Clemens Not Guilty

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

Okay, but that means all PED users don't get into the HOF? No A-Rod? No Manny Ramirez? No David Ortiz? etc. I disagree with that.

What about pitchers who were caught scuffing the baseball or Gaylord Perry and his spitballs? Or hitters using a corked bat? What about stealing signs or arguing with the ump when you know you're wrong just to get a better call next time? What about the catcher moving the ball back over the plate to try to get a bogus strike call?

Cheating is a very gray concept in baseball, and using substances not banned at the time is a very dubious reason to keep someone out of the HOF.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay, but that means all PED users don't get into the HOF? No A-Rod? No Manny Ramirez? No David Ortiz? etc. I disagree with that.

What about pitchers who were caught scuffing the baseball or Gaylord Perry and his spitballs? Or hitters using a corked bat? What about stealing signs or arguing with the ump when you know you're wrong just to get a better call ne ...[text shortened]... ing substances not banned at the time is a very dubious reason to keep someone out of the HOF.

I think you'd agree that proportionality is mandatory for a system of punishments. I am not looking to punish people for "sinning" I merely want the person not the pharmacist to determine greatness.

PEDs made guys like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire literally hit more homeruns in a season than anyone ever did. Their benefit is insanely great and therefore I propose that the users should get the maximum punishment. With the exception of Manny Ramirez none of them were ever denied an opportunity to play or even had to pay back a penny. My punishment of simply denying the highest baseball honor seems both very moderate and fair.

I am not happy with Don Sutton and other scuffers or Gaylord Perry. I would be more than happy to exclude them as well.

Stealing the sign is a much smaller crime (if its a crime at all). I'd actually allow it if you do it from the dug out or from on base. Have more complex signs or don't use signs at all. But we are not chemically changing someone's body. Suspension and or ejections seem like an appropriate crime or a small infraction.

If umpires let you argue with them and you think you can do it. When they get tired of hearing you the tell you to shut up and eject you. It seems like the appropriate punishment for a non-crime.

Originally posted by quackquack
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 ...[text shortened]...

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

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly giving numerous examples, other pitchers have done the same thing.

How many "serviceable pitchers" lead their league in strikeouts and are second in ERA or have an ERA 1.46 better than league average?


As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is NO (that is NONE) evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997 (he didn't even know McNamee until 1998). Your continued insistence on including 1997 stats as "proof" of steroid use is absolutely inconsistent with that very inconvenient (for you) fact.

By any reasonable measure, in 1994 and 1996 Clemens was one of the best pitchers in the AL. Going to the bottom of http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml we see:

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) Among Pitchers: 2nd in the AL in 1994, 2nd in the AL 1996.

ERA: 2nd in the AL in 1994, 7th in 1996.

WHIP: 3rd in the AL in 1994, 7th in 1996

Fewest Hits per 9 IP: 1st in the AL in 1994, 2nd in 1996.

K's per 9 IP: 2nd in the AL in 1994, 1st in 1996.

IP: 9th in the AL in 1994, 5th in 1996

And on and on and on

Clemens was one of the best pitchers in the AL in 1996. That after a change of venue he might be even better in 1997 is hardly shocking.

EDIT: In August and September of 1996, Clemens was 6-3 with a 2.69 ERA and struck out 93 batters in 83.2 IP. Those numbers are pretty comparable to what he did in 1997 and 1998.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By any reasonable measure, in 1994 and 1996 Clemens was one of the best pitchers in the AL. Going to the bottom of http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml we see:

Wins Above Replacement (WAR) Among Pitchers: 2nd in the AL in 1994, 2nd in the AL 1996.

ERA: 2nd in the AL in 1994, 7th in 1996.

WHIP: 3rd in the AL in 1994, 7th in ...[text shortened]... out 93 batters in 83.2 IP. Those numbers are pretty comparable to what he did in 1997 and 1998.

