Scott Ostler:

Winning with a low payroll, the A’s are an exception to the rule.

I have dusted off my couch and heated up my popcorn machine in anticipation of Wednesday’s titanic wild-card clash, A’s and Yankees in New York.

I don’t root for teams, but I do root for good stories, and the A’s are the best story in baseball. As former A’s executive MC Hammer would say, you can’t touch this.

But one cautionary note: Do not fall for the big lie. The A’s phenomenal success this season doesn’t prove you can win without spending money.

The romantics who believe that payroll size doesn’t matter in baseball will point out that the Giants’ payroll was 2½ times fatter than the A’s payroll.

Sorry, romantics, exceptions don’t prove rules.

Of the bottom 12 teams in payroll size, only one team made the playoffs: the Amazin’ A’s. Who did make the playoffs? The teams ranked No. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 9 on the payroll list.

Not an exact correlation between spending and winning, but you don’t need a stethoscope to hear money talking.

To be fair, even the A’s are not pounding the money-doesn’t-matter drum. Team President Dave Kaval, in cheerleading efforts for a new ballpark, says that his team would use revenue generated by a new Oakland ballpark to pump up the payroll to a level necessary to compete with the top teams.

That remains to be seen. History tells us that A’s owner John Fisher, in deciding whether to put baseball profits back into his team or into his pocket, chooses option B. Maybe a new ballpark will change that equation.

Fortunately for those of us who appreciate good live theater, the A’s status as relative paupers boosts their likability and their collective character.

These A’s, partly by intelligent design and partly by random chance, are a rare blend of scrappy and skilled fellows who also happen to be good guys with great backstories.

Knocking off the mighty (and mighty rich) Yankees in ritzy Yankee Stadium would be a great Rocky-type triumph. But it wouldn’t prove that money doesn’t matter.