Clemens' Three Careers

[LouGehrig]

Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. From 1993-1996, he had some problems.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/clemens_three_career_eras

[Appling]

Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. _eras[/url]

I agree. Whether or not he was aided by PED's, Roger pitched well late in his career but not better than he did in his 'prime".

Not like Bonds, whose best seasons came very late.

[Doctor X]

Would one expect PED to make a late Roger pitch better than his prime?

Dons flame retardent suit

Roger was a far better athelete than a young Bonds. I think PED more returned Roger to his youth whereas the steroids--and the added muscle for power--improved Bonds.

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/safetocomeoutff.gif

--J.D.

[Skin & Bones]

Would one expect PED to make a late Roger pitch better than his prime?

Dons flame retardent suit

Roger was a far better athelete than a young Bonds. I think PED more returned Roger to his youth whereas the steroids--and the added muscle for power--improved Bonds.

http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/safetocomeoutff.gif

--J.D.

How can you say this for sure?

[Doctor X]

I cannot, hence the asbestos suit.

However, how does Bonds improvements track? How was he as a youth compared to later in his career? For this, I would concentrate on his hitting and power.

--J.D.

P.S. Actually, now that I look at it "better athlete" is a rather broad term, to write the least. Implies Clemens could out-run, out field, out-hit, et cetera. That was not my intention. I meant a better player at his position.

[fenrir]

I agree. Whether or not he was aided by PED's, Roger pitched well late in his career but not better than he did in his 'prime".

Not like Bonds, whose best seasons came very late.

im tired of this garbage being spewed by clemens fans. clemens was a better pitcher in his best steroid seasons compared to his best pre steroid seasons.

clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.

you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?

clemens success is just as bogus as bonds and any other juicer. none of their roid numbers deserve any recognition imo.

[Skin & Bones]

I cannot, hence the asbestos suit.

However, how does Bonds improvements track? How was he as a youth compared to later in his career? For this, I would concentrate on his hitting and power.

--J.D.

P.S. Actually, now that I look at it "better athlete" is a rather broad term, to write the least. Implies Clemens could out-run, out field, out-hit, et cetera. That was not my intention. I meant a better player at his position.

Bonds was the best player in baseball before it's said he started using steroids. He was every bit as dominant as Clemens, if not more so.

[Skin & Bones]

im tired of this garbage being spewed by clemens fans. clemens was a better pitcher in his best steroid seasons compared to his best pre steroid seasons.

clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.

you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?

clemens success is just as bogus as bonds and any other juicer. none of their roid numbers deserve any recognition imo.

I suppose you also think Randy Johnson used steroids too? After all, he got better with age.

[Doctor X]

Bonds was the best player in baseball before it's said he started using steroids. He was every bit as dominant as Clemens, if not more so.

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

"borrowed" from ShoelessJoe:

-----------------------------------Ba.---------Slugging-------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000- age 21-35---------.289-----------.567-----------15.09
2001-2006- age 36-41---------.333-----------.759------------8.5

--J.D.

[Los Bravos]

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?Both things are true. Bonds was, at worst, one of the two most complete players in the game during the decade of the '90's and had a complete HOF resumé before he ever took a single shot.

His numbers exploded to obscene and absurd levels after that, but he was transcendently brilliant before.

[LouGehrig]

you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?

You may be right, but another factor is that batters' strikeouts generally increased from 1995-2007, which could explain Roger's increase.

[Skin & Bones]

Really?

Then why have posters demonstrated his numbers improved significantly after his use of steroids?

--J.D.

His numbers did improve, but he was still the best player in the major leagues in the 1990's. He was every bit as great of an athlete as Clemens was, and every bit as dominant, if not more so. You don't win three MVP'S in four years unless you are an extremely dominate player.

[Doctor X]

Fair enough, however it rather does appear the PEDs improved his offensive play as an older player over his earlier years.

--J.D.

[NickU]

whether or not Roger got better or not during roid times is a moot point to argue. His career looked like it was over, then he transformed back into teh greatest pitcher alive. The question shouldn't be Roger vs Roger, it should be Roger vs Time.

[STLCards2]

whether or not Roger got better or not during roid times is a moot point to argue. His career looked like it was over, then he transformed back into teh greatest pitcher alive. The question shouldn't be Roger vs Roger, it should be Roger vs Time.

I personaly can't stand the guy, believe that Clemens was on 'roids, and realize that he was not as good from '93-'96 as he was before or after, but I must challenge any notion that he was "done" or almost "done"

In 1993, Clemens was 9th in k/bb ratio, 4th in k/9, and 10th in complete games.

