Roger Clemens Is Such A Massive Dirtbag

This is very true....however it seems like for the past couple of years other players have been doing the same thing to the Yanks.

 

A few points:

1. As far as the amount of money goes... Not my money. As long as it didn't preclude other moves, what's the problem? And it's not like got Pavano'd and have him taking up a roster spot for the next three seasons.

2. I think every Yankee fan knew that it was risk to sign a mid-40's pitcher, steroids or no. But I think most fans also knew that even with that risk, Clemens was probably the best short-term solution to their immediate pitching woes, a one-year deal that prevented rushing up another young pitcher or trading talent for an at best truly mediocre veteran.

3. Just to put things in perspective - Clemens' ERA and WHIP were both slightly better than Matsuzaka's.

4. If you let anything Suzyn Waldman does add to or detract from your enjoyment of a season, you have larger issues.

 

Perspective. I buy into the "not my money" concept entirely. But, through May, the Yankees were below .500, losing relevance, and pitching was one of the big concerns. Along comes Roger on his white horse, posturing himself to save the season - and being paid the entire national treasury of Belize to do it. And he brought what, exactly? Part of me wants to suggest that, if he weren't juicing in 2007, he should have had the decency to start, with the money he commanded.


On your other point, Daisuke and Clemens just can't ever be an equal comparison. Roger's cushy season vs. Daisuke's rookie year on shorter rest than he's ever pitched before. Not to mention, Daisuke's notoriously poor run support. Apples and Orangutans.

 

If Clemens testifies before Congress and they think he has perjured himself he's going to wind up in Federal Court. I'll almost guarantee that.

They came very close with Palmeiro and I think they're going to do it this time. If I'm Clemens lawyers I tell him not to testify and to invoke his 5th Amendment right if he as to.

 

Way to completely cherry pick stats.

Matsuzaka was better in K/BB, K/9, H/9, and their WHIP was virtually the same. Considering that Matsuzaka's only real problem was control, and that can likely be contributed if not to the change in leagues, culture, workout routine, and pitching schedule, then certainly to the change in the strikezone and the actual ball he had to throw, not to mention the fact that he was a 26 year old rookie, that's a terrible comparison. In fact, the only pitcher on the Sox staff who would be a reasonable comparison to Clemens in terms of experience, age, and similar style would be Schilling, and he was soundly better across the board.

 

He brought the best chances of improving the rotation. Say what you will about his actual performance compared to some idealized expected performance. I'd still say that his actual performance (and a realistic expectation of future performance) gave the Yankees a far better chance to win games than any other option at that point in the season. If someone was pissed off about Clemens' performance for the Yankees, that means that they actually believed that he'd come in and put up 150 innings of 2.80 ERA ball. And if someone believed that, well... I probably wouldn't give them a gold star for their baseball analysis skills.

Start the season? Why does that factor into anything? His payment was pro-rated. He actually sped up his program to get to the majors faster. Before signing the contract, he was beholden to no team, and no team was counting on him. In fact, were it not for the rash of injuries to Yankee starters, I doubt the Yankees would have pursued Clemens.

Run support has nothing to do with WHIP or ERA, which are the stats I used to compare the two. And, yes, there are differences in their seasons... but there are differences in the length of the contract and amount of money doled out, as well. I'm not saying they're equal, but certainly comparable enough that - if one player's performance should be in the realm of "pissing off the fans" - the other's performance should isn't far away.

 

Yeah, way to cherry pick the two most direct and visible stats of individual pitcher performance. How sneaky of me. Especially considering the context.

Not my point, at all. In fact, you're kind of proving my point.

I'm not saying Clemens is/was a better pitcher than Matsuzaka, and I'm not saying I would rather have had Clemens on my team last year. Yeah, yeah, yeah, poor Matsuzaka had all kinds of hardships to deal with coming over here. Waaaah. Your post is a prime example as most Sox fans will bend over backwards to make excuse after excuse for him, and did so all year long after their team dished out an obscene amount of money just to be able to negotiate with him.

