We’ve got juiced balls for the Home Run Derby

We've got juiced balls for the regular season, too.

Juiced balls? Ouch.

On the challenges teams faced before drug testing:

“Specifically, what evidence did you have that a player was utilizing? You had physical evidence, if their body composition changed significantly or in the case of Brady Anderson where he hit 51 home runs, that was pretty clear.”

This is fun. A single great home run year = steroids! Looks like Maris was juicing. And George Foster and Davey Johnson.

My God, didn't they think of their chidren's balls.

The 50 homer season tells us NOTHING about Brady Anderson juicing.

1. If you say he was juicing from high school on, you might be right.
2. If you say he started in 1992, and after struggling to hit for 4 years instantly became an outstanding big league regular, you might be right.

But the fact is, Brady immediately returned to his typical .380 OBP, 15-20 homer self the year right after the 50 homer season. And 1997, not 1996, was his contract year.

If a player starts doing steroids and increases his production that much, why is he going to stop the next season when he's playing for a big payday?

The conclusion is obvious: Brady was doing the same thing in 1996 as he was from 1992-2000. It was just a big fluke. Whether he was on steroids or not has nothing to do with the 50 homers.

“I was just disappointed that we couldn’t get the same results from him here, that’s all. I’ve been through that many times and all we were trying to do was help Roger make a transition at that stage of his life, to show him that he needed to condition himself more. Obviously, he did it, but the disappointing thing was that he didn’t do it here.”

Roger Clemens was a great pitcher in 1996 for the Red Sox. One of the top 5 in the game.

Was he ever suspicious of Clemens after leaving Boston?

“I’ll have more to say about that in another forum.”

well that's a yes...

Roger Clemens was a great pitcher in 1996 for the Red Sox. One of the top 5 in the game

10-13? I don't think so.

I think posters on this site tend to underestimate how much sway W-L and AVG-HR-RBI still holds over the thinking of some people within (or recently within) the baseball industry.

Clemens in 1996 was 10-13, his ERA of 3.63 did not seem to be anything special - 1996 was only 2-3 years into the current era of offense- from 1984 to 1993, there were 394 pitcher seasons of 162+ IP and and ERA under 3.63 (39.4 a year).
THAT was the frame of reference in 1996 when most people looked at stats.

Clemens' ERA+ was 139, we would also say, well that's terrific in 240 ip, but very few in 1996 looked at ERA+ (and those that did likely did not have Duquette's ear)

162+ ip and ERA+ 139 and over, 1984-1993: 83 seasons, both leagues, so yes in a typical year, and ERA+ of 139 and over 162 ip would make you a top 5 pitcher in your league. But at the time more baseball people than not looked at 10-13 3.63 and said, "10-13 is bad", "3.63 is third starter territory".

It takes time before people adjust their thinking about standards- now even a casual non-sabr fan, realizes that 3.63 is a good ERA for a starter, but in 1996 they wouldn't because for most of the preceding 50 years it would have been a nothing special ERA for a starter.

Try telling the average fan that Rich Robertson didn't totally suck in 1996 (7-17 5.12- ERA+ of 100) or that Tony Saunders was actually good in 1998 (6-15 4.12, ERA+ 115).

And 1997, not 1996, was his contract year.

IIRC, 1998 was his contract year. The Yankees were considering him as an alternative to Bernie Williams, I believe.

Clemens' ERA+ was 139, we would also say, well that's terrific in 240 ip, but very few in 1996 looked at ERA+ (and those that did likely did not have Duquette's ear)

Isn't Duquette the guy who hired Mike Gimbel?

To be fair, by any metric, Clemens wasn't one of the league's best pitchers in 1995, which I'm sure influenced Duke's thinking.

Edit: Yes Larry, that was Duke.

That people didn't understand ERA+ doesn't change that it's a more useful metric than W-L. Sabermetrics wasn't new in 1996 and as pointed out by Larry, Duquette had hired his very own "Stat Man" so he likely at least had an idea that 10-13 wasn't as relevant as 3.63.

There were arguments to be made for letting Roger walk, he was a 34 year old pitcher who had been up and down for four years with some injury concerns, but the fact that he was 10-13 in 1996 wasn't a good argument, even in 1996.

Clemens was better than his ERA or ERA+ suggests. The Red Sox had horrendous defense and no bullpen, so Clemens was going deep into games to eat innings. Look at the ERAs of other name pitchers on the team that year.

It takes time before people adjust their thinking about standards- now even a casual non-sabr fan, realizes that 3.63 is a good ERA for a starter, but in 1996 they wouldn't because for most of the preceding 50 years it would have been a nothing special ERA for a starter.

