Roger Clemens -- amazing (1 Viewer)

[Brian Perry]

Mitty,
You're right -- I didn't really mean to say "sloppy." Just that he had a different approach depending on the game situation, like you said.
------------------
Home Theater Pictures

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's face this one small fact, most people are not keen on statistical analysis of sports. Therefore, whatever argument you guys come up with in this thread discrediting the significance of Clemens 2001 season, it really doesn't matter to most people. The media and the general public like big numbers and really don't care about how such numbers were achieved. Years from now, when Clemens record is looked at by the masses, they will see one thing, the win and loss record however, baseball fans who live by the stats can do whatever analysis to their hearts content but the masses won't really give a damn. Furthermore, no matter what you think of the record and the man, for a 39 year old pitcher he is having a helluva season!
Crawdaddy
------------------

 

[MickeS]

I never understood the fascination with statistics in american sports, especially baseball. Seems like some people are more interested in checking the statistics after a game than they are in actually watching the game (not an attack on anyone in this thread).
/Mike

 

[Mitty]

quote: ...no matter what you think of the record and the man, for a 39 year old pitcher he is having a helluva season![/quote]
I suppose that's one thing was can all (grudgingly) agree on.
quote: Seems like some people are more interested in checking the statistics after a game than they are in actually watching the game (not an attack on anyone in this thread).[/quote]
I suppose, but the thing is that the stats are what actually happen out there on the field. All of the things that rabid baseball fans look at - innnings pitched, strikeouts, walks, ERA, RBIs, errors, hitting with runners in scoring position, etc. - are by their very definition reflective of how the players perform out there on the field. Stats are not just magically invented numbers that people pluck out of the air. Watch a handful of games and you see the pattern, the manifestation of what the stats-hungry are talking about; you'll notice that Rickey Henderson does indeed walk a lot, and Edgar Martinez is a good clutch hitter, or that (this won't take long to see) Randy Johnson strikes out a LOT of batters over the course of a game and that left handed batters might as well have a table leg with them at the plate against him. I guess what I'm trying to say is that MOST of baseball's stats are easy to correlate with what we see on the field even over a short sample of games. But, by all means if you overhear someone saying that his team can't lose because they never lose a day game to a left handed starter following a night loss, feel free to bitch slap him.
[Edited last by Mitty on September 06, 2001 at 06:15 PM]

 

[Bill Slack]

No No Nanette (a musical) was financed by selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees, by former Boston owner Harry Frazee in 1918.
DOH!

 

[Joseph S]

I believe the No No Nannette thing was disproved earlier this year by someone. It has been a long fable though and I can't remember where I read it. (Just finshed watching Memento..hmmm

)
People may like big numbers, but it does mean they are worthy of consideration. W:L has never been a big deal for me, because it doesn't correlate to performance.
Pedro won the CY last year with only 18 wins, yet he equaled Guidry's ERA mark and was the best pitcher in the major's last year leading almost every category available. Other's like David Wells racked up 20+ wins because they had the run support and bullpen to protect those leads, but their ERA and other stats just didn't correlate. Pedro won because he produced, but if he didn't have an ERA half that of the competition I bet he would have lost in spite of the obvious performance.
It's too bad the voters for these awards look at numbers instead of watching the games. Clemens deserved the CY over Welch and I'm really "amazed" at the fact he's so willing to go back on all he believed in. Much like Clemens and Pedro in Boston, Mussina does not get the support in NY.
Unless you're Mike Hampton you can't do a thing about run support. If you get 7 runs a game you ought to win and there are no excuses other wise. Pedro and Mussina would kill for 5 runs a game. However, they never seem to get it. Mussina, in fact, would have one less win if he didn't drive in the 2nd run against the Mets in a 2-1 victory.
The voters usually are the ones who decide this and unfortunately writers like George King and LeVeille Neal refuse to even put one ounce of effort into deciding the whether a player should receive the honor of a regular season award.
George King of NY Post voted Derek Jeter for MVP a few years ago and left Pedro Martinez off his entire list of votes for 1st to 10th place.
-His reasoning was put forth in his column the following week.-
"I WAS IN A HURRICANE AND FEARED FOR MY LIFE LAST WEEKEND, SO I DON'T NEED TO EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC OR MY EDITORS WHY I VOTED THAT WAY AT THE END OF THE SEASON."
A day later: He changed his mind, "I don't vote for pitchers for MVP."
and later that day it was revealed that was a lie as well and he had voted for David Wells and Rick Helling for MVP within the past two years. (He was the only one to even list Jeter, in the top 3. Yet he named him number 1 in a year when only Ivan Rodriguez and Pedro Martinez were worth consideration.
LeVeille Neal at least stated he didn't vote for pitchers and this was his first vote. However, when questioned he hadn't seen many games that and laughed about it the whole time.
If you like big numbers root for Kansas State. Big numbers don't come without playing cupcakes all year long.

