He's my favorite pitcher of all time and it's just so frustrating to see him post great start after great start and come away with nothing to show for it. So please, Astros, start giving the man some run support.
Roger Clemens...
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Roger Clemens...
He must be going out of his mind now. In his 7 starts (not including today, where, as of right now, the Astros again are being shutout), Houston has scored 11 runs for him! Total!!!
He's my favorite pitcher of all time and it's just so frustrating to see him post great start after great start and come away with nothing to show for it. So please, Astros, start giving the man some run support.New England Patriots
Boston CelticsTags: None -
Re: Roger Clemens...
Originally posted by dalesHe must be going out of his mind now. In his 7 starts (not including today, where, as of right now, the Astros again are being shutout), Houston has scored 11 runs for him! Total!!!
He's my favorite pitcher of all time and it's just so frustrating to see him post great start after great start and come away with nothing to show for it. So please, Astros, start giving the man some run support.
What more does he have to do? Everyone of the players in the lineup should apologize to him after every loss.
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
Of course I make a thread of it and the 'Stros promptly put 4 runs on the board for him. Now karma being the bitch that it is, Roger will probably come off the tracks and give back the lead....or the bullpen will.New England Patriots
Boston CelticsComment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
How can the man possibly be 42 years old and strike out 10 while walking none? His WHIP, BAA, and ERA are insane. You have to wonder if he is going to break Seaver's record of percentage of votes received when he gets elected to the HOF.Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
Originally posted by SquintHow can the man possibly be 42 years old and strike out 10 while walking none? His WHIP, BAA, and ERA are insane. You have to wonder if he is going to break Seaver's record of percentage of votes received when he gets elected to the HOF.
P.S. Now I'm a Red fan, and I worship Seaver, but Clemens is my favorite player of all time, and should get the first "100%" vote. Anyone who doesn't vote for him should be banned from voting for their complete lack of integrity.Last edited by jfsolo; 05-14-2005, 11:33 PM.Jordan Mychal Lemos
@crypticjordan
Do this today: Instead of $%*#!@& on a game you're not going to play or movie you're not going to watch, say something good about a piece of media you're excited about.
Do the same thing tomorrow. And the next. Now do it forever.Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
As a person I think Roger Clemens sucks. I can't deny his greatness tho. The man is absolutely amazing on the hill. I'm sure a couple Boston writers won't vote for him but if there's a guy that deserves 100% based on his play alone it's him.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
He might not be all what he is cracked up to be...Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
Originally posted by ChicagoNVA
Let's take a look at the four year span in question:
Code:[font=Courier New]Year W L G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA[/font] [font=Courier New]1993 [/font][font=Courier New]11 14 29 29 2 1 191.7 175 99 95 17 67 160 4.46 4.68[/font] [font=Courier New]1994 [/font][font=Courier New]9 7 24 24 3 1 170.7 124 62 54 15 71 168 2.85 5.05[/font] [font=Courier New]1995 [/font][font=Courier New]10 5 23 23 0 0 140.0 141 70 65 15 60 132 4.18 4.82[/font] [font=Courier New]1996 [/font][font=Courier New]10 13 34 34 6 2 242.7 216 106 98 19 106 257 3.63 5.15[/font]
Clemens was impressive in every category except ERA in 1993. Considering that the team was below .500 that season and he was on the DL twice, it wasn't too bad a campaign.
1994 was the strike year and his numbers were impressive. We can throw that entire year out of this argument in my opinion.
Again, 1995 was a strike-shortened season and Clemens started in on the DL with a strained shoulder muscle. He started that year 3-4 with a 5.56 ERA in his first 12 starts and look how strong he finished. '95 was the only year he has given up more hits than innings pitched (except his rookie year) and it was by the smallest margin possible.