Clemens was clearly the best starter for the Sox in '96 - his ERA was was a run and a half lower than any of the regular starters, and at least a half run better than anyone who started a game for them. He also pitched at least 27 more innings than any other pitcher on the staff, and his k/9, h/9, hr/9, k/bb, and WHIP were all much better than anyone else who started a game for the Sox.

This sounds alot like blaming Adam Dunn for the Reds' lack of scoring last year.

Duquette and his buddy Gimbel were reputed to know a bit more about stats than judging a pitcher solely by won lost record. If they were going by 10-13, then that only proves they were idiots and did not realize that Clemens was an elite pitcher that year. He led the league in strikeouts and K/9 by a pretty wide margin.

As Baudib points out, the Red Sox defense was truly terrible that year. Ken Hill had a similar ERA+ and 250 innings (career year for Hill), but I have Clemens around 7.5 Wins above replacement, about a win better than Hill that year. Have not checked against other top pitchers like Mussina, Hentgen, the Braves trio, but I'm pretty sure Roger would have made top 5. Kevin Brown's sub 2 era probably made him the best pitcher in the game for 1996.

When I watched Roger's 2nd 20 strikeout game that year, I was in awe, watching a great pitcher as dominant as ever, and thought his W-L record was a joke. I had a hard time seeing how somebody could fall for it. If Duquette thought Roger would age poorly, was an injury risk, or the money was just too much, he was simply wrong. Happens to all of us. But if he didn't realize that Roger was still truly great, he was an idiot.

This sounds alot like blaming Adam Dunn for the Reds' lack of scoring last year.

which a certain segment of the MSM and some alleged baseball people did in fact do.

I wasn't arguing that Clemens wasn't a very good pitcher in 1996- just pointing out that
in 1996 that would have been a minority viewpoint, the prevailing view was that he had a mediocre year (and a very bad one by Clemens standards).

But if he didn't realize that Roger was still truly great, he was an idiot.

Then the VAST majority of the msm and fans were idiots back then.

Go look what was actually being written about Clemens when that year ended.

Clemens was clearly the best starter for the Sox in '96 - his ERA was was a run and a half lower than any of the regular starters, and at least a half run better than anyone who started a game for them. He also pitched at least 27 more innings than any other pitcher on the staff, and his k/9, h/9, hr/9, k/bb, and WHIP were all much better than anyone else who started a game for the Sox.

This sounds alot like blaming Adam Dunn for the Reds' lack of scoring last year.

Clemens also had 5 Wins blown by the Red Sox bullpen (bloweth me Belinda).

Give him those 5 Wins and even Duke would have a tough time selling a 15-13, K-leading, 5th in ERA season as bad.

To be fair it's not like Duke didn't replace Clemens. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he let Clemens walk because he thought he eventually had a shot at Pedro and decided he'd rather have Pedro for the money.

Roger Clemens was a great pitcher in 1996 for the Red Sox. One of the top 5 in the game

10-13? I don't think so.

I think posters on this site tend to underestimate how much sway W-L and AVG-HR-RBI still holds over the thinking of some people within (or recently within) the baseball industry.

Clemens in 1996 was 10-13, his ERA of 3.63 did not seem to be anything special - 1996 was only 2-3 years into the current era of offense- from 1984 to 1993, there were 394 pitcher seasons of 162+ IP and and ERA under 3.63 (39.4 a year).
THAT was the frame of reference in 1996 when most people looked at stats.

Clemens' ERA+ was 139, we would also say, well that's terrific in 240 ip, but very few in 1996 looked at ERA+ (and those that did likely did not have Duquette's ear)

Nonsense. Anyone with a clue knew that Clemens had an excellent year in 1996; everyone could compare his ERA to the league average and understand that he was tied for 5th in the league in ERA despite pitching in a hitter's park. Everyone could see that he led the league in strikeouts and K/9 while pitching 240 innings. Everyone could see that he was one of the best pitchers in the league in 1996.

I don't get your point about it being "only 2-3 years into the current era of offense." Whether it was 3 years in, 2 years in, or 1 year in (actually, it was 4 years in), the quality of a pitcher is determined by comparing him against other pitchers in the league, not by looking at raw numbers. That's elementary, and was elementary in 1996.

162+ ip and ERA+ 139 and over, 1984-1993: 83 seasons, both leagues, so yes in a typical year, and ERA+ of 139 and over 162 ip would make you a top 5 pitcher in your league. But at the time more baseball people than not looked at 10-13 3.63 and said, "10-13 is bad", "3.63 is third starter territory".

