[bspn article] was Oswalt the greatest astros pitcher?

That might be right...and I loved the guy. I loved the fact that no one could pitch at "Ten-Run" Field before he came in as a rookie and shut folks down. He had incredible swagger that was so fun to watch. He's probably my favorite pitcher in Astros history, and that's saying a lot.

Having said that...at his prime..at his very best...Mike Scott was filthy untouchable nasty crazy great. Great hitters were absolutely baffled by him.

 

Yes, he was.... homegrown player that had his best years as an Astro, led them to their first pennant, dominated in a hitters era, and wasn't suspected of scuffing the balls (Scott!)

All the pitchers on that list were important... but Roy meets all the criteria (and then some if you include wins, WAR and ERA+).

If we're simply going to name the "best pitcher to pitch as an Astro", it would probably be the half season we got of Randy Johnson... that's the best extended stretch of starting pitching I've seen any Astro throw ever.... but it was short-lived and marred by the Kevin Brown game.

 

Short stint yes, but Roger Clemens was basically unhittable in his time with the Astros if you want to get technical.

Technically you could have

Nolan
Clemens
R. Johnson
Jr Richard

That wouldn't be fair though.

 

I think you got to include Roy in any list of all time Astros greats. His stretch in the mid 2000s was remarkable, and if not for his teammate Roger Clemens, probably would have won Cy Young in 2004, and he I think he got robbed in 2005.

 

I'd go with Oswalt.

 

Probably my favorite baseball player of all time.

I was very surprised he wasn't even on the list of astros to vote for.

 

I'd say Scott's peak was higher, especially 86,... but Oswalt pitched at a higher level longer, in a much more hitter-friendly ballpark and hitter-friendly era.

The allegations of Scott's ball tinkering also has never been all that much denied over the years... which I'm wondering if he'd be able to get away with in the high definition, mass media, 24/7 sports internet age.

 

Probably so. Scott, Richard, & Ryan were all better at their very best, but weren't as consistent as RoyO.

 

Roy O for sure.

 

Really, only 86.

 

We've had this discussion before, and there really is no statistical argument against Roy, he's the greatest pitcher in Astros history. He put up similar numbers to the others guys in a much less pitcher friendly era, in a much less pitcher friendly park.

But many see things through nostalgia glasses and will always say Scott, Nolan, or JR Richard.

 

To follow up if you look at the other 3, they all had one monster season. But one great season does not mean more dominant.

Roy had an ERA+ over 144 five times. Nolan, Scott and JR had 2 combined, 3 if you count Richards dominant half season.

 

No, he wasn't.

 

You don't think guys doctor the ball these days?

 

Not to that extreme. Not without getting caught.

 

He was going to show the world he was on Tom Seaver's level.

 

JR Richard only had one monster season? What's your definition of a monster season?
'76 20-15 2.75era 14 CG 3 SHO 291 IP 214 K
'77 18-12 2.97era 13 CG 3 SHO 267 IP 214 K
'78 18-11 3.11era 16 CG 3 SHO 275 IP 303 K
'79 18-13 2.71era 19 CG 4 SHO 292 IP 313 K

I still give the nod to Oswalt, but to say Richard had one monster season is freakin crazy.