Clemens Not Guilty

Originally posted by quackquack
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, 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 enhancer ...[text shortened]... person to believe.

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

Clemens pitched 242.2 innings in 1996 and faced 1032 batters only 12 less than he faced in 1997. And Clemens had over 4.00 ERAs twice in his first four years with the Yankees.http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml

Your arguments are BS.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Clemens pitched 242.2 innings in 1996 and faced 1032 batters only 12 less than he faced in 1997. And Clemens had over 4.00 ERAs twice in his first four years with the Yankees.http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml

Your arguments are BS.

Read the Mitchell report if you want Clemens situation outlined nicely.

Thankfully Hall of Fame voters have.

Originally posted by quackquack
Read the Mitchell report if you want Clemens situation outlined nicely.

Thankfully Hall of Fame voters have.

The Mitchell Report is a hack job based on rumor, speculation and innuendo.

Your argument here has been Clemens was awful from 1993-96 and then suddenly became great because he started using PEDS in 1997 (nevermind there is no evidence, anywhere including in the Mitchell Report that he used PEDS in 1997). The stats refute that absurd claim. That sportswriters with an axe to grind will probably keep Clemens out of the HOF means exactly nothing: it's an "eat s**t 100 billion flies can't be wrong" type of argument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Mitchell Report is a hack job based on rumor, speculation and innuendo.

Your argument here has been Clemens was awful from 1993-96 and then suddenly became great because he started using PEDS in 1997 (nevermind there is no evidence, anywhere including in the Mitchell Report that he used PEDS in 1997). The stats refute that absurd cla ...[text shortened]... means exactly nothing: it's an "eat s**t 100 billion flies can't be wrong" type of argument.

You can be convinced your right but the evidence is clearly to the contrary. The Mitchell Report is a landmark document outlining cheating writen by someone with impeccible credentials. We know who gave Clemens PEDs, we know Clemens introduced others to McNamee and they also received PEDs, we know that people spoke to and learned about PEDs from Clemens, we know that Clemens DNA is on syringes, we know he was averaging 190 inning over a 4 year period in Boston with two 4+ ERAs. Then at age 34 he get in humanly better throwing 264 innings 21 - 7 2.05 and 20 -6 2.65 in 234.2 innings. I'm not sure what else you want. Even things like throwing a bat a Piazza (roid rage) and legendary workouts (made possible by what would otherwise be an inhumanly impossible recovery time.

The eat s**t 100 billion flies can't be wrong" applies to you and thankfully sports writers recognize the truth and will keep him out of the Hall of Fame for the near future.

Originally posted by quackquack
You can be convinced your right but the evidence is clearly to the contrary. The Mitchell Report is a landmark document outlining cheating writen by someone with impeccible credentials. We know who gave Clemens PEDs, we know Clemens introduced others to McNamee and they also received PEDs, we know that people spoke to and learned about PEDs from Clemen ts writers recognize the truth and will keep him out of the Hall of Fame for the near future.

You're missing the point. The point No1 was making is that the Mitchell report, on which you are relying, gives no indication that there is evidence that Clemens was using PEDs in 1997. The only evidence you have that he used PEDs in 1997 is that he pitched very well. As No1 points out, in his last 4 years with Boston, he pitched much better than his 40-39 record would indicate.

Did Clemens use PEDs at some point in his career? Probably. So what? Most players were using at that time and Clemens probably would have been a HOFer with or without PEDs. Same with Bonds. The only people I could see keeping out of the HOF because of PEDs are MacGuire and Sosa since there's good reason to believe they would have not have been HOFers without PEDs. Clemens and Bonds both would have been HOFers even had they not had their miraculous resurgences, which elevated them from HOFers to all time greats.

Keeping Clemens and Bonds out of the HOF for doing something that wasn't even against specific baseball rules at the time when they probably would have gotten in without them is a joke. The BBWAA might do it, but it doesn't make them right.

Edit: you talk about a 4+ ERA as though that's bad. In the mid 1990s that was actually a good ERA. In his last 4 years in Boston, his ERA+ were 104, 176, 114 and 139. This means that he was better than league average all 4 years; much better in two of them.

In 1994, one of the years you're using the document his decline, Clemens' secondary numbers were Cy Young calliber.In that year, he led the league in hits/IP, his WHIP was 3rd in the AL and was 2nd in ERA and 2nd in WAR. He was also second in K/IP. You may be fooled by his 9-7 record into thinking he had a mediocre year, but in fact, that was one of his better years by the numbers.