And such "baseball people" were wrong. I knew in 1996 that Clemens was one of the top 5 pitchers in the league that year, and I knew that the idea that he was a "third starter" was idiocy. Here's a comment of mine that I wrote on usenet in November of 1996 which specifically addresses those two points:

Only good for a #3 starter? Who on the red sox is better than clemens? Sele's injuries make him a question mark, and suppan is unproven. Roger Clemens was one of the top 5 pitchers in the AL last year.

If you think Clemens is a #3 pitcher, you're out of your mind -- unless
you've also got Maddux and perhaps Kevin Brown on your roster.

And if I could see it, Dan Duquette damned well should have.

It takes time before people adjust their thinking about standards- now even a casual non-sabr fan, realizes that 3.63 is a good ERA for a starter, but in 1996 they wouldn't because for most of the preceding 50 years it would have been a nothing special ERA for a starter.

Again, I don't buy this premise.

(The discussion is rather odd anyway as applied here. Duquette offered Clemens a very competitive 4 year, 24 mil contract. Toronto blew that contract offer away.)

But if he didn't realize that Roger was still truly great, he was an idiot.

Then the VAST majority of the msm and fans were idiots back then.

Yes. And?

Actually, info about the juiced balls for the HR derby came out shortly after the AS game.

Duquette offered Clemens a very competitive 4 year, 24 mil contract.

per the NY Times, 12/14/96:

Never mind that the Red Sox offers to the hard-throwing right-hander were consistently lower than what the other teams in the running offered.
***
Fans here reserved some of the blame for Red Sox General Manager Dan Duquette, contending that he did not try hard enough to retain Clemens's services, noting that the last-minute offer of $22 million over four years was less than what Toronto gave him for three.

hmmm, Jays offer 25/3 and the Redsox "counter" at 22/4??? competitive?

essentially they offered to extend his current contract...

That 5.5 in 1997 would have been less than what Jose Rijo was paid in 1997 to (sit at home and eat doritoes?) ; less than Alex Fernandez, Cone, RJ, Maddux, Mussina, Smoltz, just half a mil more than Kenny Rogers, Ben McDinald, Jaime Navarro, Avery etc...

The Redsox under Duquette gave every indication that they valued Clemens less than other teams did at the time (and certainly less than most primates here did, or say they would have at the time).

Actually, info about the juiced balls for the HR derby came out shortly after the AS game.

My recollection is of Will McDonough getting waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too worked up over the whole subject.

BTW I highly recommend the novel, "London" by Rutherford, I mention that here, because he gives a very amusing etymology for the name "Duquette", it may not be accurate, but it should be:

name originally was:

Duck (because anglo-saxon character was a genetic freak with webbed fingers)

name becomes Ducket/Duckett/Dogget after a few generations

some VERY PRETENTIOUS descendants re-spell Duckett as Du Quette in an attempt to imply Norman French (ie: Noble) ancestry

Du Quette becomes Duquette...

hmmm, Jays offer 25/3 and the Redsox "counter" at 22/4??? competitive?

Wasn't the actual offer 4/$32?

Wasn't the actual offer 4/$32?

at the time it was reputedly far less, maybe Duquette says now it was 32/4...

I guess only Duquette and Roger's agent knows the truth, whether either accurately remembers it is another thing.


I got the Times info from Google, other than that I only have my own vague 13 year old recollection- which is that the Sox low balled him and then bad mouthed him after he left for the Jays

others may have different recollections (and I don't actually "trust" my own recollection- so why should I trust that of others?) what was written at the time?

The vast majority of fans and msm were idiots in 1996? So what? Most still are. The btf types are still a small minority of baseball fans. Doesn't change the fact that Clemens was a great pitcher in 2006, and that a GM who hired a stats analyst shouldn't have been in the dark about this.

at the time it was reputedly far less, maybe Duquette says now it was 32/4...

Sorry, I meant "Wasn't the final offer from Toronto 4/$32M" - I know the Boston offer wasn't anywhere close.

I can accept an explanation that he didn't think Roger would stay healthy or age well. A lot of pitchers don't. Pedro Martinez was a great pitcher in 2004, signed a 4 year deal, and was effectively done as an ace 1.5 years later.

But if he tells you that Roger just wasn't very good, then he's either dishonest or stupid.

But if he tells you that Roger just wasn't very good, then he's either dishonest or stupid.

At the time he rather famously said Clemens was in the "Twilight of his career"

that could be taken a few ways
That Roger wouldn't age well;
That Roger was well in his decline phase and it was all downhill from there;
That he was pissed that Roger had taken more $ to pitch for someone else

I think he thought Roger was not the pitcher he'd once been, did he still think Roger was a good pitcher despite a 10-13 mark- probably, did he in 1996 think 1996 Roger was as good as 2009 Primates think 1996 Roger was? No I don't think he did.

