Conference 7.286::sports_90

 Is it true that Clemens and Murphyt went after Boggs last week when
 Mr. "oh please give me a golden glove" threw a the ball into the
 dirt and away on a routine play with two out already in the inning?

 Word I heard is that Boggs is shilling for management in attemp to
 keep Roger's record down to be used as leverage in his contract talks?

 ;^)

mike    

 Naw Hawk, the leading cy young canidate Bob Welch has 14 or 15 wins
 right now....

mike

    Didn't I start a Welch/Clemens rivalry topic and the Clemens droolers
    said there was no comparison and Doc said that Stewert was the best A's
    pitcher....
    
    Boy, you guys have been wrong alot lately.

    stewert  is overated.. jeez, they play ina  friggin cow pasture
    in  Oakland...
    
    dinz
    

    Welch got #15 last night against the Angels.

    Have no fear, Clemens will get 20......

    
    If Welch got the win last night,it was his league leading 16th !!!
    i don't believe clemens will get 20 wins, not because he's not
    a great pitcher, but because he's with the punchless sox.
    
    
    steveo

    re .4
    
    Stewart is one of the best in the game PERIOD. And I'd still take him
    if I need to win a money game. 3 straight 20 win seasons, and a fourth
    in the making isn't an accident.
    
    Doc

    In a recent poll of AL managers by Baseball America Roger Clemens
    was rated the number one pitcher in the league. Kirby Puckett was
    rated the number one hitter and Ken Griffey Jr. the number one de-
    fensive outfielder. Doc Brooks has a point though in my opinion
    when he says that in a crucial game he'd take Stewart if he had
    to win a game he fared much better in his last world series than
    Roger did in his.
    By the way Wade "Me Me Me" Boggs was not rated in the top three
    amongst AL hitters. Don't ask me where he WAS rated.

    Doc, what do you think about Welch?
    
    JoJ
    
    PS - is there some reason that your small mind feels the need to attack
    me personally? You should have showed up at the noters get together so
    you could attack me face to face....that is, if that's what you feel
    you need to do. Why not show up for Giantsmania, I'll give you a chance
    to meet me on the court. Then we'll see if that big yap of yours is as
    full of baloney as I suspect it is.

>    Stewart is one of the best in the game PERIOD. And I'd still take him
>    if I need to win a money game. 3 straight 20 win seasons, and a fourth
>    in the making isn't an accident.
    
	
	Bull, he's been lucky.  Lucky to pitch in a 'friggen cow pasture'
as Dinz put it.  The park is a pitchers wet dream.  Lucky to have the 
A's offense behind him.  Had Stewart pitched in Fenway with the sox as his 
offense he wouldn't have won 20 once.

Mc

    Stewart is also something like 3-0 against Clemens.
    
    Mark.

Of course he'll win 20.

daryll

>    Stewart is also something like 3-0 against Clemens.
>    
>    Mark.
	
	So?  3-0 alone does not mean much.  What can we safely say knowing that
Stewart is 3-0 against Clemens?  We can't say Stewart pitched better, or that
Clemens pitched worse in those 3 games.  It pretty meaningless all by itself.

mc

    < Note 306.17 by ASABET::CORBETT "Mike Corbett - 223-9889" >


>    Stewart is also something like 3-0 against Clemens.
>    
>    Mark.
>	
>	So?  3-0 alone does not mean much.  What can we safely say knowing that
>Stewart is 3-0 against Clemens?  We can't say Stewart pitched better, or that
>Clemens pitched worse in those 3 games.  It pretty meaningless all by itself.
>
>mc
    
    Tex, I was referring to the comparison made a few replies back of
    Stewarts' vs. Clemens' playoff record.  Not only does Stewart have
    a superior playoff record, but Stew has outpitched Clemens in head
    to head action.
    
    Does this mean that I'd rather have Stewart on the mound than Clemens?
    Absolutely not.
    
    I'd rather have Oakland on the field than Boston :^)
    
    Mark.

    < Note 306.18 by SASE::SZABO "Got nothing but hell to pay." >
>                           -< Greg Kite has a Ring! >-

    So does Frodo Baggins.
    
    Mark.

>	
> 	So?  3-0 alone does not mean much.  What can we safely say knowing that
>Stewart is 3-0 against Clemens?  We can't say Stewart pitched better, or that
>Clemens pitched worse in those 3 games.  It pretty meaningless all by itself.

Agreed!

To fully analyze this "stat", you'd have to, at the very least, look
at the overall Red Sox record against the A's over the same time
period.

I don't have records with me, but for the most part, the last couple
of years the A's have pretty much owned the Sox.  How does Stewart
stack up against the other Red Sox pitchers?

Statistics are like Bible verses.  If you place them in the right context
you can have someone believing almost anything.

I could probably dig through the Bible, and find a verse hear and there,
taken totally out of context, which would make it okay to go out and
bash in people's head with a two-by-four, and then cook them up into
a stew.  

I could also find stats in baseball history that might prove that
some obscure player was the greatest ever to play the game, just
by the context I place it in...

'Saw

    Stewart is 6-0 against Clemens.....

>    Does this mean that I'd rather have Stewart on the mound than Clemens?
>    Absolutely not.
>    
>    I'd rather have Oakland on the field than Boston :^)
    
    Exactly what I would say!  Oakland obviously has the better supporting
    cast.  I'd like to see what the Clemens-Stewart rivalry would look like
    if they traded teams!
    
    Mike

    re .11
    
    Don't forget to say how well Stewart fared in his first world series
    appearance against the Dodgers......not well at all.When it comes
    to comparing Roger in the series I'll pass on judging until he gets
    another chance,just like Stewart did.
    
    
                                 Tom

    I don't think you can diminish Stewarts accomplishments by saying he
    has "better supporting cast". That's like saying Montana isn't a great
    QB. 
    
    While winning 20 games with Oakland is probably easier then winning 27
    with the last place Phillies like Carlton did, he still had to pitch
    well or he wouldn't have lasted enough innings in each game to get the
    wins. Besides, what was his ERA? ERA is really the most important stat.
    
    This commentary on Stewart doesn't let Doc out of answering my
    questions tho....
    
    JoJ

How about avg. run support per start?

Stewert must be getting more runs to work with than Clemens.

Ask Storm Davis :-)

daryll

    Daryll, I agree that avg. runs per start can be important, if the guy's
    era is 5.00 he's gonna lose anyway.
    
    JoJ

>    While winning 20 games with Oakland is probably easier then winning 27
>    with the last place Phillies like Carlton did, he still had to pitch
>    well or he wouldn't have lasted enough innings in each game to get the
>    wins. Besides, what was his ERA? ERA is really the most important stat.


	but you can't look at ERA alone.  Compare Stewarts Era adjusted 
for the park he pitches in and then Clemens adjusted for the park he pitches 
in.

mc

    Hey Mike, do you have (or does anybody) have a "park effects
    multiplier"? For example, let's say that in Boston the multiplier is
    0.8 and in Oakland the multiplier is 1.2. Now, consider Clemens and
    Stewart....
    