Originally posted by sh76
You're missing the point. The point No1 was making is that the Mitchell report, on which you are relying, gives no indication that there is evidence that Clemens was using PEDs in 1997. The only evidence you have that he used PEDs in 1997 is that he pitched very well. As No1 points out, in his last 4 years with Boston, he pitched much better than his 40-39 reco ave gotten in without them is a joke. The BBWAA might do it, but it doesn't make them right.

I respectfully disagree with you and believe that the BBWAA would be correct in not admitting known cheaters.

It does not matter to me when one uses PEDs. Once one used them, we know they cheated. We do not catch everyone who cheats and we likely never catch someone the first time they cheat. I would not decide which part of their career is or is tainted. I simply look at Bonds and Clemens and see that they are tainted and choose not to honor any of their tainted accomplishments.

Clemens last four numbers showed no signs of what he subsequently accomplished. He was simply not going to win 4 more Cy Youngs. He was not going to have low 2 ERAs and pitch 264 innings. While its an interesting argument whether a mid 30s guy who is no longer what he once was could accomplishment what few if any accomplished subsequently the case against Clemens is not just a baseball statistical one. It involves admissions by a teammate, DNA on syringe, implausible stories like PEDs were for his wife not him. You are certainly entitled to have a contrary opinion but, much like the OJ case, I find the evidence beyond overwhelmingly convincing.

Originally posted by quackquack
I respectfully disagree with you and believe that the BBWAA would be correct in not admitting known cheaters.

It does not matter to me when one uses PEDs. Once one used them, we know they cheated. We do not catch everyone who cheats and we likely never catch someone the first time they cheat. I would not decide which part of their career is or is ...[text shortened]... ntrary opinion but, much like the OJ case, I find the evidence beyond overwhelmingly convincing.

He pitched to 12 MORE BATTERS in 1997 than 1996. One of the years you are relying on to discount his total number of innings was the strike year and in approximately 2/3 of a season he pitched 170 innings. In that year 1994, Clemens ERA+ was better than it was in his Cy Young year of 1998; in fact it was the best in the AL as was his hits per 9 IP.

Your arguments remain BS and you utterly refuse to address the point that there is absolutely zero evidence that Clemens used PEDS in 1997.

The jury heard ALL the evidence and found Clemens not guilty in less time than it takes to play a doubleheader.

Originally posted by no1marauder
He pitched to 12 MORE BATTERS in 1997 than 1996. One of the years you are relying on to discount his total number of innings was the strike year and in approximately 2/3 of a season he pitched 170 innings. In that year 1994, Clemens ERA+ was better than it was in his Cy Young year of 1998; in fact it was the best in the AL as was his hits per 9 IP.

...[text shortened]... ALL the evidence and found Clemens not guilty in less time than it takes to play a doubleheader.

Juries simply do not get all the facts. Pettite was not allowed to testify that he got steroid McNamee. It is certainly relevant. They made Pettite testify that he got "darts" not steriod injections. The prosecution was unfairly limited in what they could present; the issue in the trial was different as is the standard of proof and most experts feek the prosecution was imcompetent.

Apparently you have conceded that he used PEDs (the only relevant point) as you are looking for a certain time period.

It is not like Clemens had a one year slide. He had a four year slide where he was a .500 pitcher for a team that played .500 ball when he was on the mound and when he was off the mound. He could not throw the innings he once did and was not particularly effective giving up over 4 runs a game in half of the seasons.
Boston themeselves let him go because he was obviously not what he used to be. His ERA shows it, his IP showed, his W-L shows it. He goes to Toronro and all of a sudden he is better than ever. While statistical proof really shows nothing. It does when it is combined with admissions by a teammate, DNA on syringe, and implausible defenses like PEDs were for his wife not for him. You are certainly entitled to have a contrary opinion but, much like the OJ case, I find the evidence beyond overwhelmingly convincing.

In his last year in Boston, Clemens gave up 98 earned runs. In his first year in Toronto in 21 1/3 more innings he gave up 60 earned runs.
In percentage terms Clemens gave up over 63% more runs during his last season in Boston while throwing 21 1/3 fewer innings than in his first season in Toronto.
His transformation is simply incredible.

