Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    56511
    03 Jul '12 12:33
    Originally posted by sh76
    You can't keep saying "4 years" and then dismissing 1994. Without 1994, it's three years, not four. Take away 1996 (in which Clemens also pitched well) and it's down to two nonconsecutive years.

    Big deal. It's common for good pitchers to have off years now and then.

    Cliff Lee is 0-5 with a 4.13 ERA right now. Roy Halladay is 4-5 with a 100 ERA+. Tim Lince ...[text shortened]... being CY caliber pitchers next year, are you going to start accusing them of being juiced?
    You keep talking about 1994 like it is a Cy Young year. It was the best of his last four year in Boston. His average year for those four ws (W-L) 10-9.75 with a 3.77 ERA. Clemens simply getting older and was not the 21 -6 1.93, 18-10 2.62 and 18-11 2.41 pitcher he was the three years before or the 21-7 2.05 and 20-6 2.65 year he was before (all 5 years he led the league in ERA). Seriously, stop and look at the difference in the numbers.

    Guys normally magically don't get better with age nevertheless I'd say nothing if there was no DNA on syringes or teammates incriminate themeselves & Clemens, no ridiuclous stories like the PEDs were for his non-athletic wife or have former Senators write reports outlining his cheating behavior.

    If Lee and Halladay who in their 30s have 3 more similar bad years and then have their DNA on a syringe, have teammates testify against them and their behavior is outlined in Mitchell Report II but then win 4 more Cy Young Awards. I will DEFINITELY accuse them of cheating too.
  2. Subscribershortcircuit
    master of disaster
    funny farm
    Joined
    28 Jan '07
    Moves
    71918
    03 Jul '12 14:05
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You keep talking about 1994 like it is a Cy Young year. It was the best of his last four year in Boston. His average year for those four ws (W-L) 10-9.75 with a 3.77 ERA. Clemens simply getting older and was not the 21 -6 1.93, 18-10 2.62 and 18-11 2.41 pitcher he was the three years before or the 21-7 2.05 and 20-6 2.65 year he was before (all 5 years ...[text shortened]... Report II but then win 4 more Cy Young Awards. I will DEFINITELY accuse them of cheating too.
    You can ACCUSE people of anything you like, but that does NOT make your accusation fact.

    Please produce this DNA bearing syringe you place your faith in.
    Please produce these witnesses you claim can testify they saw it.
    Please produce the clubhouse attendants who can back your story.
    IF you could do that, you would be better than the entire Prosecution team.

    By the way...Debbie Clemens happens to be a pretty fair athlete.
    I am sure you did some serious investigation on her background before you made
    frivolous statements about her athleticism.
    In fact, she was Women's club golf champion at Falcon Point golf club.
    She is certainly now, nor has she ever been, over-weight.
    Perhaps golfer's are not athletes though.

    And, take a look at Nolan Ryan's career numbers.
    You have already testified that Ryan is clean, so this should not be a problem.
    Please note the roller coaster numbers and explain why his BEST numbers
    were when he was older.

    You want to know why?

    Young hard throwers are just that....hard throwers.
    As they age, they become pitchers.
  3. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    56511
    03 Jul '12 14:291 edit
    Originally posted by shortcircuit
    You can ACCUSE people of anything you like, but that does NOT make your accusation fact.

    Please produce this DNA bearing syringe you place your faith in.
    Please produce these witnesses you claim can testify they saw it.
    Please produce the clubhouse attendants who can back your story.
    IF you could do that, you would be better than the entire Prosec y?

    Young hard throwers are just that....hard throwers.
    As they age, they become pitchers.
    It is moronic to think that unless I produce new evidence I cannot state a claim that is obviously true. I cannot produce orginal evidence that Hitler or Bin Laden were mass murders. The evidence was already produced and the conclusion is simple Clemens is a cheater. There was DNA on a syringe, there is Pettitte's testimony, there is McNamee's testimony. There is the Mitchell Report. There is Clemens career which is 100% consistent with all of the above claims. It is a slam dunk case in my book -- I think we learned from OJ Simpson that jury verdicts and reality are often completely different in celebritry athlete trials.

    Ryan and Clemens years are completely different. I have no idea why you even think they follow the same general pattern. I never said Ryan did not cheat. We definitely do not know who did not cheat, but that does not change the fact that we do know that certain people did cheat.

