Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens- The Greatest Pitcher Ever?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Los Bravos
    replied
    All I'm saying here is that it's frequently asserted that Clemens and Bonds each had stone locks on the Hall at the start of their PED use and I've suggested, repeatedly, that I'm not so sure of that.

    They were on the proper glide paths but if either or both had been forced to suddenly retire, they would've faced a contentious battle to make it with the numbers and career that they had. Halliday is in the same boat. It's clear to most of us that he's a HOFer but I doubt he sails in easily.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Toledo Inquisition View Post
    Bothrops, how much, if any, consideration do you give to W/L record?
    For a career - some. In any given season, none. Not that there is no correlation between being good and W/L (of course there is), just that there are so many stats that are better that it makes it uncessesary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Toledo Inquisition
    replied
    Originally posted by Bothrops Atrox View Post
    Where does Koufax rank in those first 4 categories? The last two are not super-relevant and more era-dependent stats than quality-of-pitcher dependent stats (when comparing pitchers across eras).

    Anyway, I think 11th all-time in WAA in such a short career (what, 11 seasons?) would make a top-10 case. The guys ahead of him had WAY more than 11 seasons to accumulate WAA. People make similar cases for Koufax and Pedro...

    Interesting about Clemen's decline. He had a 176 ERA+ in 1994 with 6.1 WAR in 2/3 of a season and a 140 ERA+ with 7.7 WAR in 1996. Led the league in K/9 in 1996 too. And was still an above average pitcher in 1995 too. I think people looked at his WL record (because that is what people did back then) and assumed he was no longer a great pitcher. Yeah - that is not true at all.
    Bothrops, how much, if any, consideration do you give to W/L record?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    Maybe. Maybe it would've been more Halliday, Roy.

    Wisdom.
    Where does Koufax rank in those first 4 categories? The last two are not super-relevant and more era-dependent stats than quality-of-pitcher dependent stats (when comparing pitchers across eras).

    Anyway, I think 11th all-time in WAA in such a short career (what, 11 seasons?) would make a top-10 case. The guys ahead of him had WAY more than 11 seasons to accumulate WAA. People make similar cases for Koufax and Pedro...

    Interesting about Clemen's decline. He had a 176 ERA+ in 1994 with 6.1 WAR in 2/3 of a season and a 140 ERA+ with 7.7 WAR in 1996. Led the league in K/9 in 1996 too. And was still an above average pitcher in 1995 too. I think people looked at his WL record (because that is what people did back then) and assumed he was no longer a great pitcher. Yeah - that is not true at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankillaz
    replied
    By 1996 we was far better than Halladay.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankillaz View Post
    If Clemens would have retired in 1996 he would've been a top 10 pitcher regardless, because of all the what ifs involved. See Koufax, Sandy.
    Maybe. Maybe it would've been more Halliday, Roy.

    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    No.

    If Clemens retired in 1996,

    192 wins would be 140th all time
    2,776 IP would be 176th all time
    2,590 K would be 25th all time
    81.3 WAR would be 26th all time (among pitchers)
    100 CG would be 399th all time
    38 Shutouts would be 54th all time

    How on earth is that "top 10 regardless".
    Wisdom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankillaz
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    But you said he would have been top 10 if he retired in 1996. That is clearly not the case.
    Yes. Gotta correct that. I meant that he would have been considered top 10 by many.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankillaz View Post
    Y'think. Koufax is regarded as a top 10 pitcher in many places. Bob Gibson, another pitcher that didn't hit benchmarks is also considered a top 10 pitcher. One thing is top 10, other is top 6 or 7, since those are a class apart. Anyway I put the 1995 season as a normal decline 1997 for Clemens, and then started reducing by 10 percent each of the following 4 seasons to give Clemens 18 seasons of play. Dubious, but anyway, this is what I got:

    [ATTACH]147921[/ATTACH]

    Not too shabby. His body form, his work ethic would have suggested a different aging pattern. I'm defending a player I disliked all my life, even when he went to Toronto. But thing is, that he has his merits.
    But you said he would have been top 10 if he retired in 1996. That is clearly not the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • epaddon
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    I'm trying to take you seriously but stuff like that is making it damned hard to do so.
    That makes us even then.

