| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:02:09 PM | | my point is ,you waste of time , is that clemens has always been great throughout his career. aside from a couple hiccups here and there he has been more consistent than bonds by far. how can anyone deny that after 2000 bonds became a homerun machine with less at bats. bonds head got noticably larger, if you watched him so close how did you miss that, not to mention the amount of muscle that appeared. clemens was 24-4 in 1986 and won 20 games the next year and had 291 strikeouts the next year. all before the 90s he proved he was hall of fame material. barry most likely would of made the hall but not as the best batter of all time. there is a difference between a good or great player and the best players ever which both of these players have an argument for. rogers arguments has been around since the early days and barrys argument begins in the mid 90s | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:29:01 PM | no
your point seems to change
but to your CURRENT point-
clemens was fantastic-until he roided up for my jays
he was 192-111 -if my math was right - until then
good to great
but in the FOUR seasons preceeding his stint with the jays he was 40-39
and was such a great player the sox cut his ass
and clemens is kind of a big head too | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:35:37 PM |
and clemens is kind of a big head too
Maybe it was the B-12? Lol | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:40:36 PM | | my points stay the same smoke screener. your baiting and name calling are not fooling anyone except yourself. he was great in 86, 87 and 88. clemens body type has hardly waivered over his career except for normal expected age related factors. he never looked like mr universe, like barry transformed into. his head size has not enlarged like barrys myteriously did. barry went from a great player, to arguably the best power hitter ever. roger has always been arguably the best power pitcher since he began his career. he did not evolve like barry did, he always was. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:52:43 PM | smoke screener-?
quoting his record-which is after all what you are stating your case on-that he was among the best ever before HIS spike in stats...agreed. but then-like a lot of players before him-he wilted
-he was barely 500 for four years!!!
where is the smoke screen???
40-39 and washed up
then he goes 75-31!!!
then he goes 68-22!!!
for a 143-53 record in the eight years after he was considered done
phenomenal
no name calling
no smoke screen
performance enhancing substances? maybe...reasonably? probably? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 1:56:28 PM | "quite a mvp drought though after 93 "
No wonder...everyone else was on steroids at that time
Just throwing this out there, but is it possible that Clemens took 'roids just to maintain his level? It's not always about growth. A lot of it is about faster recuperation and maybe Clemens needed them just to be able to pitch every 5th day.
As for Bonds, here's the irony: there's no question he would have made the HOF had he never improved so dramatically. Now he's the best home run hitter there ever was and, if Bud Selig has his way, the only way Bonds will ever get into Cooperstown is by paying admission. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 2:01:45 PM | | considered done by whom, boston. washed up, are most pitchers done after 12 years in the league? he was battling injuries during those years and boston should have stuck with him but they didnt. whoops, because once he got straightened out he was as effective as he had PROVEN he was in the past. i am not dismissing the possibility that he could have used PEDs during his career but i will give him the benefit of the doubt over mcnamee. i want proof not the word of a federal puppet witness. thanks for not resorting to name calling in this post like you had in other posts. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 2:47:03 PM | he didnt just bounce back
he became-in his thirties and far past the prime of power pitchers
the best pitcher ever
now
i love clemens
love him
as a jays fan-how can you not?
he was the guy we loved to beat-for the sox-then he was perfect for us-then he was the guy we actually cheered for when he went to the yankees (blasphemous but wtf its roger)
but i just cannot reasonably give him the benefit of the doubt based on the spike in his numbers
it is simply unheard of in the HISTORY of the game that someone does that---oh---except for barry bonds and the players of today | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 3:48:07 PM | | you dont have a clue about power pictures. nolan ryan ring a bell, how did he do in the latter years. what spike are you talking about? first half of career 182-98, second half of career 172-83 almost a mirror image of consistency. bonds on the other hand had 334 hr in first half of career and 428 hr in second half including a season where he only has 14 at bats and his at bats dramatically decreased(5537 at bats first half, 4310 at bats second half) the only spikes here are in barrys career and in your drinks | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 5:50:49 PM | ok
here is the spike-then you need to go away
clemens is accused of doing steroids about the time he went to the jays
see above in my following post for the SPIKE
for the record
ryan might have been juicing too | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:09:16 PM | Clemens has agreed to a lie detector test and that should put this thread to rest. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:32:54 PM | a lie detector test won't do shit. administered by whom? clemens camp?  | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:35:58 PM | Come on eyes...wins and losses as spikes? Better start collecting Dontrelle Willis's urine now, because I can assure you his win/loss ratio will improve next year.
