I repeatedly see QQ give stats that have nothing whatsoever to do with pysical performance.
A .500 average and ERA don't have anything to do with physical performance... what would be more interesting would be a comparison of his AVG MPH on his fastball and his strikes/balls ratio between the 4 years of "mediocrity" and his resurgent years in Toronto.
If he starts throwing five MPH faster and throws way more strikes and way less balls then I can see a pattern that would suggest performance enhancing drugs.
Originally posted by tomtom232Of course ERA has to do with physical performance. The better you heal and the stronger you are, the more likely you are to be able to get people out. MPH might be a better indicator, but performance is hardly irrelevant.
I repeatedly see QQ give stats that have nothing whatsoever to do with pysical performance.
A .500 average and ERA don't have anything to do with physical performance... what would be more interesting would be a comparison of his AVG MPH on his fastball and his strikes/balls ratio between the 4 years of "mediocrity" and his resurgent years in Toronto.
...[text shortened]... s and way less balls then I can see a pattern that would suggest performance enhancing drugs.
Originally posted by sh76Yes... an no. You can throw 100 MPH and be able to put the ball right where you want it and still have a high ERA... ERA by itself isn't an indication of enhanced physical prowess.
Of course ERA has to do with physical performance. The better you heal and the stronger you are, the more likely you are to be able to get people out. MPH might be a better indicator, but performance is hardly irrelevant.
What was Clemens accused of specifically? Anabolic steroids, HGH or some other such contraption?
Originally posted by sh761994 isn't the issue. The issue is that Clemens cheated and you said he was.
How much longer are you going to insist that 1994 was a subpar year for Clemens when No1 and I have demonstrated that in 1994 Clemens was one of the top 2 or 3 pitchers in the American League?
Neverthless if you want to look at 1994 Clemens was not a top 2 or 3 pitcher.
Key went 17- 4 with 3.27; Cone was 16-5 with a 2.94 (more inning and a better WHIP than Clemens) and Mussina was 16-5 with a 3.06. There are other guys too that were better but Clemens.
I'm not going to concede a point that clearly isn't true just because you think it is OK to speak to me as if you were no1.
4 edits
Originally posted by quackquackOkay, let's look at the 1994 numbers that really determine how good a pitcher is.
1994 isn't the issue. The issue is that Clemens cheated and you said he was.
Neverthless if you want to look at 1994 Clemens was not a top 2 or 3 pitcher.
Key went 17- 4 with 3.27; Cone was 16-5 with a 2.94 (more inning and a better WHIP than Clemens) and Mussina was 16-5 with a 3.06. There are other guys too that were better but Clemens.
I' ...[text shortened]... nt that clearly isn't true just because you think it is OK to speak to me as if you were no1.
I am inserting below all the reasonable contenders for best AL pitcher in 1994:
....................ERA+................WHIP...........k/9.........WAR
Clemens..........176..................1.143..........8.9.........5.8
Key.................140.................1.363..........5.2.........4.1
Cone...............171..................1.072.........6.9..........6.6
R. Johnson......152..................1.186.........10.9........5.2
Ontiveros........167..................1.032.........4.4..........3.0
Hentgen..........142.................1.242..........7.6..........5.1
Mussina............164.................1.163........5.1..........5.2
From these numbers, I think it's pretty clear that the only pitcher who has an excellent argument for having a better year than Clemens is Cone. Ontiveros pitched only 115.1 innings, so his leading the league in WHIP in itself doesn't mean much. No other pitcher has much of a case.
Edit: Except for Ontiveros, the IP for all of these pitchers is similar.
just because you think it is OK to speak to me as if you were no1.
Them's fightin' words. 😉
Originally posted by sh76Let's compare Clemens to some other pitchers in 1994 more fairly.
Okay, let's look at the 1994 numbers that really determine how good a pitcher is.
I am inserting below all the reasonable contenders for best AL pitcher in 1994:
....................ERA+................WHIP...........k/9.........WAR
Clemens..........176..................1.143..........8.9.........5.8
Key.................140.................1.363.... ...[text shortened]... you think it is OK to speak to me as if you were no1.[/quote]
Them's fightin' words. 😉
Cone: 7 more wins an extra .09 on his ERA
Mussina: 7 more wins 1 extra earned run per 45 innings
Key: 8 more wins & giving up less than half an earned run per nine innings.
My more realistic conclusion: those guys simply blow Clemens away.
This is not mention the fact that his three surrounding year 11-14 4.46, 10-5 4.18 and 10-13 3.63 make the his last 4 years in Boston (my only statement) clearly worse than his subsequent years in Toronto. Plus we agree on the issue that really has current news value: Clemens is a cheater.
Originally posted by quackquackYou're putting too much of a premium on wins.
Let's compare Clemens to some other pitchers in 1994 more fairly.
Cone: 7 more wins an extra .09 on his ERA
Mussina: 7 more wins 1 extra earned run per 45 innings
Key: 8 more wins & giving up less than half an earned run per nine innings.
My more realistic conclusion: those guys simply blow Clemens away.
This is not mention the ...[text shortened]... Toronto. Plus we agree on the issue that really has current news value: Clemens is a cheater.
ERA+, WHIP, WAR and k/9 are far better indicators of how effective a pitcher is, especially when it comes to predicting success in future years, which is the entire point of this discussion.
Originally posted by sh76I think you are putting too much emphasis on advanced stats. The ERA differences you find so significant end up being a run every few games. I certain rather have a guy who was winning games.
You're putting too much of a premium on wins.