We don't need advanced stats to see if Clemens was good in Boston. He pitched 4 years. We can actually look at the results. Did he win games? Did he give up a lot of runs. Was the team happy with his performance? Did he throw a lot of innings?
(1) did he win games? Answer no: He was one game over .500 in a 4 year period for a team that played .500 ball
(2) did he give a lot of runs in his last 4 years in Boston? He sure did. A 4.46 ERA is 191.2 innings simply is really bad pitching. His 4.18 and 3.63 ERAs simply are not significantly better.
(3) did the team that had him for his whole career including and knew him best think there was anything left? Answer no, they happily let him go to a division rival.
(4) Did he pitch a lot? He averaged 186 innings per years. Certainly not the 254, 281.2, 264, 253.1, 228.1, 271.1, 246.2 he pitched in the consecutive years prior to the 4 years we are talking about. Simply Clemens showed natural aging. And like aging pitchers he was much better when he pitched less Having a 2.85 ERA in the strike shortended year while having 4.46, 4.18 and 3.63 in the three years surrounding it when he worked a full season's load.


Clemens was 100% a different pitcher. He threw as many complete games in 97 as he did the three years before. In '94 gave up over 58% more earned runs in 27% fewer innings than '97. In '96, the year you think he is actually good he gave up over 63% more runs in 20 fewer innings. He threw 264 innings something he once regularly did but had not done in six years to a 2.05 ERA something he had not done in 7 years.

All these numbers while as convincing as could be really do not matter as the issue is did Clemens cheat, not when does Clemens, the cheater, start cheating.


As you point out it is possible. He just woke up one day and was able to do what he once did when he was a young man. But there are explanations for what occured. There is McNamee. Maybe he lied. Oh right, there is Clemens' DNA on his syringes. Well maybe my eyes are lying and McNamee is too. Well, Pettitte admits to doing the same thing with the same guy and says that McNamee introduced him. It is a long story and that might be hard to follow but we even have a former Senator write a report to outline this occurence.

Originally posted by quackquack
We don't need advanced stats to see if Clemens was good in Boston. He pitched 4 years. We can actually look at the results. Did he win games? Did he give up a lot of runs. Was the team happy with his performance? Did he throw a lot of innings?
(1) did he win games? Answer no: He was one game over .500 in a 4 year period for a team that played .5 ...[text shortened]... hard to follow but we even have a former Senator write a report to outline this occurence.

IF you are claiming his improved performance resulted from steroid use, it certainly does matter when he started using them. You keep wanting to use his 1997 numbers as proof of cheating when even your Mitchell Report doesn't have a single shred of evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997. Thus, your statements are deceitful.

There's not much point in continuing to go over the stats to someone so blatanly cherry picking and willing to ignore the overall facts. The ERA of AL starting pitchers from 1993-1996 was in each year: 4.44, 4.87, 4.85, 5.17. Your claim that an ERA more than 1.50 lower than league average is "really bad pitching" is stupid; the very worst year of the 4 his ERA was very slightly higher than league average. Your claim that Clemens only pitched better in the strike year because he pitched less innings than in other years is ridiculous given he pitched more innings than year than in 1995. Your ignoring that he pitched to only 12 more batters in 1997 than 1996 is typical of your "I'm holding my breath until I turn blue" type of "argument".

Originally posted by no1marauder
IF you are claiming his improved performance resulted from steroid use, it certainly does matter when he started using them. You keep wanting to use his 1997 numbers as proof of cheating when even your Mitchell Report doesn't have a single shred of evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997. Thus, your statements are deceitful.

There's not ...[text shortened]... n 1996 is typical of your "I'm holding my breath until I turn blue" type of "argument".

Perhaps you don't see a difference between one game over .500 with ERAs like 4.46, 4.18 and 3.63 and the two years that follow 21-7 2.05 264 innings and 20-6 2.65 234.2 innings. But the people who vote for Cy Young (two Cys in 2 years as opposed to no votes). His presence on the All star team further shows there was a clear difference to everyone but yourself. The improved performance is consistent with his use of performance enhancers.

