The whole point is we don't need to know who Nolan Ryan's trainer is. It is only significant if the guy is convicted for distributing performancing enhancing drugs. If I found out that Ryan and Clemens had the same trainer I would ask questions about substances Ryan took. But since there is no accusation against Ryan and no real reason to be suspicious. I am not asking
Well i have had a lidicane injection. You get it when you go to the dentist. It is a local anesthetic. It also can be used for things that are far more serious like heart failure and it can be found in an EMT's kit. Only a junkie would get an injection by a trainer when they have doctors around them all the time.
Finally the best professional athletes all eventually have their skills diminshed by time. Jim Brown is no longer the greatest football player and Michael Jordan isn't the best player on planet earth either. Perhaps you missed the fact that guys like Barry Bonds who seem to reverse time and become better than ever become inplicated in these performance enhancing scandals. Unfortunately Clemens cheated and got caught and now society can view him with all the repect it does for other disgraced cheaters.
Originally posted by poundleeHis ERA in 1996 was still 1.42 better than the league average; some "decline". ERAs in the 90's were climbing across the board; look at the link I provided - it shows the average AL ERA was about .75 points higher. Clemens ERA which you left out in 1994 was 2.85 - 2.20 lower than the league average! And Clemens was still striking out close to or more than one an inning including a 20 strikeout game in 1996.
I am a Yankee fan, not a Red Sox fan. Not sure why that matters.
Clemens was in decline in last 4 years in Boston. In 1993 he was 11-14 with a 4.46 ERA, in 1994 he was only 9-7 (with a good ERA), in 1995 10-5 with a 4.18 1996 10-13 with a 3.63.
This is from a guy whose ERA starting in 1986 was 2.48, 2.97, 2.93, 3.13, 1.93, 2.62, 2.41. When your ERA a he goes to Toronto, takes performance enhancer and goes 21-7 with a 2.05 and 20-6 with a 2.65.
Where's the evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997? There's none in the Mitchell Report; McNamee wasn't even the Blue Jays' trainer in 1997.
I said "The Rocketman" was is major decline not that he was a below average pitcher. There is a huge diference between 11-14 (4.46 ERA) 9-7 (with a good ERA), 10-5 (4.18) 10-13 (3.63). These are not even close to what Hall of Famers do in the middle of their career. Especially when his previous years were 2.48, 2.97, 2.93, 3.13, 1.93, 2.62, 2.41.
Then Clemens goes 21-7 with a 2.05 and 20-6 with a 2.65.
Perhaps he had a different dealer before McNamee, but that isn't the issue. The issue though is whether Clemens accomplishement are legitimate and all his associations Pettitte/McNamee and his
non-sense story of lidacaine in the behind combine with his career path are just completely inconsistence with his claim of innocence.
Originally posted by poundleeHey facts whiz...go check out some of Nolan Ryan's W-L records and ERA's in various years. His ERA got better with age, and yet his win totals fell? Do you think that could be because your team didn't score many runs for you?
I said "The Rocketman" was is major decline not that he was a below average pitcher. There is a huge diference between 11-14 (4.46 ERA) 9-7 (with a good ERA), 10-5 (4.18) 10-13 (3.63). These are not even close to what Hall of Famers do in the middle of their career. Especially when his previous years were 2.48, 2.97, 2.93, 3.13, 1.93, 2.62, 2.41.
Then C ...[text shortened]... d combine with his career path are just completely inconsistence with his claim of innocence.
Originally posted by poundleeOkay, I'll do this slow for you so you can follow along. How many of the teams that Clemens played for during his "meteoric rise" in performance made to the playoffs and ultimatelty to the world series?
Clemens in his last four years in Boston had a huge jump in his ERA and was one game above .500 (with two of the seaons below .500). He meets McNamee, he uses performance enhancers, he wins over 350 games. Is is that hard to see connections?
Next follow that those teams usually win a lot more games than they lose. Sarting pitchers normally account for about 80% of the wins and if a playoff team wins an average of 95 games in a season that would be 76 wins for the starters. Most teams have a 5 man rotation which would mean the average amount of wins would be 15+ wins per starter. Obviously all of the starters don't win equal amounts of games, and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that your top 3 starters would probably have more wins than your 4th and 5th starters. So, considering Roger has been #1 or #2 starter most every season he has pitched, can you see that there might have been a fairly decent number of wins for him? Hell, look at his seasons with Houston. He should have had at least 15 more wins than he ended up with in Houston, because they couldn't score any runs for him, or because the bullpen coughed up his lead.
Maybe 5 or six decades starting pitchers won 80% of a team's games that just isn't true. In Clemens first year with the Blue Jays his team won a whopping 76 games. Both he and the bullpen won more than 25% of that total. It wasn't that he went to some super team. He changed from a guy who was just one over .500 in 4 years. You might speculate that it was a new ball park or a new pitching coaching. I'm betting it was a new trainer and the performance enhancers.
Originally posted by poundleeAnd your evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997 is what??
