Puddy Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Just looking through the league leaders and noticed some impressive stats for a legend who is turning 43 in two weeks. ERA - 1.40 WHIP - .96 If he ended the season with that ERA is would be the lowest since Bob Gibson's 1.12 in 1968 and the second lowest since 1918. Simply amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 Just looking through the league leaders and noticed some impressive stats for a legend who is turning 43 in two weeks. ERA - 1.40 WHIP - .96 If he ended the season with that ERA is would be the lowest since Bob Gibson's 1.12 in 1968 and the second lowest since 1918. Simply amazing. 894839[/snapback] Unless he gets absolutely torched in his next 3-4 starts, his ERA isn't gonna move that much. Simply incredible indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Messiahs Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 "Juice" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 I must admit, what Clemens is doing is incredible. 43 and still pitching like that? I think only Nolan Ryan was that effective late in his career (well, I think Phil Neikro won 121 after he turned 40) but I think Clemens is better than Ryan. :turnsandrunsaway: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goopster24 Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Clemens is amazing and time after time he has proven he is the greatest pitcher of this era if not all time. If I needed to win a game, I would no doubt bout it pick Clemens. He is the most competitive person in the MLB today. People are so intimidated by him. I love him. He is the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Clemens is amazing, but other greats went before him. Paige was 58 when he threw his last 3 innings - they were hitless. to the greats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 Clemens is amazing, but other greats went before him. Paige was 58 when he threw his last 3 innings - they were hitless. to the greats! 900243[/snapback] You are right...except for that one hit that he surrendered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Furley Posted August 3, 2005 Share Posted August 3, 2005 He mowed down the Diamondbacks tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 I must admit, what Clemens is doing is incredible. 43 and still pitching like that? 895561[/snapback] Hmmm. Better at 43 than he was at 33 and even better, arguably, than at 23. Outperforms younger stars by margins that no one can imagine despite being far older than retirement age for most unenhanced players? Wow, he's kind of the Barry Bonds of pitching. I wonder what major league baseball knows about "The Rocket"'s fuel that they are chosing not to release until after he retires -- I mean, they held Raffy's randiness until after he reached 3000 ... Roger's artificial ... and all of this has just soiled the integrity of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted August 27, 2005 Author Share Posted August 27, 2005 "Juice" 894991[/snapback] Hmmm. Better at 43 than he was at 33 and even better, arguably, than at 23. Outperforms younger stars by margins that no one can imagine despite being far older than retirement age for most unenhanced players? Wow, he's kind of the Barry Bonds of pitching. I wonder what major league baseball knows about "The Rocket"'s fuel that they are chosing not to release until after he retires -- I mean, they held Raffy's randiness until after he reached 3000 ... Roger's artificial ... and all of this has just soiled the integrity of the game. 951078[/snapback] Hard not to suspect him at that age, that's for sure. Actually hard not to suspect anyone who performs at levels far above expectations nowadays. That's too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Hmmm. Better at 43 than he was at 33 and even better, arguably, than at 23. Outperforms younger stars by margins that no one can imagine despite being far older than retirement age for most unenhanced players? Wow, he's kind of the Barry Bonds of pitching. I wonder what major league baseball knows about "The Rocket"'s fuel that they are chosing not to release until after he retires -- I mean, they held Raffy's randiness until after he reached 3000 ... Roger's artificial ... and all of this has just soiled the integrity of the game. 951078[/snapback] Freaks of nature come along every once in a while. Remember he was lights out in this manner when he broke into the league, and remember that neither Palmeiro or bonds showed power until they were more than a few years into their careers. Unless you have proof, you just have stinky bait. :doah: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 Freaks of nature come along every once in a while. Remember he was lights out in this manner when he broke into the league, and remember that neither Palmeiro or bonds showed power until they were more than a few years into their careers. Unless you have proof, you just have stinky bait. :doah: 951357[/snapback] True enough. Must just be coincidence that he began to fade at the same age as most pitchers -- but then came roaring back like all get out to reestablish his dominance at a level similar to 20 years ago. I don't have proof, just wondering if MLB does like they did with Raffy and just haven't chosen to release it yet ... It's a dang shame that this is the legit school of thought these days rather than the wonderous infatuation with stats and heros and work ethic that I enjoyed in pro baseball during my youth. Baseball fan? I love the game, but I'm a jaded cynic about its condition right now ... with a bucket of stinky bait that I'm thinking may merinade into proof in time ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 There was a good commentary on ESPN (I think it was Ray Ratto)... Basically just mentioned that the NFL didn't start steroid testing until the late 1980's, and how Jim Haslett mentioned that half the lineman in the league were using, meaning those people blocking for Marino's and Dickerson's and Peyton's records were probably all cheating, so nothing is legit anymore. I think he was just trying to say that it's pointless for all the speculation. And if you are going to be a cynic, just be consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 27, 2005 Share Posted August 27, 2005 True enough. Must just be coincidence that he began to fade at the same age as most pitchers -- but then came roaring back like all get out to reestablish his dominance at a level similar to 20 years ago. I don't have proof, just wondering if MLB does like they did with Raffy and just haven't chosen to release it yet ... It's a dang shame that this is the legit school of thought these days rather than the wonderous infatuation with stats and heros and work ethic that I enjoyed in pro baseball during my youth. Baseball fan? I love the game, but I'm a jaded cynic about its condition right now ... with a bucket of stinky bait that I'm thinking may merinade into proof in time ... 