Does anyone feel that his stats should have an asterick beside them if he only pitches half a season? Here's my point. He's already up there with histories greatest pitchers for a lot of stats. ERA, K's, etc. If he is always pitching fresh and only half a season, he should pitch well and get ever better stats. Whereas, most pitchers going the full season get fatigued and their stats lower a little. For instance, his ERA is currently 3.10. If he only pitches 100 innings this year and has a great ERA, it could lower his career ERA substancially. Not too fair for the guys grinding it out all season.
2007-05-03 08:57:37 · 8 answers · asked by Squiggs 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Interesting theory, you make some good points and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't tired of the holdouts and indecision on his part. Honestly though, after the 20 year career he's had, and putting up the numbers he has I think he's earned the right to do about whatever he feels like doing. And if teams are going to pay him for it, why not? If someone said they'd pay me a year of my salary for six months of work I'd jump at it every time.
And Roger Clemens is not on 'roids! For God's sake! Why is it that every player who plays into his 40's and is still good, is automatically accused of juicing? Tell me, Red_Necksuck, what about his apperance makes it "obvious" that he's on something? The guy is 44, he's built like he's 44! He works extremely hard to keep himself in good shape but he's not ripped like a 20 year old rookie who's going out and throwing 300 innings with 102 mph fastballs. You want proof he's not juicing... his hat size hasn't doubled in the last three years!
2007-05-03 09:23:24 · answer #1 · answered by blue26 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't the ERA formula take into account innings pitched?
But you're right in general, I think it is ridiculous he can just sit around and then when he decides he wants to play he gets to pick and choose where he goes.
Also, how obvious is it he is on steroids? I know he is a great pitcher, but at his age to keep coming back for fragments of seasons and pitch how he does, there is no way he isn't on something. I think MLB looks the other way a little bit because they like him so much.
2007-05-03 09:05:36 · answer #2 · answered by red_necksuck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whenever someone uses the ancient chestnut about "there are no stupid questions" I'll think of this as my first counterexample.
Playing time is playing time. "I don't like it" is no basis for overturning decades of established records-keeping.
And let's scribble on the back of the envelope: Rocket has allowed 1661 earned runs in 4817.2 innings. Give him a perfect and scoreless 100 innings: his career ERA drops from 3.10 to 3.04. If he allows 20 runs, 3.08. This is a molehill, not a mountain.
Besides, what if he comes back and allows, oh, 100 runs in 100 innings? Career ERA goes up to 3.22. Fair? Unfair?
Success isn't grounds for imposing punishment.
2007-05-03 10:27:45 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question. If he was 25, I might tend to agree with you. But, not at 45. 100 innings to him is almost like 200 for someone like Oswalt, Garcia, Santana, etc. I liken it to a closer. How many innings are they throwing, yet except for wins/losses, we don't discount their K's, era, etc. If Rivera, Papelbon, K-Rod or other top closers threw 200 innings, would there numbers be as good? Probably not, but that's not their job. If Clemens' job is to throw 100 innings, and he does his job as good as he has been, I say give him the benefit. Who would you rather have throw 100 innings for you between July and October anyway - Roger Clemens or Julian Tavares, Kei Igawa, insert name here?
2007-05-03 09:21:24 · answer #4 · answered by kris d 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
thats a good point, because then all these old pitchers could just do the same and start pitchin half seasons to lower their ERA. Although i doubt Clemens is doing it to get better ERA numbers, since he is already considered a hall of famer, i do find it interesting that people might start doing that to make their numbers look better for contracts or for the hall of fame.
2007-05-03 09:07:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
ERA takes innings into account, and he isn't on steroids, he just hasn't had to even come to the ballpark on days he doesn't pitch in houston. That is why he stays there, but he will be better when he is on the red sox
2007-05-03 09:09:47 · answer #6 · answered by rockstar44 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no he shouldnt
2007-05-03 09:46:23 · answer #7 · answered by Moore55 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Roger please retire
2007-05-06 04:33:29 · answer #8 · answered by cww53132 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