Are you pissed about his performance? I didn't think so. Are you happy he's on your team? I would be. Would you call it a stellar year, though? Would you say he lived up to the hype? Not even close. Matsuzaka had a mediocre season. Flashes of greatness... but not much better than league-average. Will he get better? Maybe. Probably. Who knows? Not my point.

My point was that the actual performances of these two pitchers were at least comparable last year, and yet the acceptable reaction for one fan base is to make excuses, while the acceptable reaction for the other fan base is to be pissed off? Makes no sense.

 

Yes, except you were very misleading about WHIP, and other things like K/BB and K/9 (which Matsuzaka was better at both, yet you conveniently left out) are harder to skew and better indicators of pure stuff. Not to mention that Matsuzaka had a higher BABIP, which would normalize over time. Not that Matsuzaka was great in 2007, but he wasn't that bad either.

You're missing the point entirely. Matsuzaka was EXPECTED to have an adjustment period. He wasn't expected (by any rational person anyway) to go out and put up a 23-3, 2.21 ERA season. All things considered, with all the adjustments, with all the walks, he still put up some solid peripherals, especially for a rookie season. And the fact that the Sox were the best team in baseball all season long helped take away any ill feelings toward his performance. He also showed enough potential to keep fans excited about what he can bring to the table. Seeing Beckett go from a 5+ ERA to the best pitcher in the league after adjusting to the AL also played a role for Sox fans, as it gave them a current example of what can happen after getting acclimated.

Clemens on the other hand was coming off three "seasons" where he posted ERAs of 2.98, 1.87, and 2.30. He was signed at a time when the Yankee rotation was in shambles. If you don't think they they expected more out of him, FAR more, than they got, I don't give YOU a gold star for baseball analysis. Did they expect him to put up another 2.30 ERA? No, but I guarantee if they thought it would be over 4 they wouldn't have given him NEARLY the deal they did. I think they expected something around 3.25-3.50, which was perfectly reasonable considering his three previous seasons. Clemens was supposed to come in and give the Yankees at worst a solid number 3, but more likely a 2, and at that, he failed miserably.

THAT is why Yankee fans should be upset at Clemens more than Sox fans should be at Matsuzaka.

 

And that's part of my point. He was PAID as a top-of-the-line starter.

No, I was being facetious. I was jokingly saying that, if he weren't juicing in 2007, for that kind of money, he should have had the decency to start.

I realize that, but you're pulling two stats out for players that just didn't pitch equally-wearing seasons, and I feel compelled to point that out whenever someone knocks Daisuke. And, ignoring that, you also can't compare a 26-year veteran to a rookie switching from Japanese baseball. Stats comparisons, regardless of which stats you pull, should be qualified. With his production this season, I could have been happier with Daisuke's performance, but not markedly.

 

Except I wasn't saying that Clemens's "stuff" was better. I was talking only about his individual performance in terms of helping the team. ERA and WHIP are the most direct stats for that. AND... here's what you're missing... I wasn't doing it to say, "Ha ha, Clemens was better." I was using it as a point of comparison to another pitcher who cost a ridiculous amount of money and had a ridiculous amount of hype.

I know he wasn't that bad!

You realize that you're continuing to make my point for me, no?

And neither was Clemens. Not by any rational person.

(Of course, I heard plenty about what Matsuzaka and TEH GYROBALL!!!1! was going to do up here from the irrational fans making up the other 95% of RSN.)

All of which support my point in that people are saying that it isn't the actual performance of the pitcher that mattered when judging the season, but rather the circumstances surrounding that pitcher's performance as seen by your rookie season excuses, adjustment excuses, small strike zone excuses, winning team, etc. and whatever other reasons you would care to give for Matsuzaka's less-than-spectacular performance in 2007. The circumstances can affect judgment of performance. My initial post was pointing out why I don't agree with that.

