Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

"Not as great: Assessing Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens without the PED factor" Article is BS and Why.


Thanos5150

Recommended Posts

ESPN writers Mark Fainaru-Wada and T.J. Quinn recently published an article: Not as great: Assessing Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens without the PED factor. The premise of the article is stated:

Quote

 

Meet baseball stats guru Dan Szymborski, the creator of the ZiPS projection system. In the simplest terms, the system (endorsed by MLB.com and explained here) uses past performance and trends on how performance degrades with age to predict a player's future performance. ESPN asked him to project Bonds' and Clemens' career stats from the season each is believed to have started using PEDs -- 1999 for Bonds and 1998 for Clemens.

Things look startlingly different in the Bonds/Clemens cases when analyzed this way:

 

Of note is that Mark Fainaru-Wada co-author of the book Game of Shadows, "A look at how Bonds was driven to use performance-enhancing drugs in part by jealousy over Mark McGwire’s record-breaking 1998 season. It was shortly thereafter that Bonds—who had never used anything more performance enhancing than a protein shake from the health food store—first began using steroids."

I will focus on only Barry Bonds and the home run totals projected in the article if not for steroid use and easily explain why this is complete nonsense leaving it hard to believe this is not a propaganda hit piece to dissuade the BBWA from voting for Bonds in the Hall of Fame in his last year of eligibility. 

211210_bonds_homeruns_1296x1110_new.jpg&

According to this article:
 

Quote

 

Instead of hitting 73 home runs in 2001, the ZiPS projection suggests Bonds would have hit only 23 that year, plus or minus a couple. And where he actually hit 209 homers during the four seasons (2001 to 2004) he used the BALCO concoction, he was projected to hit just 66 during those four years.

According to ZiPS, where should Bonds be on the all-time home run list? Rather than the king, with 762, the projection has him at 551 career homers....

It's also worth noting that the projection suggests Bonds would have played one fewer season than he did.

 

It is unfortunate, perhaps purposeful, to use such a misleading graph like this instead of giving the actual numbers used season by season to come up with this conclusion, but as we can see from the dramatic red line, starting with the 1999 season, Bond's  1st year of steroid use, that according to the authors and ZiPS without PED's his home run totals took a precipitous unyielding nose dive right to what they project would be his last season at age 41 in 2006. 

These are Bond's stats year by year (disregard the yellow bar on the 2001  season):

