Prospect Retro: Roger Clemens
by John Sickels on May 8, 2007 6:50 PM EDT
in News
Email
Print
Prospect Retro: Roger Clemens
Roger Clemens went to college at the University of Texas. In 1983, he went 13-5 with a 3.04 ERA, with a 151/22 K/BB ratio in 166 innings and was the hero of the College World Series. Despite these exploits, he went "just" 19th overall in the '83 draft. Scouts liked him a lot, no question. But on the Texas staff he was usually considered the number three guy behind Calvin Schiraldi and Mike Capel. Clemens was considered to be the best pro prospect of the group: Schiraldi was drafted 29th overall, Capel went in the 13th round.
Scouts were aware of Clemens' combination of stuff and command, but on draft day there were several pitchers selected ahead of him (see below).There was nothing wrong with Clemens certainly; there were just a few pitchers who scouts felt were more projectable and had more room to grow, or who were a bit more polished. Nowadays, Clemens' outstanding K/BB and K/IP marks in college would draw stathead notice and he'd probably go earlier in the round, but at the time college stats were discounted even more than they are now.
Clemens did great in his pro debut, going 3-1, 1.24 in 29 innings with a 36/0 (no misprint) K/BB for Winter Haven in the Florida State League. Promoted to Double-A, he went 4-1, 1.38 in seven starts and 52 innings for New Britain with a 59/12 K/BB. Nowadays a similar pitcher coming out of college and blowing people away like that would get, at worst, a Grade A- from me and probably a straight Grade A. The only thing I'd worry about would be an excessive college workload possibly leading to injury.
Clemens went 2-3, 1.93 in six starts for Triple-A Pawtucket to begin 1984, with a 50/14 K/BB in 47 innings. Promoted to Boston, he went 9-4, 4.32 in 20 starts, a touch erratic at times but posting a terrific 126/29 K/BB. He clearly had the potential to be an outstanding pitcher, if he stayed healthy.
Clemens went 7-5, 3.29 in 1985, but his strikeout rate dropped sharply, his walk rate rose, and he ended up being limited to just 15 starts by a shoulder injury, which required surgery to correct and ended his season in August. His status entering '86 was uncertain, but he quickly proved healthy and went 24-4, 2.48, beginning a run of superb pitching over the next 20 years.
What if the shoulder injury had been more severe?
It is safe to say that Clemens is one of the top five pitchers who ever lived, and a strong case can be made that he's the best overall pitcher of the last 100 years. His combination of durability and dominance is historic. Certainly, his minor league and college track records were that of an excellent pitching prospect. But no one could have predicted this, certainly not the scouts and clubs who placed him in the middle of the '83 first round, rather than on the same list with guys like Walter Johnson, Satchel Paige, or Tom Seaver.
Pitchers drafted ahead of Roger Clemens in 1983
1st overall: Tim Belcher, RHP, Mt. Vernon Nazarene College, Twins
5th overall: Stan Hilton, RHP, Baylor, Athletics
6th overall: Jackie Davidson, RHP, Texas HS, Cubs
7th overall: Darrel Akerfelds, RHP, Mesa CC, Mariners
10th overall: Ray Hayward, LHP, University of Oklahoma, Padres
13th overall: Joel Davis, RHP, Florida HS, White Sox
14th overall: Rich Stoll, RHP, University of Michigan, Expos
15th overall: Wayne Dotson, RHP, Texas HS, Tigers
16th overall: Brian Holman, RHP, Kansas HS, Expos
18th overall, Eric Sonberg, LHP, Wichita State, Dodgers
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Roger Clemens Award
by nyybaseball99 on May 8, 2007 7:02 PM EDT reply actions
Clemens....
C'mon
Koufax was the most dominant pitcher in the era of pitchers. He led the NL in ERA the last 5 years of his career, 3 of which he pitched over 300 innings. His blank ink score from baseball reference, a score derived from leading the league in important statistical categories, leads Pedro 78 to 55. His career postseason ERA is 0.95 compared to Pedro's 3.40. He won the NL triple crown 3 times compared to Pedro's once. He won 2 World Series MVPs compared to 0.
