As is the case with Barry Bonds, the candidacies of Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux require almost no critical thinking. Their Hall of Fame credentials aren't in question: they dominated the mound for two decades despite pitching in the most hitter-friendly period in the sport's history. No matter which yardstick you use to evaluate their careers -- traditional numbers or modern sabermetrics, peak value or longevity -- the ultimate conclusion is the same regardless: they are the two best pitchers of the post-integration era.
First, some key milestones. Most notably, both Maddux and Clemens are top-ten pitchers all-time in terms of career wins and career strikeouts. Both won more than 350 games, joining Warren Spahn as the only pitchers to surpass that win total in the post-World War Two era. And both easily surpassed the 3,000-strikeout benchmark: Clemens had 4,672, the third-most ever, and Maddux had 3,371, the 10th-most ever. The only other pitcher in baseball history who ranks in the top ten in both wins and strikeouts is Walter Johnson, who obviously pitched well before integration.
Their long-term excellence is also reflected by their career Wins Above Replacement totals. According to Baseball Reference, Clemens owns the third-most career WAR among all pitchers, and Maddux owns the eighth-most. The only other post-World War Two pitcher in the top eight is Tom Seaver. Fangraphs.com views the duo even more favorably: there, Clemens ranks first in career WAR, and Maddux is fourth. Either way, Clemens and Maddux appear to be the two best pitchers since integration.
That might seem like a disputable claim at first, mostly because it doesn't appear to be supported by plain old Earned Run Average. The career ERAs of Clemens (3.12) and Maddux (3.16) don't exactly stand out when compared to other dominant pitchers of the last half-century:
Tom Seaver: 2.86
Bob Gibson: 2.91
Warren Spahn: 3.09
Gaylord Perry: 3.11
Clemens: 3.12
Maddux: 3.16
Nolan Ryan: 3.19
Steve Carlton: 3.22
So why were Clemens and Maddux demonstrably better than these guys? Because of the context in which they pitched. The conditions for pitchers during the 1990s and 2000s were more unfavorable than they have been at any other point in baseball history. In 1964, for example, the league-average ERA was 3.58. In 1974, it was 3.63. But in 1984, the year Clemens made his first career start, the average was up to 3.81. In 1994, it was 4.51. And it reached its nadir in 2000, when the average ERA was 4.77. The average ERA! 4.77! That season, Clemens' ERA was 3.70, which doesn't look great by our standards -- but it was the second-best ERA in the league. Context is everything. A combination of different factors -- including steroids, better strength programs, expansion, and some smaller ballparks -- drastically tipped the competitive scales in favor of hitters during that generation. Taking that into account, the excellence sustained by Clemens and Maddux across the so-called Steroid Era is all the more impressive.
This is where ERA+ comes in handy, which adjusts for context and compares pitchers to their contemporaries. Here are the same names listed above, but this time ranked by ERA+ rather than raw ERA:
Clemens: 143
Maddux: 132
Tom Seaver: 127
Bob Gibson: 127
Warren Spahn: 119
Gaylord Perry: 117
Steve Carlton: 115
Nolan Ryan: 112
Clemens and Maddux are clearly superior. In fact, only three Hall of Famers have a better ERA+ than Clemens, and only twelve rank ahead of Maddux. The great majority of those pitchers did not play after World War Two. So yes, when factoring in excellence, longevity, and context, Clemens and Maddux had the two best pitching careers in the post-integration era.
What really proves this point is their peak performances, which were extraordinary. Maddux's peak is easier to pinpoint because his best years were conveniently bunched together. Across the seven seasons between 1992 and 1998, he posted a 2.15 ERA, 190 ERA+, and 0.97 WHIP. He won four consecutive Cy Young awards (a feat equaled only by Randy Johnson) and four ERA titles. About a quarter of his starts were complete games. Contained within this seven-year peak was a two-year uber-peak in 1994 and 1995, in which his ERAs were, astoundingly, 1.56 and 1.63. According to ERA+, those were two of the five best pitching seasons ever.
Clemens' exact peak is more difficult to identify-- probably because he peaked three different times with three different teams, scattering his best seasons throughout his long career. From 1986 to 1992, Clemens had a seven-year stretch of Maddux-like dominance with the Red Sox; he averaged about 260 innings and 240 strikeouts per year with a 2.66 ERA, along with three Cy Young awards and an MVP. A few years later he had a brief, epic run with the Blue Jays, when in 1996 and 1997 he threw a combined 500 innings with a 2.33 ERA, winning the Cy Young in both seasons. And in three years with the Astros at the end of his career, he posted a cumulative ERA of 2.40, set a personal best in regular-season ERA (1.87), and won his final Cy Young -- all of which he did after his 40th birthday. His "worst" stretch as a pitcher was his stint with the Yankees, and he still won a Cy Young and a World Series with them. It all adds up to five strikeout titles, seven ERA titles, and a record seven Cy Young awards. He probably should have won ten.
Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux are the kind of Hall of Famers that make other Hall of Famers look bad. Both should be inducted unanimously. Unfortunately, only Maddux will be elected to Cooperstown this time around. Clemens will be ignored by the sanctimonious voting bloc for the second consecutive year, as some kind of punishment for whatever drugs he probably took. When the voters induct the "clean" guy (Maddux) while exiling the "dirty" one (Clemens), they'll likely frame it as a triumphant "statement" about the Hall of Fame's integrity. But ironically, they'll only be undermining the credibility of their institution. What's the point of a Baseball Hall of Fame that doesn't include Roger Clemens? And why should Greg Maddux value his membership in an organization that refuses to recognize his greatest contemporary?
My Ballot So Far:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Roger Clemens
3. Greg Maddux
Showing posts with label Roger Clemens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roger Clemens. Show all posts
Monday, December 9, 2013
Monday, December 3, 2012
Cooperstown Candidates: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens
The beginning of a series examining the candidates eligible for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. The writers' ballots are due by December 31st and the Class of 2013 will be announced in early January.
This year's Hall of Fame ballot is easily the strongest ever. The returnees include Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Edgar Martinez. But those All-Stars are nothing compared to two all-time greats joining them on the ballot for the first time. One of them has the most MVP Awards in baseball history; the other has the most Cy Young Awards in baseball history. They are arguably the best hitter and the best pitcher the game has ever seen. Yet almost certainly, neither player is going to earn enough votes to gain enshrinement in Cooperstown, either this year or in the foreseeable future.
Because their names are Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
If this was only about the numbers, there wouldn't be a debate. Bonds and Clemens would be unanimous first-ballot inductees. Here's why, as concisely as their extensive accomplishments will allow.
In career Wins Above Replacement, Bonds clocks in as the second-best position player ever, behind only -- you guessed it -- Babe Ruth. Bonds reached base safely more times than any other player in history besides Pete Rose. He won seven Most Valuable Player Awards; no other player has ever won more than three. He is, of course, the all-time home run champion, both single-season (73) and career (762). He ranks third all-time in runs scored, fourth all-time in runs batted in, and fourth all-time in total bases. He finished just 65 hits short of the 3,000 milestone for his career. He stole bases too; a total of 514 in his career, at a 78% success rate. Defense? He won eight Gold Glove Awards in the outfield.
Bonds is most famous (and infamous) for being the home run king, but the statistic he truly dominated was the walk, an under-appreciated skill when he played. He walked 2,558 times in his career, easily the most all-time and several hundred more than second-place Rickey Henderson. He also holds the record for career intentional walks at 688. No one else even has 300. In 2001, Bonds set the record for walks in a single season with 177. In 2002, he broke his own record with 198. In 2004, he broke his own record again, with 232. Two hundred and thirty two walks. (By comparison, Adam Dunn led all of baseball in walks last year...with 105.) Bonds' on-base-percentage during that record-breaking year was .609, the all-time single-season record. He was also 39 years old.
His career on-base percentage (.444) is sixth-best all-time, and his career slugging percentage (.607) is also sixth-best all-time, leading to a mind-boggling career on-base-plus-slugging (OPS) of 1.051, the fourth-best ever. He trails only Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Lou Gehrig in this department.
Bonds also happens to own four of the eight best OPS seasons of all time. Those four seasons all came consecutively, from 2001 to 2004, when Bonds put together the single greatest offensive stretch that the sport has ever seen. Over that four-year span, his average OPS was 1.368 thanks to a .349/.559/.809 line; he also hit a total of 209 home runs and walked a total of 755 times. He won the MVP all four years. Bonds single-handedly dominated baseball to a degree not seen since Babe Ruth out-homered entire teams almost a hundred years ago. Yeah, Barry Bonds was good at baseball.
The case for Roger Clemens is almost as simple. In terms of Wins Above Replacement among pitchers, Clemens is third-best all-time, behind only Walter Johnson and Cy Young. He won the Cy Young Award seven times, an unmatched feat. His first was all the way back in 1986 (when he also won the MVP) at the age of 23 and his last was in 2004 at the age of 41. He led his league in ERA seven times. He led his league in strikeouts six times. His ERA was below 3.00 in 12 different seasons. He posted dominant statistics across three different decades and in both leagues.