    We've been over and over all of the sign stealing and spitballs and greenies, ad nauseum. They aren't remotely comparable unless you're desperately trying to muddy the water so miscreants won't be seen as miscreants.
    And I'm sorry but I don't see the ethical difference that entitles one group of players to the eternal free pass regarding their stature in reference to the "integrity of the game" in contrast to the PED users. The reason why I focus on that point is because "integrity of the game", "integrity of the record book" etc. and *not* the physical harm caused by PED use is too often cited by a lot of baseball writers in reference to the "what do we tell our children" etc. yet they're too often the same people who probably haven't told their children watching a Mets game broadcast what Keith Hernandez did to get himself traded out of St. Louis. And that "integrity of the game" standard, and not the one you're citing is at the heart of why writers are justifying making Clemens and Bonds pariahs from the HOF and who have even advocated the waste of the taxpayers money in government trials over matters that frankly pale before matters the government and our Justice Department *hasn't* chosen to investigate (but that's not for this forum).

    As for posting "inauthentic numbers", well we're right back to square one then, because that sums up Gaylord Perry to a tee whose 300 win total is as inauthentic as they come regarding how he had to make a career of getting to that sacrosanct milestone at the time. Heck, if you *really* want to show an obsession with "inauthentic numbers" you could just as easily arguehow Hank Aaron got to be the Home Run King by playing in a ballpark with "counterfeit standards" that made home run hitters out of players who never could put up similar numbers elsewhere! (that's not my position, but I submit that if you fixate on a standard of what makes numbers "inauthentic" you open up the door to make an argument about the validity of statistics padded from playing in certain ballparks)
    Last edited by epaddon; 04-24-2015, 10:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankillaz
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    No.

    If Clemens retired in 1996,

    192 wins would be 140th all time
    2,776 IP would be 176th all time
    2,590 K would be 25th all time
    81.3 WAR would be 26th all time (among pitchers)
    100 CG would be 399th all time
    38 Shutouts would be 54th all time

    How on earth is that "top 10 regardless".
    Y'think. Koufax is regarded as a top 10 pitcher in many places. Bob Gibson, another pitcher that didn't hit benchmarks is also considered a top 10 pitcher. One thing is top 10, other is top 6 or 7, since those are a class apart. Anyway I put the 1995 season as a normal decline 1997 for Clemens, and then started reducing by 10 percent each of the following 4 seasons to give Clemens 18 seasons of play. Dubious, but anyway, this is what I got:

    Clemens.jpg

    Not too shabby. His body form, his work ethic would have suggested a different aging pattern. I'm defending a player I disliked all my life, even when he went to Toronto. But thing is, that he has his merits.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Yankillaz View Post
    If Clemens would have retired in 1996 he would've been a top 10 pitcher regardless, because of all the what ifs involved. See Koufax, Sandy. But I don't credit the PED use as knock against him. He was in common ground with his peers!!! I'm not going to start this a debate about PED use. Suffice will be that Clemens had 81.2 WAR and 56 WAA in 13 seasons. The WAR is good for 25th All Time, 0.7 behind Bob Gibson. In WAA? 11th. And that's with 13 years. A "Normal Decline" would have him as a top 10 pitcher anyway. Yet the guy developed a new weapon (great call) and strengthen himself to overcome that. How many pitchers used PEDs and didn't even sniff the success Clemens had?
    No.

    If Clemens retired in 1996,

    192 wins would be 140th all time
    2,776 IP would be 176th all time
    2,590 K would be 25th all time
    81.3 WAR would be 26th all time (among pitchers)
    100 CG would be 399th all time
    38 Shutouts would be 54th all time

    How on earth is that "top 10 regardless".

