
1. Oakland stole the team in the first place.
The A’s slowly made their way from the Eastern Time Zone to the Pacific. They were founded as the Philadelphia Athletics in 1901, shifted to Kansas City in 1955, and slipped off to California in 1968.
Many of the same fans who celebrated when Oakland enticed the Athletics from K.C. are now heartbroken that the A’s are planning to leave for Las Vegas. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
2. The San Francisco Bay Area isn’t big enough for two teams.
Four baseball markets are home to a pair of big-league franchises: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco-Oakland.
The first three are the largest metropolitan areas in the United States, respectively containing 19.8 million, 13.0 million, and 9.5 million residents. The population of the San Francisco-Oakland area is relatively small by comparison, 4.6 million.
Eight single-club markets are actually larger than the San Francisco-Oakland conglomeration: Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Washington.
The Giants arrived in the San Francisco area first. They’re the logical candidate to remain in a market that should be limited to a single franchise.
3. Oakland has never drawn well.
Much has been said in recent days about the Athletics’ loyal fans, and no doubt some do exist. But there aren’t very many.
I developed the fan support index (FSI) for situations just like this. It tracks the relationship between a team’s attendance and its victory total.
FSI is calculated in three steps: (1) A team’s home attendance for a given season is divided by its number of victories, both home and road. (2) The subsequent figure is divided by the average attendance per victory for all big-league teams. (3) The result is multiplied by 100.
A score of 100 indicates support that is commensurate with a team’s quality on the field. A higher number suggests box-office strength that exceeds expectations, while a two-digit FSI is a sign of lethargy.
Oakland attained an FSI above 100 in only five seasons since 1968, and not at all since 1991. Its index fell under 75 — more than 25 percent below normal — in 35 different years. That’s truly a remarkable (and miserable) record of fan apathy.
Charlie Finley fielded several outstanding clubs in the 1970s, including three world champions. None of those top-flight Oakland clubs drew more than 1.1 million fans in any given season, then and now a shockingly low figure. (It should be acknowledged that Finley ran a maddeningly cheap operation, which alienated a sizable portion of the Athletics’ fan base.)
The box-office results were so disappointing that Finley came to regret ever leaving Kansas City. "I made a big mistake,” he said in 1978. “With the new stadium they built (in Kansas City), with their baseball weather, I would have drawn 2 million. In most baseball towns on summer nights, people come to the game in a light sweater. In Oakland, they need overcoats."
4. The A’s have generally been competitive.
Yes, Oakland’s current team is dreadfully bad. Yes, current owner John Fisher seems to have cut his expenses far below any logical limit. And yes, the team’s stadium is relatively ancient and obviously deficient.
But those complaints don’t explain Oakland’s historically bad attendance.
The A’s won their third straight World Series in 1974, establishing Oakland as the only franchise besides the New York Yankees to pull off such a trifecta. Yet the Athletics ranked 22nd among the 24 big-league clubs in attendance that year, even though their stadium was less than a decade old.
That’s old news, you scoff. What about the current situation?
Okay, let’s look at the past 20 seasons (2003 through 2022). The Athletics ranked a strong eighth among all 30 big-league teams in the number of regular-season victories accumulated during that span.
And they put together a postseason record that was even better. The A’s qualified for the playoffs eight times in 20 seasons, a total surpassed by only six clubs. Their attendance, despite such on-field quality, was consistently subpar.
That brings us to the bottom line.
It’s always unfortunate when a franchise relocates. Loyal fans are always left behind. But the four points noted above can lead to only one conclusion: Oakland had plenty of time, but it hasn’t established a sufficiently strong link with its baseball team. The city doesn't deserve to keep its franchise.