Clemens Not Guilty

Originally posted by quackquack
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 the best pharmacist and reversed the trends of aging and became better than humanly possible.

Now you have said you want the hall to be based on great performance, not moral
character.

Why aren't you advocating Rose's admittance?? And Joe Jackson??

You are selectively bending the rules, which are clear, when you talk about Mantle
and Mays being employed by Bally's while still associated with MLB. This is every
bit as serious as anything that Rose or Jackson ever did.

Tax evasion is not important?? This is a crime against the government. It speaks to
the moral fiber of the player. If you are willing to cheat on your government, you
don't thing they are willing to cheat on their job, their families, or a game??

The reason I have first hand knowledge is because I have been involved with many
memorabilia shows where players have been paid for appearances to autograph
items for fans. I have witnessed the preparation on unmarked bags with as much
as $50,000 in cash placed in those bags, and given to the player when they appeared
and provided the agreed to amount of autographs. I know many of the show
promoters well, and this was the practice in the late 80's and well into the 90's. The
players were demanding this. We are talking Mantle, Mays, Killebrew, McCovey,
Schmidt, Perry, and the list goes on. Several of them got busted for it in fact.

Your comments about "real journalists" is somewhat laughable. You are speaking
about sensationalists who are paid to dig up dirt. They are not in any way to be
considered ambassadors of the game. Why? Because they also cover things up for
cash. They have their favorites they give a pass to and their targets they try to
crucify. They are nothing but maggots feasting on the players. That is why, for the
most part, writers are held in such disdain. There is no honor among most of them.
Oh, there are a few who try to get it right and are chasing the headlines....guys like
Peter Gammons and Tim Kirkjian are a couple of long timers who come to mind,
that have earned the respect of the players, and consequently they are treated to
a few scoops here and there. But they are the few, the rare few. The news media,
as a whole, is so unbelievably biased and two faced. They don't give a rat's ass
about the truth or justice...they care about headlines, lead stories, and the paydays
that come with those. They are bottom feeders. They shake your hand and stab
you in the back at the same time. Why do you think they actually train the athletes
(even at the collegiate level) on how to deal with the media and on what to say and
what not to say? The reason?? The media are vermin.

You are making a crusade on this. Why not crusade against the athletes and coaches
who have repeatedly illicit affairs, indecency with minors, rapists, those who assault
women? Surely these are MUCH worse crimes than whether or not they used PED's?
You are willing to turn a blind eye to these in order to pursue a witch hunt?

Wake up...there is a real world out there Pollyanna, and you are missing the mark.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Now you have said you want the hall to be based on great performance, not moral
character.

Why aren't you advocating Rose's admittance?? And Joe Jackson??

You are selectively bending the rules, which are clear, when you talk about Mantle
and Mays being employed by Bally's while still associated with MLB. This is every
bit as serious as anything ...[text shortened]...

Wake up...there is a real world out there Pollyanna, and you are missing the mark.

I'll say it again. I am not interested in the moral character or baseball players.
So if the rape nuns every day, never pay taxes or assault women and children then let the police deal with them. Instead of making judgments on moral character, I simply want the Hall of Fame to recognize legitimate excellence on the field. If you cheated to be good then your accomplishments are fraudulent and should not be recognized. This is different than if you broke laws outside of the game (tax evasion, DWI etc). For those matters we have outside authorities to punish you. You don't have to agree but my position is clear. Rose and Joe Jackson (who I would let in as a player but certainly wouldn't let have a job in baseball anymore) is some where in between because their gambling on games while being involved in the game actually tarnishes the legitimacy of the game itself. I certain understand baseball taking drastic steps to make sure its games aren't fixed.

Sport "journalists" are a joke. The biggest story of the 90s in baseball is how aging players could suddenly get new body types and do things that they never previously could do. People who were there every time and many claim they witnessed things but refuse to report it. They act more like they are players agents than new reporters. It is not a level playing field because a lot of people cheated. And those who are caught cheating certainly should be punished even if there are surely some who cheated who have not yet and likely never will be caught.

Originally posted by quackquack
I'll say it again. I am not interested in the moral character or baseball players.
So if the rape nuns every day, never pay taxes or assault women and children then let the police deal with them. Instead of making judgments on moral character, I simply want the Hall of Fame to recognize legitimate excellence on the field. If you cheated to be good ...[text shortened]... ven if there are surely some who cheated who have not yet and likely never will be caught.

