Home / Features By Gary Armida / Fighting allegations with Stats: The Clemens Report

Fighting allegations with Stats: The Clemens Report

By Gary Armida 

In another effort to clear his name, Roger Clemens’ agents, the Hendricks brothers, have released a 45 page report which analyzes the performance of Roger Clemens (here). While many columnists will discuss the desperation of this move and many stat-heads will question the validity of the statistics presented, the question to them is: what else is he supposed to do?

As discussed too many times on FCP, Roger Clemens is in the precarious position of having to prove his innocence. He is already guilty according to the guys who “report” the news, he is already guilty according to the guys who talk about the news, and he is already guilty according to fans who feel that they have been cheated of fair baseball. At fullcountpitch.com, the stance has been, with every single player, a player is innocent until his guilt is proven or admitted.  If one takes an objective look at the report, there are some valid arguments made.

A Look at the Report

The report is broken down into two sections, one titled “Pitching Quality” where Clemens’ career is analyzed and then compared to the careers of Curt Schilling, Randy Johnson, and Nolan Ryan. The second section is titled, “Pitching Quantity” where Clemens’ career innings and pitches are analyzed and then compared to the same group of pitchers. The report is quite interesting as it really tries to debunk supposed myths of the late age accomplishments of Clemens. On page one, it states, “While Clemens pitched at a high level of quality at different points throughout his career, the quantity of his pitching declined as he reached his late 30’s and 40’s.” Isn’t it odd that the agents for Clemens are actually trying to show that Clemens wasn’t that good?

The overriding statistic used in the report is ERA (Earned Run Average), more specifically ERA margin. This statistic is a pitcher’s ERA in comparison to the rest of the league. For instance, in 1986, Clemens’ ERA was 2.40 which was +1.70 better than the league average for that particular season. The report asserts that Clemens’ ERA margin throughout his career varied just like any other pitcher. The report goes to great lengths to prove that Clemens did, indeed, slowdown as he advanced in age, as well as have the “ebb and flow” of the typical pitcher during his career. There were a couple of explanations for his later year’s success. One, the report asserts that Clemens learned how to pitch as he advanced in age. As a young pitcher, he relied mostly on a fastball and a slider. As he advanced, the split-fingered fastball was the most important pitch for his success. Additionally, the report cites the switch in leagues and his lack of travel for his success in Houston. It also says that the last two seasons were partial seasons which “helped Clemens enjoy a resurgence late in his career.”

The ERA margins were compared between Clemens, Johnson, Schilling, and Ryan. Johnson and Schilling’s career margins look remarkably close to Clemens’ although the report is quick to point out that Clemens did not have a worse margin than Schilling’s injury plagued 2005 season. Not surprisingly, the report makes a big deal about the close similarity to Nolan Ryan, a similar pitcher who enjoyed similar success and longevity.

The next most interesting section of the report was the effect of injuries on Clemens’ career statistics. Each season that Clemens was on the disabled list (six times during his career), he posted some of his worse numbers. 1993 and 1995, his two most poor seasons in Boston, were two such seasons. It can be interpreted that Clemens is saying that injuries were the reasons for his lack of success at the end of his Boston tenure, not the demise in talent. The same could be said for his years with the Yankees, as his only injury free years were his Cy Young winning 2001 season as well as the 2003 season, which were his two best seasons in pinstripes.

It has long been famous when the Red Sox brass said that Clemens was in the twilight of his career after a few “sub-standard” seasons at the end of his Boston tenure. The report goes to great lengths to prove that this was not true. If one looks at his base stats for his final year in Boston (1996), a 10-13 record with a 3.63 ERA while pitching 242.2 innings, giving up 216 hits, walking 106 and striking out 257, one would have to look beyond the win-loss record to see that Clemens actually had a tremendous season. He led the league in strikeouts and had +1.37 ERA margin, his 11^th best of his career. His record was a result, as the report states, of poor run support (which the report also breaks down for each of his seasons). An interesting side note is that Curt Schilling posted the same ERA margin for the Sox in 2004 and finished 21-6. Even the great Peter Gammons was quoted as saying Clemens could’ve easily won 18 games in 1996. The whole point of this is to show that Clemens didn’t all of a sudden regain, through illegal measures, his fastball and his dominant form. He, as the report states, simply was given better run support in 1997 and 1998 by the Toronto Blue Jays and also continued to develop his split fingered fastball.