Maybe 5 or six decades starting pitchers won 80% of a team's games that just isn't true. In Clemens first year with the Blue Jays his team won a whopping 76 games. Both he and the bullpen won more than 25% of that total. It wasn't that he went to some super team. He changed from a guy who was just one over .500 in 4 years. You might speculate that it ...[text shortened]... or a new pitching coaching. I'm betting it was a new trainer and the performance enhancers.
Originally posted by poundleeHis record in 1994 (the strike year) was one of the best in the AL. Two sub-par years, where he still was way better than the average pitching, doesn't prove a "decline". You must be on drugs yourself if you think no Hall of Fame pitchers ever had years where they had losing records or approximately 4.00 ERA.
I said "The Rocketman" was is major decline not that he was a below average pitcher. There is a huge diference between 11-14 (4.46 ERA) 9-7 (with a good ERA), 10-5 (4.18) 10-13 (3.63). These are not even close to what Hall of Famers do in the middle of their career. Especially when his previous years were 2.48, 2.97, 2.93, 3.13, 1.93, 2.62, 2.41.
Then C ...[text shortened]... d combine with his career path are just completely inconsistence with his claim of innocence.
You guys are out of your mind if you think 9-7 with a good ERA suroounded by a year before and two years after of bad eras and a combined one game below .500 are the standard that he had before of after this 4 year period. McNamee and performance enhancers changed Clemens career just as cheating changed McGuire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeriro and others. You guys can bury your head in the sand but there was a 4 year period where there was no way the guy was getting to 250 win and his trainer enables him to get to 350. It isn't about having two bad years it is about havingt 4 years with bad records and three of them with bad eras. He goes to Toronto which even with him still stunk but he is different. No one else in history has that magical bounce.
Originally posted by poundleeEver hear of Gaylord Perry? In 1976, he went 15-14 with a 3.24 ERA (lg av 3.59) and in 1977 he was 15-12 with a 3.37 (lg average 4.11); then in 1978 he was traded from Texas to San Diego and went 21-6 with a 2.73 ERA at the age of 39!
You guys are out of your mind if you think 9-7 with a good ERA suroounded by a year before and two years after of bad eras and a combined one game below .500 are the standard that he had before of after this 4 year period. McNamee and performance enhancers changed Clemens career just as cheating changed McGuire, Bonds, Sosa, Palmeriro and others. You guy ...[text shortened]... even with him still stunk but he is different. No one else in history has that magical bounce.
Ever hear of Don Sutton? In 1978 and 1979 combined, he was 27-26 with an ERA of 3.55 and 3.82 in those years (slightly higher than the league average); in 1980 he was 13-5 with a 2.20 ERA at the age of 35 and went 28-18 over his next two years with a sub 3.00 ERA.
Those are just two recent examples of Hall of Famers I looked up; there are many more with similar stats. Your argument is misinformed hogwash. And for the THIRD time, McNamee wasn't even Toronto's trainer in Clemen's CY Young year of 1997; where is your evidence that the Rocket used steroids in 1997?
I never thought anyone would compare themselves to Gaylord Perry in order to make the argument that they do NOT cheat. But it is fitting because both are cheaters. Clemens did not have just two bad years he had FOUR. By the way another Clemens lie is that he did not know he'd be in the report Mitchell tried to call him twice.
Originally posted by poundleeMost non-idiots wouldn't think that a year where you had a 2.85 ERA and a winning record was a "bad" year nor would they believe a 10-5 won-loss record is indicative of a "bad" year.
I never thought anyone would compare themselves to Gaylord Perry in order to make the argument that they do NOT cheat. But it is fitting because both are cheaters. Clemens did not have just two bad years he had FOUR. By the way another Clemens lie is that he did not know he'd be in the report Mitchell tried to call him twice.
Here's a good article giving some insights on Clemen's last four years in Boston including his lack of run support, a lead blowing bullpen and his development of the split finger. http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1558838.html
Perhaps you did not look at the last 4 years in Boston
11-14 4.46
9-7 2.85
10 -5 4.18
10-13 3.63
Because it looks nothing like his next two if
21-7 2.05
20-6 2.65
or his seven before
18-11 2.41
18-10 2.62
21-6 1.93
17-11 3.13
18-12 2.93
20-9 2.97
24-4 2.48
Only, the no1 moron would think Clemens got a magical resurgance without perfomance enhancers.
Originally posted by poundleeYour retarded arguments have already been refuted; I gave several examples of Hall of Fame pitchers older than Clemens was in 1997 having much better years than their last few. And you don't have a shred of evidence that Clemens used steroids in 1997 and you know it. So why don't you stop embarassing yourself? By your "logic", Perry and Sutton must have used steroids, too.
Perhaps you did not look at the last 4 years in Boston
11-14 4.46
9-7 2.85
10 -5 4.18
10-13 3.63
Because it looks nothing like his next two if
21-7 2.05
20-6 2.65
or his seven before
18-11 2.41
18-10 2.62
21-6 1.93
17-11 3.13
18-12 2.93
20-9 2.97
24-4 2.48
Only, the no1 moron would think Clemens got a magical resurgance without perfomance enhancers.