The A's have score 378 runs in 87 games, or about 4.34 runs per game. What if they did that consistently in every game they play? (By the way, this is entirely for fun.)
The A's are 45-42 after 87, and have actually allowed 12 more runs than they have scored. Some criticize the inconsistent offense, so let's take a look at that. Let's assume that there's such a thing as scoring a 0.34 run, and you can win a game like that. Of course, in some games the A's only batted in eight half-innings, and in others the opponent only batted in eight, so let's just ignore that factor.
They would win some games, such as "sweeping" Tampa Bay, who scored just eight runs to take two of three, early in May. They would also "sweep" the Yankees at home in mid-May. However, they would "lose" the series against the Yankees which they swept in real life. This works both ways.
In the end, the A's would finish 87 games at 49-38, taking only four more games than they did right now. Clearly, some of this "inconsistency" allows them to win some high scoring games where the average simply wasn't enough. On the other hand, the average runs are "wasted" if your pitcher shuts out the opponent. In any case, the inconsistent offense affected the outcomes of just 21 games. Worse, five of those 21 are "won" by 0.34 runs.
So if we stuck to traditional baseball rules and scored only whole runs, some of those five close games would be 5-4 and others 4-5, so the A's would be theoretically more like 47-40 right now.
How would that affect the pitchers? Halsey, Saarloos, and Zito may each have two more wins, Haren may have one more win, while Blanton and Loaiza remain even. I think this concurs with general impressions of which pitchers give up a lot of runs.
Obviously, they'd win more games if they could score more, but is "consistent offense" overrated? :)