Pedro's 1999 and 2000 seasons are absolutely unbelievable and deserve all of the accolades that they get. He's been a great pitcher. But, don't discount Koufax and his utter dominance just because he didn't pitch in this era.
by jc3 on May 9, 2007 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Great Post
Pedro....
From '96 (with Montreal) to 2005 he put up two seasons with an ERA above 3. In both of those seasons he still had WHIPs in the top 10.
Koufax was dominant for six seasons. He pitched in a pitchers park in a pitchers era and half of those seasons were cut short by injury.
Sorry, but taking league and park into account theres no argument that Koufax was not as good as Pedro. He has a great postseason ERA and the WS MVPs are nice, but Pedro was way more dominant and lasted a little longer.
Can't speak english:
Do I always right such choppy, crappy sentences?
It should read:
Taking league and park factors into accounting, there's really no argument that Koufax was better than Pedro.
Not what I am saying
Look, I'm not arguing that Koufax was better, although there is some evidence that could show that it could go either way as I showed above. My main contention is that they are much closer than you are depicting.
BTW, WS MVPs and those other "nice" things do count when being perceived as dominant...
by jc3 on May 9, 2007 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Why do they count?
And seeing as their ratios are almost the same across the board (except Pedro's command being much better), why don't these factors (ballpark, era, etc) play a role in seperating the two?
Re
I'll say it again: I'm not saying Pedro wasn't a better pitcher overall. But, you'd like us to believe that he was a significantly better pitcher, and that's just folly.
by jc3 on May 9, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
And...
What's the significance? His postseason greatness lasts all of 57 innings.
You're telling me because Koufax has a bunch of rewards and honors that the difference is negligibile? Ignore everything else, he won the triple crown 3 times and WS MVP so um...duh?
It doens't compare them at all, and really adds very little to the discussion of better pitcher.
But the way this thread is going it seems like everyone is trying to push it towards a "you can't compare different era" conclusion.
I've even come to the same conclusion but in different words.
Your whole argument
OK, we'll have it your way.. according to career adjusted ERA+...
- John Franco is as good as Randy Johnson.
- Roberto Hernandez is better than Whitey Ford, Bruce Sutter, Christy Mathewson, and many others, plus is just as good as Greg Maddux!
- Roy Halladay, Carlos Zambrano, and Tim Hudson are better than Bob Gibson.
- Mark Buerhle is just as good as Bob Feller.
- Kevin Brown is just as good as Tom Seaver.
Frankly, I won't be convinced that ERA+ is the only way to compare pitchers of different eras. There are other factors, including how they fared in the postseason, no matter how much you want to fight it.
Pedro is/was great. Koufax was great. They had a similar run of dominance. Let's just leave it at that.
by jc3 on May 9, 2007 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
ROTFL....
Innings Pitched
Pedro pitched a total of 46 complete games in his 375 career starts. So instead of going 9 innings, he often went 7 or 8. You can pretend he would have pitched just as well in all those late innings, but even a cursory understanding of pitching makes that unlikely.
Koufax pitched 137 complete games out of 314 starts. He was averaging almost 8 IP per start his last four seasons. He also pitched over 300 innings and started 40+ games three times.
Comparisons of different era's numbers are tricky. But Martinez was certainly no more dominant than Koufax.
by TT @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2007 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
So....
It just...is?
Is there really evidence of that?
hitters working deeper counts, hitters in general just getting better, pitchers having to pitch with more effort, smaller strike zones, smaller ball parks have nothing to do with this?
It just...is?
I see no evidence any of those things are true aside from the smaller parks. Even some of the parks are the same size.
But Koufax pitched almost one quarter of his team's games and got 20% of his team's outs. Comparing that to Martinez, who apparently was pitching from half to two thirds as much, is a bit like comparing a closer's numbers to a starter's. Obviously its not that extreme, but it still leaves you with a false comparison.
Of course innings pitched is not a measure of work. Its possible that Koufax wasn't throwing any more pitches than Martinez. But I doubt it. Pitchers simply are better protected today. Koufax was used as a reliever even while he was in the rotation. During his peak years he still got a couple of saves.
by TT @ Minor League Ball on May 11, 2007 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Strike Zone
There was also during those same 6 years no height restriction on the mound. You could make it as high as you wanted, and Dodger stadiums was generally conceded to be the highest in the majors. As I believe Bill James has written, you needed a shirpa to guide you to the top of the pitchers mound in Dodger Stadium in the 60s.