Here are the written requirements for admission into the baseball Hall of Fame

Candidates for the National Baseball Hall of Fame are chosen by the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BWAA). Only those who have been active members in the BWAA for at least ten years are eligible to vote. Each Hall of Fame candidate must have been retired for at least five seasons and have played at least ten seasons in major league baseball. Inductees are selected by careful examination of their qualifications, including their playing record, character and integrity. Each inductee must receive 75 percent of the vote to be a successful candidate. A separate Veteran’s Committee selects candidates who retired at least 21 years ago. The induction takes place in July in Cooperstown, New York.

Please note the words in italics.

Now. regarding, nun raping, DWI, tax evasion and the rest of your dismissed charges,
what say you now???

I'll say it again. I am not interested in the moral character of baseball players. I merely want their performance on the field to be legitimate. When your career is substantially improved due to performance enhancers, I do not want the person put in the Hall of Fame. Clemens is one of many who fits in that category and when he is not elected next year justice will be served.

Originally posted by quackquack
I'll say it again. I am not interested in the moral character of baseball players. I merely want their performance on the field to be legitimate. When your career is substantially improved due to performance enhancers, I do not want the person put in the Hall of Fame. Clemens is one of many who fits in that category and when he is not elected next year justice will be served.

So, this is just about you then?? Pffft.

Case dismissed!! 😛

Originally posted by shortcircuit
So, this is just about you then?? Pffft.

Case dismissed!! 😛

No, it is about the appropriate standard for determining whether someones baseball accomplishments should be recognized as great. It should not be a humanitarian award or an award for having a great pharmicist.

Originally posted by quackquack
No, it is about the appropriate standard for determining whether someones baseball accomplishments should be recognized as great. It should not be a humanitarian award or an award for having a great pharmicist.

But, those are the rules that were in place by the Hall of Fame.

Do you suggest they should change their standards because you don't agree?

For what it is worth, I think the Hall of Fame should be strictly about the ability.

I also have ZERO problem with the PED crap, because historically, there have been
users of uppers after a long night of partying. There have been users of narcotics
to mask pain so they could play. There have been users of other drugs to calm them.
If you don't think those were performance enhancers, you are nuts!!

They also have had ball scuffers, spitball artists, corked bats, and many other cheats
that were all performance enhancing.

What puts them in balance is that the various generations that utilized these things, were all on an even field. We are not comparing cross generations, so your
argument that the numbers are skewed makes no difference. The numbers across
the board for each generation are equally skewed.

If you think they should totally wipe out all players from the 1990's and up, then you
are crazy. Furthermore, you do not have the ability to determine who did, and who
did not participate. This group of athletes is among the best that ever played. You
cannot bring out your private suspicions as your guide or you have lost all objectivity
on the matter.

You cannot stand righteous and sanctimonious on one issue, and turn a blind eye to
the others, or you are a hypocrite.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
But, those are the rules that were in place by the Hall of Fame.

Do you suggest they should change their standards because you don't agree?

For what it is worth, I think the Hall of Fame should be strictly about the ability.

I also have ZERO problem with the PED crap, because historically, there have been
users of uppers after a long night of ...[text shortened]... and sanctimonious on one issue, and turn a blind eye to
the others, or you are a hypocrite.

I suggest we have a standard that makes sense. Rewarding guys who never hit more than 30 homeruns in a season but get a good pharmacist and then hit 73 at a point in their career when non-chemically aided players are retiring is simply a joke. Similarly rewarding someone who was one game over .500 in a 4 year period but then meets a good drug supplier and wins 4 more Cy Young awards pitching innings is turning a blind eye to what happened.

Like all people who break rules we do not catch everyone. Thus, some people who should be punish will not be. Certainly that is not a reason to not punish those who we know break rules.

Narcotics and pain medicine may help you preform but their don't make guys like McGuire who batted .231, .235 and .201 in consecutive years hit 52 + hrs in 4 consecutive years. Pain medicine would not have turned around Palmiero's Bonds' or Clemens' career either. They did super things merely because they had super drugs. I'd rather put Conte and McNamee in the Hall of Fame than Bonds and Clemens as they are the ones who truly deserve the credit.

Originally posted by quackquack
I suggest we have a standard that makes sense. Rewarding guys who never hit more than 30 homeruns in a season but get a good pharmacist and then hit 73 at a point in their career when non-chemically aided players are retiring is simply a joke. Similarly rewarding someone who was one game over .500 in a 4 year period but then meets a good drug supplier a ...[text shortened]... the Hall of Fame than Bonds and Clemens as they are the ones who truly deserve the credit.