Year Age Tm Lg G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+ TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB Pos Awards
1986 21 PIT NL 113 484 413 72 92 26 3 16 48 36 7 65 102 .223 .330 .416 .746 103 172 4 2 2 2 2 *8/H RoY-6
1987 22 PIT NL 150 611 551 99 144 34 9 25 59 32 10 54 88 .261 .329 .492 .821 114 271 4 3 0 3 3 *78H/9  
1988 23 PIT NL 144 614 538 97 152 30 5 24 58 17 11 72 82 .283 .368 .491 .859 148 264 3 2 0 2 14 *7H/8  
1989 24 PIT NL 159 679 580 96 144 34 6 19 58 32 10 93 93 .248 .351 .426 .777 126 247 9 1 1 4 22 *7/H  
1990 25 PIT NL 151 621 519 104 156 32 3 33 114 52 13 93 83 .301 .406 .565 .970 170 293 8 3 0 6 15 *7/H8 AS,MVP-1,GG,SS
1991 26 PIT NL 153 634 510 95 149 28 5 25 116 43 13 107 73 .292 .410 .514 .924 160 262 8 4 0 13 25 *7/H8 MVP-2,GG,SS
1992 27 PIT NL 140 612 473 109 147 36 5 34 103 39 8 127 69 .311 .456 .624 1.080 204 295 9 5 0 7 32 *7/H AS,MVP-1,GG,SS
1993 28 SFG NL 159 674 539 129 181 38 4 46 123 29 12 126 79 .336 .458 .677 1.136 206 365 11 2 0 7 43 *7/H AS,MVP-1,GG,SS
1994 29 SFG NL 112 474 391 89 122 18 1 37 81 29 9 74 43 .312 .426 .647 1.073 183 253 3 6 0 3 18 *7/H AS,MVP-4,GG,SS
1995 30 SFG NL 144 635 506 109 149 30 7 33 104 31 10 120 83 .294 .431 .577 1.009 170 292 12 5 0 4 22 *7/H AS,MVP-12
1996 31 SFG NL 158 675 517 122 159 27 3 42 129 40 7 151 76 .308 .461 .615 1.076 188 318 11 1 0 6 30 *7/H8 AS,MVP-5,GG,SS
1997 32 SFG NL 159 690 532 123 155 26 5 40 101 37 8 145 87 .291 .446 .585 1.031 170 311 13 8 0 5 34 *7 AS,MVP-5,GG,SS
1998 33 SFG NL 156 697 552 120 167 44 7 37 122 28 12 130 92 .303 .438 .609 1.047 178 336 15 8 1 6 29 *7/H AS,MVP-8,GG
1999 34 SFG NL 102 434 355 91 93 20 2 34 83 15 2 73 62 .262 .389 .617 1.006 156 219 6 3 0 3 9 7/DH MVP-24
2000 35 SFG NL 143 607 480 129 147 28 4 49 106 11 3 117 77 .306 .440 .688 1.127 188 330 6 3 0 7 22 *7/H AS,MVP-2,SS
2001 36 SFG NL 153 664 476 129 156 32 2 73 137 13 3 177 93 .328 .515 .863 1.379 259 411 5 9 0 2 35 *7/DH AS,MVP-1,SS
2002 37 SFG NL 143 612 403 117 149 31 2 46 110 9 2 198 47 .370 .582 .799 1.381 268 322 4 9 0 2 68 *7/DH AS,MVP-1,SS
2003 38 SFG NL 130 550 390 111 133 22 1 45 90 7 0 148 58 .341 .529 .749 1.278 231 292 7 10 0 2 61 *7/DH AS,MVP-1,SS
2004 39 SFG NL 147 617 373 129 135 27 3 45 101 6 1 232 41 .362 .609 .812 1.422 263 303 5 9 0 3 120 *7/HD AS,MVP-1,SS
2005 40 SFG NL 14 52 42 8 12 1 0 5 10 0 0 9 6 .286 .404 .667 1.071 174 28 0 0 0 1 3 7/H  
2006 41 SFG NL 130 493 367 74 99 23 0 26 77 3 0 115 51 .270 .454 .545 .999 156 200 9 10 0 1 38 *7H/D  
2007 42 SFG NL 126 477 340 75 94 14 0 28 66 5 0 132 54 .276 .480 .565 1.045 169 192 13 3 0 2 43 *7H/D AS

 Leading up to the 1999 and age 34 season Bonds had 411 career home runs. The authors are telling us that without PED's he would have hit only 140 more in the next 8 seasons (1999-2006) for an average of 17.5 hr/year despite average over 31 home runs for the previous 13 seasons. So according to this without PED's Bond's would have hit 211 less home runs than he did, only 66 from 2001-2004 (age 36-39) and a mere 23 in 2001, his age 36 season. And all this assuming he did not play the extra year he did. 

What needs to be understood about Bond's is that up until the 1998 season not only was he the best player of a generation, one of the best ever, he was also one of the most durable. Beginning with his first full year in 1987 through 1998, 12 seasons, Bond's played in 150 games or more (out of a 162 game season) 8 times. 1994 was a strike year in which Bond's played in 112 of the teams 114 games, The strike continued into 1995 in which he played all 144 games and among others led the league in games played. 1998 he was 6 games shy of 150 at 144 games. Ironically it was the 1999 season, his 1st year of alleged PED use and where this nosedive red line on the graph begins, that Bond's got injured (supposedly from this very steroid use), his 1st time on the injured list in his career, missing 10 weeks with an elbow injury and played in only 102 games. This was not a career threatening injury and obviously Bond's recovered which we can assume he would have been able to resume a normal career at that point which given his track record despite his age we would expect him to be a productive all-star caliber player more than likely retaining his skills longer than a typical player. 