I'm not saying the Yanks didn't expect more out of him. But the Sox expected more out of Matsuzaka as well, much as you might want to play it off as an adjustment year.

If the Yanks, or any team, knew what they would get out of any player, of course it would affect what they'd pay him. At the time, it was the best move, and that's what it cost to sign him.

And - I know you'll say this is cherry picking - but if you take away that one, truly putrid outing against the ChiSox, Clemens' ERA was 3.50.

Take away Dice-K's two worst performances (same % of starts), and he's at 4.18.

I know it doesn't matter in the overall season stats. But it does show that - for the most part - Clemens was not a plus 4.00 ERA pitcher.

In any case, my original post, if you'd care to go back and read it, was listing a few points why I wasn't pissed about the move. Why it wasn't as bad as some people are making it out to be... first of all because a solely results-oriented approach is a poor way to judge transactions, and secondly, because... well... it just wasn't that bad. You do understand that saying, "He wasn't as bad as all that," and comparing two of his stats to Matsuzaka isn't the same thing as saying, "He's totally awesome and I'm super-happy with his performance and he's totally a better pitcher than Matsuzaka," right?

This isn't a pissing match between the two. It was simple comparison of (arguably) the two most significant pitching stats to make a quick point. A valid one, in the original context. Don't make it out to be more than that.

More than, less than. Who cares? I wasn't saying they should be ranked differently in terms of "relative pissed-offed-ness of the fan base" or whatever. What an extremely silly thing to want to rank. In fact, I'll tell you what... I fully admit that Matsuzaka is deserving of the Season In Which Fans Were Rightfully Less Pissed At Him Award(tm). Congratulations, Dice-K!

Again, it was a single point of reference in a larger argument meant to show that Clemens wasn't as bad as some people are making him out to be. That Clemens, while not performing as well as expected, didn't fall that far short of rational expectations, and was still their best option.

Disappointed in how Clemens performed? Yeah, a little bit, I guess. Pissed? He'd need to be a lot worse.

 

I guess I just don't see the value in getting angry at a player because of how much money they make. I might be upset with an organization spending too much money on a player if it limits their future moves, but as long as the guy isn't doing what Pavano does, the dollar values don't bother me.

And like I pointed out in the last post, Clemens might not have been putting up "ace"-like numbers... but he wasn't as bad as some people want to make it seem. Not even close.

Ah. I see.

I wasn't knocking Matsuzaka. Unless you think it's a knock by mere fact of the comparison.

 

In all fairness, if we're going to "qualify stats", we should all keep in mind that a large reason for Roger's ERA being what it was is the combination of less starts due to a late joining with the club, along with a single appearance where he got shelled in only the first couple innings and was pulled. (IIRC his ERA for that game was in the neighborhood of 15.00)

Sorry boys, Cappy is right on this one. The Yankees got mostly what they expected from Roger. He underperformed for the sheer salary figure, but when you consider how well he pitched, given low run support, and that he helped the team right the ship after multiple pitching injuries decimated the staff, Roger did just fine.

As a matter of fact, Yisman can back me up that I said all year that I was satisfied with Roger's performance, even given how much we paid for him. This is where the "it's not my money" argument actually means something. Not bringing in Clemens last year wasn't going to prevent the rise in ticket prices. Not spending the money serves me no purpose, so they may as well spend it, and give my team a shot to win.

That's a lesson our Jets need to learn.

BTW: Cappy makes a good point about Clemens and Matsuzaka. Both were a case of risk vs. potential reward. The Sox risked an awful lot of money on a guy that there was no proof he could adjust to MLB. The potential reward outweighed the risk though. It then paid off, good for them. The Yankees risked a lot of money to get Roger to fix the rotation, regardless of his age, his coming back from the NL, whatever. (And you can't use the steroid thing, since no one had any idea his name would appear in the Mitchell report.) The risk was less than the potential reward. Roger DID help stabilize the rotation. Whether you want to believe that or not is up to you, but unless you watched a significant number of Yankees games both before and after he joined the staff, you have no idea how much of a positive effect he had.