    Clemens has an era of 3.00 times the 0.8 multiplier so his real ERA is
    2.40, whereas Stewart has an ERA of three but times the 1.2 multiplier
    it's really 3.60. Therefore, Clemens is the better pitcher and should
    win the Cy Young.
    
    I love this concept. The big question is, what park do we use as the
    base. That is, who has a multiplier of 1.0 . Also, consider the short
    right field line in Yankee stadium. Does the multiplier get adjusted
    for righties and lefties.
    
    Wow, all we need to do is rate every park, then we can compare all
    pitchers equally, wouldn't you say?
    
    JoJ

>    I love this concept. The big question is, what park do we use as the
>    base. That is, who has a multiplier of 1.0 . Also, consider the short
>    right field line in Yankee stadium. Does the multiplier get adjusted
>    for righties and lefties.
    
 	The parks are rated against the average of all parks.  I don't have
it on me but I can post something Mon.  If I remember 10% more runs are 
scored at Fenway.  

mc

    And Ramon Martinez (NL)

    Since most of the folks in this conference hail from the beanertown
    area, compiling awards and who should get them is easy:
    
    Take the Boston player, claim he's the favorite, and make up excuses
    why other players don't deserve. It's easy, fun, and safe for the
    whole family.
    
    You can use it for any arguement. For example, you can say "Will
    Clark is the best first baseman in baseball.."
    
    The Boston answer is:  "No Carlos Quintana is, because he plays
    in a park not suited to his style of batting, he doesn't have the
    players batting around him that Clark does, he's subject to crueler
    fans, and besides, Clark is overrated. "  For extra effect, you
    can always throw in a sentence that starts "According to Bill James..."
    and end it by saying "no matter what Dan thinks."
    
    Thanks for your support.  ;-)
    
    JD
    
    

    Hey JD....haw haw haw...I'm rolloing!
    
    JoJ

    re Park effects,
    
    Bunk. Fenway, since the addition of the new box (rich folk :-) seats,
    has become a much harder park to hit the long ball in. Furthermore,
    Clemens is a righty, and RH pitchers can do well in Fenway. Quite a few
    have. I'm really impressed when a lefty (like Bruce Hurst for example)
    can win consistently in Fenway.
    
    re Stewart
    
    DAve consitently rises the the level of his competition. Whenever he
    faces Clements, he kicks butt. And please spare me this "Oakland has
    the better lineup" cop-out. Often, the Rocket-Smoke confrontations are
    of the 1-0, 2-1, 4-2 variaty.
    
    As for Bob Welch, he'd get my AL Cy Young vote this year, FWIW. So
    what? We are talking about the merits of Stewart, and he has proven
    himself time and again. He needs no defense from me, if you bashers
    want to wail against the facts, be my guest.
    
    BTW : Who has pitched more no-hitters ? Rog or Stewart ? :-)
    
    re Wardle,
    
    You started this buddy, by twisting my words about the black QB topic
    ingeneral, and Major Harris in particluar. I wasn't even concerned with
    your wagon-jumping butt until then. All of a sudden, you got a
    tesosterone boost, adn you want to debate me. 
    
    Only probelm is, you can't find a safe topic - you keep getting wasted
    on all the ones you pick.
    
    Heh heh heh ... If you can't stand the heat,leave the kitchen.
    
    Peace,
    
    The Doc

>    re Park effects,

	Bunk? Sure what ever you say.  Fenway's not a hitter park.
    
>    re Stewart

	He plays in a pitcher's park with a better offense behind him then
the Clemens.  True, untrue?  


mc

    Hey Doc, I haven't gotten wasted in any of the topics I picked. Do you
    still believe that Harris should have been drafted, or that Peete was
    picked too low?
    
    FWIW, I don't want to discuss it anymore in public. Not because you and
    I couldn't debate this topic in a fair manner, but because some other
    noter might confuse our debate to be something else...
    
    Personally Doc, I just think your off base on the NFL scout thing.
    
    JoJ

>>    Doc, 'splain to us how a bunch of box seats situated way up behind
>>    homeplate has caused the number of dingers in Fenway to drop.  Has it
>>    shortened the lines?  Has it reduced the foul territory?  Has it
>>    lowered the Green Monster?  

Well, I'm not Doc (thank God!) but I think I can quote the Globe as well as he
can :-).  According to the article, the huge wart which grew on Fenway during
last off-season has cut down the wind substantially and causes the ball to die
rather than being carried toward the wall.  I thought it was a bunch of hooey
when I first read it but it makes sense when you think about it.

j.

 Mac, the Austin writer is kissing Roger's a$$ in anticipation of his moving
 down there in 92 after his contract with the Soxs' expires. Just getting in
 some practice.

 Everyone knows "Sweet Music" is the best pitcher in baseball....

 mike

    I read similar words in the Globe when I was in Boston earlier this
    month for DeathWorld.
    
    Not only have the luxury boxes on top of Fenway cut down the outbound
    wind, they have also created a swirling effect that adds to the
    turbulence inside the park and helps keep fly balls in the park.
    
    Something about standing on the mound facing center field and seeing
    the flag flying straight out while, at the same time, getting hit with
    a gust of wind directly in the face.
    
    Apparently, the long ball numbers at Fenway are dropping fast and
    helping to support this luxury box effect theory.
    
    Shame.  Means that Fenway loses a bit of its character.
    
    Bob Hunt

    
    re. -1
    
    The opposite effect happened in Texas.  Before the Rangers built up
    the centerfield bleachers anything hit to the outfield would be held
    up in the wind.  Now they can get out of the park.
    
    \pjb

    I think it's going to take a couple of years to see what effect the
    snob boxes are having on the long ball at Fenway.  It would probably be
    better to take the average home runs hit by the visiting team and
    compare them to this year.  The Red Sox are certainly not breaking any
    home run records, at home or away.
    
    It could just be excuse time for Greenwell, Boggs (who also believes the
    ball has been shrunk by 1/16" this year) and the boys.
    
    					Steve

    The Sox have hit 35 home runs at home, their oppenents only 24.
    
    Surprise, surprise.
    
    The Wizard

    Marc, think about it .... a combined *59* homers in what, 40-50 home
    games in Fenway ?
    
    There have been season's in the past when the Sox and opponents could
    hit that many in 6 calander weeks .... (only a half-smiley here)
    
    I went to a Sox game before the new section was added, and it was a
    shootout. And I've been to games since, and the scores have all been
    low, and I swear that balls don't seem to carry nearly as far.
    
    Like Bob said, some of the charm has gone out of Fenway, I enjoyed
    those 14-10 shootouts .... 
    
    Perhaps the next time a team decides to bulid an addition, they could
    run computer simulations of the air currents, and see what effect it
    has on the long ball ? It would be worth it .....

    
    
re .38
    
>   Hey Doc, I haven't gotten wasted in any of the topics I picked.
    
    Dream on ... can you say Georgetown ?
    
>    Do you still believe that Harris should have been drafted,
    
    Based on his accomplishments in college ? Yes. Based on his potential,
    yes. 
    
    And what you have failed to mention (figures) is that I also said that
    Major was raw, and would need time and good coaching to hone his
    skills. I also believe that it was a mistake for him to have come out
    of college this year (and I feel that the rule that keeps players from
    reentering college should be changed).
     