In 1994, Clemens was 8th in k/bb ratio, 9th in IP, 3rd in WHIP (for those of you that like that stat) 2nd in K/9, and led the league in ERA+

In 1996, Clemens was 8th in k/bb, 5th in IP, 4th in WHIP, 1 in k/9, 4th in complete games, and 5th in ERA+.

Does this sound like somebody who was close to done?

[brett]

Roger was equally effective when he was young as when he was old. From 1993-1996, he had some problems.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/clemens_three_career_eras

From '93-'96 he was probably the second best pitcher in the AL. This has been gone through before. I think he had a 135 ERA+, and his neutral record would have been around 68-36 (around 17-9 per season) if you remove the strike AND he had chronic injuries throughout 2 of those years! Its a better 4 year period than many hall of fame pitchers 4 year stretches. Gaylord Perry's top 5 consecutive seasons he had a 136 ERA+.

Clemens real drop off was '99-'03 in New York.

[brett]

I personaly can't stand the guy, believe that Clemens was on 'roids, and realize that he was not as good from '93-'96 as he was before or after, but I must challenge any notion that he was "done" or almost "done"

In 1993, Clemens was 9th in k/bb ratio, 4th in k/9, and 10th in complete games.

In 1994, Clemens was 8th in k/bb ratio, 9th in IP, 3rd in WHIP (for those of you that like that stat) 2nd in K/9, and led the league in ERA+

In 1996, Clemens was 8th in k/bb, 5th in IP, 4th in WHIP, 1 in k/9, 4th in complete games, and 5th in ERA+.

Does this sound like somebody who was close to done?

No, if you are Palmer, Perry, Blylevin, SPAHN, ROBERTS, Jenkins that's a peak. And he did it with serious injuries plaguing him for 2 1/2 years.

[brett]

whether or not Roger got better or not during roid times is a moot point to argue. His career looked like it was over, then he transformed back into teh greatest pitcher alive. The question shouldn't be Roger vs Roger, it should be Roger vs Time.


His career only looked like it was over to idiots.

[brett]

You may be right, but another factor is that batters' strikeouts generally increased from 1995-2007, which could explain Roger's increase.

He also pitched fewer innings.

[brett]

im tired of this garbage being spewed by clemens fans. clemens was a better pitcher in his best steroid seasons compared to his best pre steroid seasons.

clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.


All with reduced innings, and in a league that had been twice thinned by expansion.

[LouGehrig]

From '93-'96 he was probably the second best pitcher in the AL. This has been gone through before. I think he had a 135 ERA+, and his neutral record would have been around 68-36 (around 17-9 per season) if you remove the strike AND he had chronic injuries throughout 2 of those years! Its a better 4 year period than many hall of fame pitchers 4 year stretches. Gaylord Perry's top 5 consecutive seasons he had a 136 ERA+.

Clemens real drop off was '99-'03 in New York.

Agree completely.

[rockin500]

im tired of this garbage being spewed by clemens fans. clemens was a better pitcher in his best steroid seasons compared to his best pre steroid seasons.

clemens top five seasons in era+ before toronto (pre steroids): 213, 177, 175, 169, 164. after steroids: 226, 221, 193, 174, 146. it's quite clear that in his best steroid seasons he surpassed what he did pre steroids.

you can also look at k/9, a good measure that shows how frequently clemens strikeouts batters. top five pre toronto: 9.92, 9.53, 8.86, 8.49, 8.43. after roids: 10.39, 9.95, 9.60, 9.15, 8.70. the dude was striking out more batters per game in his 30's and 40's compared to his 20's, and im supposed to believe that's natural?

clemens success is just as bogus as bonds and any other juicer. none of their roid numbers deserve any recognition imo.

he had a 221 ERA+ in 1997. if we take all the steroids stuff at face value, he didnt start until midway through 1998. So last time i checked, 1997 was a presteroids number. so you may want to get your facts in order the next time you blather on about Clemens career.

also, his 193 ERA+ came in a season where he only pitched 113 innings. its easier to put up high ERA+ over a shorter season. not to mention his 146 came in a league switch. Its generally believed that a pitchers numbers take a jump going from the AL to the NL.

[fenrir]

From '93-'96 he was probably the second best pitcher in the AL. This has been gone through before. I think he had a 135 ERA+, and his neutral record would have been around 68-36 (around 17-9 per season) if you remove the strike AND he had chronic injuries throughout 2 of those years! Its a better 4 year period than many hall of fame pitchers 4 year stretches. Gaylord Perry's top 5 consecutive seasons he had a 136 ERA+.

