Clemens Not Guilty

no1marauder View Profile

Sports

18 Jun '12 20:58

no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
19 Jun '12 21:08
I refuted arguments like QQ's more than 4 years ago in this thread: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=84517&page=1

On page 5, I point out that Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton had late career resurgences similar to Clemens'.

From page 8:

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."'

Also on page 8:

In 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.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1558838.html

And on and on
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
19 Jun '12 21:11
Originally posted by quackquack
No, there is no reason to think McNamee introduced the idea of performance enhancer. In fact McNamee told the NYT that Clemens asked him to inject making it very possible that Clemens had explored other froms of eprformance enhancers prior to meeting McNamee. Similarly, I doubt Bonds one day woke up called BALCO and got top notch customized drugs. Fi ...[text shortened]... id help Clemens cheat and that Clemens career completely changed after 4 subpar years in Boston.
Where is the actual evidence that Clemens used steroids before 1998? There is none from McNamee or in the Mitchell Report.

Clemens 4 "subpar years" in Boston included one where he was scond in the league in ERA and K's and one where his ERA was 1.42 better than league average. The stats crush that silly claim.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
19 Jun '12 21:18
Page 8 from 4 1/2 years ago:

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.
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
19 Jun '12 21:281 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
I refuted arguments like QQ's more than 4 years ago in this thread: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=84517&page=1

On page 5, I point out that Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton had late career resurgences similar to Clemens'.

From page 8:

Those who have decided that Clemens used steroids won't bother to tarts.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1558838.html

And on and on
These comparison are simply laughable. Gaylord Perry (the king of Vaseline) and Don Sutton (suspended 10 days for defacing a ball) are most famous for doctoring baseballs. If there are similarities in their career and Clemens the prudent thing would be to see if Perry and Sutton were also using performance enhancers, not whether Clemens did not use performance enhancers.

It is a mischaracterization of Clemens ending years to talking about poor bullpen he went 40-39 in four years. He had an ERA of over 3.60 in three of the four years and average 186 inning per year. Then at age 34 still in the AL East he goes 21-7 with a 2.05 with 264 innings pitched and followed it up with a 20-6 and a 2.65 ERA 234.2. I never understood how it was possible until McNamee. In fact from age 34-42 he averaged over 215 innings per year when in 4 years before (with what you call a terrible bullpen) he wasn't close to that number.
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
19 Jun '12 21:31
In sum. any argument that Clemens was in the "twilight of his career" is completely refuted by statistical analysis.[/b]
Just simply not true and McNamee explains what really happened.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
19 Jun '12 21:31
Originally posted by quackquack
These comparison are simply laughable. Gaylord Perry (the king of Vaseline) and Don Sutton (suspended 10 days for defacing a ball) are most famous for doctoring baseballs. If there are similarities in their career and Clemens the prudent thing would be to see if Perry and Sutton were also using performance enhancers, not whether Clemens did not use perf ...[text shortened]... when in 4 years before (with what you call a terrible bullpen) he wasn't close to that number.
So you're ignorant of baseball statistics, poundlee II. No surprise.

The same arguments were made mincemeat of 4 1/2 years ago and I feel no need to do the same thing over again. People can re-read the old thread; you're not claiming anything different than poundlee did and the evidence totally refutes his and your argument.
no1marauder
Naturally Right
Somewhere Else
Joined
22 Jun '04
Moves
42677
19 Jun '12 21:34
Originally posted by quackquack
Just simply not true and McNamee explains what really happened.
Hold yer breath until you turn blue if you please; you refuse to respond to the actual analysis because you have nothing to refute it.

McNamee was a liar who turned on Clemens to avoid federal prosecution and because Roger didn't want to use him during his 2007 comeback. The jury properly found he had zero credibility.
AThousandYoung
or different places
tinyurl.com/2tp8tyx8
Joined
23 Aug '04
Moves
26660
19 Jun '12 22:31
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104236/cheating-is-wrong
shortcircuit
master of disaster
funny farm
Joined
28 Jan '07
Moves
101300
19 Jun '12 23:57
Originally posted by quackquack
These comparison are simply laughable. Gaylord Perry (the king of Vaseline) and Don Sutton (suspended 10 days for defacing a ball) are most famous for doctoring baseballs. If there are similarities in their career and Clemens the prudent thing would be to see if Perry and Sutton were also using performance enhancers, not whether Clemens did not use perf ...[text shortened]... when in 4 years before (with what you call a terrible bullpen) he wasn't close to that number.
Ummmm, Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton are both in the Hall of Fame.

That is but two of the cheaters in the Hall currently.

Keep talking, you keep making my case.
mudpie
Joined
06 Aug '11
Moves
3103
20 Jun '12 03:04
Originally posted by shortcircuit
You are a first class idiot. You got that?
You are also as full of crap as a christmas turkey.
You are way out of your league here.

Tell me melon head, is it your position that anyone who ever cheated, or broke
the rules in any way, should be precluded from the Hall of Fame?

