Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs, Roger!

by ploni on Dec 20, 2007 12:37 PM EST

From 38 Pitches: Curt Schilling's Official Blog:

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. I know both of these men. Roger had a profound effect on my career from a very early point. His `undressing' of me and lecture were a major turning point. I've always respected his career accomplishments and regarded him as the greatest pitcher to ever play the game.

Now I, like every other Yankee, Clemens fan am faced with a dilemma. The two men that fingered multiple players, from my understanding, both testified with immunity, but only if they told the truth. So these guys had every reason in the world to NOT lie. That doesn't mean they didn't, but there is an immense amount of incentive for them to NOT lie when they gave their depositions because lying would have seen them open to legal actions beyond what they are already facing.

So the question to me then becomes this. It's no mystery that Roger and Andy are as close as any two teammates I know of. Andy makes no bones about Rogers influence in his career. Their personal trainer, the trainer Roger took to Toronto, then to NY, has admitted to administering PED's to both men. Andy has admitted he did, and that it was a mistake and he never did it again. Roger has denied every allegation brought to the table. So as a fan my thought is that Roger will find a way in short order to organize a legal team to guarantee a retraction of the allegations made, a public apology is made, and his name is completely cleared. If he doesn't do that then there aren't many options as a fan for me other than to believe his career 192 wins and 3 Cy Youngs he won prior to 1997 were the end. From that point on the numbers were attained through using PED's. Just like I stated about Jose, if that is the case with Roger, the 4 Cy Youngs should go to the rightful winners and the numbers should go away if he cannot refute the accusations.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Clemens is a douche, but so is Schilling. No good guy in this story.

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Dec 20, 2007 12:41 PM EST reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Agreed, with the caveat that Clemens was 100x the pitcher Schilling ever was or will be.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 20, 2007 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

I'm not a moralizer on the PED thing, far from it. And there is no tier of pitchers higher than the one Clemens fits into.

However.

Schilling is also a HOFer in my view. And my personal view, lacking direct evidence, is that Schilling probably was clean and Clemens probably juiced like crazy for the past dozen years. Schilling is going to end up with 230 or so wins, all of them clean. Clemens was at 192 and "in the twilight of his career" when he allegedly started juicing. Who knows where he ends up otherwise?

So not only is the "100x" statement wrong on the basic facts ... but given the topic at hand, it seems particularly inapt.

by Jay on Dec 20, 2007 2:15 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Jay, seriously... can I ever just make a silly, exaggerated comment here without getting torn into for being wrong and stupid?

Obviously, it's hyperbole. Schilling is a great pitcher; Clemens is on a whole other level, as you pointed out, PEDs or not. All I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised if this was a subtle attempt to boost his own HoF credibility by denouncing a "rival."

Also!

Since when have you ever used "wins" as a meaningful way to gauge anything?

In short, who the hell cares?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 20, 2007 2:40 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

All good questions ...

No. You don't have to say Clemens is 100x the pitcher Schilling is. You can say he's twice the pitcher, which would still be an exaggeration but which makes the point, without the distraction of witless hyperbole. And I would do you no favors if I let this sloppy habit fester, unchecked. (If you were actually dumb, by the way, I wouldn't bother, and you wouldn't care.)
"PEDs or not" ... part of my point is that we don't really know if Clemens is on a whole other level if you take away the PED's. If he used, or even if we don't really know, then we have to say he's on a whole other level. But if the reasonable assumption is that he used, then you can't say he's on a whole other level anymore.

And by the way, what their levels have to do with Schilling being a sanctimonious fool and Clemens being an historic douchebag, I have no idea, nor could I fathom how this helps Curt's HOF chances. Say what you will about Curt, he's being consistent here both with his specific past statement about PEDs and with his general habit of being a gassed-up blowhard.

3. Funny you should ask, I scold myself every time I use wins, in any context, and the career context is pretty much the only time I trot it out anymore. I haven't yet found another quick shorthand for "magnitude of career greatness." I think that career wins, like season ERA, gets you there with at least a precision of +/- 10% and probably better. Even Blyleven was only screwed out of about 11.5% of the wins he should have had, and was really screwed out of wins for a long, long career. So until I take the time come up with something better to toss out in a non-statistical conversation, career wins it is.

by Jay on Dec 20, 2007 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Jay, damn you for always humbling me!

But seriously, I still stick by the argument that Clemens is significantly better than Schilling. Even if we take 1998 as the year he started usingPEDs, his career stats prior to that are still HoF worthy and better than Schillings.

Also, you don't think there's even the slightest possibility that Scilling is making statements like this to make himself look better, as if he's "above" all this PED stuff?

Furthermore, what scientific evidence is there that PEDs actually translate to better pitching, specifically wins? If we're arguing that they boost longevity, fair enough. But I don't think there' enough substantial evidence that proves using X amount of steroids add X amount of speed to your fastball or X inches of break to your curve. And I can't remember... was Clemens linked to steroids or just HGH?

Lastly, I'm just busting your balls about the wins thing. It seems rational and I agree that, over the course of an entire career, a pitcher with many wins was a great pitcher. It's just silly to use a set number of wins as a threshold for HoF candidacy, as I think is basically the case.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 20, 2007 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Also, you don't think there's even the slightest possibility that Scilling is making statements like this to make himself look better, as if he's "above" all this PED stuff?

Consciously? No. I don't see it. In the sense that we all believe what we want to believe? Sure, that I totally see.

Lastly, it's okay, you can bust my balls. I mean, you can try, anyway.

by Jay on Dec 20, 2007 4:16 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Decided to kill a few minutes trying to figure out how to compare. Settled on BP's "pitching runs above replacement," which is mostly-all-neutral -- and Bill James Favorite Toy, which is a sloppy back-of-a-napkin projection method.

Roger had racked up 1155 PRAR through 1996, when he left Boston and before anybody says he ever juiced, and that was his age-33 season. Favorite Toy sez:

Based on his age, your player can be expected to play for 4.5 more years, at an average of 79.3 per year. At that rate, he will finish at 1512 for his career.

Okay. Now Curt -- through last season, age 40, he had racked up 1247 PRAR. Favorite Toy sez:

Based on his age, your player can be expected to play for 1.5 more years, at an average of 55.2 per year. At that rate, he will finish at 1329.8 for his career.

And there's your final score, folks: Clean Roger 1512, Clean Curt 1330. I'd call that "significantly" higher, even if it's not exactly an order of magnitude.

by Jay on Dec 20, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Does that mean "Clean Roger" can go into the HoF, but "Juiced Roger" can be excluded?

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Dec 20, 2007 5:01 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

...sorry to reply to my own post, but Jay, what were Roger's actual PRAR through 2007?

... and, since favorite toy says he would have played only into 2002, where do those 3 full seasons ('03, '04, and '05) and the 3 half seasons (the rest of '02, '06 and '07) come from? - Mr. McNamee's Wonder [Drug] Emporium perhaps ...

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Dec 20, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Clemens' actual career PRAR is 2022.

by Jay on Dec 20, 2007 5:19 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

2022...Maybe be then people will stop talking about this PED stuff and he'll be elected into the HOF...

by APV on Dec 20, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Am I the only one that finds the difference between the real Clemens and Toy Clemens to be a very revealing look at the Steroids era?

Essentially, before these allegations you had people attributing Clemens' staying power and skill to his immense natural talents ie " Clemens is one of the best there's ever been, just look at how long he's pitched and at what a high level." Now, with hindsight and the predictions Jay just showed he's possibly cheated his way to becoming 33% more of a pitcher than he was meant to be.

My only point here is that until recently people had tried to equate that extra 33% to some sort of ability/talent/achievement of his to exceed everyone's expectations for his career and the common wisdom that older pitchers decline. Now we have evidence that a large amount of that "achievement" was actually an "acheatment" if you will.

I guess I just think this is a very stark look at the one career and serves as a good case study for the era. I'm pretty sure either Jason Stark or Tim Kurkjian wrote an article comparing Clemens to Walter Johnson based on his staying power etc. It seems like that comparison probably relied more heavily on that extra 33% of his career.

by NickFantana on Dec 20, 2007 5:37 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

I say "Juiced Roger" can't go. Unfortunately, here in the real world, that's the only one we know. Just say no to drugs and cheaters, boys and girls.

Officially starting up and driving the trade for Bedard bandwagon. Also, local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer."

by mjmarble on Dec 20, 2007 7:04 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Consciously? No. I don't see it. In the sense that we all believe what we want to believe? Sure, that I totally see.

Right, I forgot that you only ever see things in a purely objective sense and never allow your own biases to color your opinions of people/events.

I kid, I kid.

Anyway, thanks for those projections... really cool stuff there. Where can you access stuff like that?

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 20, 2007 6:15 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Heh, I deserve that, I know. I can tell you that I work awfully hard to spot and correct for my own biases, literally every day and on every subject that I care about, constantly asking myself, what would I tend to believe or like to believe about this? And what am I preventing myself from seeing because of my tendencies or biases?

This drives a lot of my analysis in my professional life and regarding baseball, and I rarely get the sense that others are giving this much thought. So I give myself some credit for trying, but who knows how much I really succeed at it? Obviously you can't really judge your own results on this, all you can do is work hard at it.

ESPN helpfully put up a Favorite Toy calculator, which is nice.

PRAR is on BP's free player pages, here's Clemens and here's Schilling.

by Jay on Dec 21, 2007 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Great stuff Jay, thanks.

And you know I was only messing around, right? I have rarely seen a twinge of bias in anything you've ever written and even when there is, you make it obvious. If I didn't think you and Ryan weren't the best, most objective analysts out there on the web, I (and many others) wouldn't be here so often!

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Dec 21, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Just because you're messing around doesn't mean there isn't a germ of truth in there. I did challenge you to bust my balls, so we're all good here.

by Jay on Dec 21, 2007 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

"I did challenge you to bust my balls ..."

My oh my, has this thread ever drifted ?

P.S. For the record, I will NOT challenge anyone bust my sack.

by SpringTrainingFun on Dec 23, 2007 6:00 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Not Really, Clemens minus 1997 on is nothing but a flame out and Schilling has had a very good career as he has aged. Clemens is also a cheating A-hole and Schilling is a big game pitcher something Clemens never was.

Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist 774

by E5 on Dec 20, 2007 5:51 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Amen. If I had to build a team and choose between Schilling and Clemens, I'd take Schilling. Did Clemens bring a World Series championship to Boston??? Schilling is money (which gives him the right to spout off like an idiot), while Clemens is a chump!

by Spidey on Dec 22, 2007 12:23 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens

Sigh, Schilling is on his high horse again. Be careful up there, Schill. I halfway like the guy, but I don't think these remarks are made for anyone's benefit but his own.

formerly 'tourist

by jhon on Dec 20, 2007 1:05 PM EST reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

It's not going to happen, though I understand where he's coming from.

Let's say that a couple weeks Clemens won one of his Cy Youngs, a test (gathered during the season) revealed a positive result for a PED. Wouldn't it make sense to at the very least strip him of any individual awards won from that season?

by Ryan on Dec 20, 2007 1:25 PM EST reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

The past can't be undone. Moreover, seizing these awards from Clemens doesn't guarantee that a 'clean' athlete will get the award anyway. We'll just be sure that someone who didn't use steroids in the presence of McNamee and Radomoski didn't get the award.

by crazymoloh on Dec 20, 2007 1:25 PM EST reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

I can only hope that Rocket signs with Astros for next season. They play the Red Sox in an inter-league game in Houston in at the end of June.

I know that's a little early for Roger to lace up his spikes these days, but I'd like to see each of them get an opportunity to plunk the other in the ribs. No head hunting, because it's clear that either of them could kill someone with a fastball, but I'd like to see who has the nerve to throw inside to the other AND come up to bat in the next inning....

Other than the entertainment value that could offer, Schilling's pontificating on this issue does little for me. He's asking Clemmens to do something that's virtually impossible.

I'm no fan of Clemmens, but, as a public figure, he has little hope of winning a defamation suit against MLB or Mitchell. Under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, he has to prove "actual malice" meaning that that the statements were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for whether they were false or not. That's not something you're going to be able to prove against MLB or Mitchell. All it would do is cost him A LOT of money and keep the issue in the media even longer.

McNamee is scum. Do we really need Roger to sue him to establish that fact? He could have been lying when he gave Clemmens' name to the Mitchell committee, but the admission by Pettitte gives his allegations more weight. At the end of the day, I'm not sure who I'd believe.

On the other hand, as long as Curt's throwing down a gauntlet, would he be willing to give up his win in game 6 of the 2004 ALCS if DNA testing showed that it was paint, not blood, on that sock?

"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.

by Harry Doyle on Dec 20, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens: Give Back Your Cy Youngs

Clemens can't pitch in June as the his steroid cycle wouldn't last long enough to get him through August let alone the Playoffs.

Patience is a virtue but Champions don't need it. LGT resident kinesiologist 774

by E5 on Dec 20, 2007 5:54 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Schilling to Clemens:

Ya know, Roger should have retired sooner. He might have dodged the list, or the current version of it. I think that at the very least these allegations would be dimmer if he were not so recently 'active'.

Add this to his final season / postseason it's a sorry way for him to go out. Does this ordeal prompt him to come back again, to prove a point, or is this really the end? Any guesses?

formerly 'tourist

by jhon on Dec 20, 2007 7:25 PM EST reply actions