But if he didn't realize that Roger was still truly great, he was an idiot.

Then the VAST majority of the msm and fans were idiots back then.

Go look what was actually being written about Clemens when that year ended.

The vast majority of MSM/fans aren't paid a million bucks a year to run a baseball team, either. Their illogical rantings can be ignored; a GM (and especially a GM who fancies himself as smart as Duke apparently does) should know better.

Okay while I was at lunch and going through box scores, lots of people posted what I was going to. I wanted to add that the Red Sox abused Clemens in the middle of the season. Between team games 59 and 96, Clemens has the following pitch counts: 142, 158, 131, 137, 124, 127, 123, 124, 161. 9 starts, 1221 pitches. 136 pitches per start.
He gave up a lot of runs in the final innings of these starts. In the 161 pitch game, he started the 8th after throwing 134 pitches. Kevin Kennedy left him after he walked Bobby Bonilla with the 154 pitch.
It was obvious following the box scores that Clemens was being screwed - by the bullpen, the defense, the manager. To this day, I remember commenting to people at work who were complaining about Clemens being done, that he had a lot more left. If you were paying attention to baseball in 96 and didn't see it, you were blind.
Clemens' 1996 is a perfect example of why many long-time SABR-leaning people thought they could run a team better than many GMs. You have a player with the 7th best ERA, 7th best WHIP, 2nd best H/9, 1st in K/9, 5th in IP, 1st in K, 8th in K/W, 3rd in HR/9 in the league and the GM doesn't want him.

Clemens has the following pitch counts: 142, 158, 131, 137, 124, 127, 123, 124, 161. 9 starts, 1221 pitches. 136 pitches per start.

Yes, I remember that epic run. In fairness, Kevin Kennedy was probably just trying to teach him how to "finish what he started."

Kevin Kennedy was probably just trying to teach him how to "finish what he started."

All the way to the end of the line no less.

yeah mulder, I remember that quite well. As Clemens could handle the workload without physical damage, it was almost reasonable since the rest of the team was so bad. But it wasn't the most effective way to use him. SEriously, anyone watching him from innings 1-7 at any point in the year had to realize he was as good as ever.

I think Clemens realized he had to make perfect pitches and couldn't rely on his defense, which is why his walk total skyrocketed.

I was looking at the splits using BB-Ref. Clemens BABIP in the 8th that year was .459. His OPS against him in the 8th was 1.003 based on a .352 / .429 / .574 line. It is based on just 63 PA, but wow. You would think someone would have paid attention to that.

jpwf13: he didn't actually say that Clemens was in the twilight of his career.

Someone should be dissecting the home run derby balls for future comparison. If we know exactly how they are juicing the balls, then we know exactly where to look for juicing regular season or playoff games.

Dan Duquette is the man;he deserves a ring for building the '04 team;Pedro Martinez,Derek Lowe,and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb,Carl Pavano,and T.Armas JR.(ARE YOU KIDDING ME?)Plus he got Wakefield,Damon,and Manny.Theo bought most of his big name players.And why did he sign that stiff Lugo?And he let Lowe walk and replaces him with Pavano.Whats up w/that Theo?And lets 2 gold glove shortstops walk(A.Gonzalez and Orlando Cabrerra) Duquette was already correct about letting Mo Vaughn walk and has been vindicated on this Clemens fiasco.Clemens is a liar,a fraud and a cheater.He wimped out in '86 W/S by taking himself out in 7th inn. got fat in early '90s,becomes a mediocre pitcher,bad mouths the Sox and Duquette,and turns to HGH and Roids to keep playing.How 'bout throwing the bat at Piazza. He had a 14-10 playoff record,and was below .500 before 'roids.Curt Schilling(11-2 playoff record and he looks like a bartender) Enjoy your triumph Dan;u deserve it.All the best and good luck; PS, Cant wait for the book!

Sorry for the error on Theo Epstein replacing D.Lowe with Carl Pavano;it was Matt Clement.I guess they are the same.Yanks got taken by Pavano;Sox were taken by that stiff Clement!

If nothing else, the Duke fan club has the kms covered.

You could probably google and find a bunch of similar comments by me, but it's really important to remember the actual facts when talking about this subject:

--Clemens was one of the top 5 or so pitchers in 96, from 95-96, from 94-96, or even from 93-96. He had a lousy winning percentage, which was the only thing that his detractors talked about when saying to let him go.

--That Clemens was still a great pitcher was no secret guarded by the Knights Stat-lar. It was common knowledge and that's why three of the best teams at the time were bidding for his services.