There is really no way to satisfy either side of the Clemens argument. There are glaring spikes in Clemens' numbers when he got to Toronto - wins/losses aside - most notably, his ERA. But anyone defending him will automatically use the ball park as the reason for that.
The only way to scientifically prove a spike is if certain numbers increase while all other factors remain the same. You can't do that with a player who moves from city to city.
Personally, I have been saying for about 10 years that I think Clemens is/was juiced, so I wasn't surprised by the revelations of the Mitchell Report. I don't have a whole lot of evidence against him, I'm just a cynic...but his head does look bigger to me | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:47:12 PM | | in message 139 i added factual numbers as evidence to support my argument, nice to see that people just ignored those numbers and kept right up with thier nonsense. first half of career versus the second half career. does not get any clearer when defining consistency for ones career. bonds and clemens numbers are there in post 139 you be the judge about the spikes versus consistency argument. and thats convienent to say ryan was juiced, what a cowardly statement that is. his career started in 66 and ended in 93 and his last 2 years were pretty poor. he was a great pitcher that you discredit for the sake of attempting (poorly) to win an argument in a dating forum | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:49:59 PM | "...but his head does look bigger to me..."""
His head is bigger, but to me that's still a bit inconclusive. We tend to fill out more as we grow older and apparently our head and our ears and nose keep growing. Here's a little photo album of Rocketman. I found another good one, but I've temporarily gone and lost it again.
http://www.chron.com/sports/photogallery/Chronology_of_Clemens_career.html
Roger maybe should have just kept his mouth shut though. He's got the feds after him now...the same feds that went after and got Vick and the same feds that are going after Bonds.
"""...Clemens targeted by IRS. Suddenly, the stakes are much higher.
Turns out, Roger Clemens probably should have stayed quiet. His adamant denials have drawn the attention of both Congress and the IRS. What began as a famous athlete accused of bending the rules to extend his career has turned into something much more serious.
He'll be testifying under oath to a Congressional committee on Jan. 16. If he lies, he could be charged with perjury. It's also being reported that the IRS agent that has doggedly pursued athletes in the Bay Area is interested in Clemens. This case suddenly isn't a joking matter. Clemens has gotten himself into a high-stakes game with consequences he couldn't have imagined a few days ago. If he's not careful, he's going to end up in serious trouble.
Meanwhile, Clemens and Brian McNamee spoke by telephone Friday night in what was described as an hourlong ''emotional'' chat. Newsday also broke the news that IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky is looking into Clemens.
Losing a reputation is one thing. Until now, that's what was on the line for Clemens. That could end up being the least of his worries. Check out this New York Times profile of Jeff Novitzky. He's not a guy you want digging into your business...."""
http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2008/01/mike_wallace_an.html | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 6:55:36 PM | "in message 139 i added factual numbers as evidence to support my argument, nice to see that people just ignored those numbers and kept right up with thier nonsense. "
Like I said in MY previous posting, you are implying that steroids are used strictly to IMPROVE strength, which is misleading. Steroids can be used for numerous reasons - one of which is to simply MAINTAIN the strength you have, or to reduce recuperation time. It can be argued just as easily that Clemens would have never been able to MAINTAIN his pace without the help of steroids.