951417[/snapback] I must have missed the 'fading' part.....was it at the end of his Red Sox sojourn? Or was he fading while collectin WS rings? Perhaps his contentment being close to home has done a part as well. He's also gotten advice from Ryan who had an unparalleled mental approach to the game, and I don't believe for a second he was on juice. Or Gibson for that matter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 I must have missed the 'fading' part.....was it at the end of his Red Sox sojourn? Or was he fading while collectin WS rings? Perhaps his contentment being close to home has done a part as well. He's also gotten advice from Ryan who had an unparalleled mental approach to the game, and I don't believe for a second he was on juice. Or Gibson for that matter... 951638[/snapback] Reading this thread I was thinking the very same thing! Gibson wasnt on roids nor was Ryan so why is it that Clemens has to be? Clemens fade? Look at his career and take injuries into account for the off years and I dont see a fade. He has been consitantly scary for anyone with a bat in their hands! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Clemens fade? Look at his career and take injuries into account for the off years and I dont see a fade. He has been consitantly scary for anyone with a bat in their hands! 952340[/snapback] Hmmmm... I guess he didn't fade ... twice ... I thought I remembered 93-96, when he age 31, 32, 33, 34 -- the typical starting pitcher fade time -- and he changed suddenly from a 18-24 game winner to a 7-11 game winner ... He decided to prove Boston wrong that he wasn't finished and jumps back to 20 for two seasons ... Then I was thinking 99-02, after he had cashed in the Toronto rebirth and had gone to New York to finish his career and managed more than 14 wins only once in those years, having reached that other typical fade time for athletes in general, age 40 ... But then he decides to go out on top, and jumps back to 17 and 18 and now this year's record ... My bad -- I would have said Roger had faded in his early 30s and then again in his early 40s -- only to be almost better than ever at age 43 ... I guess he has indeed been consistently strong -- like a Greg Maddux with 15-20 wins for 17 straight years without any weird fluxes in performance. Sorry for the distraction. I wonder if Canseco has anything I could inject myself with that would strengthen my memory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Furley Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Sorry for the distraction. I wonder if Canseco has anything I could inject myself with that would strengthen my memory? 952361[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Hmmmm... I guess he didn't fade ... twice ... I thought I remembered 93-96, when he age 31, 32, 33, 34 -- the typical starting pitcher fade time -- and he changed suddenly from a 18-24 game winner to a 7-11 game winner ... He decided to prove Boston wrong that he wasn't finished and jumps back to 20 for two seasons ... Then I was thinking 99-02, after he had cashed in the Toronto rebirth and had gone to New York to finish his career and managed more than 14 wins only once in those years, having reached that other typical fade time for athletes in general, age 40 ... But then he decides to go out on top, and jumps back to 17 and 18 and now this year's record ... My bad -- I would have said Roger had faded in his early 30s and then again in his early 40s -- only to be almost better than ever at age 43 ... I guess he has indeed been consistently strong -- like a Greg Maddux with 15-20 wins for 17 straight years without any weird fluxes in performance. Sorry for the distraction. I wonder if Canseco has anything I could inject myself with that would strengthen my memory? 952361[/snapback] Pure guesswork. It's not a geometry theorm. I'll laeve it at this: he hasn't ever really been hurt, which is a hallmark of steroid usage: time on the DL at some point. Also, baseball is more mental than physical, and being out to prove Boston wrong, and coasting with a deep, run supporting team like the Yanks can easily explain away his performance as you sit in your stroke chair trying to tear down accomplishments. Since he went full time in 86, he has had an ERA over 4 three times. He won over 10 games in each of those years as well. Besides guesswork, what proof do you have? Anything that would be even considered a 'smoking gun?' Like putting on tremendous amounts of muscle, or a year of performance that is wholly incosistent with his past career? I'll make it easy for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Good points that counter the stat patterns in his career. I guess he's clean, then. That would be great for the game. We diehard baseball fans will carry the comfort of being certain Rocket's clean just like we carried the hope that Giambi rumors were false and that Raffy rumors were false ... Let there be no more talk of this, unless baseball releases a report that proves one way or the other ... even if they hold it until after he retires, just like holding Raffy's until after 3000 hits ... As the eternal optimist, I can accept it -- but I don't think even Pete Rose would bet on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Good points that counter the stat patterns in his career. I guess he's clean, then. That would be great for the game. We diehard baseball fans will carry the comfort of being certain Rocket's clean just like we carried the hope that Giambi rumors were false and that Raffy rumors were false ... Let there be no more talk of this, unless baseball releases a report that proves one way or the other ... even if they hold it until after he retires, just like holding Raffy's until after 3000 hits ... As the eternal optimist, I can accept it -- but I don't think even Pete Rose would bet on it. 952854[/snapback] Gee, your genuine attitude bowls me over. Here are Palmeiro's stats. 3 full time years of barely 10 home runs, followed by his spike with the Rangers when he played with Canseco. There's nothing like that in Rocket's career, is what I'm saying. And it's a plague on the sport, no doubt, but idle accusations without any real evidence is lame, especially in the face of facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted August 28, 2005 Share Posted August 28, 2005 Actually, Raffy's is much more blatant ... I'll conceed to you -- seriously, this time. It is unfair to do anything more than casually wonder about Clemens at the same level of question that this whole mess has thrown over any of the "freaks of nature" (that I will also concede truly do exist). In America, we really do need to be innocent until proven guilty ... And -- what the heck, at 43, he's impressive, so I tip my hat and surrender before I push it to being a total fecktard -- since I really don't have any proof or credible evidence!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Getting the win carrying the emotion of his Moms death showed hugh heart.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.