>     or that Peete was picked too low?
    
    He certainly was WardleVain. When he was healthy last year, Peete was a
    pretty effective QB. I saw a few of his games, and while he had the ups
    and downs of any rookie (and esp. one playing in a Run N Shoot attack),
    and he was injury-prone, he showed quite a bit of promise.
    
    Try again.
    
>    FWIW, I don't want to discuss it anymore in public. Not because you and
>    I couldn't debate this topic in a fair manner, but because some other
>    noter might confuse our debate to be something else...
 
    What a cop-out. I have touched on racially senstive topics before, and
    while some narrow noters have tried to silence debate, I can't see how
    anyone could 'confuse' the topic unless they want to, or unless someone
    really stuffs their foot in their mouth.
    
    I refuse to be run into VAXmail by a Neanderthal. What's more, given
    the off-base, sometimes totally irrevelvant and inane diversions this
    notesfile takes, it's kinda funny to hear some people decribe this as a
    rathole (as has been done in the past) ....
       
>    Personally Doc, I just think your off base on the NFL scout thing.
 
    Your opinion is your own. But the Globe had an interesting article on
    Micheal Proctor (who is fourth on the Pats depth chart at QB) last
    week. I think it will open your eyes a little.
    
    Doc

    Yo Doc, perhaps you shouldn't read into things.  Did I say anything
    about whether this is more or less than average?  No.  I happen
    to know for a fact that this is below average production, but I
    never said anything to that effect.
    
    The "Surprise, surprise" was in respect that the Sox had hit half
    again as many homers as their oppenents.  I found this slightly
    surprising considering their lack of power in the lineup.
    
    The Wizard

>>    What a cop-out. I have touched on racially senstive topics before, and
>>    while some narrow noters have tried to silence debate, I can't see how
>>    anyone could 'confuse' the topic unless they want to, or unless someone
>>    really stuffs their foot in their mouth.
    
    Let's just say I have my reasons for not wishing to discuss this stuff
    anymore....hope you don't mind, but there are many things more
    important to me than discussing these topics in this conference.
    
    In fact, I'm gonna cruise into "read_mostly" mode. I'm better off
    personally if I keep my opinions to myself (I know, I know, you're all
    better off too)....
    
    Much as I'd like to continue this discussion with ya, Doc, I'm not
    going to....
    
    JoJ
    
    

    Hey Doc, please leave your ::SOAPBOX attitude in there.  I say that
    because I've seen you in action in there and your last few replies to
    JoJ were in *that* "tone of voice".........
    
    Thanks.
    
    Hawk

    Clemens pitched his second consecutive shutout last night and the Sox
    downed the White Sox 3-0.  Clemens has now pitched 23 consecutive
    shutout innings.  He scattered 9 hits, struck out 8, and walked none
    for another complete game victory.

   I really don't care much about Clemens one way or another. But I saw
   last night's game, and think he must be the luckiest dude going, AND
   bribe the refs. Nine hits and a shutout? Could as easily have been nine
   runs scored. 

   Also .... the ump was giving him a strike zone from high in the armpits
   to three inches below the knee, and extending from about an inch
   outside the inside corner, to about eight inches outside the outside
   corner.

   I am not kidding! Anyone who doesn't believe me should check out a
   video somewhere... even the announcers kept mentioning it. The catcher
   was lunging to his right to make the catch, and the ump would call it a
   strike!

   Mike JN

The ump was giving BOTH pitchers the same strike zone.   The White Sox
announcers were even admitting it.

>   I really don't care much about Clemens one way or another. But I saw
>   last night's game, and think he must be the luckiest dude going, AND
>   bribe the refs. Nine hits and a shutout? Could as easily have been nine
>   runs scored. 


	Nine hits might be alot but when you give up no walks it's pretty good.
That's only 1 baserunner an inning which will win you quite a few games.

	He did have a big strike zone going as did Petterson.  His luckiest
moment was when Fisk was hit with the ball running between 2-3rd and called out
for interfernce.  The easy way to get a guy out of scoring position! :-)

mc

    As long as the ump is consistent (as Koch was Monday night) there
    shouldn't be a problem.  Carlos Quintana was called out on strikes on a
    pitch that was a half a foot outside.  When playing I always prefered
    an ump who called any borderline pitches a strike.  The name of the
    game is hitting.
    
    					Steve

  imagine that someone besides me an obvious objective sports noter notices
  that Clemens gets a bigger strike zone than most. Very interesting....

  while I didn't watch much of the game the other night ( after all Murphy
  Brown and Designing Women were on ) of what I did watch Clemens threw
  about 95% fastballs. The sign of a thrower not a pitcher.

  and the biggest laugh I had was here's a guy pitching a shutout and the
  boston announcer are talking about how he isn't right something must be
  hurting him cause he's giving up all these hits hahahaaa....talk about
  kissing his butt....

  mike

    Mike, it's gotten to the point where I don't know if you're busting
    chops or you just don't know what you're talking about!  Read the
    previous replies.  THE STRIKE ZONE WAS CONSISTENT FOR BOTH TEAMS!
    
    Nolan Ryan must be a bum in your eyes too.  And Sandy Koufax, Don
    Drysdale, Walter Johnson, Bob Gibson, and many many more.  After all, 
    they did or do throw mostly fastballs.  HAHAHAHAHA!
    
    					Steve

    Mike, if it makes yya feel better :-), I too thought Roger had a big
    strike zone.  Of course, all I saw was exactly 1 throw, which I thought
    was clearly low and away.  And, of course, the ump called a Roger(tm).
    
    :-)
    
    Hawk

>    Mike, it's gotten to the point where I don't know if you're busting
>    chops or you just don't know what you're talking about!  Read the
>    previous replies.  THE STRIKE ZONE WAS CONSISTENT FOR BOTH TEAMS!
    

Probably a bit of both Steve. The thing is that every game he gets this kind
of strike zone last's night game was not norm as far as the consistency goes.
From the few games that I have watched over the years he has always gotten
away with pitches that others would not get.

You're missing my point on this bum thing, he's not a bum on the mound, he's
a bum off the field IMO. Again the other pitchers that you mentioned also had
other pitches as does Roger but I can't say how much they used them. 

I just cannot stand the way people bend over backwards and praise him when he
spits in their faces most of the time. I'm just trying to offer a little 
balance here....

mike

    
>    Let's see, that was one interview about 2 years ago (he apologized for
>    a few things in the next interview).  Since then 2 players have decided
>    not to play in Boston, and two other long time contributors (1 who is a
>    HoF candidate) were unceremoniously dumped.

 and this year he blew up about the traveling, he blew up at the ump, and
 deliberately hit an opposing player , not to mention his bickering with
 the media....

 forget it Mac you ain't change my mind and I ain't changing yours for
 the sake of the rest of the crowd lets agree to diagree and leave it at
 that....

 mike

< Note 306.63 by CNTROL::CHILDS "and so castles made of sand..." >
                     -< "I am a rock, I am an island"... >-

> and this year he blew up about the traveling,

and so did a few other players like Pena and Evans..