So what is in question is Bond's age 34-41 seasons which again is alleged he would have only hit 140 more home runs at a clip of 17.5/year compared to a 31+/year average up to that point (which includes his shortened rookie years and strike years which without them this average would be over 35/year. For some context let's look at the careers of other sluggers who played through these ages who are not associated with steroids.

Fred McGriff age 34-40: 154 home runs, 22/season. Only 2 in his age 40 season in 27 games, 13 at age 39 and 19 age 34. 

Frank Thomas age 34-40: 172 home runs, 24.5/season. 8 in his age 40 season in 16 games. 

Ken Griffey Jr age 34-40: 164 home runs. None at age 40 in 33 games. Griffey was often hurt which during this span played in more than 128 games only twice and less than 120 5 times including only 83 in 2004 and 33 his age 40 season.

Jim Thome age 34-41: 189 home runs, 23.6/season.   7 at age 34, 15 at age 40, 8 at 41.

Albert Pujols age 34-41: 187 home runs, 23.4/season. Albert was injured in his age 33 season, and though already dealing with plantar fasciitis, Pujols was a shell of his former self yet has still managed to hit 187 in his age 34-41 seasons.    

Mike Schmidt age 34-39: 159 home runs 26.5/season. Led the league at age 34 and 36.     

Frank Robinson age 34-40: 158 home runs, 22.6/season. 

Reggie Jackson age 34-41: 194 home runs, 24.3/season. Led the league at age 34 and 36. 

David Ortiz age 34-40: 224 home runs, 32/season. Yes, Ortiz supposedly failed a drug test several years before his age 34 season but there was no reason to believe he was not clean after.  

You get the picture. So while the authors afford Bond's only 140 home runs between age 34-41, 8 seasons at 17.5/season, one of the all-time great players and one of the most durable, not a single one of these players hit less than 154 and except for 3 only played 7 seasons compared to the 8 given to Bonds and Mike Schmidt only 6. And all of them averaged between 22 and 26.5 home runs per season yet Bonds is only afforded 17.5? If we extend Bonds this same courtesy instead of 140 home runs he would have hit between 176-212 respectively giving him career totals between 587-623. The authors only give 551. 

So what does this all mean? Does it mean Bonds would have broken the home run record without steroids? Very unlikely. Hank Aaron between the ages of 34-42, 9 seasons, hit a whopping 274 home runs including 44 at age 35, 37 at 37, and 40 at age 39 for an average of 30.44/season. At this rate, giving Bonds the extra season, he still would have only ended up with 685 career home runs. Bonds hit 323 from age 34-41, this includes a 14 game age 40 season, for an average of  40.4 home runs per season. Going into his age 34 season Bonds was 344 home runs short of  Aaron's 755 which to get to that mark even at Bond's career average prior to the 1999 season he would have had to play until his age 44/45 season. Not impossible but extremely improbable. 

This has nothing to do with Bond's or steroid use, each can make up their own mind, but it seems clear that the authors of this article, clearly biased, manipulated the numbers in only by using the least advantageous criteria, to diminish Bond's potential career without steroids when to simply compare to him to his peers he would have easily done better than 551 with the most likely scenario he would have ended his career somewhere north of 600 but shy of 700. 

As far as Clemens goes, I would use the opportunity to present Nolan Ryan's stats for comparison:

Year Age Tm Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W Awards
27 Yrs 324 292 .526 3.19 807 773 13 222 61 3 5386.0 3923 2178 1911 321 2795 78 5714 158 33 277 22575 112 2.97 1.247 6.6 0.5 4.7 9.5 2.04
1966 19 NYM NL 0 1 .000 15.00 2 1 0 0 0 0 3.0 5 5 5 1 3 1 6 0 0 1 17 28 5.89 2.667 15.0 3.0 9.0 18.0 2.00  
                                                                     
