Just Wrong On So Many Levels

Andy Pettitte has been in the news a lot recently, thanks to his high-profile testimony for the government in the Roger Clemens case, during his attempt at a major league comeback. Much has been made of Pettitte's admission that he may have misunderstood Clemens when the embattled former ace supposedly told Pettitte he used Human Growth Hormone. And if there's some controversial baseball news that also happens to include future Hall of Fame candidates, you can bet Jon Heyman of CBS Sports has something ignorant to say. He actually manages to be spectacularly wrong on a variety of different layers in his article entitled, "Pettitte's under-oath about-face costs him one Hall of Fame vote -- this one."

Heyman's words are quoted and in bold font:

"Yankees pitching great Andy Pettitte may have gotten Roger Clemens out of a jail sentence with his misremembering the other day in court. But Pettitte's contradictory testimony cost himself a chance of at least one Hall of Fame vote -- mine."

The above statement shatters all previously-held records for total number of false premises stuffed into two sentences.

"Pettitte's candidacy is a longshot, to be sure, and it depends on at least two factors. 

One, a voter probably has to weigh career impact over career statistics (assuming he doesn't stick around for a few more years and dramatically boost those numbers). And two, a voter probably has to take Pettitte at his word that he only used HGH twice, and only then to recover from injuries."

The voters aren't only taking Pettitte at his word. They're taking the word of everyone who played in the steroid era. Did Jeff Bagwell take PEDs? Mike Piazza? Jeff Kent? Ivan Rodriguez? Pettitte? Who knows? Nobody, really. So we're giving all of them the benefit of the doubt.

"The second claim is suddenly hard to swallow.

Pettitte lied for years when it came to his PED use, denying he ever took any such drugs right up until the day things got serious and baseball-appointed drug czar George Mitchell and the feds got involved. Then Pettitte changed his story to include two instances of HGH use, but only for recovery purposes.

We who knew Pettitte as an exceeedingly pleasant and God-fearing man nodded right along with him. But now, how can we be so sure he was telling the truth then?"

But more importantly, how can we be so sure he isn't an alien spy from Neptune? I for one am horrified that the government is wasting resources on a steroid investigation while embedded space invaders walk amongst our children.

"Suddenly on the stand in federal court last week, Pettitte changed his story about Clemens. And remarkably, he changed it from one day to the next. It is fair to assume he wasn't being completely truthful one of those two days."

There is no way to say this except: You are wrong. Just, like, ignorant of the facts. But rather than explain why, I'll first allow Heyman to present the entirety of his misguided, hyperbole-laden rant:

"Under questioning by government lawyers, Pettitte, who's trying for a baseball comeback with the Yankees, said Clemens told him about Clemens' own HGH use while the pair were working out together back in 1999 or 2000. That was a powerful point against Clemens.

Then only one day later, under questioning by Clemens' lawyers, Pettitte said he may have misunderstood the key HGH conversation. In fact, it's now 50-50 he misunderstood, he answered to Clemens attorney Michael Attanasio. "I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte lamely answered to Attanasio.

Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic, Clemens' defense team is arguing Monday to strike his entire testimony, and I won't blame Judge Walton if he agrees. Pettitte's testimony was viewed by many as the key to the government's case, and now it can be thrown out.

While Pettitte won't face charges for his lame, less-then-honest performance (the government is understandably done with the steroids-in-baseball cases after Clemens), Pettitte may have torpedoed a worthwhile yet expensive case of perjury against Clemens with his sudden case of amnesia regarding a conversation he's been testifying consistently about for nearly five years.

I get that Pettitte is conflicted and doesn't want to help send his idol, Clemens, to the slammer. But if Pettitte is willing to bend the truth under oath to aid someone else, why should we believe his own story of two usages of HGH only for recovery and no usages of steroids?"

Okay, so, that was a fun little fantasy. But Heyman completely disregards a crucial fact. Pettitte did admit that there was a 50-50 chance he misunderstood Clemens. But he never suggested otherwise. The story has never changed.

Pettitte has always allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Not just throughout this recent testimony. Since 2008.

Pettitte's deposition in 2008 is public record. According to Pettitte, he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999 from which he got the impression Clemens was using PEDs. They had another conversation in 2005, during which Pettitte asked Clemens about his usage. Clemens responded with confusion, claiming Pettitte must have misunderstood the 1999 conversation. In his 2008 testimony, Pettitte was asked about his reaction to Clemens' apparent flip-flop. His recorded answer:

"Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him."

The follow-up question:

"Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then?"

And again, Pettitte's answer:

"I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it.  And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."