Then surely you must question Nolan Ryan whose stats at the end of his career were
better than they were early in his career.

You can't single out certain guys because their numbers were good.

In Clemen's case, his numbers were good enough for the hall while in Boston.

If you are basing your argument on sheer talent, then why isn't JR Richard in the Hall?
There has never been a more dominant righthander in the game. He was fierce, but
cut down by a stroke. Don't say his career was too short because Koufax got in.

Your argument is too selective and biased.

What are you going to do with Jim Thome?? Does he get in? Did he use PED's?
How about Manny Ramirez??
How about Jeff Bagwell??
How about Craig Biggio??

I don't believe any of these guys were listed in the Mitchell reports.
There were a lot of guys in the Mitchell report who were very good too.
You are saying they didn't do it right, or was their talent level too small compared
to your other targets??

This is not cut and dried scenario and you will get your argument pierced repeatedly
if you try to make it so.

Are you sure Kirby Puckett wasn't on PED's?

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Then surely you must question Nolan Ryan whose stats at the end of his career were
better than they were early in his career.

You can't single out certain guys because their numbers were good.

In Clemen's case, his numbers were good enough for the hall while in Boston.

If you are basing your argument on sheer talent, then why isn't JR Richard ...[text shortened]... ed repeatedly
if you try to make it so.

Are you sure Kirby Puckett wasn't on PED's?

Once a guy cheats, I am not letting him in because before we caught him he might have been good enough.

Manny Ramirez tested positive multiple times so we know he used performance enhancing drugs.

Nolan Ryan started out his career slow. His numbers got better at age 25 (when people still improve) and then he pretty did whatever he did. It is clearly different from Clemens who showed normal and rapid decline and then basically became a superhuman.

I'm not sure why you bring up JR Richards. Lots of potential and exciting he simply did not have a Hall of Fame career and he was not in the stratosphere of Koufax.

Bagwell, Biggio and Thome are more difficult. Ken Caminiti certainly does not help Bagwell's cause. Neither do photographs. I hope he does not get in but right now I am more concerned with getting the easy cases right and keeping out the most most obvious of cheaters.

Originally posted by quackquack
Once a guy cheats, I am not letting him in because before we caught him he might have been good enough.

Manny Ramirez tested positive multiple times so we know he used performance enhancing drugs.

Nolan Ryan started out his career slow. His numbers got better at age 25 (when people still improve) and then he pretty did whatever he did. It is clear ...[text shortened]... concerned with getting the easy cases right and keeping out the most most obvious of cheaters.

If you don't understand about JR Richard, then you don't really know baseball as much as you think.

Ask anyone who faced him and they will tell you, this guy was the best they faced.
He was a beast. Look at his numbers. His stroke in 1980 is the reason the Astros
didn't make it to the World Series.

Ken Caminiti's monster years were in San Diego when he was using.
Bagwell was in Houston with Biggio. He was back for one season
Now you are advocating guilt by association?

Originally posted by quackquack
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.

It requires believable evidence that someone cheated something that is completely lacking in Clemens' case.

An article saying what most sabremetrically inclined observers agree on:

The Underrated Season

A quick question: Would you consider a pitcher who led the league in strikeouts the previous season to be “washed up”?

That is exactly what Roger Clemens did in 1996, as his 257 strikeouts highlighted one of the most underrated seasons of his storied career. Additionally, Clemens finished seventh in ERA, seventh in WHIP, fifth in innings pitched and had the league’s third-lowest home run rate.

For the sabermetrically-inclined, Clemens’ 7.4 WAR ranked second in the AL among pitchers, while his adjusted pitching stats were in agreement in rating him as one of the league’s top five starters.

If a pitcher put up those numbers in a free-agency season in 2012, the only question would be how many years he could get on an eight-figure contract.

But this was 1996, and the only stat that people saw that year was Clemens’ 10-13 won-loss record, which was the direct result of an offense that averaged 5.7 runs per game, putting up only 4.3 whenever Clemens took the hill.

This was also the third time in four seasons that Clemens had received substandard run support, which combined with the 1994-95 strike to depress Roger's win totals for a four-year stretch.



Not So Unexpected

So, Clemens signed with Toronto and put up a season that was better than anybody could have reasonably expected—or was it?