1968 21 NYM NL 6 9 .400 3.09 21 18 1 3 0 0 134.0 93 50 46 12 75 4 133 4 0 7 559 98 3.33 1.254 6.2 0.8 5.0 8.9 1.77  
1969 22 NYM NL 6 3 .667 3.53 25 10 4 2 0 1 89.1 60 38 35 3 53 3 92 1 3 1 375 104 2.70 1.265 6.0 0.3 5.3 9.3 1.74  
1970 23 NYM NL 7 11 .389 3.42 27 19 4 5 2 1 131.2 86 59 50 10 97 2 125 4 0 8 570 118 4.03 1.390 5.9 0.7 6.6 8.5 1.29  
1971 24 NYM NL 10 14 .417 3.97 30 26 1 3 0 0 152.0 125 78 67 8 116 4 137 15 1 6 705 86 3.92 1.586 7.4 0.5 6.9 8.1 1.18  
1972 25 CAL AL 19 16 .543 2.28 39 39 0 20 9 0 284.0 166 80 72 14 157 4 329 10 0 18 1154 128 2.49 1.137 5.3 0.4 5.0 10.4 2.10 AS,CYA-8,MVP-30
1973 26 CAL AL 21 16 .568 2.87 41 39 2 26 4 1 326.0 238 113 104 18 162 2 383 7 0 15 1355 123 2.49 1.227 6.6 0.5 4.5 10.6 2.36 AS,CYA-2,MVP-17
1974 27 CAL AL 22 16 .579 2.89 42 41 1 26 3 0 332.2 221 127 107 18 202 3 367 9 0 9 1392 118 2.98 1.272 6.0 0.5 5.5 9.9 1.82 CYA-3,MVP-14
1975 28 CAL AL 14 12 .538 3.45 28 28 0 10 5 0 198.0 152 90 76 13 132 0 186 7 0 12 864 102 3.67 1.434 6.9 0.6 6.0 8.5 1.41 AS
1976 29 CAL AL 17 18 .486 3.36 39 39 0 21 7 0 284.1 193 117 106 13 183 2 327 5 2 5 1196 99 2.91 1.322 6.1 0.4 5.8 10.4 1.79  
1977 30 CAL AL 19 16 .543 2.77 37 37 0 22 4 0 299.0 198 110 92 12 204 7 341 9 3 21 1272 141 3.12 1.344 6.0 0.4 6.1 10.3 1.67 AS,CYA-3,MVP-24
1978 31 CAL AL 10 13 .435 3.72 31 31 0 14 3 0 234.2 183 106 97 12 148 7 260 3 2 13 1008 98 2.96 1.411 7.0 0.5 5.7 10.0 1.76  
1979 32 CAL AL 16 14 .533 3.60 34 34 0 17 5 0 222.2 169 104 89 15 114 3 223 6 0 9 937 113 3.22 1.271 6.8 0.6 4.6 9.0 1.96 AS
1980 33 HOU NL 11 10 .524 3.35 35 35 0 4 2 0 233.2 205 100 87 10 98 1 200 3 1 10 982 98 2.89 1.297 7.9 0.4 3.8 7.7 2.04  
1981 34 HOU NL 11 5 .688 1.69 21 21 0 5 3 0 149.0 99 34 28 2 68 1 140 1 2 16 605 195 2.28 1.121 6.0 0.1 4.1 8.5 2.06 AS,CYA-4,MVP-16
1982 35 HOU NL 16 12 .571 3.16 35 35 0 10 3 0 250.1 196 100 88 20 109 3 245 8 2 18 1050 105 3.20 1.218 7.0 0.7 3.9 8.8 2.25  
1983 36 HOU NL 14 9 .609 2.98 29 29 0 5 2 0 196.1 134 74 65 9 101 3 183 4 1 5 804 114 3.09 1.197 6.1 0.4 4.6 8.4 1.81 CYA-9
1984 37 HOU NL 12 11 .522 3.04 30 30 0 5 2 0 183.2 143 78 62 12 69 2 197 4 3 6 760 109 2.66 1.154 7.0 0.6 3.4 9.7 2.86  
1985 38 HOU NL 10 12 .455 3.80 35 35 0 4 0 0 232.0 205 108 98 12 95 8 209 9 2 14 983 91 2.90 1.293 8.0 0.5 3.7 8.1 2.20 AS
1986 39 HOU NL 12 8 .600 3.34 30 30 0 1 0 0 178.0 119 72 66 14 82 5 194 4 0 15 729 107 3.06 1.129 6.0 0.7 4.1 9.8 2.37  
1987 40 HOU NL 8 16 .333 2.76 34 34 0 0 0 0 211.2 154 75 65 14 87 2 270 4 2 10 873 142 2.47 1.139 6.5 0.6 3.7 11.5 3.10 CYA-5
1988 41 HOU NL 12 11 .522 3.52 33 33 0 4 1 0 220.0 186 98 86 18 87 6 228 7 7 10 930 94 3.04 1.241 7.6 0.7 3.6 9.3 2.62  
1989 42 TEX AL 16 10 .615 3.20 32 32 0 6 2 0 239.1 162 96 85 17 98 3 301 9 1 19 988 124 2.51 1.086 6.1 0.6 3.7 11.3 3.07 AS,CYA-5,MVP-23
1990 43 TEX AL 13 9 .591 3.44 30 30 0 5 2 0 204.0 137 86 78 18 74 2 232 7 1 9 818 114 2.87 1.034 6.0 0.8 3.3 10.2 3.14 MVP-25
1991 44 TEX AL 12 6 .667 2.91 27 27 0 2 2 0 173.0 102 58 56 12 72 0 203 5 0 8 683 140 2.75 1.006 5.3 0.6 3.7 10.6 2.82  
1992 45 TEX AL 5 9 .357 3.72 27 27 0 2 0 0 157.1 138 75 65 9 69 0 157 12 0 9 675 103 3.08 1.316 7.9 0.5 3.9 9.0 2.28  
1993 46 TEX AL 5 5 .500 4.88 13 13 0 0 0 0 66.1 54 47 36 5 40 0 46 1 0 3 291 86 4.44 1.417 7.3 0.7 5.4 6.2 1.15  