Now we come to 1996. This was the type of year where won-loss record can be a bit deceiving. His ERA was well below the league ERA (a run and a half lower). In fact, he was 6th in the AL that year in ERA. You also have to remember that this was a contract year and he and the Red Sox were not negotiating with each other. That has an effect on anyone, no matter how great a player you are. Clemens still led that league in strikeouts, K/9 IP, was 5th in IP, 4th in complete games, and 2nd in hits allowed/9 IP. The only area in which he seemed to falter was in walks. In fact, he gave up the most walks that year than any other year of his career. This would explain why his ERA was slightly higher than an average Clemens year and likely play a role in his won-loss percentage. I'd also love to find out what his run support was that year, but I'm not sure they tracked that stat back then.
In the end we are talking about one injury plagued season in '93, two strike-effected seasons with an injury ('94-'95), and one season in which he dominated except one category (walks).
Should it really surprise anyone that he came back so strong in '97 and '98? If you really look at the statistics and the facts supporting them then you'd see that it really shouldn't come as a surprise at all.Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
LOL. That article was written by Bob Smizik. I'm familiar with the guy since I live in Pittsburgh and read his articles and hear his BS on the radio.
With that said, he's a blowhard who likes to stirup controversy. Everything he writes and says should always be taken with a grain of salt. This is the same guy who wrote an article in support of Tike Redman batting 3rd for the Pirates.
You might ask "Who's Tike Redman?". My answer would be "Exactly". He's a lifetime .286 BA/.319 OBP/.394 SLG. And Smizik was in favor of this guy batting 3rd?Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
So.....I e-mailed the author of the article posted by ChicagoNVA and later commented on by Joeboo.
Here's the exchange. The guy seems a little in my opinion and don't we all know someone who knows someone who know something? Make of it what you will......
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Bonds-Clemens Article
Bob,
Your article is obviously written with only cursory research and taking some of the more prominent statistics to skew the argument in favor of the article.
We all know that Clemens was on the DL in '93 and '95 with groin, elbow, and shoulder problems. Still, his ERA was never above the league ERA and the Red Sox were as horrible as they've been in recent memory in '93 and '94.
Clemens was impressive in every category except ERA in 1993. Considering that the team was below .500 that season and he was on the DL twice, it wasn't too bad a campaign.
1994 was the strike year and his numbers were impressive. We can throw that entire year out of this argument in my opinion.
Again, 1995 was a strike-shortened season and Clemens started in on the DL with a strained shoulder muscle. He started that year 3-4 with a 5.56 ERA in his first 12 starts and look how strong he finished. '95 was the only year he has given up more hits than innings pitched (except his rookie year) and it was by the smallest margin possible.
Now we come to 1996. This was the type of year where won-loss record can be a bit deceiving. His ERA was well below the league ERA (a run and a half lower). In fact, he was 6th in the AL that year in ERA. You also have to remember that this was a contract year and he and the Red Sox were not negotiating with each other. That has an effect on anyone, no matter how great a player you are. Clemens still led that league in strikeouts, K/9 IP, was 5th in IP, 4th in complete games, and 2nd in hits allowed/9 IP. The only area in which he seemed to falter was in walks. In fact, he gave up the most walks that year than any other year of his career. This would explain why his ERA was slightly higher than an average Clemens year and likely play a role in his won-loss percentage. I'd also love to find out what his run support was that year, but I'm not sure they tracked that stat back then.
In the end we are talking about one injury plagued season in '93, two strike-effected seasons with an injury ('94-'95), and one season in which he dominated except one category (walks).
Should it really surprise anyone that he came back so strong in '97 and '98? If you really look at the statistics and the facts supporting them then you'd see that it shouldn't come as a surprise at all.
Year W L G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA *lgERA
1993 11 14 29 29 2 1 191.7 175 99 95 17 67 160 4.46 4.68
1994 9 7 24 24 3 1 170.7 124 62 54 15 71 168 2.85 5.05
1995 10 5 23 23 0 0 140.0 141 70 65 15 60 132 4.18 4.82
1996 10 13 34 34 6 2 242.7 216 106 98 19 106 257 3.63 5.15
What has Clemens really done that Seaver or Ryan didn't? He is pitching effectively into his 40's. In today's day an age with better nutrition, legal supplements, computer aided scouting reports, and an unparalled off-season work-out regimine, how can we question his ability, drive, and accomplishments?