Originally posted by quackquack
In his last year in Boston, Clemens gave up 98 earned runs. In his first year in Toronto in 21 1/3 more innings he gave up 60 earned runs.
In percentage terms Clemens gave up over 63% more runs during his last season in Boston while throwing 21 1/3 fewer innings than in his first season in Toronto.
His transformation is simply incredible.

Yes, no pitcher ever pitched better one year than another.

Originally posted by quackquack
Juries simply do not get all the facts. Pettite was not allowed to testify that he got steroid McNamee. It is certainly relevant. They made Pettite testify that he got "darts" not steriod injections. The prosecution was unfairly limited in what they could present; the issue in the trial was different as is the standard of proof and most experts feek ...[text shortened]... rary opinion but, much like the OJ case, I find the evidence beyond overwhelmingly convincing.

Your arguments are ridiculous. From 1993-96, Clemens was one of the best pitchers in baseball. That is a statistical fact, not an opinion.

And there is the continued inconvenient fact that you must ignore: there isn't a single shred of evidence that Clemens did PEDS in 1997.

Originally posted by quackquack
In his last year in Boston, Clemens gave up 98 earned runs. In his first year in Toronto in 21 1/3 more innings he gave up 60 earned runs.
In percentage terms Clemens gave up over 63% more runs during his last season in Boston while throwing 21 1/3 fewer innings than in his first season in Toronto.
His transformation is simply incredible.

Virtually all pitchers have bad years once in a while. You insist on comparing 1996 to 1997 because that's the only dichotomy that really makes your case, but if you would compare 1994 to 1997 and 1998 (in 1994, he was on pace to pitch close to 250 innings, the distinction is much less stark.

As for innings, he was on pace for almost 250 in 1994 and pitched 242.2 in 1996, not that far off from his 264 in 1997. In addition, he had already had three years previously when he'd pitched 264 innings or more. That he's go from 243 to 264 when he'd done 264+ several times earlier in his career is not particularly surprising. Moreover, he had has several prior seasons that were comparable to his 1997 year. Maybe he was fully healthy in 1997 and not in 1996. Pitchers have off years. It happens to almost everyone. Clemens had an off year in 1995 after a great one in 94 and a semi-rebound year in '96. That he had a great year in '97 doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your arguments are ridiculous. From 1993-96, Clemens was one of the best pitchers in baseball. That is a statistical fact, not an opinion.

And there is the continued inconvenient fact that you must ignore: there isn't a single shred of evidence that Clemens did PEDS in 1997.

Here are Clemens numbers from 93 -96. It stretched the bounds of opinion to say he is one of the best pitchers in baseball during that time. It is far more accurate to say he was a servicible pitcher.

11 - 14 4.46
9 - 7 2.85 (strike shortened)
10 -5 4.18
10 -13 3.63

He goes to Toronto throws considerable more innings, gives up many fewer runs. Leads the league in wins and ERA both years. He is simply the best pitcher in baseball:

21- 7 2.05
20 -6 2.65

In 1997, in 124 MORE innings he gave up 5 Fewer runs than he did in 1995; similarly in 1997 in 20 FEWER innings he gave up more than 63% more runs than he did in 1996.

The difference is so stunning I cannot believe even you would think he's the same pitcher.

Originally posted by sh76
Virtually all pitchers have bad years once in a while. You insist on comparing 1996 to 1997 because that's the only dichotomy that really makes your case, but if you would compare 1994 to 1997 and 1998 (in 1994, he was on pace to pitch close to 250 innings, the distinction is much less stark.

As for innings, he was on pace for almost 250 in 1994 and pitched ...[text shortened]... 4 and a semi-rebound year in '96. That he had a great year in '97 doesn't prove anything.

Clemens did not have one off year, he had four. His best year '94 he was 9-7 in a strike shortened year. He was getting older and he likely would not have held up. Nevertheless in 1994 he gives up 62 runs in 170.2 innings. In 1997 he gives up 65 runs in 264 innings. That's 3 more runs in 53.1 innings. He should have changes his name because that's not the same pitcher.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, no pitcher ever pitched better one year than another.

Athletes who get considerably better in their mid 30s after years of decline are certainly suspects. Those who also have their DNA on syringes, trainers who testify that they gave him PEDs and teammates who confirm this give the explanation for Clemens' unnatural reversal.