Clemens real drop off was '99-'03 in New York.

clemens from 1993-1996 was not the second best pitcher in the al.

1993: 103 era+ (injury)
1994: 177 era+ (in season shortened by strike)
1995: 116 era+ (injury)
1996: 139 era+

clemens was injury prone in his last few seasons in boston. in three out of four of those seasons he had pitched under 200 innings. he led in era+ once in 94, and finished fifth in 96. id hardly call that the second best pitcher in the al.

face it, clemens career was unnaturally turned around by steroids. Without steroids, clemens is out of baseball by 2001-2002, and doesn't approach the numbers he would without them.

he's a joke.

[fenrir]

he had a 221 ERA+ in 1997. if we take all the steroids stuff at face value, he didnt start until midway through 1998. So last time i checked, 1997 was a presteroids number. so you may want to get your facts in order the next time you blather on about Clemens career.

also, his 193 ERA+ came in a season where he only pitched 113 innings. its easier to put up high ERA+ over a shorter season. not to mention his 146 came in a league switch. Its generally believed that a pitchers numbers take a jump going from the AL to the NL.

clemens was juiced in 97. that's the year when he obviously started roiding up. mcnamee describes in detail the times he injected clemens (now we learn it was 50% more than we originally thought). clemens had someone else injecting him in 97, or he injected himself. read the report. clemens already had steroids on him and was discussing how to stack roids with canseco. he didnt even bother asking mcnamee about the benefits of winstrol, but he asked about androl-50, why? because he was using winstrol in 1997. if he wasnt using winstrol, he would have asked mcnamee the same questions about winstrol like he did anadrol-50.

he was juiced. live with it.

[brett]

clemens from 1993-1996 was not the second best pitcher in the al.



Then who was?

[NickU]

His career only looked like it was over to idiots.

Wow, ok, yea... How old are you? Because everyone was looking at Roger during the 1994-1995 seasons like he was done. In 1994 he posts that 2 something ERA, but he was battling injuries all along. Then he came back the next year, still struggling with injuries and posted another 4 something ERA. I'm not going to look up the exact numbers because it's not worth it. Everyone, announcers, writers, everyone was looking at Roger like wow, he had a nice run, but this might be it for him. 1996 he came back solid, 97 he was traded to Toronto and bam, all of the sudden he's the best pitcher in the game again. At the time the nation was too naive to ever think anything was going on.

Look, McNamee hooked up with him in 98, but Roger provided the Roids, HGH, whatever himself. That doesn't mean that he didn't start shooting before their meeting, just remember that.

It's my personal opinion that Clemens started using sometime during the 1996/97 season. I don't think anything prior to that is tainted, I'm not that cynical. But, just look at the guy, Roger can't handle not being the man. He needs to be the best pitcher in the game, it's the same reason that he can't retire, and it's the same reason that he is fighting this battle that can't be won with such force. He has to be the hero in the publics perception. He can't handle just being Roger clemens, former pitcher, future hall-of-famer. He has to be Roger Clemens, Ace, Cy Young contender.

[fenrir]

great post nick! my sentiments exactly. something happened between 93-96, and 97-98. from 93-96 clemens era+ was 130 which was good but far below what he averaged before. it clearly was a decline. but then suddenly in toronto both seasons combined, it's a 196 era+!!!!!!! at the ages of 34-35! 1999 was weird though, he was injured. could of been a roid induced injury. thats probably why mcnamee started injecting him with hgh in 2000.

anyway the clemens situation is sad. he threw away a hall of fame career for more glory. had he stay cleaned he probably would have retired with 250-280 wins, an era+ somewhere around 125-130, and because of his 3 cyyoungs and 20 strike out games he would have easily been a hall of famer.

now he will probably never get in.

[brett]

Wow, ok, yea... How old are you? Because everyone was looking at Roger during the 1994-1995 seasons like he was done. In 1994 he posts that 2 something ERA, but he was battling injuries all along. Then he came back the next year, still struggling with injuries and posted another 4 something ERA. I'm not going to look up the exact numbers because it's not worth it. Everyone, announcers, writers, everyone was looking at Roger like wow, he had a nice run, but this might be it for him. 1996 he came back solid, 97 he was traded to Toronto and bam, all of the sudden he's the best pitcher in the game again. At the time the nation was too naive to ever think anything was going on.