I've never seen this written anywhere, but I've always assumed those pitcher friendly rules changes were the result of Commissioner Ford Frick's horror at watching his buddy Babe Ruth's season record fall. He stuck the idiot asterisk on Maris record and then took some measures to try to ensure it never happen again.
I don't see this as a compelling argument
But I still don't think that's an effective way.
Just because the rest of the pitchers in the the majors when Pedro were pitching put up worse numbers than the rest of the pitchers in majors when Koufax pitched doesn't really prove any point about Pedro or Koufax's talent.
I understand that things can be implied, but I don't think they are really valid implications.
For the record, I think Pedro is better than Koufax. Just like Koufax was better than Walter Johnson, and in 30 years, the best pitcher will be better than Pedro is/was. Humans evolve, players get more athletic from generation to generation, sports medicine improves, and workout regimens improve. All of which rises the talent pool higher and pushes everyone excel even more.
So....
So...the DH, the small strike zone, the better hitters, and the best offensive era in baseball history don't play a part in Pedro being better?
different points
I'm saying that ERA+ isn't truly effective because all it compares is the different eras directly (and therefore an implied comparison among the pitchers), but it doesn't directly compare the pitchers.
It's not that I'm taking ERA+ to task specifically, I don't of any other way to do what we are trying to. I just don't think it'a truly accurate way to compare pitchers from different eras because it's not actually comparing the pitchers themselves - and like I said, I don't think you can really statistically do so.
ERA+
So you're telling me in the future if an "ace" is putting up a 4 ERA but the league ERA is 7, he'll be a lesser pitcher than guys like Koufax because that just means pitchers in the future suck?
It doens't make sense.
yeah
I've already said that I think Pedro was better than Koufax.
I've already said twice that I don't value ERA+ as a definitive statistic one way or the other.
I'm not going to continue to reiterate the same point.
Then exactly...
Cause I certainly don't see me championing ERA+. I'd think it's a given that we know how good these guys periphs were.
I'd think that common sense would say "Pedro Martinez is doing what these guys did (better) in an era where the average ERA is almost 2 runs higher must say alot."
ERA+ like ANY stat must be taken with some context.
OK OK wait...
Comparing these guys to how dominant they were relative to their era is a MAJOR step one. It gives us a starting point at the very least.
IMO the best way to compare pitchers from different eras is to compare their dominance in their era. It's simple logic really.
I mean, really what other step is there? How do you compare them next? You have to establish a starting point, and ERA+ gives you at least that (not that I value you heavily).
Cannot leave Gibson out of the discussion either..
Pedro's
That year Gibson posted his 1.12 ERA the league ERA was 2.90.
In 2000, the league ERA was basically 5 (4.97).
In 1999 the league ERA was 5.07, Pedro's was 2.07.
Is it just me....
The main argument for guys like Koufax and Gibson being better than Pedro is that they pitched more innings than him in their best years. Still, that would eliminate all of todays guys because well...no on does what they did in the 60's anymore.
Open up your eyes
ERA+ is the best way we have to compare seasons. As I stated, Gibby's 1968 ERA+ was 258. Pedro's ERA+ in 1999 was 245, and in 2000 (his best year) it was 285. I would not call that SIGNIFICANTLY better at all. Better is arguable, significantly better is a just plain stupid assertion.
Why argue for Gibby's season over Pedro's? If you don't think the 100 inning difference (300 vs. 200) should be a factor, then you obviously don't think much of saving your bullpen. Gibby started 34 games in 1968, vs. 29 games for Pedro in 2000. A 5 game difference. That does not make up for 100 innings. Gibby pitched deeper into ballgames in 1968 than Pedro did in 2000. I would argue that Gibson helped his team more in 1968 because the Cards did not have to use their bullpen hardly at all that year when Gibson started. He completed 28 of the 34 games he started. Pedro completed 7 of his 29 starts.
Dude....
Is Gibson better than Clemens because he threw over 300 innings and completed games?