    Leave a comment:


  • Yankillaz
    replied
    If Clemens would have retired in 1996 he would've been a top 10 pitcher regardless, because of all the what ifs involved. See Koufax, Sandy. But I don't credit the PED use as knock against him. He was in common ground with his peers!!! I'm not going to start this a debate about PED use. Suffice will be that Clemens had 81.2 WAR and 56 WAA in 13 seasons. The WAR is good for 25th All Time, 0.7 behind Bob Gibson. In WAA? 11th. And that's with 13 years. A "Normal Decline" would have him as a top 10 pitcher anyway. Yet the guy developed a new weapon (great call) and strengthen himself to overcome that. How many pitchers used PEDs and didn't even sniff the success Clemens had?

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by dominik View Post
    that is true but I can understand where it Comes from. both greenies, spitballs and Steroids are trying to seek for an Advantage over the competition. granted the Advantage of steroids is WAY bigger but part of that is because steroids where not available or known to the hitters of the past.

    that is a bold conclusion but I think that the guys who took greenies back then would have taken steroids if they had known them. it just was not available so they had to settle for less good stuff like greenies to gain an Advantage.

    so the question is about what it is: is it the Intention to gain an artifical Advantage (in which case greenies are the same as steroids) or is it the actual Advantage gained (in which case greenies are different -maybe greenies even are no Advantage at all and mostly acted like a Placebo).
    Thats probably true, some would have.
    But that means nothing now.
    In recent years almost all team and individual sports have come down hard on using PED's, not just baseball.
    Athletes in some other sports did not get off with suspensions, they lost titles, gold.

    Leave a comment:


  • dominik
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    They had pounds and pounds of muscle layered onto their bodies artificially. They altered themselves on a fairly basic physical level. How could that NOT affect every single move they made?

    I'm trying to take you seriously but stuff like that is making it damned hard to do so.

    We've been over and over all of the sign stealing and spitballs and greenies, ad nauseum. They aren't remotely comparable unless you're desperately trying to muddy the water so miscreants won't be seen as miscreants.

    You seem hung up on this phrase "integrity of the game"...I don't think I've used it but if I have, it's not really on point with what my problem is. Namely, that is that the numbers these people put up while puffed up like an overstuffed calzone are inauthentic.

    The moral fiber of these people is of secondary interest to me. In this matter, I am only interested in seeing that they're held to account for the serious damage they've done to the record book with their counterfeit statistics and that those numbers are never taken at face value, any more than Whitey Bulger's bank accounts should have been.
    that is true but I can understand where it Comes from. both greenies, spitballs and Steroids are trying to seek for an Advantage over the competition. granted the Advantage of steroids is WAY bigger but part of that is because steroids where not available or known to the hitters of the past.

    that is a bold conclusion but I think that the guys who took greenies back then would have taken steroids if they had known them. it just was not available so they had to settle for less good stuff like greenies to gain an Advantage.

    so the question is about what it is: is it the Intention to gain an artifical Advantage (in which case greenies are the same as steroids) or is it the actual Advantage gained (in which case greenies are different -maybe greenies even are no Advantage at all and mostly acted like a Placebo).

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    They had pounds and pounds of muscle layered onto their bodies artificially. They altered themselves on a fairly basic physical level. How could that NOT affect every single move they made?

    I'm trying to take you seriously but stuff like that is making it damned hard to do so.

    We've been over and over all of the sign stealing and spitballs and greenies, ad nauseum. They aren't remotely comparable unless you're desperately trying to muddy the water so miscreants won't be seen as miscreants.

    You seem hung up on this phrase "integrity of the game"...I don't think I've used it but if I have, it's not really on point with what my problem is. Namely, that is that the numbers these people put up while puffed up like an overstuffed calzone are inauthentic.

    The moral fiber of these people is of secondary interest to me. In this matter, I am only interested in seeing that they're held to account for the serious damage they've done to the record book with their counterfeit statistics and that those numbers are never taken at face value, any more than Whitey Bulger's bank accounts should have been.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X