I remember it well. I remember thinking "all these idiots think he's done"

I was concerned that he wouldn't get over his injury issues.

Had he not finished strong in '96 it would have been different, but when he did that, the Red Sox were already done with him, and you could tell that they suddenly got scared that he had gotten it back and would go somewhere else and be his old self.

What you read in the newspapers was that he had gone 40-39 over 4 years.

They totally overlooked that '96 was a great year aside from the W-L record which was really beyond his control. Had he gone 17-10 in '96 like he pitched, you think it might have been different?

[brett]

great post nick! my sentiments exactly. something happened between 93-96

Yes, how old are you guys. We got two rounds of expansion! Thinned out talent etc. Clemens did NOT pitch as well in '97 and '98 as in his early prime. People who watched him would tell you that he had lost a little movement off his fastball, but in the thinned out league, it was good enough to dominate. And he avoided injury. Steroids don't work overnight (like in the middle of a season in '96). HGH would have been perfectly legal, and an excellent medical choice to heal if he had a chronic injury. In fact it still would be. A player could take HGH with a doctor's order today if he had an injury.

[fenrir]

expansion occured in 93 and 98...my friend.

i'd take clemens with toronto over boston anyday. infact clemens from 86-89 was overrated. 90-92 clemens was much better but still inferior to toronto clemens.

and if roids/hgh doesnt work right away...explain what happened with caminiti...

[brett]

expansion occured in 93 and 98...my friend.

i'd take clemens with toronto over boston anyday. infact clemens from 86-89 was overrated. 90-92 clemens was much better but still inferior to toronto clemens.

and if roids/hgh doesnt work right away...explain what happened with caminiti...


He probably took them in the offseason? I really don't know what you mean.

Expansion prior to '93 thinned out baseball, but it effected the national league first because two new teams went in the NL. The thinning effect lasted a while and then prior to '98 there was a second hit.


Experts on pitching have told me that he did not have as good stuff in '04 and '05 as earlier in his career. He just threw hard, in a new league, with reduced innings, and do't forget, he got the "high strike" back.

When did that happen?

In '96 it moved to the bottom of the knees. In '96 I also first read about an attempt to push back up the call of the upper limit
So I guess it boils down to the question of "how out of place was Clemens '97" and it was stunning, there is no doubt. It was the comeback story of the year, but here's the thing:

No one was looking at his ERA+ back then. They just saw that he won the pitching TC and put up a year like he did in '86 or '90 by the standards of the stats that people were looking at.

Now people want to use his ERA+ to show how much more dominant he was in '97 and '98 but people who thought he was "finished" in '93-'96 wouldn't have said so based on his ERA+ numbers especially for a guy who was known to have had his mechanics effected by injuries. Clemens '99-'03 WAS a decline. If he had pitched for another team he would have gone 12-10 on average in those years.

I'm not getting into a steroids debate here. I simply believe that there is no statistical trend that clearly demonstrates this.

[brett]

And what about Randy Johnson? Through '96 he had one year of better than a 175 ERA+. Then in '97 he reeled of the first of 5 in 6 years!

The strike zone changes were expected to help the high and hard throwers and they did.

[fenrir]

He probably took them in the offseason? I really don't know what you mean.

Expansion prior to '93 thinned out baseball, but it effected the national league first because two new teams went in the NL. The thinning effect lasted a while and then prior to '98 there was a second hit.


Experts on pitching have told me that he did not have as good stuff in '04 and '05 as earlier in his career. He just threw hard, in a new league, with reduced innings, and do't forget, he got the "high strike" back.

When did that happen?

In '96 it moved to the bottom of the knees. In '96 I also first read about an attempt to push back up the call of the upper limit
So I guess it boils down to the question of "how out of place was Clemens '97" and it was stunning, there is no doubt. It was the comeback story of the year, but here's the thing:

No one was looking at his ERA+ back then. They just saw that he won the pitching TC and put up a year like he did in '86 or '90 by the standards of the stats that people were looking at.

Now people want to use his ERA+ to show how much more dominant he was in '97 and '98 but people who thought he was "finished" in '93-'96 wouldn't have said so based on his ERA+ numbers especially for a guy who was known to have had his mechanics effected by injuries. Clemens '99-'03 WAS a decline. If he had pitched for another team he would have gone 12-10 on average in those years.

