Joe Styborski, in his response to your comments on Roger Clemens, seems to have invented some facts: "As someone who has seen Rocket Roger pitch in at least 90% of his starts this season, I will tell you this little-known fact: The majority of the runs scored in games the Rocket has started have come near the tail end of the game when the Yankees are beating up on subpar middle men. In fact, the majority of his starts have been tight ballgames until the middle innings, yet your statistics don't show that. That is why stats don't give you a feel for the game and can be misleading, and you obviously have been misled."

It seems to me that the numbers show that the Yankees have scored early and often for Clemens this season.

Yankee Run Scoring off Starters in Clemens's Starts in 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------
-- scored 5 runs off starter Suppan in 5.0 innings
-- scored 7 runs off starter Parris in 1.2 innings
-- no decision, scored 2 runs off starter Martinez in 7.0 innings
-- no decision, scored 5 runs off starter Hamilton in 6.0 innings
-- no decision, scored 5 off starter Freddy Garcia in 7.0 innings
-- scored 3 runs off starter Zito in 6.0 innings
-- no decision, scored 3 runs off starter Hentgen in 6.0 innings
-- combined shutout, score 1 run off starter Mays in 6.0 innings
-- no decision, scored 2 runs off starter Hudson in 7.0 innings
-- loss, scored 2 runs of starter Sele in 7.2 innings
-- scored 5 runs off starter Sabathia in 4.2 innings
-- scored 5 runs off starter Colon in 5.0 innings
-- combined shutout, scored 4 runs off starter Ponson in 8.0 innings
-- scored 5 off starter Irabu in 5.2 innings
-- scored 7 off starter Weaver in 5.0 innings
-- scored 1 run off starter Kennedy in 6.0 innings
-- scored 6 runs off starter Rekar in 5.0 innings
-- scored 0 runs off starter Ponson in 2.0 innings
    (4 runs off his relief in 4 1/3 innings)
-- no decision, scored 3 runs off starter Dempster in 6.1 innings
-- scored 6 runs of starter Sparks in 6.0 innings
-- scored 7 runs of starter Parris in 7.0 innings
-- scored 2 runs off starter Escobar in 4.2 innings
-- no decision, scored 3 runs off starter Valdes in 5 innings

85 runs off starters, 61 off relievers.

Cumulative Percent of Runs Scored in Clemens's Starts
-----------------------------------------------------
1st -- 13.0%
2nd -- 20.5%
3rd -- 33.6%
4th -- 48.6%
5th -- 56.8%
6th -- 73.3%

Clemens Starts by Innings Lasted
--------------------------------
5.2      x 3
6        x 5
6.1      x 1
6.2      x 4
7        x 5
7.1      x 1
8        x 3
8.1      x 1

ART: Well, in Mr. Styborski's defense, he did say it was a "little-known fact".

Seriously, though, I thank Cliff for the comprehensive amount of work . . . and it all ties back into my original point. As Branch Rickey said nearly 50 years ago, baseball people -- and that includes fans (especially fans) -- are slow to accept new ideas. I've poked a little fun at Mr. Styborski these last few days, but to think he's alone in Dinosaur Land is laughable. A few weeks ago, a number of you went ballistic when Joe Morgan (the Hall of Famer, not Walpole Joe) stated in a recent ESPN.com chat session that pitchers should be judged by wins and losses above all else; well, on WEEI not a week ago, Dick Radatz said exactly the same thing. In their defense, it was what people believed for many, many years. It's only been in the last 20 or 30 years that we've begun to learn to look at the game differently.

And now, finally, we have the tools that help us dig to the truth. A Mr. Styborski, who claims to have "seen Rocket Roger pitch in at least 90% of his starts this season", uses that as the basis for this statement: "The majority of the runs scored in games the Rocket has started have come near the tail end of the game when the Yankees are beating up on subpar middle men." In 1975, we might have shrugged and believed it. Today, we not only know enough to view that sentence skeptically, but we also have the material at our disposal to figure out whether it's true. And, clearly, it's not. The majority of the runs scored by the Yankees in games started by Roger Clemens -- 58.2%, to be exact -- are scored against the opposing starter. And almost three-quarters of the scoring is done in the first six innings. Those are facts and they can't be denied, even if you've "seen Rocket Roger pitch in at least 90% of his starts this season".

The Sunday column is an attempt to bring this type of analytical thought to the masses. A few will embrace it. Some -- a lot, unfortunately -- won't. The hope is that the majority will at least look at it, and begin to develop new ways of looking at the game.

Whether they do or not probably depends on me, and how well I present it. I had an e-mail exchange with one of you late last week in which, while discussing another topic, I touched on what is probably the basic philosophy behind all this:

* * * * *

:There's no question our circle is far more sophisticated than the average reader. (In fact, we're more sophisticated than many writers.) It's not just that they don't understand, and it's not just that they're resistant to (relatively) new concepts. It's that they're almost hostile to some of these notions. Everybody feels they understand baseball, and many people are actually angered by attempts to move them beyond the "I know what I know" level.

But people will read pieces that are a) entertaining, b) well-written and c) thought-provoking, no matter what. The key is wrapping these new concepts in a mainstream format. That, I believe, is why Bill James was so successful: He showed you the formulas and the math, but wrote everything in an accessible (and entertaining) way, thereby satisfying everybody. It's damn hard, and I don't think anyone's quite reached his level in the ensuing years. Most lean too far into the "stathead" direction, turning off the mainstream readers, but some are too shallow in their analysis, which disconnects the sophisticates . . .

The key, I guess, is to gently bring our sort of analysis into the mainstream. That's what my boss wants me to try and do with this "Beyond The Box Score" column we're running every Sunday. He asked me today what I was writing about for Sunday, and I said, "Support-neutral statistics." He smiled. "I don't know what that means," he said, "so I think I'll like it. Just make sure I understand it."

* * * * *

And that -- making sure they understand it -- is the key.

Thing is, some people just refuse to accept it. Hey, they've seen Rocket Roger pitch in at least 90% of his starts this season. They know what they know.

But I understood going into this that a certain percentage of the readership would react that way. It didn't bother me in the least; the letters I got yesterday weren't disheartening or dispiriting at all. I expected them.

I have to admit, I also expected the letters I got today . . . the ones that answered, and refuted, the empty (and incorrect) claims of the "you jealous Red Sox lover/Yankee hater" crowd.

Which means, I think, that we're making progress.