 

[Carlo_M]

He hasn't pitched great every game 'only' 19/29 quality starts (which is obviously still excellent.)

Compared to Chan Ho Park's 24/30 quality starts. Yet Chan Ho is just barely above .500. Clemens' year is more about run support than anything. It can mess with a pitcher's head if he doesn't get it. I remember years when Ismael Valdes used to pitch for the Dodgers. He would routinely have a low 3 ERA, but have a run support of 2 or less. He would post losing seasons but be in the top 10 in the league for ERA. Now he's bounced around the league so much that he's a shell of the pitcher he once was.

 

[KeithH]

Curt Schilling is certainly an impressive pitcher. Going into last night's game against the Giants, his 19-6 record was impressive, but his 2.91 ERA was what impressed me more. How many pitchers in this day and age have an ERA under 3.00? Heck, how many pitchers are there with multi-million dollar contracts with ERAs above 4.00? Too many.
Since I broached the subject of inflated ERAs, I thought I'd mention that Barry Bonds hit his 60th home run today. Personally, I'll be sad if Bonds breaks McGwire's home run record. While it may be good for baseball (progress, excitement, pushing the envelope, etc.), the Sosa-McGwire show in 1998 was very special, and I'd hate to see it eclipsed by Barry Bonds. I respect Bonds' talent, but I've never liked him.
------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[Bill Slack]

I'm a big Chan Ho Park fan. And he hasn't gotten great run support, but one thing about any Dodger's pitcher is Dodger Stadium. It ain't the Astro Dome, but it's close.
(and this includes Sandy Koufax -- Doesn't stop me from fawning over his brilliant 5 years.)
As for ERA -- in and of itself, it doesn't mean too much, at least, historically. _Relative_ ERA is an important statastic. Adjust for home park, league, and year... and you can much more accurately compare players.
This isn't the '60's... but look back at the late 20's and 30's, and you have quite an era of offensive explosion as well.
An ERA of around 4.00 these days is actually pretty good (in the AL, anyway) and ERA close to 3.00 is excellent. And ERA close (or below) 2.00 is just amazing.

 

[Jim_C]

>>Boston fans are still angry over No No Nanette.

 

[MickeS]

I suppose, but the thing is that the stats are what actually happen out there on the field.

Of course, but my point was that some people seem to not enjoy watching a game as much as they enjoy discussing the statistics afterwards. Of course, if you are discussing a game, statistics are relevant. But they are not the game, and they are not the purpose of the game. Sports is about the thrill of winning and the pain of losing, not about memorizing statistics in order to win a discussion afterwards... IMO, of course.
/Mike
------------------

 

[John Besse]

I wish Mike Piazza would have beat his ass last year with that broken bat.
Roger Clemens is a great pitcher, I'll give him that. He is definitly Hall of Fame bound, but he's still no Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine.
Hey, how about Greg Maddux's ERA at 2.88 compared to the 3.44. Not to mention that Maddux also has 257(wins) 143(losses) in his carear with a 2.83 ERA out of the 500 games he's started. Clemens isn't to shabby with his 279(wins) and 143(losses) with a lifetime ERA of 3.09 in 541 games. Clemens has been around 2 years longer than Maddux, but the Braves still have Glavine with 221(wins) 132(losses) 3.40 ERA and 464 starts. Considering the fact that Glavine started in 1987 3 years after Clemens and 1 year after Maddux, Atlanta still has the better pitchers.
I'll give you one thing though. Andy Pettite and Mike Mussinaare both young starting their carears in the 90s. They are both great pitchers, but the Yankees have a long way to catch up to the Brave in the pitching staff.
So here's my thoughts. Roger Clemens sucks

and so do the New York Yankees for that matter. I hate them with a passion...
Go Braves
------------------
My DVD Collection
Link Removed

 

[RicP]

quote: Roger Clemens is a great pitcher, I'll give him that. He is definitly Hall of Fame bound, but he's still no Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine. [/quote] You think? Maddux is certainly a great argument but Glavine? I'd take Rocket over Glavine every time.
BTW, here's the stats you quoted:

PITCHER      ERA     W   L
Maddux       2.88   257  143
Glavine      3.40   221  132
Clemens      3.09   279  143

So even though Clemens has one more year than Maddux, he has 22 more wins and zero more losses...22-0...That's a hell of a season. And he is less than "half a run a game" worse than Maddux, while Glavine is "half a run a game" worse than Clemens. And let's not even compare Strikeouts.
quote: Considering the fact that Glavine started in 1987 3 years after Clemens and 1 year after Maddux, Atlanta still has the better pitchers.....the Yankees have a long way to catch up to the Brave in the pitching staff[/quote]
And how many World Series have those pitchers won for Atlanta? And who are the three-time defending World Champions?