I'm not a Clemens fan, mind you. Just a baseball fan with appreciation for greatness.
Regards,----- Original Message ----- From: bob
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Bonds-Clemens Article
You ask: ``What has Clemens really done that Seaver or Ryan didn't? ''
From age 37 through 41, Seaver was 52-62, Ryan was 54-58, Clemens was 81-30. I realize records can be deceiving, but neither Ryan nor Seaver had the dominance in their later years that Clemens has. To answer your question, a lot more.
As for this comment: ``In today's day an age with better nutrition, legal supplements, computer aided scouting reports, and an unparalled off-season work-out regimine, how can we question his ability, drive, and accomplishments?''
Would you say the same thing about Barry Bonds? -- Bob Smizik
----- Original Message ----- From:
To: bob
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Bonds-Clemens Article
Bob,
My statement about better nutrition, etc., is in direct reference to the type of pitcher Clemens is. He is in the Seaver and Ryan type mold in that his power comes from his leg drive, compact delivery, and explosiveness in his pitches. In that, the type and consistency of his off-season work-outs combined with better nutrition would help to keep his lower body in stellar shape resulting in being able to maintain his velocity, movement on his pitches, and stamina throughout the season.
Ryan had a dominant year in '87 when he was 40 and I would submit that he was even more dominant at the ages of 42-44. Neither of them played on teams of the caliber as Clemens has in his later years save Ryan with the '86 Astros.
Seaver may not have had the won-loss record later in his career, but he was still a formidable pitcher with an ERA below the league average from the ages of 38-41 including one extremely good season in '84 in which he was 15-11 with 10 complete games and four shutouts. He followed that season with an even better one at 40 years of age.
Clemens' desire to be on a winning team, his ego, and free agent movement being what it is in today's game has allowed him to play on very competitive teams for nearly his entire career. I know that being on mediocre teams shouldn't be the reason or excuse as to how a pitcher performs, but human nature being what it is, we just know that isn't the case.
The difference in Bonds and Clemens is that Bonds' abilities and output have increased over the latter part of his career while Clemens has remained consistent throughout the duration of his.
Regards,
This is a response I received from today's article from a nationally known expert on steroid use. This person has testified before Congress on this matter;
``I believe your observations were beyond reproach from a training perspective. Roger has been far and away my favorite baseball player for years, but I also live in the world of
knowing training reality. I would speculate that Roger is probably using a cocktail of HGH and low doses of testosterone for primarily recuperation. This combination is commonly used in anti-aging therapy across the country and would be totally undetectable in modern drug testing. ''
I rest my case. -- Bob Smizik
<!-- / message -->
Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
Yeah that's a pretty boneheaded article, basically saying anyone who is good past the age of 35 must be poppin roids.
I'd point out:
Hank Aaron (age 39) hits 40 HR and bats .301
Tom Seaver (40): 3.17 ERA
Gaylord Perry (39): 2.73 ERA; (40): 3.06
Mike Schmidt (37): .293, 35 HR
Ted Williams (41): .316, 29 HR
Warren Spahn (42): 23-7, 2.60
Nolan Ryan (44): 2.91 ERA
Great player can continue to be great even after most player have started to decline drastically.
With Randy Johnson...c'mon anyone with common sense knows a big part of why he throws so hard is that he is so huge and that a big part of his dominance is intimidation due to his height and demeanor - those things dont change.
With regards specifically to Clemens: after his two good year in Toronto it seemed he was clearly on the decline again; his ERA's for the Yankees were: 4.60, 3.70, 3.51, 4.35, 3.91. Solid, yes, but not dominant. Then he goes home and gets rejuvenated by playing in Texas (not to mention his special perks) and starts doing well again.