If so, I can pare about half of the current members pretty easily.
If you want to go to suspicion, it gets worse than that.
Take it easy, its not that bad, its just cyber chat 😀 By the way, how about your boy Eldrick this weekend, quite a performance indeed. Definately on the move. Melon head? AHEEEEEEHAAAAWWWW!!
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
20 Jun '12 03:17
Originally posted by shortcircuit
Ummmm, Gaylord Perry and Don Sutton are both in the Hall of Fame.

That is but two of the cheaters in the Hall currently.

Keep talking, you keep making my case.
I wouldn't have put Sutton or Perry in either. But we don't have to compound past mistakes by making the additional mistake of honoring more cheaters. More importantly not all cheating is the same. PEDs have an insane effect. They allow guys like Bonds who hit around 30 homeruns to get older yet have their totals sky rocket to 73 and guys like Clemens who are .500 pitchers for 4 years to win 4 more Cy Young awards.
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
20 Jun '12 03:23
Originally posted by no1marauder
So you're ignorant of baseball statistics, poundlee II. No surprise.

The same arguments were made mincemeat of 4 1/2 years ago and I feel no need to do the same thing over again. People can re-read the old thread; you're not claiming anything different than poundlee did and the evidence totally refutes his and your argument.
Simply saying you proved something in the past is completely unconvincing.
But your opinion and mine done not really matter anyway. Thankfully sportswriters will not bury their head in the sand and honor people like Clemens who obviously cheated anytime soon.
shortcircuit
master of disaster
funny farm
Joined
28 Jan '07
Moves
101300
20 Jun '12 03:56
Originally posted by quackquack
I wouldn't have put Sutton or Perry in either. But we don't have to compound past mistakes by making the additional mistake of honoring more cheaters. More importantly not all cheating is the same. PEDs have an insane effect. They allow guys like Bonds who hit around 30 homeruns to get older yet have their totals sky rocket to 73 and guys like Clemens who are .500 pitchers for 4 years to win 4 more Cy Young awards.
OK, would you have put Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays in the Hall?

They are in, but Pete Rose is not. All were associated with gamblers.
The two who got in were employed by them.

How about the tax evaders. I have first hand knowledge of many of them.
The evasion was intentional too. Tons of unreported cash from memorabilia deals.

Wouldn't you call those very factual disclosures FAR more important??

The sad fact is that vast majority of members in the BBWA are passing their judgment,
on the players they vote on, yet many of them are nothing more than whore mongers
chasing their stories and paying off people to get scoops while others don't do it,
and they get scooped.

The whole thing stinks. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tim Kirkjian
because he has said all along, "he does not know for sure about any player, and
since the doubt has been cast heavily across the board during this PED craze,
the competition was level enough to judge players on their performance."
He is absolutely correct too.

No one has compared players stats from different eras for years anyway.
Equipment changes, travel changes, training methods, etc... have changed through
the years.
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
20 Jun '12 04:241 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuit
OK, would you have put Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays in the Hall?

They are in, but Pete Rose is not. All were associated with gamblers.
The two who got in were employed by them.

How about the tax evaders. I have first hand knowledge of many of them.
The evasion was intentional too. Tons of unreported cash from memorabilia deals.

Wouldn't you Equipment changes, travel changes, training methods, etc... have changed through
the years.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not advocating a morality test for the Hall of Fame. I am simply disqualifying those whose performance got a substantial positive boost from substances (thus I only care about guys like Bonds, Sosa, the Bash Brothers, Clemens)

Mickey Mantle did not benefit from using alcohol. In fact as great as he was he likely would have been greater if he took care of himself. Pete Rose did not get an advantage from gambling either. There is a huge conflict of interest in managing a team and betting on games. Rose actually agreed to be disqualified from the game then despite an agreement of silence maintained his innocence for 15 years and then admitted he was lying. It is hard to consider Rose anything but a fool but as a player he was great. I'd never let him be involved in the game because of his post career actions but I'd have no problem with putting him in the Hall of Fame because his career was not enhanced by gambling. Mays was employed after his career was over. It in no way effects what he did as a player on the field.

Tax evasion does not in any way enhance your performance either so I do not believe that is relevant either. I am not sure why you are telling me about your first hand knowledge of tax evasion but I hope you got your fair share of cash from the unreported transactions.

I have absolutely no respect for writers who saw guys gain forty pounds of muscle in a year and not report it and not ask how is this possible. I have no respect for reporters who saw things but refuse to reveal names. Real journalists ask questions and tell their stories. They don't make arguments that news should be kept private and worry so much about future access that they forgo the real news.

All I want is player to be great because they were actually great not because they in their mid thirties they found the best pharmacist and reversed the trends of aging and became better than humanly possible.
quackquack
Joined
05 Sep '08
Moves
66636
20 Jun '12 04:29
Originally posted by quackquack
Simply saying you proved something in the past in a conversation with someone else is completely unconvincing.
But your opinion and mine do not really matter anyway. Thankfully, sportswriters will not bury their head in the sand and honor people like Clemens who obviously cheated anytime soon.

Sports Forum

Clemens Not Guilty