> he blew up at the ump, and
> deliberately hit an opposing player , not to mention his bickering with
> the media....

Mike, you're reaching bigtime here. Is Clemens the only player in 
MLB to have a beef with an ump? Are all players that blow up at 
umps jerks? Regarding hitting opposing players, has the game 
changed since yesterday when I saw some Expo get hit after 
Galarraga's inside the park homer? It happens everyday. To fault 
Clemens for something that is done regularly doesn't seem right.

I'd like to hear your reaction to the Clemens comments made in 
the Red Sox note about him coming out to talk to the fans after 
the game....

daryll

    Let's see, Clemens stands up for his teammates by plunking an opposing
    batter.  I can't really see how this supports you claim of him being a
    selfish SOB.

 Daryl, just because others do it doesn't make it right. I was very much
 surprised that he signed autos the other night, my hat's off to him but
 I got to wonder if he had lost would he be as gracious...

 Mac, one incident after all these years doesn't necessarily change his
 stripes but maybe he has changed which would be nice and a sign of maturity.
 I also won't be surprised if he changes back should they fall on hard times.

 mike

    clemens is god.. film  at 11
    

>How about avg. run support per start?

>Stewert must be getting more runs to work with than Clemens.
    
    Very important stat, but Clemens is no slouch in that department.  He
    has historically had excellent run support, although I don't know about
    this year.
    
    It's probably because his success in pitching takes a lot of pressure
    off of hitters, allowing them to do better.
    
    Dan

>
>  imagine that someone besides me an obvious objective sports noter notices
>  that Clemens gets a bigger strike zone than most. Very interesting....


	I think you'll find a lot of the 'top' pitchers in the league get a
bigger strike zone.  George Wills mentions it in his new book _Men at Work_.
In his section on the pitcher a couple of the pitchers admit that they 
seem to get the benifit of a big zone.  One of them also mentions that some
of the 'top' batters get the benifit of a smaller strike zone.  He goes
on to say how if Yaz didn't swing at a pitch it was called a ball.  

mc 

>According to the article, the huge wart which grew on Fenway during
>last off-season has cut down the wind substantially and causes the ball to die
>rather than being carried toward the wall.  I thought it was a bunch of hooey
>when I first read it but it makes sense when you think about it.
    
    What makes even more sense is that the article was written with quotes
    by Boggs and Greenwell.  When you realize that both have offensive
    stats lower than expected, and both count on Fenway to keep their stats
    up and their overratedness intact, and both learn from their teammate
    Roger, that you make excuses to the media to feed to the fans whenever
    something goes wrong, then suddenly we have articles in the paper which
    state that Fenway Park has lost its offensive edge.
    
    Dan

    
    I had read the articles and quotes and was definitely still skeptical
    until I sat and watched batting practice on Monday night. In the
    old days when a batter hit a fly ball toward the wall the winds
    would usually carry it into the screen or the Wall pretty quickly.
    What I noticed Monday night was alot of fly balls simply hanging
    up there in left. I suspect it isn't making enough difference to
    to be complaining the way some are but I think it is making a
    difference. I'ld love to see some pre-600 club stats on Fly ball
    outs to left, hits off the wall, and Wall homeruns compared to
    Post-600 stats. I bet over time we'll find more outs and wall
    hits and less homeruns occur now than before the pimple appeared.
     

While I can only offer empirical evidence, and that gleaned from
TV, it does seem to have that effect.

Monty has talked quite a bit about it, and adding the new boxes
has changed the way the wind blows....

FWIW,
'Saw

>Monty has talked quite a bit about it, and adding the new boxes
>has changed the way the wind blows....

Monty talks quite a bit.... period.

>    What makes even more sense is that the article was written with quotes
>    by Boggs and Greenwell.  When you realize that both have offensive
>    stats lower than expected, and both count on Fenway to keep their stats
>    up and their overratedness intact, and both learn from their teammate
>    Roger, that you make excuses to the media to feed to the fans whenever
>    something goes wrong, then suddenly we have articles in the paper which
>    state that Fenway Park has lost its offensive edge.


	Not that I care a rat's *ss about this, but the same article published
some stats on how the Sox opposition's cumulative stats have decreased since
the 'wart' was built. I thought that those statistics were the backbone of
the 'park effects' theory? Or do those stats only come into play when they
back up your personal opinions Dan???

	Just curious????
JimH

>...how the Sox opposition's cumulative stats have decreased since
>the 'wart' was built. I thought that those statistics were the backbone of
>the 'park effects' theory?
    
    Not quite Jim.  If I wanted to measure effects such as these you would
    have to do it over a long period of time  (hint: see park effects).  A
    one year drop in home runs hit in Fenway Park can be explained by a
    vast variety of things: lower power stats for the league, different
    strategies used against the Red Sox, Red Sox pitchers pitching
    differently, pure random chance, and a change in the Park's structure
    changing the chances of a home run on a given ball.  I'd discount the
    odds of the last one heavily until I saw a decent sample showing it to
    be true.
    
    >	Just curious????
    
    Just informative....
    
    Dan

     First of all let me state that although I am a Red Sox fan I am
    not a Roger Clemens fan. But it strikes me as pretty ridiculous
    to chalk up Roger's success to luck or to him being given a larger
    strike zone. The man is plain and simple the best pitcher in the
    American League, probably both leagues. The AL managers voted him
    the best, the stats say so I don't see where there's really any
    room for argument. If he could just keep his foot out of his mouth
    and his head out of his a-- he'd be perfect.

    .76  Well said.  Not a Sox fan, not a Clemens fan.  But I've got
    to give credit where it's due.  He's the best in the AL, period.
    
    Lee

 Can you guys say Brent Saberhaguen, Dave Steward? sure I knew you could...

 yes he's top five AL pitcher but no 1, I don't think so.....

 mike

    Bret Saberhagen is definitely a notch or two below Clemens and Stewart,
    Mike.  Clemens and Stewart are the class of the A.L., a position once
    held by Jack Morris.
    
    					Steve

                         -< Saberhagen need not apply >-

>    Bret Saberhagen is definitely a notch or two below Clemens and Stewart,
>    Mike.  Clemens and Stewart are the class of the A.L., a position once
>    held by Jack Morris.
    
    					Steve

Please tell me why Steve? he has won two Cy Young awards like his highness,
has had a better era I believe and a comparable record. He also has won
a World Series MVP and just this year was voted the toughest pitcher in the
AL by the hitters to face in a recent Sporting News poll...

for the record Steward was second and Roger was third....

mike

    
    what about  Welch??
    
    Clemens is not the best pitcher.. lets gets some stats in here
    
    
    dinz
    

    
    You know his strike zone is too big....that's why everyone swings
    and misses at his pitches. 
    
    
    
    
    Steve

    
    Steib and Finley would be a nice 1-2 combo.... Mr Clemens is good
    
    But he's not GOD!!! Mr. Garry have you had your coffee YET!!!
    
    Wake up its Friday...or you'll miss the weekend!!!! 
    
