Um, no. You can't win if you don't score. You can pitch 50 straight scoreless innings, but it means nothing if you're team can't score. You cannot win without scoring at least one run. (Negatives are impossible in baseball, even if Ditka is on the mound) I think her point with the "game of chicken" is that if Clemens can hold the other team for another inning or two, then he puts his team in a better position to win in the late innings. In other words, if Clemens holds the other team scoreless into the 9th, then Houston might be able to "play for a run", by bunting a guy over or something, and win the game with one run. As it stands, Houston's bullpen gives up a couple of runs, and Houston is forced to play for a big inning late in the game, sometimes. It's nitpicking a little, but it's not completely irrelevant. No, it's nitpicking alot, and the fact that such scenarios are even brought into the argument illustrates how tenuous the argument is. I'm done too. Have a nice day, everyone. :D nitpicking? With that empty accusation, it's no wonder you're done. Have a nice afternoon.