--The Red Sox (I'm not convinced it was all Duquette) pushed Clemens out the door. Starting in midseason, they began smearing him in the press and warning (without provocation) that Clemens had better not expect a long-term or big-money deal. Then their first offer to him guaranteed 4 years/$10 mil. Their last offer was 4 years/$22 mil + $10 mil deferred over 20 years if he took on a service contract. By this time, the Red Sox had repeatedly come up short of the other bidders.

--Everything people are saying about his defense is true, and it's also true. Watching him pitch back then, it was obvious that he did everything in his power to keep the ball from being put in play. Valentin at SS, Tinsley in CF, etc etc. And he would labor through 7-8 IP and leave with a loss or ND.

To be fair it's not like Duke didn't replace Clemens. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if he let Clemens walk because he thought he eventually had a shot at Pedro and decided he'd rather have Pedro for the money.

To be fair, this is ########. Duquette had plenty of money to sign both pitchers if he wanted to--but he instead chose to sign guys like Steve Avery. He also would have been taking an enormously foolish risk (and wasting the 97 season) by assuming that a) Pedro was going to blossom into PEDRO! and that he would be able to get him.

“I was just disappointed that we couldn’t get the same results from him here, that’s all. I’ve been through that many times and all we were trying to do was help Roger make a transition at that stage of his life, to show him that he needed to condition himself more. Obviously, he did it, but the disappointing thing was that he didn’t do it here.”

Maybe Clemens wasn't attending "how to take steroids properly" meetings and that's what bothered Duquette? Seriously, though, this is ridiculous. Yes, Clemens changed his training regimen when he went to Toronto. But he ALWAYS had a reputation has a workout nut with an extremely strong work ethic. Go back and read the quotes by his teammates--they were, almost to a man, in awe of his workouts. Duquette tries to pretend that Clemens' conditioning was a problem in Boston but there's no evidence for it.

Duquette tries to pretend that Clemens' conditioning was a problem in Boston but there's no evidence for it.

Agreed. This is a myth, driven in part by some hack Boston writer who "reported" that Clemens was out of shape one winter, followed by a February cartoon that appeared in the Boston Globe showing a fat and bloated Clemens. But when Clemens showed up to camp, he was in shape.

Yes, Clemens changed his training regimen when he went to Toronto. But he ALWAYS had a reputation has a workout nut with an extremely strong work ethic.

The only Boston player with a reputation like that since Clemens left was Manny Ramirez.

Ray, I'm not sure if you are referring to Wil McDonough, but he was the main front-office mouthpiece in charge of slamming Clemens.

And that myth carried on for a long time. In the late 1990s, you would constantly hear Red Sox fans say something like 'Look at Clemens with the Jays compared to how bloated he was with the Sox!' But no one ever wanted to compare actual pictures. He looked essentially the same and he had very much the same skills. It would be great if something like Pitch FX existed then.

Actually, it's quite interesting to examine what kind of stuff Clemens had as he aged. As he got into his late 30s and early 40s, he was no longer the 95-MPH heater, 90-MPH splitter guy. He was topping out in the low 90s in Houston, but was extremely effective. He relied a great deal on excellent defenses. It's not surprising that his stints with lesser defenses (and tougher leagues) in NY, immediately before and after, resulted in much worse ERAs.

Before he worked for the Sox, Bill James wrote about pitcher strikeout rates...it may have been in the NHBA. He wrote about a team official asking him about the prospects of an aging pitcher maintaining his effectiveness. James said that he did a study and concluded that, because of his high strikeout rates, he would continue to be effective for many years. He wrote that "this pitcher is still pitching well in the major leagues."

I always assumed that he was talking about Clemens. I'm curious if the team official that asked him about Clemens was Duquette or Gord Ash. It makes sense for Ash to ask about him, and then sign him, but it seems that Duquette is the guy who would be more inclined to talk to Bill James.

In any event...

Even if you didn't have any studies done by Bill James, it is simply inexcusable for a general manager to not realize Clemens had plenty in the tank.

Any traditional scout or baseball man looking at Clemens in 1996 would see someone who had the best stuff in the league. I'm quite certain that Kevin Kennedy knew that Clemens was by far his best pitcher, and he probably believed a tired Clemens after 140 pitches was still his best bet in a close game.

There has never been a pitcher in the history of the game who struck out 20 in a game or led the league in Ks who looked like he was washed up!

and he probably believed a tired Clemens after 140 pitches was still his best bet in a close game.

That could fit in with the effort to push Clemens out the door. Might as well get everything you can out of him before his contract is up, and why would they care about how it affects his future? In fact, they want him to fail once he leaves the team.