    

    Well Mike, I'm not one of those stat frieks so in a way I am making
    blind statements.  I only read the Globe so until Sunday I can't put
    any numbers in.  But for now concerning Clemens here are his numbers:
    
    App   W   L   ERA   IP        H   CG   ER   BB   SO   HR   SV
    
    23    14  5   2.20  167 2/3  141  4    41   41   150   7    0
    
    I also don't have digests, encyclopedias, etc. in my office, but I
    would guess that Clemens' ERA is right now the best of his career.
    He's on his way to another 200 SO season.  He's durable (i.e., I don't
    think he's missed more than one start in about 5 years).  Compare that
    to Saberhagen who's on the IR it seems every year.
    
    Also World Series MVP doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  Bruce Hurst came
    within one pitch of that award, and he's probably considered a just
    above average pitcher.
    
    					Steve

>    Well Mike, I'm not one of those stat frieks so in a way I am making
>    blind statements.  I only read the Globe so until Sunday I can't put
>    any numbers in.      
 
	Neither am I as far as stats go but I was judging them on their
        careers as best as I knew them. If I want to just throw up one
        year as eveidence as you did with Roger than I would have included
        Welch...Also Clemens was banged up quite a bit when he first came
 	up and spent his share of days on the IR. And of course he always
  	has those nagging injuries when he looses...

	I also find it hard to believe that you can ignore what the hitters
	say. Sure some of them may have a grudge against Roger but by the
        same token there should also be some who have a grudge against 
	Saberhagen so that should balance out the findings...

     
    
>    Also World Series MVP doesn't mean a whole lot to me.  Bruce Hurst came
>    within one pitch of that award, and he's probably considered a just
>    above average pitcher.
    
 
  It does prove that the man can do it when everything is on the line something
  his highness has yet to prove....

Clemens tore up his shoulder his first year in the bigs ('85 I believe) and 
missed the 2nd half of the season due to surgery. I don't think he's been on
the IR since then although he has missed occasional starts.

If '85 was his first year then 86 would be his 2nd where he went 15-0 to start
the season and ended up with the Cy yung. I don't call that getting banged up
quite a bit when he first came up.  :-)

regarding Clemens vs. Stew.....

 With danian logic you have to take into effect the fact that Stewart pitchers 
in pitcher friendly Oakland while Clemens pitches in the bandbox for 1/2 his 
games. If you intend to go strickly by w-l records Stew has had a better team 
behind him for the past 3-4 years. I'll have to look at Saberhagen's stats to
compare them but Saberhagen hasn't demonstrated that his longevity in regards
to injuries yet.

Metz

>Clemens tore up his shoulder his first year in the bigs ('85 I believe) and 
>missed the 2nd half of the season due to surgery. I don't think he's been on
>the IR since then although he has missed occasional starts.

I think he pitched in 84 also and went IR.


> With danian logic you have to take into effect the fact that Stewart pitchers 
>in pitcher friendly Oakland while Clemens pitches in the bandbox for 1/2 his 
>games. If you intend to go strickly by w-l records Stew has had a better team 
>behind him for the past 3-4 years.

 Sorry Metz but this is a copout to me. First both also have to win on the road
 which they have done, Boston has been good enough to win a couple of division
 titles during this time so Roger has had plenty of support. The best pitchers
 make the hitter hit their pitch so park effects don't matter IMO. Boston has
 always had plenty of hitters to give him support so I can't buy the A's are a
 better team on this issue. Sure they play better defense and they go deeper
 than 2 men in the rotation as well as the bullpen so they are a better team
 from those aspects but if we are to compare just individual against individual
 Roger comes up short....

 mike

Fyi, I pulled a few numbers out last night and added in a couple 
of other guys into the debate.

Pitch selection:
            
FB - Fastball
CB - Curveball
CU - Change-up
FK - Forkball
SL - Slider


               FB    CB   CU   FK   SL   Other  

Clemens        70%   20%  5%   -    -     5%  
Stewart        50%   10%  -   40%   -     -
Saberhagen     70%   20%  10%  -    -     -
Welch          70%   30%  -    -    -     -
Stieb          65%    0   10%  -    25%   -
Ryan           70%   15%  15%  -    -     -

Labelling Clemens a thrower rather than a pitcher doesn't make 
sense unless you consider all these other guys throwers also.  


              Lefties/Righties    Home/Away     Hits per inning
    
Clemens        .257   .182       .230  .214          .82
Stewert        .222   .242       .230  .239          .87
Saberhagen     .245   .295       .290  .250         1.04
Welch          .250   .265       .239  .285          .97
Stieb          .218   .202       .190  .238          .76
Ryan           .218   .240       .210  .240          .87

Clemens and Saberhagen are the only two of this bunch that do not 
benefit at home.

daryll

    I publish a weekly newsletter for stats (rotis.) freaks that combines
    stats across several categories.  A rating of 0 is an average pitcher.
    Roger Clemens and Frank Viola have led the league for the last 8 weeks.
    
    FWIW, here are the top 6:
    
    Roger          10.40
    Viola           9.96
    Welch           9.11
    Finley          9.06
    Ramon Martinez  8.02
    Dave Stewart    7.83
    
    Tapani is the leading rookie at 4.63, Nolan Ryan is at 4.44, Gooden at
    4.31, and the worst starter is Richard Dotson at -4.07.
    
    For relievers, Thigpen's 7.13 leads the way, followed by Eck at 7.09,
    Doug Jones at 6.47 and Gregg Olson at 5.91.
    
    FWIW, HTH, and if I may interject my $.02 into that oh-so-interesting
    discussion re: the future of SPORTS, I'm in here for stats, player
    moves, noters evaluation of players, etc...
    
    The frequent LDUC's lead me to usually read-only, and
    usually only on Friday's (that way I can next unseen an entire pissing
    contest with one key).
    
    Shlep it,
    
    ML

    Well Mike, you probably expected to see this, buy I can't let an
    opportunity get away. :-)
    
    Saturday, Clemens lowered his ERA to 2.14, the lowest in baseball.
    His streak of consecutive scoreless innings, the longest in the majors
    this year, ended at 26 2/3.  Clemens has allowed three earned runs or
    fewer in 22 of his 24 starts.
    
    His career ERA at Fenway is now 2.98, to go along with a 54-25 record.
    
    Not to downgrade him, but Dave Stewart is the beneficiary of the best
    team bullpen in baseball.  Eckersley has 32 saves with one blown save
    opportunity.  Boston's Jeff Reardon has 18 saves with 7 blown save
    opportunies.  I know of at least 2 games that Reardon failed to hold
    the lead for Clemens, possibly more.
    
    Oh ya, Bret Saberhagen's record is 5-7.  Clemens would be hooted out
    of Boston with a record like that.
    
    For Dan - Since June 3, Boston has failed to score more than four runs
    for Clemens, and in his last seven starts, the team has supported him 
    with an average of less than three runs a game.
    
    					Steve

>    For Dan - Since June 3, Boston has failed to score more than four runs
>    for Clemens, and in his last seven starts, the team has supported him 
>    with an average of less than three runs a game.

   The Sox have scored an average of 3.13 runs in Clemens' last 15 starts.

Bob

    Thanks, Steve.  I just KNEW he was a bum.  :*)
    
    
    Lee

    re .91
    
    Steve, how many of Stewart's wins does The Ecxk save ? One of the
    benefits (to the manager) of having a stopper like Stew or Clements is
    that you can save your bullpen ace for the other starters, because you
    know that your ace will go deep into his starts.
    