You want everyone to believe that the following six things are true
(1) the change in Clemens came naturally
(2) McNamee completely lied
(3) Pettitte lied (even though it hurts no one but his own reputation and the reputation of his good friend)
(4) DNA on syringes is untrue and that one could and did actually fabricate a false positive
(5) the insane story that Debbie Clemens got performance enhancers but Roger Clemens did not and
(6) the Mitchell Report is wrong.

Originally posted by quackquack
Perhaps you don't see a difference between one game over .500 with ERAs like 4.46, 4.18 and 3.63 and the two years that follow 21-7 2.05 264 innings and 20-6 2.65 234.2 innings. But the people who vote for Cy Young (two Cys in 2 years as opposed to no votes). His presence on the All star team further shows there was a clear difference to everyone but ...[text shortened]... ens got performance enhancers but Roger Clemens did not and
(6) the Mitchell Report is wrong.

What part of the Mitchell report said Clemens used PEDS in 1997?

The jury heard all the evidence and obviously came to the case without the closed mind and poor understanding of professional baseball that you exhibit (Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young award two years ago with a 13-12 WL record and ERA+ about the same as Clemens' in 1994).

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part of the Mitchell report said Clemens used PEDS in 1997?

The jury heard all the evidence and obviously came to the case without the closed mind and poor understanding of professional baseball that you exhibit (Felix Hernandez won the AL Cy Young award two years ago with a 13-12 WL record and ERA+ about the same as Clemens' in 1994).

You obviously wish to twist facts. The comparison to between Clemens and Hernandez is simply laughable.

Felix Hernandez was one game over .500 for one year not FOUR years. Hernandez's ERA was actually awesome, not 4 plus like Clemens. Hernandez was on a team that was way below .500 and the Mariners had perhaps the worst hitting year since the DH was implemented. At no time in Clemens career was his team a poor hitting team.

Futhermore, there is always the real issue (1) no DNA on syringes for Felix Hernandez. (2) No testimony by a trainer that he was given PEDs (3) no incriminating admissions by a teammate that implicate him

The jury did not decide the issue of whether Clemens used steriods. They decided whether Clemens lied to Congress. They did not hear all the issue as Pettitte could not testify that he received steriod from McNamee. They were not allowed to use the word injections instead they had to use the word darts. Juries get things wrong all the time. See OJ Simpson.

Originally posted by quackquack
You obviously wish to twist facts. The comparison to between Clemens and Hernandez is simply laughable.

Felix Hernandez was one game over .500 for one year not FOUR years. Hernandez's ERA was actually awesome, not 4 plus like Clemens. Hernandez was on a team that was way below .500 and the Mariners had perhaps the worst hitting year since the DH was ...[text shortened]... stead they had to use the word darts. Juries get things wrong all the time. See OJ Simpson.

ERA+ measures ERA relative the the league ERA and compensates for ballpark.

Clemens' 176 ERA+ in 1994 was better than any ERA+ of Hernandez' career.

I think that's worth repeating.

Clemens' 176 ERA+ in 1994 was better than any ERA+ of Hernandez' career.

Are you sure you want to keep arguing that 1994 was part of the body of work of a declining pitcher? Really?

Speaking of good years...

I know this is off topic, but in 1918, Babe Ruth went 13-7 with a 2.22 ERA (yes ERAs were lower back then, but it was still very good)...




Oh, and he led the league in home runs and slugging percentage.

Originally posted by sh76
ERA+ measures ERA relative the the league ERA and compensates for ballpark.

Clemens' 176 ERA+ in 1994 was better than any ERA+ of Hernandez' career.

I think that's worth repeating.

Clemens' 176 ERA+ in 1994 was better than any ERA+ of Hernandez' career.

Are you sure you want to keep arguing that 1994 was part of the body of work of a declining pitcher? Really?