Strikeouts were also a key factor of the report. The most startling lesson learned is that each of the four pitchers discussed had their best strikeouts per nine ratios well into their 30’s. Again this is proving that Clemens did not suddenly get better as he got older. There is precedent for such an occurrence, especially with Nolan Ryan.

The second part of the report discussed the quantity of pitching. It clearly shows the decline in pitches per start and innings per start for Clemens as his career went along. In comparison, Randy Johnson actually maintained higher pitch counts longer than Clemens did. Schilling and Ryan (again so remarkably similar to Clemens) both followed the same path as The Rocket. The point is that age did affect Clemens’ performance. He was not dominant as he was during the 80’s and 90’s.  The report concludes with a list of Hall of Famers who pitched into their 40’s. Legends such as Bob Gibson, Satchell Paige, Eddie Plank, and Tom Seaver were all listed. It is worth mentioning that Clemens shares similar statistics to each of listed players during their last few seasons.

This Means…

…absolutely nothing. Clemens will still be considered guilty by the sportswriters and fans alike. The use of statistics will be ignored by most people who already have their minds made up. Does this report put out by Clemens’ team definitely prove he didn’t use steroids? No. Does it cast a little more doubt that he might not have? Definitely. If one has an objective mind, the report does make some sense. His decline in Boston was vastly overrated as his stats beyond wins and losses do show a pitcher that was still pitching well. Any fantasy baseball player can tell you the frustration of owning a pitcher who does not get the run support despite pitching well. 2007 owners of Johan Santana, Matt Cain, or Gil Meche can tell you all about pitchers who should’ve had much higher win totals. The Red Sox were wrong about Clemens, who actually started his dominant run late in 1996, which was capped off by a 20 strikeout performance.

The report’s thesis is the idea that Clemens did not have that dramatic spike during his career that steroids are known to cause. His statistics never varied too much, although he did have a couple of poor seasons by his standards. Comparing Clemens to Schilling, Johnson, and Ryan was a brilliant move. Those are three pitchers who have never been accused of any type of wrong doing, yet have similar numbers and statistical variation to Clemens. The Clemens camp is using statistics to fight the common misconceptions about his career.

Are there flaws in this report? Sure there are. Ideas such as a lack of travel late in his career aided in his success cannot be proven.  The list of Hall of Famers at the end does ring of desperation rather than keeping to the pure statistical analysis. The general tone of degrading the Hall of Fame career of Roger Clemens is somewhat laughable. Perhaps the tone would have been more effective if it had stayed analytical.  

Again, this document has no legal standing, nor does it prove anything. As many stat-heads will tell you, numbers can be manipulated in many ways. Surely, there will be a counter-argument to this at some point, proving that ERA margin is not an accurate indicator of a pitcher’s success. So, in the end, it is up to the individual to decide.

Going Back to the Beginning    

This article started with the question, “What else is he supposed to do?” As we’ve discussed before, Clemens is doing exactly what the writers cried for all falsely accused athletes to do. He is fighting back. However, columnists are still, rightly or wrongly, questioning his motives. Many suggest that he is guilty and simply trying to save face. I’m not a fortune teller nor can I read minds. I honestly do not know if he is guilty or innocent; nobody knows that, not even the sportswriters. What I do know is that he is fighting this with a ton of vigor. There is still no proof on either side. Clemens has at least used baseball’s biggest weapon-statistics-to fight his battle. Perhaps the burden should shift to the other side. So far, there has not been a shred of evidence to prove that Clemens used steroids. Until that day comes, every rational human being must allow Clemens his given right as an American; He should be innocent until proven guilty.

Comments