    Example : Stewart pitched a 11 inning complete game 5 hit shutout of
    the Mariners the other day. And I remember seeing Stewart lose a fair
    number of wins each year because of blown save ops.
    
    He has a great bullpen, but I'd bet that he doesn't benefit the way
    Welch and Storm Davis has in the past ....

    Speaking of Stewart, he notched his 15th win last night, I believe. 
    What makes this pretty incredible is that the man had a looooooong
    losing streak, something like 6 in a row, and was struggling to stay
    over the .500 mark.  I'm actually very surprised to see him back up
    there with the leaders again after falling behind like that.  
    
    How many losses does Stewart have?  Clemens has 5, right?
    
    Hawk

    Agree, Doc.  Welch and Davis probably do benefit from the A's bullpen a
    whole lot more than Stewart.
    
    I was just pointing out that Oakland has far and away a better bullpen
    than the Sox, statistically speaking.
    
    					Steve

  How many CGs does Stewart have, ~6?  How 'bout Clemens, ~4?  I'd say 
their respective bullpens come into play quite a bit.

Bob

    I'd say the true measurement of a pitcher is his ERA. If a guy is
    10-12 with a 2.70 ERA would you call him a bum? I hope not. Roger
    Clemens has a league-low 2.14 ERA. Is that the ERA of a second rate
    pitcher? Get real. Stewarts ERA is good. But not that good. Roger
    is having a GREAT season.
    
    			Rich
    

   ERA is as much a function as the fielding supporting you as it is the
   pitching. 

   Clemens gets a strike zone the size of a barn door.

   Wade `Golden Glove' Boggs has saved Clemens ass this year.

   Mike JN

    Boy, you guys are really reaching.
    
    Clemens is a bum because he refused to be interviewed. Clemens is a bum
    because he compllained about travel. Clemens is a bum because he threw
    at somebody. Clemens is a bum because he doesn't do charity work in
    Boston.
    
    Well, folks, let me tell you. I watched Ted Williams have his spats
    with the Boston media morons in the 50's and I've watched Clemens
    wrestle with them. These media guys are relentless. As an example, did
    anyone see John Denis last night? He bragged about the fact that he had
    been leaving messages on Reggie Lewis' machine all day. Didn't he get
    the message that Reggie didn't want to talk to him?
    
    Boston media types like to create sensationalism. It distracts the
    public from the lousy government we have. They dwell on the type of
    toilet paper Luis Rivera uses while essentially ignoring Pau Levy
    getting a $9,000 pay raise while the state is going belly up.
    
    During Ted's days, they hounded him constantly. Ted was a nice guy but
    a guy who liked his privacy. They would leave him alone. When Ted
    stopped talking to them, they made things up or expanded on useless
    dribble just to fill up a newspaper column.
    
    Clemens is basically a private guy. He has a small town mentality. The
    Boston media EXPECTS him to be like John Stephens or M.L. Carr. When he
    isn't, they sensationalize it.
    
    Let me put it another way. Say you work in Marlboro. You are a #1
    performer. But you hate the town of Marlboro. The cops bag you at the
    same stop light, the traffic ticks you off, etc. Would you be inclined
    to put in time helping the mayor of Marlboro kick off a bottle recycle
    center?
    
    Clemens certainly isn't the best ever. But I'll match his stats against
    any other pitcher in baseball over the last 5 years.
    
    Bob Hunt, what did Philadelphians think about Steve Carlton? The rest
    of the country only looked at the results, not whether he talked to
    media or not. What do most of you think about Don Drysdale and Bob
    Gibson? Pretty good pitchers, huh? Well, both guys will tell you that
    they think today's pitchers are pansies because they don't throw inside
    enough, don't send messages but hitting a batter and don't brush back
    anyone. Don Drysdale has stated that Clemens is the best pitcher in
    baseball today. 
    
    But I guess so many of us in here know SO much more about baseball
    than Don Drysdale. Bob Gibson was asked what he thought about Clemens
    htting a Cleveland Indian. "What's the fuss?" he replied.
    
    As for Dave Stewart, the guy is one of the best pitchers in baseball
    today. A guy who overcame alot of adversity, a classier guy than
    Clemens off the field, a guy who Texas and the Phillies gave up on. He
    stuck with it and developed into a tough pitcher. Frankly, in my
    opinion, his ability is slightly below that of Clemens. To throw a
    baseball, that is. I would much rather have Dave Stewart come to my
    house for dinner and teaching my son baseball than Roger Clemens.
    
    But, what do I know? I must be suffering from displaced employee
    effect.
    
    Rich
    

Again, I'm agreeing with Rich.

Last night I just finished reading Hard Nose, Jim Burt's story of
the 1986 Super Bowl season for the Giants.  Some of the antics and
stories that he related about the press really opened my eyes.

I'm really into photography.  For a long time on the journalistic front
there's been a debate about shooting the news vs respecting people's
privacy.  Suppose you come on an accident scene and someone is hanging
out of a car, bleeding profusely, arm hangin off by a thread.  Do you
start shooting, oblivious to any effect you might have on the family
at the scene?  Or do you not shoot.  A debate I have no answers for.

It's the same thing in Sports.  A player has a bad game, and naturally
wants to keep to himself.  The media hounds and hounds.  Now the player
gets a bad rap.  Sometimes people don't realize that after a bad 
performance someone would rather not talk about it.....

Personally, I don't feel the limelight requires someone to be
something they are not....

'Saw

    Clemens can say whatever he wants or nothing at all, as long as it's in
    a Red Sox uniform.  Any Red Sox fan would have to be soft to disagree.
    
    					Steve

    
    The stiff got his 16th victory lasted night. What a bum, the guy
    stinks, couldn't pitch his way out of a paper bag..etc..etc..
    
    
    
    
    Steve
    

    I could only hang in for about 3 innings, Steve.  I don't know what his
    final pitch count was but I do know he was throwing smoke, along with an
    occassional curve and split-finger during the time I was watching.
    
    					Steve
    
    P.S. - Anyone have the boxscore showing how many earned runs the bum
    gave up?

    Steve, according to the Red Sox conference, Clemens came out of the
    game with 2 outs in the 7th and the bases loaded.  Hesketh gave up a
    blooper into the outfield which scored 2 runs, both charged to Clemens. 
    His pitch count was a little over 100 for 6-2/3 innings of work.  I was
    glad to read that the Sox piled up some runs for him so he could rest
    after a couple of high pitch count games.

          <<< Note 306.104 by BUILD::MORGAN "Boggs Watch: 67 to go" >>>

    
    P.S. - Anyone have the boxscore showing how many earned runs the bum
    gave up?


                        IP  H  R  ER  BB  SO  ERA
                      6.2   8  2   2   0   6  2.16

    	Hey Dins, aren't you glad you weren't "man" enough to make that
    bet that Roger wouldn't win 20?  Being a wuss saved you a bundle.
    
    				/Don

    	Since Dins entered this note Roger Clemens is 5-0 with three
    shutouts and I believe just 3 earned runs in those five starts.
    The KoD is alive and well!
    
    				/Don

    
    Congrats Dinz!!!

    
    wheres the sammy adams on sale?
    

    Millstream Liquors at the Victory Supermarket on Rte. 62 in Maynard,
    Dinz.  $13.99/case + deposit
    
    					Steve

    
    comon really steve??
    
    what a deal.. whens the sale run to?
    
    dinz
    

    yeah, but the Yanks is proving him wrong; aren't they???
    
    

    Dinz,
    
    I think I need glasses.  I screwed up, big time.  It's $16.99 not $13.99.
    Same place.
    
    					Steve         

>< Note 306.114 by COBRA::DINSMORE "go tigers!" >
>                       -< REMEBER YOGI BERRA SAYING? >-

I think he said, "Buy the beer and quit yer whinin'"

HTH
daryll
    

    
    Clemens is GOD!

    it aint over yet. go tigers. i wont  quit.. ya cant corner copers..
    
    
    right muggsie?
    

    As the guy on the radio said this morning:  Clemens for President!

>>    As the guy on the radio said this morning:  Clemens for President!

 he couldn't do any worst and atleast it would get him out of Boston....

mike

Dinsdale stars in the remake of "White Heat"....film @ 11.....

    or white lighting with the asics jels on
    

    
    Clemens is GOD!
    

    
    Murphy a closer.... 

    Hey Mike C., what did you think of Will McD.'s article on Clemens?  The
    Austin paper picked it up off the wire for this morning's edition.

	If they voted today Clemens would have to get CY.  

MC
    

So at what point can we cay that Clemens is winning "clutch" games?   Do the
past five count, or is it only games in September?

    In his last 6 he's 6-0, 4 earned runs in 49 1/3 innings, a 0.73 ERA.
    Hasn't allowed a home run since the all star break (63 1/3 innings).
    He is 11-2 after a Sox loss this season and 67-17 after a Sox loss 
    since 1984.
    
    So far.....
    App.  W   L  ERA   IP    H   CG  ER  BB   SO   HR
    27   18   5  2.04  199  171   5  45  44  183    7
    
    If he keeps this up and the Sox don't choke, could he even get the MVP??? 

    Hey Clemens bashers ....
    
    After yesterday's game, Roger's career record after a Red Sox loss now
    stands at 66-17.
    
    DrM

    Jeff, stick to the topic (Clemens), or start a Boddicker note ...:-)

    This is not a bash on Clemens.  Just wondering, wouldn't most #1
    pitchers on a squad have a decent after loss winning %, since they
    go after the #5 starter, who you would assume would lose more than
    the #1 starter.  And doesn't it logically make since that if a pitcher
    wins a high % of starts, like Clemens, that a lot of wins would
    come after a loss.
    
    Again, nothing against Clemens, but this stat doesn't do a whole
    lot for me.  I expect the #1 starter to do that.  That's why #1's
    get paid the big bucks.
    
    JD

    	Hey Dins, how 'bout another "gO tOronTo" note before this Thursday?
    Huh?  How 'bout it?
    
    				/Don  

    
    JD, where do you get the idea that the #1 starter pitches mostly
    against the #5?  Since the #1's always face each other on opening day,
    they generally would match up against each other more often than #5's.
        
    Bruce 

What he said, Bruce, is that the #1 starter usually FOLLOWS the #5 starter. 
And the #5 starter usually loses, bringing the #1 starter up alot following
losses.  And since the #1 starter usually wins alot of games (since he's gotten
to be #1 somehow), the stat should be tempered.

j.

He said "after" not "against"... meaning that following Al Nipper means
you're probably going to pitching after a loss mpst times any way.

Still, to have a higher winning percentage after losses than in general
is supposed to say something about being the "stopper".   Clemens' must
be much higher than normal to be mentioned so often.

    Bruce, what Jeff and Doug said.
    
    Doug, good point, and of course, what makes a good stopper a great
    stopper is that as #1, he will, as Bruce said, be facing the #1
    more often than not (I know ptiching rotations get all screwed up),
    so he usually has a tougher pitching opponent.
                  
    And the stat would have to be measured against relative team record.
    A cruddy team with a good stopper will give the stopper more chances
    to win after a loss, that a good team with a good stopper.  For
    example, I'd guess Dave Stewert faces less 'games after a loss'
    than say, Ramon Martinez does.
    
    JD

    Good points by all of you. I just thought I'd mention that fo rthe
    benefit of the Clemens-bashers, who at times seem to strain to find
    something substantive to bash ....

>Still, to have a higher winning percentage after losses than in general
>is supposed to say something about being the "stopper".   Clemens' must
>be much higher than normal to be mentioned so often.
    
    Probably so, but who knows.
    
    I think JD's point might be that the record after losses is not
    synonomous with "Clutch", a mistake many have been making here lately.
    
    Dan

>    I think JD's point might be that the record after losses is not
>    synonomous with "Clutch", a mistake many have been making here lately.
>    
>    Dan

I agree... they are not the same thing.  But, I would say that anytime
you win when you are within +-5 games of first in August, it could be 
considered a "clutch" win.   Or do we only count September games against
the first or second place team as "clutch"?   Clemens has a rap against
him for not being a good pitcher in clutch situations.   Whether that is
true or not, I'd like to know what it will take to lessen that rap.  If
he wins all his games the rest of the way, does that negate the old
rap?  

>Clemens has a rap against
>him for not being a good pitcher in clutch situations.   Whether that is
>true or not, I'd like to know what it will take to lessen that rap.  If
>he wins all his games the rest of the way, does that negate the old
>rap?                                          
    
    As far as I know, the rap grew from his performances in the biggest
    games of the 1986 and 1988 seasons.  I'm not saying I hold with it, but
    to wash it away you'd have to have good performances in similar
    circumstances.  Those games were playoff and WS variety if I remember
    correctly.
    
    For those who think he choked in the clutch, I doubt that a few August
    wins against the Angels will change many minds.  Less so than an
    impressive, but probably bogus stat like "Wins after Losses".
    
    Dan

SIGH YUNG= BOB WELCH

>
>SIGH YUNG= BOB WELCH
>

	I the season ended today there is no way Welch should get the
CY over Clemens.  The only thing he beats Clemens in is wins (and then 
only by 2).  Wins are too team oriented to base a CY on, especialy when 
it's own 2 wins difference.  Rog' could have won quite a few more if he
had the benifit of the A's offense.  The A's have almost a .100 better
winning percentage then the Sox.

	Clemens' Era is 2.04 Welch's  3.09 even though Welch pitches in
a pitchers park and Clemens in a hitters.  

	Clemens is leading the lead in K's.

	Any writer who would vote for Welch over Clemens at this point
should have his vote taken away from him.

mc

    
    Rojir Clemons is gawd!  I do'nt now if he wil win 30 games this yer
    or not but he wil win way moar then 20 and anuther sy yung award two
    goh a long width all ov the uther wuns he's wun!
    

    re .147
    
    Mike, I agree with you on almost everything except the K's. K's are
    impressive, but the bottom line is your ability to get people out. It
    doesn't matter whether it's a fly ball, GB, or K, they add up the same
    way.
    