------------------
http://www.ricperrott.com
Ric Perrott - My DVD's
[Edited last by RicP on September 07, 2001 at 10:34 AM]

 

[Bill Slack]

And Maddux pitched in the NL. Park effect would likely have little influence, since both Fulton County and Fenway were hitters parks.
League adjustment, I imagine, would put their ERAs just about even, although I don't have those numbers handy w/ me at work.
Clemens get's some bonus points for the high K numbers, Maddux gets some bonus points for the K/BB ratio.
Maddux has pitched for better teams, in some sense, but I think has little effect -- The Braves were carried by their great starting pitching throughout the 90's, not offense. (In fact, Maddux win high is 20, and in 96 only 15-11 despite great numbers and a career high in starts)
They're both first ballot hall of famers, and great to watch. The only detractors against them are:
Maddux... kind of boring. Not flashy.
Clemens... a bit cooky and of his rocker sometimes.

 

[Jin E]

Clemens's year reminds me a lot of Brad (Brian?) Clontz's 95 season where he somehow won 7-8 games in one month (as a middle releif man)! Nothing but luck... because he's not that good a pitcher.
------------------
-Jin
My Theater

 

[KeithH]

Ric, you said:

So even though Clemens has one more year than Maddux, he has 22 more wins and zero more losses...22-0...That's a hell of a season. And he is less than "half a run a game" worse than Maddux, while Glavine is "half a run a game" worse than Clemens. And let's not even compare Strikeouts.

Based on the sentiment here, and I am not wholeheartedly disagreeing, that Clemens' 19-1 record is based on good luck, maybe Maddux could have a lucky 22-0 season and catch Clemens. Maddux wouldn't necessarily have to be good to catch The Rocket.

------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[Joseph S]

It's official Roger has once again chosen his opponents again.
His latest decision will allow him to go in Sterling Hitchcock's spot tomorrow against the Pawtucket Red Sox. This decision will enable him to only have to face the hot hitting White Sox once instead of twice and he will now be in line for 2 more starts against the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. That will be a total of seven starts against the absolute worst team in the game.

 

[Robert Crawford]

quote: It's official Roger has once again chosen his opponents again. [/quote]
Joseph,
I didn't know you were a part of the Yankees coaching staff or is this just another ranting from a bitter and disappointed Red Sox fan???????

Either way, Torre runs the Yankees and I seriously doubt he will allow any player to choose his assignments. By the way, Pettite moved up on the rotation too, so I guess he chose his opponent too.
Crawdaddy
[Edited last by Robert Crawford on September 09, 2001 at 04:57 PM]

 

[Joseph S]

Either way, Torre runs the Yankees and I seriously doubt he will allow any player to choose his assignments.

Ask Mike Piazza and he'll say different.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did the same for Pettite to get him more starts against the sisters of the poor to boost his confidence after the beating he took earlier last week, as he will now also get his last start against the D-Rays.
Mussina keeps getting the tougher assignments and Clemens keeps accepting the praise for beating up on the weakest teams in both inter- and intraleague games. In the past he would go out of his way to face the better teams. Now he avoids them like the plague. Why change the rotation now? He does so at a time when conventional logic says he gets an extra day off every start to prepare for the postseason. Torre will now have to alter the rotation in the Baltimore series or he will have Clemens, Mussina, and Pettite on too much rest for the playoffs. I find it sad that he is trying to suceed in the exact same way that Bob Welch did. Roger said a lot of things that year about Welch and it has come full circle now and all I see is hypocrisy. He should have gotten a loss instead of a ND the last time in Tampa had the Tampa BP not gone and blown the game. I hope it bites him in the butt for his statistical quest. Mussina is the ace of that staff and Roger is merely a side show.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Joseph,
Seems like you take the game of baseball a little too seriously or is it just Roger Clemens that gets under your skin.

Also, you still never answer the question on whether you're a Red Sox fan, therefore, I assume you are which explains the hostility towards Clemens and the Yankees.
Crawdaddy
------------------
[Edited last by Robert Crawford on September 09, 2001 at 06:38 PM]