Though still effective, Ryan was clearly in a phase of decline when he came to Houston in 1980 where from the ages of 33-39, 7 seasons, both his strikeouts and innings pitched were uncharacteristically routinely under 200 each-a precipitous drop from his previous 8 years in California. Then, for some inexplicable reason, at age 40, Ryan starts a tear unlike any other and proceeds to lead the league in strikeouts for the next 4 years in a row between the ages of 40-43 topping out at a staggering 301 in 1989 at the age of 42 all the while pitching over 200 innings each year during this stretch. His age 44 season was no slouch either pitching to a 2.91 ERA with 203 strikeouts over 173 innings. Age 45 wasn't too bad either.

Now Clemens which I will focus on innings pitched:

211210_clemens_inningpitch_1296x1110_new

Quote

Perhaps the most notable Clemens stat is innings pitched. The numbers reveal what a durable force he remained well into his late 30s and early 40s. He turned 35 during the 1997 season and tossed 264 innings; thereafter, he had six more seasons with 200-plus innings pitched, including 2005 when, at the age of 43, he threw 211⅓ innings, had a 1.87 ERA and struck out 185 hitters.

ZiPS projects he would have reached 200 innings only once more in his career and would have wound up with 689 fewer career innings pitched -- taking him from 15th on the all-time list to 33rd, just ahead of Frank Tanana.

So what this is saying, another fine off-the-cliff graph, is that Clemens turned 35 during the 1997 season which after his first year of "identified PED use" in 1998, he is projected to have pitched only one more 200 inning season which would have been 1998, so no more after the age of 36. And not only that but they project he wouldn't even have pitched past age 41. Clemens career stats:

Year Age Tm Lg W L W-L% ERA G GS GF CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR BB IBB SO HBP BK WP BF ERA+ FIP WHIP H9 HR9 BB9 SO9 SO/W Awards
24 Yrs 354 184 .658 3.12 709 707 0 118 46 0 4916.2 4185 1885 1707 363 1580 63 4672 159 20 143 20240 143 3.09 1.173 7.7 0.7 2.9 8.6 2.96
1984 21 BOS AL 9 4 .692 4.32 21 20 0 5 1 0 133.1 146 67 64 13 29 3 126 2 0 4 575 97 2.84 1.313 9.9 0.9 2.0 8.5 4.34 RoY-6
1985 22 BOS AL 7 5 .583 3.29 15 15 0 3 1 0 98.1 83 38 36 5 37 0 74 3 3 1 407 130 3.06 1.220 7.6 0.5 3.4 6.8 2.00  
1986 23 BOS AL 24 4 .857 2.48 33 33 0 10 1 0 254.0 179 77 70 21 67 0 238 4 3 11 997 169 2.81 0.969 6.3 0.7 2.4 8.4 3.55 AS,CYA-1,MVP-1
1987 24 BOS AL 20 9 .690 2.97 36 36 0 18 7 0 281.2 248 100 93 19 83 4 256 9 3 4 1157 154 2.91 1.175 7.9 0.6 2.7 8.2 3.08 CYA-1,MVP-19
1988 25 BOS AL 18 12 .600 2.93 35 35 0 14 8 0 264.0 217 93 86 17 62 4 291 6 7 4 1063 141 2.17 1.057 7.4 0.6 2.1 9.9 4.69 AS,CYA-6
1989 26 BOS AL 17 11 .607 3.13 35 35 0 8 3 0 253.1 215 101 88 20 93 5 230 8 0 7 1044 132 3.17 1.216 7.6 0.7 3.3 8.2 2.47  
1990 27 BOS AL 21 6 .778 1.93 31 31 0 7 4 0 228.1 193 59 49 7 54 3 209 7 0 8 920 211 2.18 1.082 7.6 0.3 2.1 8.2 3.87 AS,CYA-2,MVP-3
1991 28 BOS AL 18 10 .643 2.62 35 35 0 13 4 0 271.1 219 93 79 15 65 12 241 5 0 6 1077 165 2.57 1.047 7.3 0.5 2.2 8.0 3.71 AS,CYA-1,MVP-10
1992 29 BOS AL 18 11 .621 2.41 32 32 0 11 5 0 246.2 203 80 66 11 62 5 208 9 0 3 989 174 2.54 1.074 7.4 0.4 2.3 7.6 3.35 AS,CYA-3,MVP-14
1993 30 BOS AL 11 14 .440 4.46 29 29 0 2 1 0 191.2 175 99 95 17 67 4 160 11 1 3 808 104 3.69 1.263 8.2 0.8 3.1 7.5 2.39  
1994 31 BOS AL 9 7 .563 2.85 24 24 0 3 1 0 170.2 124 62 54 15 71 1 168 4 0 4 692 176 3.62 1.143 6.5 0.8 3.7 8.9 2.37  
1995 32 BOS AL 10 5 .667 4.18 23 23 0 0 0 0 140.0 141 70 65 15 60 0 132 14 0 9 623 117 4.20 1.436 9.1 1.0 3.9 8.5 2.20  
1996 33 BOS AL 10 13 .435 3.63 34 34 0 6 2 0 242.2 216 106 98 19 106 2 257 4 1 8 1032 139 3.43 1.327 8.0 0.7 3.9 9.5 2.42  
1997 34 TOR AL 21 7 .750 2.05 34 34 0 9 3 0 264.0 204 65 60 9 68 1 292 12 0 4 1044 222 2.25 1.030 7.0 0.3 2.3 10.0 4.29 AS,CYA-1,MVP-10
1998 35 TOR AL 20 6 .769 2.65 33 33 0 5 3 0 234.2 169 78 69 11 88 0 271 7 0 6 961 174 2.65 1.095 6.5 0.4 3.4 10.4 3.08 AS,CYA-1,MVP-11
1999 36 NYY AL 14 10 .583 4.60 30 30 0 1 1 0 187.2 185 101 96 20 90 0 163 9 0 8 822 102 4.36 1.465 8.9 1.0 4.3 7.8 1.81  
2000 37 NYY AL 13 8 .619 3.70 32 32 0 1 0 0 204.1 184 96 84 26 84 0 188 10 1 2 878 131 4.33 1.312 8.1 1.1 3.7 8.3 2.24 CYA-6
2001 38 NYY AL 20 3 .870 3.51 33 33 0 0 0 0 220.1 205 94 86 19 72 1 213 5 0 14 918 128 3.29 1.257 8.4 0.8 2.9 8.7 2.96 AS,CYA-1,MVP-8
2002 39 NYY AL 13 6 .684 4.35 29 29 0 0 0 0 180.0 172 94 87 18 63 6 192 7 0 14 768 102 3.30 1.306 8.6 0.9 3.2 9.6 3.05  
2003 40 NYY AL 17 9 .654 3.91 33 33 0 1 1 0 211.2 199 99 92 24 58 1 190 5 0 5 878 113 3.60 1.214 8.5 1.0 2.5 8.1 3.28 AS
2004 41 HOU NL 18 4 .818 2.98 33 33 0 0 0 0 214.1 169 76 71 15 79 5 218 6 0 5 878 145 3.11 1.157 7.1 0.6 3.3 9.2 2.76 AS,CYA-1,MVP-8
2005 42 HOU NL 13 8 .619 1.87 32 32 0 1 0 0 211.1 151 51 44 11 62 5 185 3 1 3 838 226 2.87 1.008 6.4 0.5 2.6 7.9 2.98 AS,CYA-3,MVP-22
2006 43 HOU NL 7 6 .538 2.30 19 19 0 0 0 0 113.1 89 34 29 7 29 1 102 4 0 3 451 194 3.02 1.041 7.1 0.6 2.3 8.1 3.52  
2007 44 NYY AL 6 6 .500 4.18 18 17 0 0 0 0 99.0 99 52 46 9 31 0 68 5 0 7 420 108 4.14 1.313 9.0 0.8 2.8 6.2 2.19  