I'm not getting into a steroids debate here. I simply believe that there is no statistical trend that clearly demonstrates this.

you cycle steroids, perhaps taking them every three or four weeks, stop, then start again. he probably used in the offseason too, again, i dont have all the details. as his trainer says hs he injected him 50% more then he previously claimed, but he never gave dates or years or anything. i mentioned caminiti because he says roids helped him win the mvp in 96, and that he only took them in the second half. im just saying some have said roids worked right away.

i dont know what kind of stuff clemens had in 05, but i've read information on how hard clemens was throwing from 97-01, and it improved, especially around the 97 season.

i dont know exactly what kind of steroids trend you are looking for...but a 130 era+ from 1993-1996, ages 30-33 was clearly a decline...he was following a normal career path. then comes a combined 198 era+ in 1997-1998. i can't say anything about 1999, he was injured, perhaps as a result of steroid injuries who knows. i think thats why he started using hgh in 2000. from 2000-2007 it was a 133 era+ for clemens, with another injury plagued season in 02, but healthy again and effective, especially from 04-06. he probably was using hgh those years.

i believe steroids have had a profound effect on his stats. enough to vault him higher among the alltime greats then he other wise deserves to be.

[fenrir]

And what about Randy Johnson? Through '96 he had one year of better than a 175 ERA+. Then in '97 he reeled of the first of 5 in 6 years!

The strike zone changes were expected to help the high and hard throwers and they did.

he's had a weird career path too, but i have no evidence he juiced. with clemens you have very strong evidence linking him to abuse of steroids and hgh.

[brett]

he's had a weird career path too, but i have no evidence he juiced. with clemens you have very strong evidence linking him to abuse of steroids and hgh.

Well, I am not here to defend Clemens in any way. I just think that using the stat line to prove it is a mistake. The only real statistical outlier in '97 because it was statistically one of the greatest pitching seasons of all time but what does ERA+ show us anyway? It is a flawed stat. It is based on the league ERA+ for his team over all 162 games, even though he only pitched in 34 of them and it there was an expanded strike zone and the league HAD been thinned though '97 should be after the effect I think and he DID avoid the physical issues that limited his ability to throw his best.

'04 was a change of league with a controlled number of innings and '05 was really just an amazing first 60% of a season and he was also making short starts.

I would rather get him based on evidence of his actual use. I wouldn't want to be accused of something based on my performance.

[fenrir]

fair enough brett. while i still disagree with your assertion that stats can't point to steroid use, I understand where your coming from. still, i believe he used and benefited from roids and hgh, and because of that in my opinion i cant take his 97-07 seasons at face value.

i'm actually interested in seeing what the penn state professor's finding on clemens stats are. they plan to release a 15 page report refuting the claims clemens agent made that his career path was normal. i wonder if they will tell us anything new, or the same stuff.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3239471

[willshad]

I remember most people at the time attributing Clemens' 'rebirth' to learing how to throw the split finger fastball. It is certaninly believable that a pitcher could turn things around after learning that pitch...look at Mike Scott as another example. And its not like he was bad during '93-'96. He was just injured a lot. Isnt it possible that learning a new pitch, combined with staying healthy, brought him to the next level during those years? And how do people explain his decline once he went to the Yankees? Did he suddenly stop using steroids, despite them helping him win 2 consecutive cy youngs? And if he was continuing to take them, then why did he suddenly become an average pitcher? Perhaps it is just a great pitcher following a normal decline pattern. I see nothing weird about his career path until he went to Houston. His last few years in Boston were injury plagued seasons where he still showed great potential. its not like he was sunddenly throwing 102 MPH every pitch. His success in Houston was kind of strange, but remember he was basically a 5 or 6 inning pitcher at that point. If he was taking roids then why wasnt he able to go deep into games?

[fenrir]

clemens stint with the yanks was interesting. i'd argue that his injury in 1999 may have been roid induced, which led him to taking lesser amounts of roids and probably more hgh then on after. clemens era+ combined was 129 with the yanks but he got injured twice. it was 130 with the sox but inflated by his 94 season which shortened cause of the strike. his 1996 season wasnt even that good until his last ten starts, i think think he may have started juicing then. anyway someone like canseco juiced his entire career and it helped him greatly buut it's not like he sustained his success his whole career. he had bunches of injuries in between, some up and down years, etc. i'd probably say a different stack or cycle whatever you want to call it can effect one's body dramatically certain years, lesser other years. all speculation but i think its possible. in the case of clemens i think he benefitted the most from ped's in toronto because he was pitching with rage, angry at what the redsox gm said, and because he was hitting the gym harder. his velocity jumped at the time, players around the league noticed it.