Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. From 1993-1996, he had some problems.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Clemens' Three Careers
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by LouGehrig View PostRoger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. _eras[/url]
Not like Bonds, whose best seasons came very late.Luke
-
-
Would one expect PED to make a late Roger pitch better than his prime?
Dons flame retardent suit
Roger was a far better athelete than a young Bonds. I think PED more returned Roger to his youth whereas the steroids--and the added muscle for power--improved Bonds.
--J.D.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostWould one expect PED to make a late Roger pitch better than his prime?
Dons flame retardent suit
Roger was a far better athelete than a young Bonds. I think PED more returned Roger to his youth whereas the steroids--and the added muscle for power--improved Bonds.
--J.D.
Comment
-
-
I cannot, hence the asbestos suit.
However, how does Bonds improvements track? How was he as a youth compared to later in his career? For this, I would concentrate on his hitting and power.
--J.D.
P.S. Actually, now that I look at it "better athlete" is a rather broad term, to write the least. Implies Clemens could out-run, out field, out-hit, et cetera. That was not my intention. I meant a better player at his position.Last edited by Doctor X; 02-14-2008, 04:19 PM. Reason: [Edited to acknowledge an overly broad term.--Ed.]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Appling View PostI agree. Whether or not he was aided by PED's, Roger pitched well late in his career but not better than he did in his 'prime".
Not like Bonds, whose best seasons came very late.
clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.
you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?
clemens success is just as bogus as bonds and any other juicer. none of their roid numbers deserve any recognition imo.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostI cannot, hence the asbestos suit.
However, how does Bonds improvements track? How was he as a youth compared to later in his career? For this, I would concentrate on his hitting and power.
--J.D.
P.S. Actually, now that I look at it "better athlete" is a rather broad term, to write the least. Implies Clemens could out-run, out field, out-hit, et cetera. That was not my intention. I meant a better player at his position.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by fenrir View Postim tired of this garbage being spewed by clemens fans. clemens was a better pitcher in his best steroid seasons compared to his best pre steroid seasons.
clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.
you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?
clemens success is just as bogus as bonds and any other juicer. none of their roid numbers deserve any recognition imo.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Skin & Bones View PostBonds was the best player in baseball before it's said he started using steroids. He was every bit as dominant as Clemens, if not more so.
Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?
--J.D.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostReally?
Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?
His numbers exploded to obscene and absurd levels after that, but he was transcendently brilliant before.Last edited by Los Bravos; 02-15-2008, 02:32 AM.3 6 10 21 25 29 31 35 41 42 44 47
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by fenrir View Post
you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?Baseball articles you might not like but should read.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostReally?
Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?
--J.D.
Comment
-
-
whether or not Roger got better or not during roid times is a moot point to argue. His career looked like it was over, then he transformed back into teh greatest pitcher alive. The question shouldn't be Roger vs Roger, it should be Roger vs Time.
Comment
-
Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment