Clemens' Three Careers

[LouGehrig]

Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. From 1993-1996, he had some problems.

http://major-league-baseball.suite10...ee_career_eras

[Appling]

Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. _eras[/url]

I 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.

[Doctor X]

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.

[Skin & Bones]

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.

How can you say this for sure?

[Doctor X]

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.

[fenrir]

I 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.

im 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.

[Skin & Bones]

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.

Bonds 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.

[Skin & Bones]

im 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.

I suppose you also think Randy Johnson used steroids too? After all, he got better with age.

[Doctor X]

Bonds 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.

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

"borrowed" from ShoelessJoe:

-----------------------------------Ba.---------Slugging-------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000- age 21-35---------.289-----------.567-----------15.09
2001-2006- age 36-41---------.333-----------.759------------8.5

--J.D.

[Los Bravos]

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?

Both things are true. Bonds was, at worst, one of the two most complete players in the game during the decade of the '90's and had a complete HOF resumé before he ever took a single shot.

His numbers exploded to obscene and absurd levels after that, but he was transcendently brilliant before.

[LouGehrig]

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?

You may be right, but another factor is that batters' strikeouts generally increased from 1995-2007, which could explain Roger's increase.

[Skin & Bones]

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?

--J.D.

His numbers did improve, but he was still the best player in the major leagues in the 1990's. He was every bit as great of an athlete as Clemens was, and every bit as dominant, if not more so. You don't win three MVP'S in four years unless you are an extremely dominate player.

[Doctor X]

Fair enough, however it rather does appear the PEDs improved his offensive play as an older player over his earlier years.

--J.D.

[NickU]

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.