BTW - I found this to be a very ignorant statement based on what I was saying. Just saying.
I'm pointing out to you that anyone can play the arbitrary end-point game. You chose 1997 and I chose 1991.
If you'd prefer a more thorough critique:
1. Darryl Kile is totally irrelevant to this argument. He pitched for the Rockies in 1998. How on earth could his 1997 have mattered?
2. Mike Hampton was great in 1998. He was also pretty good in 1995, 1996 and 1997. In fact, 1997 was arguably the worst of those four years.
3. Shane Reynolds was also good in 1998. 1997 also represented the low water mark for him from 1994-1998
4. You know who else was great in 1998? Jose Lima. What did he do prior to 1998? Very little. Pitched poorly in the bullpen.
5. Obviously, Randy was dominate. That had nothing to do with 1997.
6. On offense, Bagwell and Biggio both had arguably worse years in 1998 than they did in 1997, though both seasons were still incredible.
7. So what made the offense so much better in 1998? Mostly, Moises Alou, who was winning the Marlins a World Series in 1997.
8. Also contributing was C4, also new to the 1998 team.
All to say, I am having a real hard time understanding why the 1997 Astros, specifically, had to exist in order for the 1998 Astros to exist and for the fans to appropriately build high expectations.
I am also having a hard time understanding how this proves any point whatsoever, as whatever experience the Astros gained in 1997 surely didn't help their postseason success in 1998 (despite a much better team). Nor did the 1998 team help the 1999 team's success or the 2001 team's success. Playoffs are a crap shoot.