Also in his earlier year a big part of his problem was control, as was mentioned in the earlier post. Also the thing about records is totally boneheaded: Clemens pitched for the Yankees for most of the time period the article's author is talking about - you show up and have the league average ERA and during that time the Yanks would autmatically win you 14 games!
Just a little more for Clemens, a chart:
Age/Clemens ERA/Ryan's ERA/Seaver's ERA (Best ERA) (worst ERA):
(36): 4.60/2.98/2.54 (Ryan) (Clemens)
(37): 3.70/3.04/5.50 (Ryan) (Seaver)
(38): 3.51/3.80/3.55 (Clemens) (Ryan)
(39): 4.35/3.34/3.95 (Ryan) (Clemens)
(40): 3.91/2.76/3.17 (Ryan) (Clemens)
(41): 2.98/3.52/4.03 (Clemens) (Seaver)"Darth Vader doesn't cry, Peter."
"The guy was married to Natalie Portman and blew it. I mean, think about it."
http://www.capsblueline.comComment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
I'd just like to point out that Clemens is a traitor.
Bill Simmons explains it much better than I can:
"Imagine you're a typical guy in your late-20s. You've been dating the same girl since college, but recently she gained an extra 20 pounds, refuses to exercise and spends her nights sitting on the sofa in jogging pants, eating Cheetos and forcing you to watch "Friends" re-runs. Also, she cheats on you every so often, because she "can't control herself when she's out with her friends." And she rarely shows you any affection. But you stick with her, because there's some history there, because you love her, because you keep hoping she'll turn things around to her old Cy Young form.
Finally, you've had enough. You break up with her. She doesn't show an ounce of emotion, immediately moves on to someone else, then spends the next few months telling your friends how great the new guy is (never mentioning you at all). Now she's motivated. She hires a personal trainer, gets breast implants, bleaches her hair blonde and joins the cast of "Baywatch," looking absolutely fantastic, telling everyone who will listen, "This only happened because my boyfriend broke up with me, and I found true love."
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, she dumps that boyfriend and starts dating your absolute worst enemy, the guy you hated ever since high school who's now a multi-billionaire. To make matters worse, she starts calling your friends and urging them to hang out with her and the billionaire instead of you. Now you have to hear through the grapevine how happy she is, how her sex life has never been better, how she enjoys sticking it to you every chance she gets. You can't get away from her. She even gets her own talk show and conquers her fear of performing live, becoming a Kelly Ripa-like success, learning how to come through in the clutch. She is everything you ever wanted her to be."Comment
-
Re: Roger Clemens...
Originally posted by camulosI'd just like to point out that Clemens is a traitor.
Bill Simmons explains it much better than I can:
"Imagine you're a typical guy in your late-20s. You've been dating the same girl since college, but recently she gained an extra 20 pounds, refuses to exercise and spends her nights sitting on the sofa in jogging pants, eating Cheetos and forcing you to watch "Friends" re-runs. Also, she cheats on you every so often, because she "can't control herself when she's out with her friends." And she rarely shows you any affection. But you stick with her, because there's some history there, because you love her, because you keep hoping she'll turn things around to her old Cy Young form.
Finally, you've had enough. You break up with her. She doesn't show an ounce of emotion, immediately moves on to someone else, then spends the next few months telling your friends how great the new guy is (never mentioning you at all). Now she's motivated. She hires a personal trainer, gets breast implants, bleaches her hair blonde and joins the cast of "Baywatch," looking absolutely fantastic, telling everyone who will listen, "This only happened because my boyfriend broke up with me, and I found true love."
Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, she dumps that boyfriend and starts dating your absolute worst enemy, the guy you hated ever since high school who's now a multi-billionaire. To make matters worse, she starts calling your friends and urging them to hang out with her and the billionaire instead of you. Now you have to hear through the grapevine how happy she is, how her sex life has never been better, how she enjoys sticking it to you every chance she gets. You can't get away from her. She even gets her own talk show and conquers her fear of performing live, becoming a Kelly Ripa-like success, learning how to come through in the clutch. She is everything you ever wanted her to be."Comment
Comment