Those who have decided that Clemens used steroids won't bother to listen to facts, but Clemen's agent has released a statistical report which makes mincemeat of the claim that Clemen's career was nosediving before he allegedly used steroids starting in 1998. It also compares Clemen's career variations with other recent pitchers who pitched effectively into their 40's like Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan. The link is: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7689924?MSNHPHMA
As to his "awful" 1996 season, his last in Boston, the report states: "During the 1996 season Clemens ranked first in strikeouts in the American League and tied his own record by striking out 20 batters in Detroit on Sept. 18, 1996. In addition, he ranked sixth in the AL in ERA, second in the AL in hits per nine innings, and fifth in innings pitched. This performance cannot be reasonably categorized as a 'twilight."'
Originally posted by poundleeIn 1996, meanwhile, Clemens had seven leads blown by the bullpen. How different would Duquette's evaluation have been if Clemens had finished, say 16-11 instead of 10-13, especially when Clemens was 6-2 with a 2.08 ERA -- including another 20-strikeout, no-walk gem -- in his final 10 starts.
I am sure his agents did not mention that in 1996 Clemens went 10-13 for a team that won 85 games. Mo Vaughn went 44/143/326 so they had enough hitting too
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1558838.html
First of all Clemens isn't the only guy who ever had leads blown by a bullpen and all leads blown aren't the same. I'd like to know a little bit more, there is a big difference between having a one run lead given up a double being pulled and the bullpen allows the guy to score then leaving with a seven run lead and not getting a win. Secondly, Clemens talks about his last year in Boston, but he had FOUR years with fewer inning and higher ERA. He goes to Toronto, pitches more innings. has a lower ERA. Clemens has stamina he hasn't had in four years. The explanation seems more McNamee related than "oh I found a split finger" but people can belive whatever they want.
Originally posted by poundleeHow many times do you have to be told that McNamee wasn't even working for Toronto in Clemen's first year there (1997)? And his ERA was lower in 1994 than 1996. And he pitched 242 innings in 1996 (5th in the league); hardly showing a lack of stamina.
First of all Clemens isn't the only guy who ever had leads blown by a bullpen and all leads blown aren't the same. I'd like to know a little bit more, there is a big difference between having a one run lead given up a double being pulled and the bullpen allows the guy to score then leaving with a seven run lead and not getting a win. Secondly, Clemens ta ...[text shortened]... McNamee related than "oh I found a split finger" but people can belive whatever they want.
Don't let the facts get in the way; keep repeating the same BS over and over and over again.
The real issue is not whether Clemens 9-13 record in 1996 was a good year or whether Clemens last 4 years in Boston being only 1 game over.500 were quailty years in the middle of a career of a guy who wins over 350 games.
There are reports that Pettitte will back up testifimony by McNamee (and obviously until it happens no one knows what will happen or is true). But if McNamee is credible then Clemens is just one big lying cheater. Unfortunately for Clemens, McNamee explanation for Clemens' resurgance is far move convincing than his agent's.
Originally posted by poundleeThere was no "Clemens resurgence" and you continue to ignore that McNamee wasn't even Toronto's trainer in 1997 when Clemens won the Cy Young. Your ignorance and stubbornness are a sight to behold; for page after page you've argued that Clemens was "awful" from 1993-96 but now it's been shown that he pitched effectively, it's not an issue! LMAO at your stupidity.
The real issue is not whether Clemens 9-13 record in 1996 was a good year or whether Clemens last 4 years in Boston being only 1 game over.500 were quailty years in the middle of a career of a guy who wins over 350 games.
There are reports that Pettitte will back up testifimony by McNamee (and obviously until it happens no one knows what will happen or is ...[text shortened]... Clemens, McNamee explanation for Clemens' resurgance is far move convincing than his agent's.
Try actually reading charts 11 and 12 on page 12 of the Hendrick's report at http://www.rogerclemensreport.com/reports/ClemensReport.pdfIt shows that in the years 1993, 1994 and 1996 when Clemens went 30-34, the Red Sox scored less than a run per 9 innings than the league average for Clemens; that and the bullpen problems already alluded to explain Clemen's won-loss record. In 1995, when the BoSox scored slightly more than the league average in his starts, Clemens went 10-5.
I suggest reading page 18 as well regarding the 1996 season in comparison to Schilling's 21-6 2004 season; Clemen's stats in 1996 were every bit as good as Schilling's in 2004, but Schilling got 3.2 more runs per game and thus was considered a Cy Young caliber pitcher while the uninformed (like yourself) claim Clemens was "awful" (an opinion not shared by Peter Gammons at the time). In 2001, Clemens had about the same ERA for the Yankees, but went 20-3 because the Yanks scored 6.5 runs per game for him and Mariano Rivera and the Yankee bullpen was finishing his games rather than Heathcliffe Slocumb.