He did it because EVERYONE did it when he pitched. He just happened to be better than every else at doing it.
You can't just throw out the era. Is Mathewson better than Gibson because he threw almost double the amount of complete games?
Take the stats in context people, it makes the "impossible" seem very possible.
Why don't YOU do the same then?
I prefer to believe saving your bullpen has value. You don't. Who else completed 28 games in 1968? If you want to talk context, let's start there.
What?
No one, but of the top 10 the lowest was 16.
In 2000 David Wells topped the AL with 9.
Pedro
Here's what Bill James wrote in his Abstract from 2000 about pedro (who was ranked the 29th best pitcher of all time):
"Seven factorial -- that is, seven times six times five, etc, - is 5,040. Ten is not much larger than seven, but ten factorial is 3.6 million - seven hundred times larger. Stephen Jay Gould once expressed the thought that when the time comes that we finally understand the difference between the mind of a man and the mind of a monkey, it will turn out to be something simple like this- that a man's mind is not vastly different than a monkey's mind, but rather, the human is capable of vastly more because some small advantages for the human that create enormous differences by making combinations with one another, and with other parts of the mind.
I think of that in connection with Pedro. How can he be so much better than the other pitchers? His fastball was good, but there are 20 or 50 people in the league that throw just as hard. His curve isnt better than anyone else's, his control isnt. But he is vastly better in toto because he has some additional factors- his ability to change his arm angle, his ability to change speeds on all of his pitches without losing control-which interact to make geometric combinations"
i dont completely agree with everything James said, his change up was nasty and his fastball had excellent movement despite being in the upper 90's, so i think James downplays his overall stuff, but I agree with his general sentiment and it's definitely an interesting passage from the book.
by nyybaseball99 on May 9, 2007 7:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Pedro's Stuff
300 K's
Peavy.....
- He is currently on pace for 274 K's, so he would have to actually increase his K rate.
- He would have to pitch > 205 innings, something he has never done before in his career.
Don't think it's that hard
Most of the bull starters still pitch upwards of 220-240 innings.
It's not like it's superhuman to have a K/9 of 11+, which is what it would take to reach the 300 level.
* insert compulsory Lincecum comment here *
Maddux?
Maddux 1992-1998 Averages - 18-7, 239 IP, 2.15 ERA, 184K, 30 BB.
Pedro 1997-2003* Averages - 18-6, 215 IP, 2.51 ERA, 266K, 48 BB.
Granted most of these years were in the AL for Pedro and that has a lot to do with the ERA discrepency and makes the K rate that much more amazing, but people forget how good Maddux was over those 7 years. Not saying better, but certainly in the discussion.
He He
Yeah.....
Matt Cain, Jeremy Bonderman, Cole Hamels and Scott Kazmir all say hi.
A couple hundred no-names
"Dumb"
by Tcs5384 on May 9, 2007 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
If you guys are aware of baseball draft history over the past 20 years, you'll know that teams know this now and take much fewer HS pitchers in the 1st round lately.
are those IP totals in 1983 correct?
FSL: 29
EL: 52
Total: 247
When John says the excessive college workload would be a worry, that's a major understatement.
People have complained this year about some high pitch count games for Price, but he'll finish his college year aroun 120 and then add no more than 0-20 IP as a pro. Clemens throw an extra 100 IP on top of that.
IP
by TT @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2007 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes Clemens' stats make him one of the five best
His entire career
Clemens has a career ERA+ of 144
FWIW - Clemens posted that ERA+ over 23 seasons. Koufax, in 12 seasons, posted an ERA+ of 131. Koufax's 5 best years were his last 5 before he blew out his arm.
IMO, Clemens is the best ever - for showing dominance over both the short run and long run.
Best pitcher ever IMO.
One guy who really never gets discussed but really should...Randy Johnson. He's talked about the lefty, but I think the guy is one of the top 10 quite easily.
Hmm...
Sounds like someone we all know, no?
by uga007 on May 9, 2007 2:53 AM EDT reply actions
Fact
by HumboltThunderbolt on May 9, 2007 1:23 PM EDT reply actions
Predictions
Even Lincecum can't be predicted to be Roger Clemens...:)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