While Clemens had an off year in 1993 at age 30, 1994 and 1995, 31-32, were strike years which 1994 was good, 1995 not so much but he also suffered and elbow injury that year. In 1996, however, at age 33 he was right back it with 242 innings and lead the league in strikeouts with 257. Not bad for a pitcher that was supposedly washed up at only 33/34 years old. 1997 was a particularly exceptional year, the year before his 1st "identified year of steroid use". Yet he uses PED's in 1998, has another excellent year and from their on out from age 36 on he is never supposed to pitch 200 innings again? Ryan did it 5 times from ages 38-43 including 4 in a row from age 40-43 not to mention 173 at age 44 and 157.1 at 45. And yet according to this article Clemens wouldn't even pitch past age 41 let alone have another 200 inning season past 36.  

And:

Quote

That was the year when he turned 42 and went 18-4, with a 2.98 ERA, 214⅓ innings pitched and 218 strikeouts. ZiPS instead projects that final season would have looked far more mundane: 8-5, 3.35 ERA, 113 innings pitched and 105 strikeouts.

Compare to Ryan at age 42: 16-10, 3.20 ERA, 239.1 innings pitched and 301 strikeouts. Or how about age 43: 13-9, with a 3.44 ERA, 204 innings pitched and 232 strikeouts. 

Once again, this makes little sense with no reason to believe Clemens career would have dropped off so dramatically from 1998 onward. And if you look at the stats, while 1997 and 1998 were certainly banner years for Clemens, if he did not use in 1997 1998 would not be an anomaly with 1996 clearly a bounce back year regardless. And after he went to the Yankees in 1999, his tenure there was hardly super human and exactly what one would expect from an aging all-time great still able to pitch with an ERA between 3.51-4.60 and 200 strikeouts only once. Moving out the AL east and going to Houston at age 41 would have improved his numbers. A reasonable expectation is that Clemens would have made to to 300 wins and beyond with a similar trajectory as Greg Maddux and like his idol Nolan Ryan, and Maddux, pitched as long as he was productive. 

As far as how to explain Nolan Ryan, well, all I would say is the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers of the late 1980's early 1990's was very good to him. Inexplicably good.  But if Ryan can do it why not Clemens who modeled himself and his workout after Ryan? Aaron can hit 274 home runs from the age of 34 but Bonds can't?

As much as we may not like the villain, the "cheaters" and "liars", and the farther they fall the better we feel about ourselves, we still need to be honest about them, not for their sake-but our own. If not we are no different. 

Lee Anderson

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to "Not as great: Assessing Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens without the PED factor" Article is BS and Why.
 
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Thanos5150

    1

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.