ERA+, WHIP, WAR and k/9 are far better indicators of how effective a pitcher is, especially when it comes to predicting success in future years, which is the entire point of this discussion.
But whether you use advaced stats or traditional ones or any combination thereor his last four years in Boston are tremendously difference between the three years he had before and the subsequent years he had in Toronto.
Originally posted by quackquackThere's no such thing as overemphasizing advanced stats. The advanced stats are the ones that tell you how good the pitcher is.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on advanced stats. The ERA differences you find so significant end up being a run every few games. I certain rather have a guy who was winning games.
But whether you use advaced stats or traditional ones or any combination thereor his last four years in Boston are tremendously difference between the three years he had before and the subsequent years he had in Toronto.
The pitcher doesn't have enough control over the outcome of the game for wins to be a really meaningful stat.
Originally posted by sh76There is much value in traditional statistics. Many of the advanced statistics lead to absolutely ridiculous conclusions like Rick Rushel's career was better than Jim Rice or that a fielder is great one year but terrible the next.
There's no such thing as overemphasizing advanced stats. The advanced stats are the ones that tell you how good the pitcher is.
The pitcher doesn't have enough control over the outcome of the game for wins to be a really meaningful stat.
While it may be true that RBIs and Wins aren't completly in the pitcher's control, not all at bats are equal and those which drive in runs are defintely more valuable than others as giving up three runs in eight innings is more valuable when your teams score four or more then when your teams score two or less.
Originally posted by quackquackCan you explain to me how pitcher's are solely responsible for winning games?
I think you are putting too much emphasis on advanced stats. The ERA differences you find so significant end up being a run every few games. I certain rather have a guy who was winning games.
But whether you use advaced stats or traditional ones or any combination thereor his last four years in Boston are tremendously difference between the three years he had before and the subsequent years he had in Toronto.
They can, with the help of the defense, control the runs the opponent gets.
However, they cannot control their own team's offensive output.
Why don't you take a look at average run support per game.
A pitcher must pitch a much more refined game with little to no run support, than he
does when he has a 5 run lead.
ERA is a useful measure to determine how many runs a pitcher gives up without the
aid of poor defense.
WHIP is most indicative of what a pitcher is doing in his ballgames, although it is
skewed in his disfavor, because it does not subtract intentional walks that were
ordered by the manager.
Originally posted by shortcircuitI never said pitchers are solely repsonsible for winning games but to toss them and say it is irrelevant is not correct either. here are times when you pitch poorly enough to lose. Giving up a run every time your team scores a run simply does not let your team win. When you are winning by a run, you'll often have to face better hitters (pinch hitters) instead of defensive replacements.
Can you explain to me how pitcher's are solely responsible for winning games?
They can, with the help of the defense, control the runs the opponent gets.
However, they cannot control their own team's offensive output.
Why don't you take a look at average run support per game.
A pitcher must pitch a much more refined game with little to no ru ...[text shortened]... s disfavor, because it does not subtract intentional walks that were
ordered by the manager.
I prefer straight ERA. WHIP basically tells you how many guys reach base but if they are all in one inning it far worse than if you scatter them around.
In the year in question, there were guys who had almost double the number of wins as Clemens but .10 in ERA (is an extra run per 45 innings), means less than helping your team reach its goal -- actually winning the game
Originally posted by quackquackYou are way off base with your assertion here.
I never said pitchers are solely repsonsible for winning games but to toss them and say it is irrelevant is not correct either. here are times when you pitch poorly enough to lose. Giving up a run every time your team scores a run simply does not let your team win. When you are winning by a run, you'll often have to face better hitters (pinch hitters) ...[text shortened]... per 45 innings), means less than helping your team reach its goal -- actually winning the game
Nolan Ryan won the ERA title in 1987 with a sparkling 2.76 ERA.
His WHIP was 1.139.
Did he have a bad year because his record was 8-16??
If you say yes, then you are nuts.
If you say no, then your Clemens argument is wrong.
What say you?
Originally posted by shortcircuitIt is memorable season because it did not happen that often. You can't just look at one statistic. He was good but not as good as he would have been if won twice as many games with a similar ERA.
You are way off base with your assertion here.
Nolan Ryan won the ERA title in 1987 with a sparkling 2.76 ERA.
His WHIP was 1.139.
Did he have a bad year because his record was 8-16??
If you say yes, then you are nuts.
If you say no, then your Clemens argument is wrong.
What say you?
As far as Clemens is concerned I have repeatedly said he was not good in his last four years in Boston. His other three years besides included two years over 4.00 and one over 3.60. He simply was not the pitcher he was in the years he regularly won Cys.
Originally posted by quackquackYou can't keep saying "4 years" and then dismissing 1994. Without 1994, it's three years, not four. Take away 1996 (in which Clemens also pitched well) and it's down to two nonconsecutive years.
It is memorable season because it did not happen that often. You can't just look at one statistic. He was good but not as good as he would have been if won twice as many games with a similar ERA.
As far as Clemens is concerned I have repeatedly said he was not good in his last four years in Boston. His other three years besides included two years o ...[text shortened]... .00 and one over 3.60. He simply was not the pitcher he was in the years he regularly won Cys.
Big deal. It's common for good pitchers to have off years now and then.
Cliff Lee is 0-5 with a 4.13 ERA right now. Roy Halladay is 4-5 with a 100 ERA+. Tim Lincecum is 3-8 with a 5.60 ERA (a 63 ERA+)
If those guys go back to being CY caliber pitchers next year, are you going to start accusing them of being juiced?