The most impressive thing about Clemens, besides his longevity? He pitched at least half of his career in the heart of the steroid era, when offensive numbers were at their insane peak. He still managed to post a career ERA of 3.12 across nearly 5,000 innings. And he didn't get lucky, either: he finished with 4,672 strikeouts, the third-most all-time behind only Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson.
So it wouldn't be very controversial to say that Roger Clemens is one of the five best pitchers of all time, and perhaps the best in the modern era. It would be even less controversial to say that Barry Bonds is one of the three best position players of all time, and undoubtedly the best in the modern era. Their Hall of Fame cases should be slam dunks. Instead, these two men will have to sweat it out because of three awful words: performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens cheated. They cheated at baseball by injecting themselves with steroids. We don't know this for an absolute fact, but we think we're as sure as we can possibly be. What we do know for an absolute fact is that the baseball writers hate steroid-users when it comes to Hall of Fame voting. Mark McGwire admitted he took steroids, and hasn't even sniffed a respectable vote total yet. Jeff Bagwell is still waiting on the ballot despite an obvious Hall of Fame career just because some people suspect him of using steroids, without any actual proof. Obviously, the baseball writers become very sanctimonious about allowing cheaters into the Hall (proven or otherwise). Why? Because of this clause in the official Hall of Fame voting guidelines:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.
Integrity, sportsmanship, character. These abstract concepts are the justification used to keep the steroid users out of the Hall. "Allowing Bonds and Clemens into the Hall would destroy the sanctity of the game," the writers say.
Here's the problem with that: there is no sanctity in baseball. Pretending such a thing exists is folly. Baseball banned non-whites from playing. Baseball handed out amphetamines like candy. The Hall is full of racists, criminals, segregationists, cheaters, alcoholics, bat-corkers, and drug-users. The 1951 New York Giants won the pennant thanks to an elaborate sign-stealing system that might have helped Bobby Thompson hit the most famous home run in history. The writers who would keep Clemens and Bonds out of the Hall are oddly silent about Ty Cobb's virulent racism, or Gaylord Perry's admission that he cheated by doctoring the ball. By today's rules, if a player is caught using a performance-enhancing drug, the official punishment handed down by Major League Baseball in the case of a first offense is a 25-game suspension. No mention of a ban from the Hall of Fame. Why the selective morality? Why now? Why Bonds and Clemens?
The Hall of Fame is not a church. It is a museum. It keeps a record of baseball's best players from every era, no matter how tainted. Bonds and Clemens dominated the game for twenty years. Leaving them out, while inducting far more mediocre players like Jack Morris and Jim Rice, would be laughable.
I suppose it's acceptable to use steroids as an excuse to exclude borderline players like Sammy Sosa or Rafael Palmeiro, who might not have been Hall of Fame players without artificial assistance. But using steroids as an excuse to exclude two of the greatest players of all time? Ridiculous. Sure, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't model citizens. They are, however, Hall of Famers. Without a shred of doubt.
My Ballot, As of Now:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Roger Clemens
This year's Hall of Fame ballot is easily the strongest ever. The returnees include Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Mark McGwire, and Edgar Martinez. But those All-Stars are nothing compared to two all-time greats joining them on the ballot for the first time. One of them has the most MVP Awards in baseball history; the other has the most Cy Young Awards in baseball history. They are arguably the best hitter and the best pitcher the game has ever seen. Yet almost certainly, neither player is going to earn enough votes to gain enshrinement in Cooperstown, either this year or in the foreseeable future.
Because their names are Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
If this was only about the numbers, there wouldn't be a debate. Bonds and Clemens would be unanimous first-ballot inductees. Here's why, as concisely as their extensive accomplishments will allow.
In career Wins Above Replacement, Bonds clocks in as the second-best position player ever, behind only -- you guessed it -- Babe Ruth. Bonds reached base safely more times than any other player in history besides Pete Rose. He won seven Most Valuable Player Awards; no other player has ever won more than three. He is, of course, the all-time home run champion, both single-season (73) and career (762). He ranks third all-time in runs scored, fourth all-time in runs batted in, and fourth all-time in total bases. He finished just 65 hits short of the 3,000 milestone for his career. He stole bases too; a total of 514 in his career, at a 78% success rate. Defense? He won eight Gold Glove Awards in the outfield.
Bonds is most famous (and infamous) for being the home run king, but the statistic he truly dominated was the walk, an under-appreciated skill when he played. He walked 2,558 times in his career, easily the most all-time and several hundred more than second-place Rickey Henderson. He also holds the record for career intentional walks at 688. No one else even has 300. In 2001, Bonds set the record for walks in a single season with 177. In 2002, he broke his own record with 198. In 2004, he broke his own record again, with 232. Two hundred and thirty two walks. (By comparison, Adam Dunn led all of baseball in walks last year...with 105.) Bonds' on-base-percentage during that record-breaking year was .609, the all-time single-season record. He was also 39 years old.
His career on-base percentage (.444) is sixth-best all-time, and his career slugging percentage (.607) is also sixth-best all-time, leading to a mind-boggling career on-base-plus-slugging (OPS) of 1.051, the fourth-best ever. He trails only Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, and Lou Gehrig in this department.
Bonds also happens to own four of the eight best OPS seasons of all time. Those four seasons all came consecutively, from 2001 to 2004, when Bonds put together the single greatest offensive stretch that the sport has ever seen. Over that four-year span, his average OPS was 1.368 thanks to a .349/.559/.809 line; he also hit a total of 209 home runs and walked a total of 755 times. He won the MVP all four years. Bonds single-handedly dominated baseball to a degree not seen since Babe Ruth out-homered entire teams almost a hundred years ago. Yeah, Barry Bonds was good at baseball.
The case for Roger Clemens is almost as simple. In terms of Wins Above Replacement among pitchers, Clemens is third-best all-time, behind only Walter Johnson and Cy Young. He won the Cy Young Award seven times, an unmatched feat. His first was all the way back in 1986 (when he also won the MVP) at the age of 23 and his last was in 2004 at the age of 41. He led his league in ERA seven times. He led his league in strikeouts six times. His ERA was below 3.00 in 12 different seasons. He posted dominant statistics across three different decades and in both leagues.
The most impressive thing about Clemens, besides his longevity? He pitched at least half of his career in the heart of the steroid era, when offensive numbers were at their insane peak. He still managed to post a career ERA of 3.12 across nearly 5,000 innings. And he didn't get lucky, either: he finished with 4,672 strikeouts, the third-most all-time behind only Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson.
So it wouldn't be very controversial to say that Roger Clemens is one of the five best pitchers of all time, and perhaps the best in the modern era. It would be even less controversial to say that Barry Bonds is one of the three best position players of all time, and undoubtedly the best in the modern era. Their Hall of Fame cases should be slam dunks. Instead, these two men will have to sweat it out because of three awful words: performance-enhancing drugs.
Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens cheated. They cheated at baseball by injecting themselves with steroids. We don't know this for an absolute fact, but we think we're as sure as we can possibly be. What we do know for an absolute fact is that the baseball writers hate steroid-users when it comes to Hall of Fame voting. Mark McGwire admitted he took steroids, and hasn't even sniffed a respectable vote total yet. Jeff Bagwell is still waiting on the ballot despite an obvious Hall of Fame career just because some people suspect him of using steroids, without any actual proof. Obviously, the baseball writers become very sanctimonious about allowing cheaters into the Hall (proven or otherwise). Why? Because of this clause in the official Hall of Fame voting guidelines:
Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.
Integrity, sportsmanship, character. These abstract concepts are the justification used to keep the steroid users out of the Hall. "Allowing Bonds and Clemens into the Hall would destroy the sanctity of the game," the writers say.
Here's the problem with that: there is no sanctity in baseball. Pretending such a thing exists is folly. Baseball banned non-whites from playing. Baseball handed out amphetamines like candy. The Hall is full of racists, criminals, segregationists, cheaters, alcoholics, bat-corkers, and drug-users. The 1951 New York Giants won the pennant thanks to an elaborate sign-stealing system that might have helped Bobby Thompson hit the most famous home run in history. The writers who would keep Clemens and Bonds out of the Hall are oddly silent about Ty Cobb's virulent racism, or Gaylord Perry's admission that he cheated by doctoring the ball. By today's rules, if a player is caught using a performance-enhancing drug, the official punishment handed down by Major League Baseball in the case of a first offense is a 25-game suspension. No mention of a ban from the Hall of Fame. Why the selective morality? Why now? Why Bonds and Clemens?
The Hall of Fame is not a church. It is a museum. It keeps a record of baseball's best players from every era, no matter how tainted. Bonds and Clemens dominated the game for twenty years. Leaving them out, while inducting far more mediocre players like Jack Morris and Jim Rice, would be laughable.
I suppose it's acceptable to use steroids as an excuse to exclude borderline players like Sammy Sosa or Rafael Palmeiro, who might not have been Hall of Fame players without artificial assistance. But using steroids as an excuse to exclude two of the greatest players of all time? Ridiculous. Sure, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't model citizens. They are, however, Hall of Famers. Without a shred of doubt.
My Ballot, As of Now:
1. Barry Bonds
2. Roger Clemens
Monday, May 7, 2012
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:
The above statement shatters all previously-held records for total number of false premises stuffed into two sentences.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)