Like I said, it's an argument that stats will never prove beyond a reasonable doubt. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 7:28:54 PM | hi again prairie
unfortunately-
wins and losses count a lot to measure a pitcher's effectiveness
300 wins usually means a direct ticket to cooperstown for instance
they are a major factor in cy young voting, for another
-so i think a glance at clemens' improvement once he got-and was alleged to have started doping-to toronto should raise some eyebrows sufficiently and if they do not prove anything-they certainly make one wonder no? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 7:52:55 PM | eyes...there is a big difference between wins and losses throughout a 20-year career and a spike immediately after a trade. Specifically, you could be getting traded from a last-place club to a contender (see Dontrelle Willis). That's the point I was trying to make. Most scouts/GMs will look at a lot of other factors before wins and losses (again, see Dontrelle Willis).
Granted, Celemens was not playing for a last-place club in the mid-90s and, like you point out, his numbers DID drop the four years prior to TO...which is basically what made him expendible in the first place.
But if a spike in wins and losses immediately makes one suspect of steroid use, then clearly Kelvim Escobar is using. His spike (this past season) happened with no other extenuating factors. It was on the same team. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 8:17:05 PM | cool
but knowing escobar
was he in a contract year? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 8:24:08 PM | "was he in a contract year?"
Touché
We used to always say, prior to his starts in TO, "so, is it Escobar, or Escobad today?" That guy was as unpredicatble as a week in the life of Brittany Spears | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 8:56:28 PM | Just on this spike thing after Roger got traded to the jays. You know, just to try and have more info, just to maybe shed a bit more light, or perhaps, muddy the waters a bit more, hehehe, his record of 10-13 wasn't really all that indicative of his last season in Boston.
"""...It seemed on the surface that Clemens' career was ending when he went only 10-13 in 1996. But he was distracted all season by ongoing debates with the front office about whether he would re-sign with the Red Sox and suffered from an appalling lack of run support. In fact, over the second half of the season, Clemens was as dominant as he was at the turn of the decade. He was 6-2, 2.09 in his last 10 starts, and after the All-Star break struck out 123 men in 111 1/3 innings. He also became the first AL pitcher since 1993 to get a regular-season base hit on May 23 in a pinch-hitting appearance against Seattle's Norm Charlton.
Then, on September 18, 1996, in a final rebuke to Red Sox management (particularly GM Dan Duquette) he tied his own major-league record 10 years after setting it by striking out 20 Tigers. His 257 strikeouts were tops in the AL -- less than two months later, he with the Blue Jays. He left Boston owning the team career records for games started (382), bases on balls (856), and strikeouts (2,590), and tied with Cy Young with 192 victories."""
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Roger_Clemens_1962 | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 3:47:55 AM | | So sly, let me get this straight...you're saying Clemens started his first cycle just after the 1996 All-Star break. Right? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 7:51:52 AM | | how would everyone else react if they were accused of the same thing and you were innocent. if he is innocent then i feel he is doing everything he should to repair his damaged image. after watching his press conferance and listening to the phone call to mcnamee i feel more convinced of his innocence. does anyone notice the difference between clemens approach to the accusations compared to bonds approach. clemens is coming out all guns blazing, suing for defamation, interviews, press conferences and agreeing to testify before congress. whats barry done besides a couple of bullyish denials? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:04:18 AM | | the phone call made him look bad. afterall he was the one recording it. did anyone think he was going to incrimiate himself ? and the mac macnamee dude had to know he was being taped as well. the phone call was a joke. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:16:07 AM | | I don't think the phone call was a joke or made him look bad. He did it to prove his innocence. I was never really a Clemens fan, but I do think he is innocent. Why would he go through the trouble of recording the phone call? He wanted to prove that Macnamee was lying and I think he proved it. Just my opinion, but I think he's innocent. If you asked me about Bonds, McGuire etc, I'd say they're guilty, but Clemens is innocent. | |
|
Home
login 