So since '08, Pettitte has allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation. Yet Heyman writes as if Pettitte changed his story from one day of last week's testimony to the next. Some of the phrases that appear in the Heyman quotes above:

under-oath about-face
changed his story
wasn't being completely truthful
lamely answered
Pettitte's under-oath changeup is so pathetic
lame, less than-honest performance
sudden case of amnesia
willing to bend the truth under oath

Now, it's not like Pettitte is being 100% clear or helpful. It's fair to call him wishy-washy. But essentially accusing him of changing his story from Day 1 to Day 2 (aka, perjury) when in fact his story has been consistent from Year 1 to Year 5, is bordering on slander.

"There are people who are going to say Pettitte isn't a Hall of Famer anyway, that he didn't win enough games, strike out enough batters or make enough All-Star teams."

Wait--an actual baseball argument being made? Hurrah! Relevant facts stick out like a sore thumb in this article.

Anyway, I agree with the "people" Heyman generally references above. Pettitte really isn't a Hall of Famer based on the numbers, and I didn't need false claims of perjury to sway my opinion on that.

"But Pettitte is the only pitcher to begin his career with 16 seasons without a single losing season (Tom Seaver and Grover Alexander started with 15), his 19 career postseason victories is the most in history (and makes it 259 total victories), and he's one of 26 pitchers who are at least 100 games over .500, with 18 of those pitchers in the Hall of Fame and six more not yet eligible (according to YESNetwork.com)."

And after being wrong about the facts of Pettitte's legal history, Heyman is also wrong about Pettitte's worthiness of Cooperstown consideration. All three of those pro-Pettitte arguments are based on wins. Regular season wins are a reflection of run support, bullpen strength, and luck. Postseason wins are a reflection of all of those things, plus sheer bulk of opportunity. Neither statistic is adequate to evaluate Hall of Fame candidacy. In fact, I scoff at using individual victories to make a Cooperstown case.

"Some from the stat set may scoff at individual victories making a Cooperstown case."

Hey, that's me!

"But there's more. Five times Pettitte finished in the top six in Cy Young voting."

Fair enough. But arguably, he only deserved two of those five finishes. In the other three, his ERAs were 3.87, 4.02, and 4.35. Hardly elite. A lot of those Cy Young votes were based on the success of the Yankees' dynasty at the time, plus his gaudy win totals and the New York media.

"The most similar pitcher to him is Mike Mussina, a clear Hall-of-Fame candidate by most accounts, according to Baseball-Reference.com. So Pettitte is at least a serious Cooperstown candidate based on on-field merit."

I don't know what Heyman is looking at, but Baseball-Reference.com has Mike Mussina listed as the fourth-most similar pitcher to Pettitte. The top three are David Wells, Kevin Brown, and Bob Welch. That seems like the perfect tier for Pettitte--a very good pitcher, and one who will receive some Hall consideration, but ultimately not worthy. Again, this is because his career ERA is pushing towards 4.00 and his career strikeout and WHIP numbers are 'meh' and his peak wasn't very high. Not because of some random testimony against Roger Clemens.

"Some may say still his career comes up short, and that's fine if they do. Others may reflexively rule him out based on using HGH at all, and that's up to them."

Hey, look at that, rational thinking is fun.

"But I was of a belief that his impact via big October wins might earn him my vote..."

Ah yes, Pettitte is a frequent recipient of the Jack Morris Award in the Big October Wins Category. But here's a quick quiz: identify the following Mystery Pitchers.

Mystery Pitcher A: 3.88 ERA, 6.6 K/9, 1.35 WHIP
Mystery Pitcher B: 3.83 ERA, 5.9 K/9, 1.30 WHIP

Pitcher A is Andy Pettitte in the regular season. Pitcher B is Andy Pettitte in the playoffs. So yeah, he had some big postseason wins because he pitched for a postseason juggernaut. But he was basically the exact same pitcher in October as he was in May or August. Hardly a playoff hero.

"...and also that I might be able to overlook the two admitted HGH usages as a pair of weak moments for a pitcher with an imperfect elbow."

I don't agree with Heyman's assessment of Pettitte's career, but I like that he's willing to overlook admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs in general when it comes to his Cooperstown ballot. At least that will give worthier-yet-stained candidates like Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire the consideration they deserve.

Oh, wait, I forgot. Heyman is on the record as saying that he won't ever vote for Palmeiro or McGwire. Bit a double-standard there, maybe?

"Now, though, his own sympathetic HGH story comes into serious question. If he's willing to suddenly misremember under oath for a good buddy, it's easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to. Maybe Pettitte isn't quite the truthteller we gave him credit for, and maybe there is some other explanation for how his fastball velocity increased to 93/94 mph somewhere in the middle of his career.

I'd say the chances are 50-50 (at best) that Pettitte misremembered his own supposedly very limited usage."

Hey, Jon: you've voted for Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, and Don Mattingly for the Hall, while excluding Jeff Bagwell and Edgar Martinez. You may never vote for Rafael Palmeiro and Mark McGwire. And you're throwing out Pettitte's case because of some ridiculous notion you have about some irrelevant testimony. So tell me, why should I ever listen to anything you have to say?