    The idea that Debbie Clemens and Andy Pettitte were using PEDs from McNamee but Roger Clemens, the person who introduced both of them to McNamee, never used PEDs or ever talked about PEDs is simply 100% laughable and does not pass the straight face test.
  4. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    03 Jul '12 14:54
    Originally posted by quackquack
    You keep talking about 1994 like it is a Cy Young year. It was the best of his last four year in Boston. His average year for those four ws (W-L) 10-9.75 with a 3.77 ERA. Clemens simply getting older and was not the 21 -6 1.93, 18-10 2.62 and 18-11 2.41 pitcher he was the three years before or the 21-7 2.05 and 20-6 2.65 year he was before (all 5 years ...[text shortened]... Report II but then win 4 more Cy Young Awards. I will DEFINITELY accuse them of cheating too.
    1994 was a CY caliber year for Clemens. As I demonstrated last page, either Clemens or Cone was the best AL pitcher that year. If Clemens wasn't first, he was second.

    Now it's true that he was even better in 1997, but in 1994, he was right there for best pitcher in the league.

    The focus of this discussion is not whether Clemens used at all, but whether there is evidence that he used in 1997. There is none. The increase in his performance can easily be explained by other factors. Clemens was not over the hill in the era of 1993-1996. He pitched much better than his W-L would indicate (which itself is an indictment of W-L as a stat).
  5. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    03 Jul '12 15:001 edit
    BTW, if you want an example of how absurd relying on wins can be, look at the 1993 CY voting.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1993.shtml#ALcya

    Jack McDowell won the award because he had 22 wins in spite of the fact that he was clearly last among the top 4 finishers in effectiveness that year.

    As a Yankee fan, I remember being outraged that Key didn't win it. And I was correct that Key had a much better year than McDowell. What I see now is that it shouldn't have been McDowell or Key. The winner should have been Kevin Appier.
  6. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    56511
    03 Jul '12 15:16
    Originally posted by sh76
    1994 was a CY caliber year for Clemens. As I demonstrated last page, either Clemens or Cone was the best AL pitcher that year. If Clemens wasn't first, he was second.

    Now it's true that he was even better in 1997, but in 1994, he was right there for best pitcher in the league.

    The focus of this discussion is not whether Clemens used at all, but whether th ...[text shortened]... ched much better than his W-L would indicate (which itself is an indictment of W-L as a stat).
    (1) You already said Clemens cheated so why does it matter when he started?

    (2) Clemens had a 3.77 ERA for a 4 year period. While it isn't "let's release the guy terrible" he was simply no longer an ace. And it is flat out awful for a guy who wins 7 Cys and over 350 games in there career. In fact guys simply never have 4 straight years in their early 30s like that. Thus, the subsequent PED revelation should not suprise anyone.

    Here is the final 1994 Cy Young Balloting (I'm excluding Lee Smith's one vote because relief pitcher vs. starting pitcher is irrelevant here)
    Cone 16-5, 2.94 171.2
    Key 17-4 3.27, 168.0
    Randy Johnson 13-6 3.19 172.0
    Mussina 16-5 3.06 176.1
    All four of these guys are correctly ahead of Clemens.
  7. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    56511
    03 Jul '12 15:28
    Originally posted by sh76
    BTW, if you want an example of how absurd relying on wins can be, look at the 1993 CY voting.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1993.shtml#ALcya

    Jack McDowell won the award because he had 22 wins in spite of the fact that he was clearly last among the top 4 finishers in effectiveness that year.

    As a Yankee fan, I remember being outraged t ...[text shortened]... now is that it shouldn't have been McDowell or Key. The winner should have been Kevin Appier.
    Unlike Clemens in 1994 all the other guys won games and thsus other factors can easily sway it. I agree with you that Appier was the best.

    Mc Dowell 22-10 3.37 256.2
    Johnson 19-8 3.24 255.1
    Appier 18-8 2.56 238.2
    Key was 18-6 3.00 236.2

    But the real difference was probably the fact that White Sox won their division. Although its a stupid argument, that's an argument used in MVP all the time and was probably used here too.
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    03 Jul '12 16:57
    Originally posted by quackquack
    (1) You already said Clemens cheated so why does it matter when he started?

    (2) Clemens had a 3.77 ERA for a 4 year period. While it isn't "let's release the guy terrible" he was simply no longer an ace. And it is flat out awful for a guy who wins 7 Cys and over 350 games in there career. In fact guys simply never have 4 straight years in their ear ...[text shortened]... .19 172.0
    Mussina 16-5 3.06 176.1
    All four of these guys are correctly ahead of Clemens.
    No, they weren't correctly ahead of Clemens. They were incorrectly ahead of Clemens because voters of the era didn't know anything about sabermetrics and overvalued wins.

    But we've gone through this already...
  9. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    56511
    03 Jul '12 17:11
    Originally posted by sh76
    No, they weren't correctly ahead of Clemens. They were incorrectly ahead of Clemens because voters of the era didn't know anything about sabermetrics and overvalued wins.

    But we've gone through this already...
    We disagree but that's OK.
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    03 Jul '12 18:37
    Originally posted by quackquack
    We disagree but that's OK.
    It certainly is. 🙂
Back to Top