Maybe they win 5 of those 35 with someone else on the mound. How much did the bullpen benefit from the extra rest Clemens provided them with? How much did the rest of the staff benefit from his presence? What was the psychological impact on the team as a whole knowing he was on their team? How much excitement did he create with the fanbase, thus creating a positive energy guys could feed off of? Most importantly, how many playoff series did the Astros win prior to his arrival? I think there are intangibles he provides that you won't be able to measure with stats.
you can measure any intangible with a good equation. here, i'll provide an example Ex: How much excitement did Clemens create with the fanbase? Answer: First take your numerator which would be number of fans per game when clemens starts and then divide it by some arbitrary number such as Pi. problem solved.
So, what would the equation be if Clemens announces on Mother's Day he is coming back say Father's day?
These are the runs the Astros scored in Clemens starts : 4, 3, 2, 4, 6, 6, 7, 6, 9, 3, 14, 3, 3, 8, 10, 3. That's 8 starts of six runs or more, and 10 starts of four runs or more. All but one had at least three runs, which isn't horrible and gives you a chance to win a lot of games. Saying that someone else would've only won 5 of those 35, given the evidence, is going too far. Not unless the alternative is Jose Lima or something. How many playoff series did the Astros win prior to Andy Pettitte's arrival? You could just as easily attribute that success to Pettitte and not Clemens, if you believe in doing that. Also, in only three of 35 starts did Clemens go more than seven innings. Now, seven innings is still good and certainly helps the bullpen some, but Wheeler, Lidge and maybe even Qualls were used in almost all of those games. It's not like this was a nine-inning pitcher like Livan Hernandez that gave the entire bullpen the night off. Also, since most of the staff will be returning from last year, who's to say they'll lose whatever edge Clemens gave them?
I was referring to the supposed intangibles of the "psychological benefit" and the "benefit from his presence" that Freak mentioned, not how replaceable he is as a pitcher on the mound.
Have I missed something? You didn't list any of the shutouts. You only listed 16 starts. Clemens had 32 starts last year. There were 8 games in which the Astros scored 0. What did the Astros score in the other 8 games?
Is it too much to ask you guys to read the entire discussion on a subject, instead of nitpicking on a line that you don't understand (but would if you read back a couple of posts)? Clemens won 15 of his 35 starts last season. I said it was not that difficult to find a pitcher who (with the Astros lineup) could win close to 15 out of 35. Freak said another pitcher might win 5 out of 35. Given that the Astros scored six runs or more in eight of Clemens' wins, I was pointing out that it was ridiculous to claim a more mediore pitcher would have only won five games out of 35 given that run support. This isn't about debating how much run support Clemens got for the entire season. This isn't analyzing every start Clemens made. It's about looking at the body of work and seeing if the claim that winning "5 out of 35" with a different pitcher is reasonable. Given that the Astros scored six or more in 8 of those 35 starts, I find it incredibly unreasonable to expect a mediocre pitcher not to win more than 5 games. What the Astros scored in the other eight games... really doesn't matter on that subject.
If we have a pitcher on the staff that is only capable of delivering 5 wins for us (in 35 starts) then I'm willing to bet he won't be in the starting rotation long enough to even give us those five wins. Wandy had 10 for us last season, Zeke only had 3 in 14 starts (and remember he was sent back down). Redding got 10 wins for us in '03 and Robertson got 15 in his first full season. And (with the exception of Redding that one year) none of these guys had sterling ERAs. I think really it'll come down to how much this offense can get behind these young guns. If the runs are there, we'll get wins during their starts. If not, well not even Clemens would make much of a difference.
Only if it's too much to ask of you to graciously understand when someone misses the obvious. Like I said, At any rate, thanks for explaining.
My apologies for sounding so harsh. I hope you guys realize that I'm not trying to take away anything from Roger... he had one of the most incredible seasons in the history of the sport last year. But, when it comes down to wins and losses for the team, he's not nearly as difficult to replace as he is upon first glance at the sub-2 ERA. Don't get me wrong, I hope and pray he'll come back, but this is still a playoff-capable team even if he doesn't.
1st Power Rankings came out on CBS.....we are 16th (7th in the NL). A little ridiculous seeing as how the teams in front of us are: St Louis (ok...fine), Milw (zero pitching other than Sheets), LA (i dont see how they are any better than us...maybe equal), Atl (lots of defections...no closer...no Furcal...no pitching coach), SF (i dont see them being better than us), Mets (they defintiely got better...and are better on paper...but who knows about Pedro's toe...plus, they're the Mets).
in all seriousness, i love it. i used to hate it. now i love it. it's part of the fun of being an Astros fan.
Yeah, as little sense as it makes, I actually feel MORE comfortable when we are considered underdogs than we are the team that gets all the print. In '98 when we won 102 games, I was very nervous going into that postseason.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2343040 Bagwell reports to Astros despite insurance disputeAssociated Press
