Do the Astros have best pitching rotation in baseball history?

Just imagine if we got Jamie Mayer? We'd have the best complete 5 man starting rotation with room to spare, especially the way Asctacio has been pitching lateltly.

 

Cheapskate Drayton wouldn't pay Cuellar and they had to trade him for Curt Blefary (trivia moment - Curt Blefary and Joe Morgan became the first interracial road roommates on the Astros - maybe in baseball).

Sorry to derail - back to the thread.

 

When is the last time Clemens threw a complete game? When is the last time he won 20 games? LOL runs-saved, how many wins (10), that is the object of the game, right?

Where do you get best offense by far? Detroit, Oakland and Boston had just as good offensive teams, their pitching was not as good.

Of those 142 starts they completed 71 of them, is that not impressive to you?

Of course the Astros staff (if you want to call Clemens and Oswalt a staff) will have better numbers, they don't throw as many innings. Look I like the Astros, but they are far from the greatest STAFF ever. Clemens and Oswalt are very good, but the rest of the staff (including Pettitte who missed a lot of starts the last 2 years) are not consistent over an entire season to stand up to that claim.

 

yeah, john mayer is really good.

 

How many starts has Pettitte missed this year?

 

Here's the deal.

There are 2 months left in the 2005 season. The Astros will be lucky to have one 20 game winner. I will bring this thread back at the end of the season. Only then can we have a serious discussion.

 

He has missed two starts, 11 days total.

 

I'd say he counts as a consistent member of this staff, then.

 

You think Oswalt will be lucky to get 6 wins in his remaining ~12 starts?

 

The Astros should bring back Jeriome Robertson. Considering he won more games than Oswalt and Miller in 2003, he was clearly the Astros best pitcher that year.

 

Yup, Roger has only missed one start and Roy hasn't missed any... we've been fortunate.

 

DoitDickau already said what I wanted to post. So I won't bother repeating it.

Baltimore scored 742 runs that year. That's 41 runs better than Detroit, and 51 runs better than Oakland and Boston. 40-50 runs might not be a big deal today. But back then, teams average basically 100 runs per season less than current ballclubs. That's a pretty hefty advantage back then.

I won't doubt that back in the 70s(and earlier), pitchers in general are more valuable than they are today. It's hard to argue against that when they're pitching every 4 days rather than every 5. But that doesn't mean they're better. You can't compare players across generations like without taking into account the way the game's played. Pitchers can't pitch so much nowadays because they throw harder. Other than perhaps Livan Hernandez, no baseball pitcher today can throw almost 300 innings like they do back then, and still have a productive career.

 

hehe great point... why do people focus only on the Won/Loss? ERA and quality starts is a true showing of a pitchers worth... our starters went 22 straight games without being pulled before the 6th, that is amazing. It is also amazing that when the streak ended, he didn't need to be pulled (Zeke last night). We don't have an amazing offense, which will always result in fewer decisions for the starting pitchers.

We play a lot more 1-2 run games then most other teams at the top, so the winning runs are generally scored in the 7th, 8th or 9th. We have three of the top four ERAs in the LEAGUE and 3 of the top 5 in the MAJORS! If our 4 and 5 spots were pitching like they are now we would clearly be the best rotation of all time. As it is, in their current state they are definately worth the consideration.

 

The argument for both sides is compelling. All I have to say, even if it doesn't add much, is: 72 CG's??? Holy cow! The Astros don't even get 5 CG's a year any more.

 

there is a couple of ESPN insider articles up today about Roger, anyone with access care to post?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/index

 

Average runs per game 1971

Baltimore---4.70
Detroit-----4.33
Oakland----4.29
Boston-----4.28

How do you know pitchers throw harder nowadays? they didn't have radar guns back then. Todays pitchers are judged on what they can do with 100 pitches per game. Closers are just as important as starters. The game has changed in that aspect, but what hasn't changed is winning 20 games. There were 4 pitchers in all the national league that won 20 games in 1971, the Orioles 4 starters win 20 each. I will take those 4 against any staff.

 

It's impossible to win if your team doesn't score.

 

I vaguely recall that Boltimore team... it had a great defense behind those pitchers too, with Brooks at third, Belnager at SS, Powell at 1st, and Davey Johnson at 2nd base.