I'll put it this way, steroids aside, knowing what I know now, if I were in charge, I'd do it exactly the same way again.

 

Not a fair title to bestow. You introduced him into the discussion for comparison. This morphed from my suggesting that I would be pissed at Roger for building a pitching resume on juice, commanding a king's ransom from the Yankees when they were in dire need, and then under-performing. I get the point you were making in the comparison, but I just see it as two entirely different, and incomparable, player seasons.

In defense of devil (and he certainly doesn't need my help on this point), since the day of Daisuke's signing, Yankee fans on this board have posed all sorts of fancy arguments to support the position that Daisuke was a bust. While that might not be your point here, it's a common argument theme in this forum.

 

I approached it from the opposite angle. The Red Sox made a HUGE pitch to Roger to sign with them before both the 2006 and 2007 seasons. In 2006, they used their Hollywood connection to produce a video, reminding him of his glory years in a Red Sox uniform. I went from hating the idea, to warming up to it, to hating it again. In the end, I was relieved when he didn't sign with Boston, because I would have been frustrated by his performance. Best the way it happened.

 

Actually, this started with your post suggesting that Yankee fans should/would be pissed at Clemens... that you would be pissed at him for his underperformance.

I then told you why I wasn't pissed, and included a comparison to Matsuzaka's ERA and WHIP in that post. One is considered, "Hey not that bad." The other is worthy of being pissed at. Based on what? Circumstances... circumstances that have nothing to do with the actual performance. Is it what was expected from Roger? Not quite. But close. Again, barring that one horrible performance, it was a solid season from him. An $18 million season? No. But that points back to the not my money argument.

And while Dice-K certainly has more long-term potential than Clemens (duh), I think it's still fair to say that he, too, wasn't as good as people thought he was going to be. He wasn't bad... and was quite good at times (and obviously has the chance to improve next year)... but he wasn't the pitcher that most people were expecting.

Okay. Meaning what?

 

Yes, that was a sentence that I started, changed, and then didn't fix until you had quoted and started to respond.

The balance of your reply I'll read in a bit. When I get stuck on the phone and need a distraction.

I think those who see Daisuke as under-performing were caught up in the mythical qualities he was given. Gyroball. Six pitches for strikes. Mid-nineties. 200-pitch games. We here in the States got to see him maybe twice in the WBC, and his MVP of that tournament did nothing to discourage the myth.

Well, for present purposes, it means that Yankee posters around here bring up Daisuke in discussion often, and introducing him into a discussion of why I would be upset by Roger's lack of value for the dollar is just another way of packaging the "Daisuke is a bust" argument that we hear around these parts. I know you don't see it that way, but it really is the same argument with snazzier clothers.

 

Well, yes and no... From my perspective (living in Boston), there were two types of people here:

1. The irrational fans who thought it was a given that he'd strike out 340 hitters, post a 2.70 ERA and were predicting a 21-6 season. This was about half of the fans.

2. The "reasonable" fans who thought he'd need some time to adjust, and so would only post a 3.50-3.75 ERA... maybe a 4.00 at the very, very worst, and go 18-9.

Maybe these fans made adjustments/rationalizations as the year went on, but compared to how nearly EVERYONE thought he was going to perform, Dice-K fell short of the mark. This is not to say he was bad, or won't get better. Just that he didn't (in 2007) provide what was (right or wrong) advertised. Were they expecting too much from him? Yes.

I'm sure you can tell me of fans who said that, no, a 4.40 ERA and a 1.32 WHIP was just what was expected of the next Pedro in his first year. I sure as heck didn't see any of those fans, though.

Um... I guess. I suppose it's only saying "he's a bust" if you believe that Roger was without a doubt a bust.