From 1993- 1996 Clemens was not the same pitcher he was in 1997 or the pitcher he was in the in 1990 -1992 when he went 21-6 1.93, 18-10 2.62 and 18-11 2.41. He lead the league in ERA all three years and finished top 3 in the Cy Young voting all three years.

His ERA+ in 1997 blows away any ERA+ from any year on 1993- 1996 (including 1994). While his ERA+ in 1994 was good, let's not look at just one stat in a four year period and ignore the fact that for four years his wins were down, his losses were up, his ERA was up and his innings were down.

Simply, at age 34 it was unnatural to expect him to become the pitcher he was at age 27-29. McNamee, Pettitte and the Mitchell report shed light on what happened.

Babe Ruth is the best player that ever lived. As a pitcher he had a .671 winning percentage (12th highest) and 2.28 ERA (15th lowest for pitchers with 100 career decisions). In 1920 he outhomered 14 of the other 15 teams and as late as 1927 he out homered every other team. Plus, no steriod acusations.

Originally posted by quackquack
From 1993- 1996 Clemens was not the same pitcher he was in 1997 or the pitcher he was in the in 1990 -1992 when he went 21-6 1.93, 18-10 2.62 and 18-11 2.41. He lead the league in ERA all three years and finished top 3 in the Cy Young voting all three years.

His ERA+ in 1997 blows away any ERA+ from any year on 1993- 1996 (including 1994). While his ...[text shortened]... her 15 teams and as late as 1927 he out homered every other team. Plus, no steriod acusations.

It's not that uncommon for older pitchers to have great years.

At age 34 in 2000, Greg Maddux went 19-9 with a 3.00 ERA and a 153 ERA+.

At age 40, Randy Johnson, in 2004, led the league with a 176 ERA+

Mike Mussina won 20 games in 2009, his most wins ever, at age 39.

In 2010, at age 38, Andy Pettitte went 11-3 and posted his 3rd best ERA+ of his career.

I don't think I even have to bring up Nolan Ryan.

Great pitchers having great years late in their careers is commonplace.

I agree that Clemens' resurgence was unlikely and I think it's probably that he used PEDs at some point, but there's no evidence that he did so in 1997 and good performances along do not prove the use of PEDs.

Originally posted by sh76
It's not that uncommon for older pitchers to have great years.

At age 34 in 2000, Greg Maddux went 19-9 with a 3.00 ERA and a 153 ERA+.

At age 40, Randy Johnson, in 2004, led the league with a 176 ERA+

Mike Mussina won 20 games in 2009, his most wins ever, at age 39.

In 2010, at age 38, Andy Pettitte went 11-3 and posted his 3rd best ERA+ of his car ...[text shortened]... o evidence that he did so in 1997 and good performances along do not prove the use of PEDs.

We agree on the only important issue: that Clemens used PEDs.

Maddux did not have 4 years subpar years like Clemens had before his resurgence. In fact his 4 prior years are 19-4 2.20, 18-9 2.22, 19-9 3.57 -- all with 219+ innings. Great by any standard, nevertheless like most athletes who don't use PEDs, he was not as good as he was in his younger years (ending at age 29) when he won 4 Cys in a row. In fact he exceeded his ERA+ of 2000, every year from 1993-1998 so it is questionable whether this would even count as a turnaround year.

Similarly Randy Johson led the league in ERA plus at age 35, age 36, age 37 and age 38. He also led the league in wins, win percentage, ERA, complete games, innings pitched and strike outs at age 38. He had an off year in 2003. Who would even be surprised he pitched well in 2004.

Originally posted by quackquack
We agree on the only important issue: that Clemens used PEDs.

Maddux did not have 4 years subpar years like Clemens had before his resurgence. In fact his 4 prior years are 19-4 2.20, 18-9 2.22, 19-9 3.57 -- all with 219+ innings. Great by any standard, nevertheless like most athletes who don't use PEDs, he was not as good as he was in his younger y ...[text shortened]... at age 38. He had an off year in 2003. Who would even be surprised he pitched well in 2004.

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?