QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 1, 2009 -> 02:21 PM)
I wouldn't say that. In the years where his win totals were down, he was either a below average pitcher, he was injured in some fashion, or his innings were down for some other reason other than a couple later in his career. If you look at his statistics, in every year he did not win 15 games, he either had an ERA+ below 100 or threw fewer than 200 innings (whether with injury or demotions). You could make arguments that he should have won more games in '83 and '84, but the main year I look at is his '87 season where he led the league in ERA and only won 8 games. He got screwed there, but there aren't many other seasons where he did. '90 kind of sucked too, but he still won 13 games which isn't terrible, and the Rangers that year were an above .500 team.
The 70s Angels were average, the late 70s-early-mid 80s Astros were not that good (sans '86) and the late 80s-early 90s Rangers were also not that good. Also, The Big A, The Astrodome, and Arlington Stadium, weren't exactly great places to pitch.
I never said that his no-hitters and K marks weren't great; I just said that he wasn't a great "pitcher." He was a dominating thrower who was wild enough to scare people into respecting him on the mound.
He stayed in the game long enough to get 300 wins and be a "lock" for the Hall.