 

Well, I've avoided this part of the conversation because I think it's basically beating a dead horse, but screw it, one more for the road I guess.

Let's, for argument's sake, assume Clemens is innocent. (I don't know whether he is or is not, and at this point, I don't even care anymore.) If he is innocent, why shouldn't he be pissed off enough to do what he's done?

If you were accused of a crime you knew damn well you didn't commit, would you fight to the end of the Earth to prove your own innocence?

The problem is, you assume he's guilty, even in the face of no actual evidence. Let's keep something in mind, if the Mitchell Report had been the presentation in a courtroom in this country, Roger would have walked quite easily. The entire thing is nothing but he-said, she-said bullshit.

Now I'm not saying Clemens is, in fact, innocent. Like SundayJack, I believe the league is filled with cheaters. However, he could be. We don't (and never will) know for certain. Even if Roger "proves" he's innocent, he'll always be guilty in the court of public opinion.

What would you say if tomorrow McNamee appeared on tv and made a statement that he lied to investigators, and that Clemens had never been injected with any steroids by him? Would you accept that as truth? If you're being honest, you'll say no. So does it make any difference? Again, if we assume (as we should as Americans), that Clemens is not guilty until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, then Roger is the one who has been wronged.

But we condemn people without any evidence. I'm guilty of it too. I've been against Bonds for a long time. I was against McGwire. I think it's wholly believable that Clemens is guilty. But at any given time, there was zero proof against all of them.

The fact is, Roger could be innocent. If he is, he has every right to fight with everything he has to prove it, regardless of his buddy's child's situation.

 

And that's the first place you're wrong. Of COURSE the circumstances matter when evaluating an acquisition! If your team goes out and signs a shortstop, and he hits .260/7 HR/50 RBI, are you ok with it? If you signed Alex Gonzalez, yes. If you signed Derek Jeter, absolutely not. If you sign a pitcher and he gives you a 4.25 ERA, are you happy? If it's the first year in a six year deal to a rookie, probably. If it's a one year deal when you are desperate for pitchers for more than double the money, from a guy who has a high ERA under 3.00 in the last 3 years and track record of success, no way. To say that circumstances surrounding a season have nothing to do with how it's viewed is, honestly, stupid.

Yes, the Sox do expect more from Matsuzaka over his contract than the Yankees did from Clemens. That's why they signed him to a 6 year deal. There's a huge difference there, and if you don't see that, I don't know what to tell you. Again, the expectations are based on circumstances.

Shocking! Such insight! In other news, if I knew the winning lottery numbers ahead of time, I'd be rich. But that proves my point that they DID expect more from him, and paid him as such. They paid him based on what they thought they were getting, and that's an ace, which he had been for 3 straight years. They were right to do it at the time, but he didn't pitch anything close to that. If they weren't expecting ace quality pitching, why did they pay for it? If they thought they would get league average pitching, why not sign a league average pitcher for a league average contract?

First, your numbers are way off. Clemens pitched 99 innings and gave up 46 ER. Take away that start (1 IP, 3 ER, not 8 R in general) and it's 98 IP, 43 ER, for an ERA of 3.95. For Matsuzaka, his two worst starts subtracted (7ER in 5IP vs Sea 5/3 and 8ER in 2.2IP vs Bal 9/8) gives totals of 210.1 IP and 91 ER, for an ERA of 3.89.

Secondly, ERAs are easier to be skewed by one bad start the smaller the sample size.

The thing you aren't factoring in is the Yankees had all their expectations for Clemens crammed into 4 months. The Matsuzaka situation is completely different. They didn't sign him with the expectation that he would be a top pitcher this year. They signed him with the expectation that over the course of 6 YEARS he would be a top pitcher. He still has half a decade to go.

As for stabilizing the rotation, they could have got 5 innings a start of league average pitching from just about anyone. They didn't need to spend $18 million for that.