An Iconic Fantasy Baseball Community
Moderator: Baseball Moderators
jfg wrote:The Unit will be a first ballot hall of famer for sure, but I think he doesn't get the credit he deserves. In my opinion when talking about the best pitchers of this generation it should be 1a and 1b because both have the credentials for the title.
KCK via the Pittsburgh Post wrote:
So why aren't people saying the same thing about Roger Clemens? Why hasn't this bulked-up, overperforming baseball senior citizen received the same treatment as Bonds?
For sure, his accomplishments are equally astounding. In fact, the case could be made that the trajectory of Clemens' career should arouse more suspicion than Bonds'.
Unlike Bonds, whose career never faltered, Clemens had a four-year period, beginning when he was 30, when many people believed he was in decline. Included in that group were the Boston Red Sox, the team he played for during the first 13 years of his career. After the 1997 season, the Red Sox did not re-sign Clemens, who was eligible for free agency. It seemed like the right move.
After going 152-72 in his first nine seasons, Clemens was 40-39 from 1993-96. What's more, his winning percentage twice was below that of his team during that four-year stretch, something that had never happened in the previous nine seasons.
Also during the span, Clemens' earned run average twice was over 4.00, a level where it had never been before.
It was a clear picture of a player in decline. And why not? He was 34 when he finished the 1996 season with a 10-13 record on a team that was eight games over .500.
Except that he wasn't in decline. Not even close.
He signed with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1997 and, on a team that was 10 games under .500, he was 21-7. It was the first time he had won 20 games since 1990. His ERA of 2.05 was the second lowest of his career.
Once again, he was Superman. And, of course, it was all due to his incredible workout routine. There was never a word about chemical enhancement.
It's not like Clemens was some kind of media favorite. Like Bonds, he has a history of being a major jerk.
Clemens is 42 and pitching as well or better than ever.
Last year, he was 18-4 with the Houston Astros -- the third-best winning percentage of his career. He won his seventh Cy Young Award -- 18 seasons after he won his first.
Going into his scheduled start against the San Francisco Giants last night, he was averaging better than a strikeout an inning and his ERA was a ridiculous 1.10.
In his tell-all book, "Juiced; Wild Times, Rampant 'Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big," Jose Canseco wrote: "I've never seen Roger Clemens do steroids, and he never told me that he did. But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in which combinations."
He also said Clemens showed "classic signs" of steroid use.
Clemens' agent, Randy Hendricks was furious. "He has passed all tests and will continue to do so in 2005."
The same tests Bonds passed.
There's never a word about Randy Johnson, who is 41, and steroids, but he might be the greatest overproducing baseball senior of them all. Bonds had offensive numbers that sometimes surpassed the great hitting masters. Johnson has strikeout totals that obliterate the performance of Nolan Ryan, the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time.
From ages 34 to 40 -- seven seasons -- Johnson had more than 300 strikeouts five times. He had 290 once.
When Ryan was between 34 and 40, he had no 300-strikeout seasons and only three 200-strikeout seasons.
Next to Johnson, Ryan is a junkballer.
But Johnson, too, is widely believed to be clean.
None of the above is to suggest I think Clemens and Johnson are steroid abusers.
Of course, I didn't think Bonds was either.
ultrazero wrote:I'll take a stab at it.
Clemens has had success in the two biggest markets.
And Johnson is ugly.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests