Clemens Question

Why does Roger Clemens not get suspended for hitting Barry Bonds? Before the game he said he was going to hit Bonds and then he goes out and does it. I'm pretty sure most other pitchers would've been tossed immediately.


BTW - I also think the Giants are total pansies for not retaliating. I mean they purposely plunk your superstar and you do nothing? Maybe the Giants players kind of liked seeing Barry get beaned.

CLemens said Bonds put his "armor" in the strike zone. It clearly was in the strike zone when Bonds was hit.


The Giants did retaliate, but it was a bad pitch, sailing high over the plate and not really that close to Giambi. Both benches were warned.


FWIW, I think Bonds is one of the five greatest players ever and Clemens one of the five greatest pitchers ever. But they're both jerks.

as you know one of my pet peeves is people who dont give enough credit to current players. You obviously do give them proper credit. I would go one further and would say that clemens is in my mind the greatest right handed pitcher ever. Bonds is probably the third best player after ruth and wagner, although it is close for second.


although i am only 32, one thing that is sorely missing from baseball now is the ability to pitch inside and to do so with abandon. clemens of course has no problem with it. i have no problem whatsoever with what clemens did here, and i have no problem with retaliation either. he did not throw at bonds' head.


Pat

Maddux is a better pitcher than Clemens, IMO. Clemens throws harder, and thus gets more recognition. Maddux may not be as "intimidating" but if you want intimidating go with Nolan Ryan or Bob Gibson.


Also, Bonds is very overrated due to last season. Ted Williams, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, Musial, Aaron, Ruth, and Wagner were all better, IMO. Nevermind the Negro leaguers. Bonds does not perform in the clutch and is not a team player. He has lots of HR's and a good number of SB's but I would rather have about 100 other players on my all-time team.


Ruth was best like you said, no one has ever been close. Anyone who says differently has not seen his numbers, or does not understand the ordering of numbers (for instance 1 is less than 2). Even if someone make some silly arguement against his hitting, he had 117 CGs, 17 SHOs, a 2.28 ERA and a .660+ winning % in his 5 years as a pitcher.

1. i wholeheartedly agree with you on ruth.


2. clemens is better than maddux and it is not even that close. clemens numbers in terms of era and wins are equal or better than maddux's. clemens played the majority of his career in a great hitters park, maddux did not. maddux got to face pitchers which is worth about 0.5 runs in era. plus clemens has more strikeouts and wil likely have a longer career. maddux is certainly great and his peak seasons may be better, and are among the best ever. but for their career clemens is better.


3. you are wrong about bonds, only ruth and wagner are better and he may well surpass wagner. bonds is going to finish his career with 600 hr and steals, probably 1900 rbi or more, 2000 walks and at least 2000 runs. no one ever has done that. his slugging percentage in teh last few years actually rivals ruth and he has an excellent chance at aaron's record. plus he has 10 gold gloves and 4 mvp's. he easily could have 6 or 7 mvp's since i think he finished second in two or three other years in close finishes. ted williams and gehrig were both terrible fielders and none of the players you discuss are even close in stats to bonds especially when adjusted for era and park. Unbelievably, pac bell park was the toughest HR park for lefties ever or close to it last year, decreasing HR's by almost 50%. also as far as being a "team player" i note that williams and cobb were hardly team players.


Pat

My definition of retaliation is a heater to the kidneys. I saw the high pitch to Giambi and it just looked like a bad pitch. Since I'm an A's fan I kind wished they had plunked Giambi. /images/smile.gif

Pat,


Clemens, especially during his last three or four years with Boston, was repeatedly victimized by a bullpen which failed to hold leads and a porous defense up the middle. Adequate defense and good relief pitching would have further increased his total wins.


OTOH, Williams's career was truncated by his stints as a fighter pilot; it's quite possible he would have hit another 150 homeruns. Although Fenway is a good hitters park for right handers, lefties need to poke the ball a long ways. In addition, Williams's teammates liked him, a rather curious fact considering he wasn't a "team player."


John

I think Clemens and Maddux are very similar in greatness. Their win numbers and (adjusted) ERA are fairly close, Clemens has more K's, and Maddux has less BB's. I give Maddux the edge because from 1992 to 1998 he put together an abosolutely amazing string of seasons. Both are definitely among the best few ever, since their numbers and consistancy are so much better than anyone else during their careers. I agree that if Clemens outlasts Maddux then he could easily surpass him.


The two things that bother me about Bonds' greatness the most are his batting avg and RBI total. Gehrig had a career avg which was over 40 points higher (they are even in at bats now basically), 400 or 500 more RBI, etc... Nevermind all that iron man stuff. Bonds had more home runs (less than 100 more) and SB's (important, but not as important as other stats). When it comes to batting average, Bonds is mediocre. He swings for the fences. As far as fielding goes, Williams and Gehring were supposedly not good fielders. Bonds is good, but is not great. Gold gloves are fairly meaningless (Remember Palmeiro winning having only played 19 games at 1st two years ago). It is more of a popularity contest. Last year Bonds had one of the best offesive seasons ever. It was his first one (and was very fishy, IMO...but I can't prove anything so I won't argue that). If it continues then he will be the second best ever, but not yet.


I am curious why you chose Wagner as your second best? He is certainly the best SS ever but it is just a very nontraditional choice for that honor. I am not saying it is totally wrong, I just never heard anyone say that before.

Maddux vs. Clemens: I used to think you were correct. I am convinced by Bill James's argument (The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, pages 854-855) and Allen Barra makes an interesting (if less convincing, IMO) argument for Clemens as the greatest pitcher of all-time in Clearing the Bases, pages 153-174.


Bonds is not overrated; if anything he is underrated. He was a greater player than Williams, Musial, and Gehrig BEFORE last season. And last season wasn't too shabby. I have not seen any evidence that Williams or Musial or Mays performed any better in the clutch than Bonds. As for his not being a "team player," let's remember that Babe Ruth was thrown out trying to steal second base in the last inning of the 7th game of the World Series with his team down 4-3 and Bob Meusel at the plate with Lou Gehrig on deck. Was Ty Cobb a "team player" or a selfish psychopath? Ted Williams at team player? Rogers Hornsby Lots of great players were jerks. I'll take a jerk who hits .424 or 73 home runs any time.


Ruth was indeed a great pitcher and, had he remained a pitcher, would have made the Hall of Fame as a pitcher. That he was made into an outfielder puts the lie to the canard that baseball is 90% pitching. It ain't.

Williams hit .361 at Fenway Park, .328 on the road. OTOH, he hit "just" 248 home runs at home and 273 on the road. So it appears his batting average was helped by playing at Fenway, but his home run production hindered.


By comparison, Yaz hit .306 at Fenway and just .264 on the road; Jim Rice .326 at home and .277 on the road. So Fenway helped all of their batting averages. yaz hit 237 home runs at home and 215 on the road. Perhaps he was a more successful left handed home run hitter at home because he was less determined to pull the ball than Williams. Rice hit 191 home runs at home, 160 on the road.


Williams seems to have been a horse's ass to everyone (especially sportswriters), but not to his teammates, which is why they seemed to like him. If you haven't read it, I think you'll enjoy Michael Seidel's biography. Hard not to come away with the impression of Williams as a jerk though. Here's what Bill James says (despite ranking him as the greatest left fielder of all time):


"Ted Williams was every bit as unpopular, in his time, as Albert Belle. Ted Williams was despised everywhere in the American League, including Boston for at least the first half of his career. He took constant actions to reinforce that relationship. He splattered water coolers, including glass ones. He made obscene gestures at fans, carried on decades-long vendettas against selected reporteres, sometimes didn't treat his family well, sometimes didn't hustle or even make any show of hustling in the field or on the bases, was obsessed with his own success, was contemptuous of coaches and some managers, and alternated, in his dealings with the fans, betweeen rugged charm and uncharted rudeness.


Williams had a miserable childhood. Williams' father abandoned the family. Williams' comment on this was 'Well, I wouldn't have wanted to be married to a woman like that either.' By the time he was 20, Williams was insecure, moody, and filled with hate. He was a lot like Rogers Hornsby, whom he knew well and liked, and he is a lot like Bobby Knight, who is a close friend."

"So Fenway helped all of their batting averages." Don't most guys in a long career hit better at home than the road? Reasons are many. Take Wade Boggs. At home he got homemade chicken before games. On the road he ate.... No, I think you know. Or maybe that helped. What does Bill James say?

"The two things that bother me about Bonds' greatness the most are his batting avg and RBI total. Gehrig had a career avg which was over 40 points higher (they are even in at bats now basically), 400 or 500 more RBI"


Statistics have to be considered in the context of their times. When, for example, Bill Terry led the National league with an average of .401 in 1930, the entire National League hit .304. In 1968, Carl Yastrzemski hit just .301 to lead the American League. But the league itself hit just .231. So Terry's batting average in 1930 was 32% better than the league average; Yaz's in 1968 was 30% better: pretty close, far closer than the naked .401 and .301 numbers would seem at first to indicate.


Also, on-base percentage is a much better measurement of what batting average purports to measure. Gehrig walked a lot; Bonds too. Lots of guys with low batting averages who hit for power and walked a lot were great, great hitters. Mike Schmidt is the best example. Mickey Mantle another, if you consider .298 a low lifetime average.


As for Honus Wagner, Bill James ranks him #2 all-time. Most baseball people who saw both Cobb and Wagner play said Wagner was the better player.

Yeah, I imagine most guys hit better at home than on the road. I think over history, the home team has won something like 54% of it's games. But the nature of the home ball part can have a tremendous effect on a player's stats. Fenway certainly has been a hitters park.


Joe Dimaggio, for example, a righty, hit just 148 home runs and .315 at home in Yankee Stadium; on the road, he hit 213 home runs and .333. Bill Dickey, on the other hand, a lefty, hit more than 2/3 of his home runs in Yankee Stadium. Mantle hit more home runs on the road than at home. Old-timer Goose Goslin in 1926 hit 17 home runs for the Washington Senators--all of them on the road.


Some people look at, say Jose Cruz, who played for the Astros when they played in a deadly park for hitters at a time when batting averages were very low, and conclude that he was a much worse player than, say, Bill Terry, who hit .340 lifetime. Cruz was just about as good a player.


BTW, I like chicken and, ahem, the other part of Boggs' diet too.

Of course I considered era and on base percentage. I thought the comparison was fair since Gehrig's era was fairly similar to today in that it was very offense oriented. At the height of the 30's juiced ball era, the league averages might have been slightly higher, but no where near enough to account for 40 points in average. It is not 1968. On base percentage is one of the 1st things I looked for. Bonds has a great one, others have better.

you are right about williams. but give him those years back and he is still the second greatest hitter ever. my opinion is that bonds defense and speed makes up for the difference in their hitting which is probably much smaller than most people realize even if you credit williams with the war years.


By the way did ted williams have one of the greatest lives ever? He was one of the best baseball players ever, he was a great fighter pilot in the war, was a champion fisherman. what a life.


Pat

almost seems scary. now if only you would come over to the right side on politics we might have something!


Pat

Andy,


Yes, Williams did have battles with sportwriters; of course, a couple of those writers (for Boston papers) managed to rob him of the MVP one year when one voted him ninth in the league and the other left him out of the top ten.


One year, 1991, I gave my students, most of whom had never heard either name, this research assignment: compare Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio and, using whatever criteria you would like, tell me who was the better ballplayer. Most selected Williams, and all found that DiMaggio's private obsessions and inability to be part of a team influenced their decision. Interestingly, the best paper was written by a student from South America who had never seen a baseball game.


One other story about Williams that's never been printed anywhere. Mary's father and uncle went to see Williams speak one night in the Bridgewater, MA area. It was raining heavily, and the entrance to the hall was rather muddy. Williams was about to begin his speech when someone asked him if he could wait a few minutes because they were bringing someone inside. Mary's uncle, who suffered from MS, was confined to a wheelchair, and the mud made the going slow. Williams said, "God damnit, if someone wants to hear me speak, let's get him in here." Williams took off outside, and along with Mary's father, carried Mary's uncle in. According to Mary's father, he didn't worry about getting his shoes dirty.


John

Pat-The Clemens/Maddux comparison is very close. Here's an interesting article I bookmarked last summer. And, yes, I realize Clemens has outpitched Maddux since the article was written. It's still good stuff, though.


Clemens VS Maddux

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/bp/1231903.html

>


this presumably refers to 1941. However, 4 writers left dimaggio out of the top ten. so the failure of one writer to put williams in the top ten cannot be deemed to have cost him the MVP unless you look at it in a vacuum. the fact is the yanks won and the sox didnt.


Pat

Intersting how our perceptions of athletes are based on second hand information from sportswriters. Some people may be jerks on the public stage, but might be people with big hearts in their private life. And of course every person is a mixture of good and bad.


I believe Dimaggio, when he was active, got great press. Turns out he wasn't such a great guy. Ditto for Mantle (my childhood hero), although he made up for it a bit with his heroic last few months. Mays was regarded as moody and excitable when he played, but maybe being taunted for being a ni**er and having white umpires call balls six inches outside strikes had something to do with it.


How come I never had teacher like you?

Bonds, despite (IMO) being a jerk, is a complete player. Great baserunner and basestealer, great fielder. Gehrig, an admirable human being all his life (not just when he got sick), was, at best, an average fielder and baserunner. He sure must have, unlike Bonds, hustled out of the batter's box, given his huge number of doubles and triples.


Sometimes I think we kind of "wish" that admirable players, like Gehrig, are greater than less admirable players, like Hornsby or Bonds. Again, I don't believe you're doing it, but it's a tendency I think we all have to fight. When I was a kid and they were both playing, Bill Ruseell was widely regarded as a better player than Wilt Chamberlain. Chamberlain was an egotistical jerk a lot of the time, despite what everyone said when he died, and I think this effected people's perceptions of his ability and performance.

I am on the right (correct) side.


/images/smile.gif

Pat,


It was 1947 when Williams lost to DiMaggio by one point rather than 1941, which few people would quibble with.


John

I quibble with the 1941 MVP selection (if this is what you are saying). More later.

I'd have voted for Williams for MVP in 1941, not Dimaggio. Dimaggio won 291-254. The hitting streak was impressive, but Williams' batting average for the entire year was about the same as Dimaggio's during the streak (.406 vs. .408).


Williams out-hit Dimaggio by nearly 50 points, out-slugged him by nearly 100 points (.735, the highest slugging average recorded between 1932 and 1994,) had an on-base percentage over 100 points higher (.551, the highest of all-time) and led the league in home runs and runs scored. Total Baseball has his adjusteed OPS (on base plus slugging) at 232, a figure beaten only by Babe Ruth.


Dimaggio had a very good year and his team won the pennant, but that team also had the great Joe Gordon at 2nd base, future hall of famer Phil Rizzuto at shortstop, ex MVP Red Rolfe at third base, hall of fame catcher Bill Dickey (admittedly past his prime), and two very underrated players surrounding Dimaggio in the outfield: Tommy Henrich and Charlie Keller, both of whom out-homered Dimaggio that year. The pitching staff was headed by hall of famers Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez. So Dimaggio, though the best player on his team, was clearly surrounded by a lot of talent, including the great Joe McCarthy managing.


BTW, look at the walk and strikeout totals of Dimaggio and Williams that year: Dimaggio walked 76 times and struck out 13 times (13! with 30 home runs); Williams walked 145 times and struck out just 27 times--118 more walks than strikeouts!

Andy,


You wrote: "How come I never had teacher like you?"


When I was back East a couple months ago I had the chance to audit one of my friend John's composition classes before going to visit him and Mary. He is an absolutely fantastic teacher (actually a professor at a community college) and had me wishing I had a notebook with me.


I’m proud of John and the wonderful job he does and it was obvious his students appreciated him too.


Regards,


Rick