Truth be told, there was not much about Clemens’ 1997 season that he had not done before. In fact, the raw numbers that he could actually control look eerily similar to his 1988 season. The only stats in which Clemens actually established new career highs were in strikeouts (by a single K) and ERA+.

Clemens’ eye-popping “improvement” over his 1996 season was the direct result of three factors: a better defense behind him, a significantly lower walk rate and keeping the ball in the park.

Toronto allowed only seven hits per nine innings while Clemens was pitching (one lower than Boston the year before), while at the same time, Clemens was able to shave 1.6 walks off of his average from the previous year. This meant that teams were getting 2.6 fewer runners on base per nine innings.

Combine that with the lowest home run rate of Clemens’ career and improved run support (Toronto gave Clemens 4.7 runs per start), and is it any wonder that he went 21-7 while his ERA fell by nearly 1.6 runs?



Age-Old Question

I already know what you are thinking: He was 34 at the time! Yes, but it is not uncommon for pitchers to have big seasons in their mid-30s, even when coming off of seasons of comparatively lesser quality.

Nolan Ryan was 34 during the strike-shortened 1981 season, which is commonly regarded as his finest overall performance. Bert Blyleven’s career was reborn during his ages 33 and 34 seasons in Cleveland.

Steve Carlton was dominant at age 35 for Philly after a couple of pedestrian (for him) seasons in 1980. Randy Johnson went from having a decent season in Seattle to having perhaps the most dominant two-month stretch of the 1990s when he was traded to Houston—during his age 34 season.

Since Clemens is clearly in that class of talent, why is it so hard to believe that he could do the same thing?



The PED Issue

But of course, Clemens has some additional baggage on his resume in that he has been accused of using performance-enhancing drugs. To many, Clemens’ longevity is due to his alleged use of steroids, and HGH is solely responsible for his success late in his career.

But here’s the thing: Clemens’ 1997 season occurred before he was ever accused of using performance-enhancing drugs.

Jose Canseco, who first accused him of juicing, traces Clemens’ steroid usage back to a pool party he hosted during June of 1998. This corresponds with McNamee, who claims that 1998 was the first year that he injected Clemens with steroids.


It is certainly possible that, if Clemens did in fact engage in PED usage, he did so before he ever met Brian McNamee. But at this point, that is little more than speculation.



Conclusion

Clemens was clearly a better pitcher in 1997 than he was in 1996, but not so much better that it was out of context with his prior level of performance. It is not uncommon for great pitchers to experience a return to greatness in their mid-30s, and attributing it solely to PEDs is quite unfair.

Just maybe, a highly-motivated Clemens returned to a zone that few pitchers ever get to see in their careers. But at the very least, Rocket still had plenty of fuel in the tank once he signed with Toronto.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1228649-roger-clemens-decline-in-boston-was-greatly-overstated

Originally posted by no1marauder
An article saying what most sabremetrically inclined observers agree on:

The Underrated Season

A quick question: Would you consider a pitcher who led the league in strikeouts the previous season to be “washed up”?

That is exactly what Roger Clemens did in 1996, as his 257 strikeouts highlighted one of the most underrated seasons of his storied c tp://bleacherreport.com/articles/1228649-roger-clemens-decline-in-boston-was-greatly-overstated

Clemens simply is not the same person he was in Toronto that he his last 4 years in Boston. He suddenly throws 200+ inning a year starting at over 266 innings, with an ERA that is almost half of what it was the last four years. No more 4.00+ ERAs.

But this isn't a statistical analysis issue because we now why Clemens got better. Pettitte admitted he got performance enhancers from McNamee and that he was introduced to McNamee by Clemens. McNamee has Clemens' DNA on syringes. Petitte stated that he talked about performance enhancers with Clemens. To think that only Clemens' wife and Clemens buddy got performance enhancers from McNamee is too far fetched for any reasonable person to believe. If you want more evidence of Clemens guilt, it is nicely outlined in the Mitchell Report.

Thankfully Clemens will not be admitted to Hall of Fame any time soon.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
If you don't understand about JR Richard, then you don't really know baseball as much as you think.

Ask anyone who faced him and they will tell you, this guy was the best they faced.
He was a beast. Look at his numbers. His stroke in 1980 is the reason the Astros
didn't make it to the World Series.

Ken Caminiti's monster years were in San Diego ...[text shortened]... ouston with Biggio. He was back for one season
Now you are advocating guilt by association?

you might be the only person on planet earth who thinks JR Richards belongs in the hall of fame. He simply did not have that kind of career.