In sum. any argument that Clemens was in the "twilight of his career" is completely refuted by statistical analysis. This doesn't "prove" that Clemens didn't use steroids (nothing will) but it does mean the Clemens haters look a little foolish that they made such an argument in the first place.
Back to rumors again. The "reports" are coming from McNamee's lawyers who, understandably, would rather keep the focus away from Hendricks' report. They needn't have worried; ESPN and most sportswriters pretty much ignored its content - it just doesn't mesh with the "Clemens was a cheat" storyline that is being pushed.
Maybe I did not make it clear, only a fool would think Clemens last four years in Boston were like his six or seven before or his years after. Still the issue is whether he cheated or not.
The 1997 Blue Jays had a .244 team BA and a .305 OBP. It is hard to imagine that they hit for anyone, but Clemens who mustered a one game above .500 record in a 4 year period goes 21-7 with a 2.05 ERA in 264 innings. How could that happen? Looks like a performance enhanced experience.
He follows that up with 20-7 2.65 ERA. This just isn't the same pitcher who went 10-13 3.63 ,10-5 4.18, 9-7 2.85 or 11-14 4.46. Tom Seaver, Greg Maddux, pitchers from other generation just don't have four bad years and magically regain their form. Only certain guys in the steriod era. Unfortunately for Clemens, he has McNamee providing a pretty convincing reason for the Rockman's resuragance.
Originally posted by poundleeIt's rather tiresome to talk to someone who keeps repeating lies even when they have been shown to be lies multiple times.
Maybe I did not make it clear, only a fool would think Clemens last four years in Boston were like his six or seven before or his years after. Still the issue is whether he cheated or not.
The 1997 Blue Jays had a .244 team BA and a .305 OBP. It is hard to imagine that they hit for anyone, but Clemens who mustered a one game above .500 record in a 4 year r Clemens, he has McNamee providing a pretty convincing reason for the Rockman's resuragance.
To repeat:
1) Clemens didn't have 4 "bad years" from 1993-1996, so there was no need for him to have a "resurgence".
2) In 1997 Clemens won the Cy Young BEFORE he ever met McNamee. McNamee claims Clemens started taking steroids in 1998. HOW is that explanation "convincing" for his 1997 season?
You obviously didn't bother to look at the link. Toronto in 1997 and 1998 averaged 5.0 runs per 9 innings right at the league average (charts 11 and 12 on page 12). Clemens pitched very well in Toronto, as he had pitched very well in the last part of 1996 going 6-2 with a 2.08 ERA and having a 20 strikeout game. This has also been pointed out to you several times.
You really should make ONE post where you stop repeating falsehoods and actually bother to fact check. But that's not your style.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you were Clemens, and you could say ONE THING to Mc'NamedMe... what would you say?
It's rather tiresome to talk to someone who keeps repeating lies even when they have been shown to be lies multiple times.
To repeat:
1) Clemens didn't have 4 "bad years" from 1993-1996, so there was no need for him to have a "resurgence".
2) In 1997 Clemens won the Cy Young BEFORE he ever met McNamee. McNamee cla ...[text shortened]... top repeating falsehoods and actually bother to fact check. But that's not your style.
A) Why did you lie about me?
B) I treated you like family.
Pick one.
P-
Originally posted by Phlabibit"I can't understand why you would tell these people I used steroids"
If you were Clemens, and you could say ONE THING to Mc'NamedMe... what would you say?
A) Why did you lie about me?
B) I treated you like family.
Pick one.
P-
"Somebody needs to tell the truth"
- Clemens in his phone conversation with McNamee
I can't understand why you would tell these people I used steriods is not a statement consistent with innocence. It is a statement of "why did you turn me in" If he though McNamee was lying, he would have said (and probably in a more animated way) whay are you lying about me using steriods. The only explanation I can come up with for Clemens did not say that, is becasue he did not want to have a tape with McNamee saying "Sorry Roger, I was forced to tell the truth about steriod use.
1997 Clemens ERA 2.65!!! Of course Toronto scored more runs. They probably battered crappy relief pitchers in games that were over.
Originally posted by no1marauderPoint me to where he says, "You lied about me."
"I can't understand why you would tell these people I used steroids"
"Somebody needs to tell the truth"
- Clemens in his phone conversation with McNamee
He skirts it over and over... he's trying to get his way, without incriminating himself.
Otherwise, right when it came up he should have yelled, "lies!"
He did not, he began to consult with lawyers.
You're very gullible if you think he never did it.
P-