“I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT ROGER CLEMENS WILL BE ELECTED TO THE HALL OF FAME BEFORE JON HEYMAN”
You can take it to the bank.
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
Worth noting that there was one key area that Bonds was clearly doing something different than anybody else. Everybody else in the game was using whip handle bats. According to Sam Holman (the guy who made Bonds' bats) the handle on Bonds' bats were so thick that the weights used in the on-deck circle didn't fit.
Whatever worth it's deemed to have, I guess. What's any analysis "worth"?
Well, Corso did, but you can argue that McNamee always had intentions of framing Clemens as far back as 2005. I don't believe that, but it can be argued.
I think the working theory right now is that Clemens with his evil powers got Andy to change his story, and it's not Andy's fault.
and corso didn't support mcnamee's story - the time was wrong
Corso didn't, exactly.
From age 21 to 33, Randy Johnson won 65 percent of his games with a 3.37 ERA, a 128 ERA+ and a 1.255 WHIP. And from age 34 to 43, he won 65 percent of his games with a 3.23 ERA, a 141 ERA+ and a 1.110 WHIP.
Either Clemens' record is not evidence of PED use, or Johnson is a prime suspect too. And I didn't get to cherry-pick Johnson's career; his "old" group of seasons would have been much stronger if I had used 21 to 32 and 33 to 43, since his age 33 season was one of his best.
There's no evidence that he used, other than the crime of him hitting more home runs than Maris.
Randy Johnson all but admitted to PED use a few years ago.
I fail to see how the time line in his original testimony about McNamee telling him about saving the needles he allegedly injected Clemens with is wrong.
Fair enough. So the question is, why did he suddenly change his testimony?
Does the free publicity the papers give the players and teams in major league baseball bother you, too? The newspaper and TV business have been very, very good for major league baseball and its players.
What really sickens me is that there are probably sports "writers" out there who don't really care much about PEDs/Baseball at all but are simply writing the articles that they believe the public wants to read about this stuff.
Let's face it, with the exception of Bonds, there's no other player who has shown a drastic increase in production at an older age.
Because his memory is just as fluid as anyone else's?
The only evidence we have on Sosa is that he supposedly tested positive in 2003. People like Ray and David love to point out that the only years in question for Clemens are 1998, 2000, and 2001, so doesn't Sosa deserve the same benefit of the doubt? Plus, Sosa's increase in production occurred in his prime, in his late 20's.
Let's face it, with the exception of Bonds, there's no other player who has shown a drastic increase in production at an older age. Randy Johnson, who has never been linked to steroids, is the closest to Bonds in terms of production at an old age. Any other player doesn't come close. None of this means that I believe Bonds is the only one who benefited from any sort of PED, because I don't. I think many others did (and that includes Clemens). I'm just saying no other player besides Bonds statistically shows to have gained any substantial boost from ped's. Allan Barra has talked about this before.
Roberto Clemente: 116 through 30, 155 after 30.
Willie Stargell: 136 through 30, 156 after.
Maybe the '60s Pirates were the initiators of steroids in baseball.
Ed Delahanty: 146 through 30, 167 after.
Or maybe the problem goes back a bit further than that.
Of course not, but people state there is no evidence of improvement without at least acknowledging that several folks associated with PEDs do have atypical career progressions.
As I stated, the late career improvement doesn't prove anything. However, there IS late career improvement that is atypical. Unique? Of course not, but people state there is no evidence of improvement without at least acknowledging that several folks associated with PEDs do have atypical career progressions.
I guarantee you that every single person commenting on these BBTF threads has put more time into looking at the evidence than the writers have. Even if your only contribution to the thread is to ask a question about the evidence, you're showing more interest than they do.
As if to illustrate the point, Bob Ryan was on the Mr. Tony radio program yesterday, and said basically that the jury was "sports-ignorant and Clemens-ignorant", and that they didn't know what "we all know" ("we" being the sports-knowing public) that Clemens wanted to follow in Nolan Ryan's footsteps and be a power pitcher late into his career, so he took steroids.
Though if Ryan (Bob) is correct that Clemens wanted to "follow in Ryan's footsteps," that would have to mean that Ryan (Nolan) took steroids first.
You'd be surprised at how many people have suspicions about Ryan (myself included)
Me too, as his columns are so crappy that one wonders what kinds of drugs he's under the influence of while writing them.
#51 Why preposterous? Holman is on record as saying that he won't make bats with a handle thinner than 7/8 of an inch -- and that Bonds used thicker handles than that. Wouldn't take much of an increase in thickness of the handle to keep the standard weight from going on. And if you think you can judge thickness by eye from a photo, well I think you're wrong.
Ok, here's the smoking gun with Clemens. Boston watches Clemens go 11-14 with a 4.46 era, 9-7, 10-5, 10-13. That's 40-39. In three of those four years he doesn't pitch 200 innings; he has a 40-39 record for those 4 years; he's 33 years old, and they think he's done. He's a power pitcher and they think he's done. He has not had a big year since 1992, he has had two losing years, he has only one time made 30 starts in those 4 years, he's starting to break down physically. He throws 170 innings, 140 innings, 190 innings - only 200 innings once. He goes to Toronto -- voila at 34. And remember: this got people fired in Boston. 21-7 with a 2.05 ERA in 264 innings. 20-6 with a 2.65 ERA in 234 innings. What happened? What happened? WHAT HAPPENED? Where did that come from? Where was that the last four years in Boston that they waited for it, and then he goes to Toronto, and then spits out along the way after that a 20-3 year with the Yankees, an 18-4 year in Houston... I mean, where did those years come from, where they basically said wait a minute, we gave him four years here - we think he's done, he's 33 years old... Then all of a sudden he has another career! There's the smoking gun.
And remember, the voters... someone brought up the court of law before... there is not the level that you need to convict someone in a court of law for these sportswriters. For sportswriters it is subjective. There is a clause for sportsmanship, integrity, that stuff. They can make their own decisions, and they don't need overwhelming evidence here. And remember, I mean, the courts narrowed the scope. Andy wasn't allowed to say anything he knew about it, he wasn't allowed to say anything about Clemens's history, he was not alllowed to talk about anything, he wasn't allowed to talk about McNamee, and so they narrowed the scope so dramatically that they didn't even give them a chance to put all the evidence in.
He goes to Toronto -- voila at 34. And remember: this got people fired in Boston.
Who got fired in Boston because Roger pitched well in Toronto? Mike Gimbel?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.0675 seconds, 159 querie(s) executed