    I remember Randy Jones getting shafted out of a Cy Young, because he
    had 100 fewer K's than Tom Seaver. Jones led the league in ERA, and won
    20 with a pathetic Pads team, but the K's caused the voters to swing to
    Seaver. :-(
    
    Right now, it's too early to call. Clemens, Stewart, and Welch is the
    way I'd vote right now, but it's going to come down to which man can
    have the best September. Based on the past few years, I'd pick Smoke.
    But Clemens is phenominal right now, and he's winning on his off-days.
    
    Kinda appropriate that the 3 best pitchers this year are from the division
    leaders.
    
    DrM

Doc,

Jones did win a CY, was this another year? I thought he only had 
1 "Cy Young" type season.

daryll

    This was the season before he won the Cy Young, 1975. He was something
    like 20-12, and won the ERA title. The next year, he was 16-3 at the
    break, and with a decent offense, could have won 30 (no exagerration).
    He finished 22-14, having lost at least three 1-0 games, and at least
    several more through lack of support.
    
    Randy also pitched 300+ innings that year, blew out his arm, and was
    never the same pitcher again (although he had a couple of decent years
    later).
    
    You're right about that sinker, and he was the fastest pitcher in
    baseball. I remember he finished a game in 1:45 ....whew !

    
    	Roger Clemens pitched a helluva game in the '86 WS game 6.
    	I think he allowed all of two hits and a couple of cheap
    	runs before being yanked for Schiraldi.  Clemens was awesome
    	that game, and if Carter, Mookie etc hadn't have fouled off a
    	million pitches in the middle innings the sox woulda :-) had the
    	big ring...  Have to give credit to the Mets though, they knew that
    	Rog was unhittable that day so they fouled 'em off and tired him
    	out.  There would be no talk whatsoever of Clemens not being a 
    	clutch pitcher if Schiraldi would have done his job.  
    
    	Jeff

Mac, you must have gotten a batch of Shrooms from Saw or something, why oh
why in the world would I read an article on his "highness"? Karen gave me
an article on friday that I threw in my backseat and it's still sitting
there...

So Roger is having a great year, seems he alway does when he wants to 
renegotiate his contract. Where's the consistency year to year? The only
thing that's been constant are the strikeouts and that's due to the enlarged
strike zone he enjoys....

mike

    
    clemens arm  will tire in september..
    
    so sox fans, how about them yankees beating them jays?
    

>    
>    Mike, I agree with you on almost everything except the K's. K's are
>    impressive, but the bottom line is your ability to get people out. It
>    doesn't matter whether it's a fly ball, GB, or K, they add up the same
>    way.

	I almost didn't even mention them, but I do think they will help him 
out come voting time.  Fans (and writers) just love the long ball and the
big K.  The most important stat out of them all is the ERA, 2.04.  He hasn't 
given up a homer since the All-star break and his ERA is some thing 0.75 
during that stretch.

	Your right though, there is still alot of time left and the CY will be 
one or lost come September.

mc
	

    Bobby Witt has been the best pitcher in baseball since the all-star
    break. 
    
    JD

    
    Rodjir Clemuns is gawd!

    
    kevin maas..... is god
    

re; -10 or so.

clemens, stewart and welch as the cy young candidates..  what about eck?

i'd say he's neck and neck with roger.  he's given up something like 4 
walks this whole season, his era is something like 0.7, and he's on the way
to break righetti's save record (albeit so is thigpen of chicago).  

Clemens vs. Bobby Witt since July 5th....  does not include last night's
game for Witt {he didn't do too well, I believe}


		     W  L   G  CG SH  IP    H    R  HR  BB  K    ERA  RATIO
Roger Clemens        6  1   9  3   3  69.1  60   8  1   10  67   1.04  1.01
Bobby Witt           7  0   8  3   0  61.1  46  14  4   27  68   2.05  1.19

I think "better" is a very tough call here... 

    Now I know you are just trying to stir it up, Mike.  Dave Stewart is
    probably the only pitcher more consitent that Roger Clemens from
    1986-1990 - and that is only on W-L record.

	The eck is having another great year, but with starting pitchers like 
Welch, Clemens, and Stewart having years like they are I don't think the
CY will be going to a reliever.  

	His 3 walks this year now gives him a stretch of around 150 inning
with 3 walks.  Amazing!

mc
    

>why in the world would I read an article on his "highness"? Karen gave me
>an article on friday that I threw in my backseat and it's still sitting
>there...

Mike, the least you could do is hang up the neato pictures of Rog on his
tractor. (-:  

>So Roger is having a great year, seems he alway does when he wants to 
>renegotiate his contract. Where's the consistency year to year? The only
>thing that's been constant are the strikeouts and that's due to the enlarged
>strike zone he enjoys....

Wow.  What bs.
         

    Doug,
    
    Last night, ESPN had a graphic that (not counting last night), Witt
    was 9-0 in his last 9 starts with a 0.63 ERA.  Perhaps they made
    an error.....
    
    JD
    
    

 Of course I am Mac. I tried to drop it three weeks ago but everytime
 his "highness" wins, I got twenty noters or so in here giving me crap.
 What am I supposed to do, take Bobby's advice and "lay back and enjoy it"?

 Karen, I really don't think it's BS. He hasn't pitched this good since his
 last contract. Besides to listen to his "highness'" faithful the guy should
 easily win 20 games a year something he hasn't done.

 I can't wait for the next loss so I can throw the BS excuse he'll have
 back in all of your faces. I just have to wonder who'll be his mouth
 piece as we know he won't talk the press unless they bow down and kiss
 his feet first........

 mike

>    Last night, ESPN had a graphic that (not counting last night), Witt
>    was 9-0 in his last 9 starts with a 0.63 ERA.  Perhaps they made
>    an error.....
>    
>    JD
    
That may be true... but the 9 game win streak started several weeks before
the All Star game... and it wasn't 9 wins in 9 starts. 

Last night's line for Witt:       5 IP, 5 ER, 9 H, 1 BB

    clemens loses to the jays friday night
    

FYI,

Clemens' contract isn't up for reneg until next year....

daryll

    /don, we will be in the casino and i will hear the jays score
    
    [a win over sox] the kiss of death will be history
    

 True Daryll but his agent said that they wouldn't  renegotiate a new
 one during this season but if the soxs do not renegotiate with him this
 off season then there will be no negotiation during next season and
 Roger will declare free agency. 

 and before someone gets smart with me I didn't read this, it was reported
 on one of TV stations news broadcast before the season started....

 during spring training his "highness" declared how it was going to be...

 mike

    
    HA! Dins your going to lose all of your designated gambling money
    in about 5 minutes and the sox will win big! HA!
    
    
    
    
    Steve

    With all this garbage in the past year or so about "oh, it's too bad
    that Dave Stewart has won 20 games 3 years in a row and hasn't won the
    Cy Young award", I just hope he doesn't get any sympathy votes this
    year for the sole reason that he hasn't won it yet.  If he deserves it
    THIS year (let's look at the end of the year stats), then give it to
    him.
    
    -- dg

    I don't think Stewart will get any sympathy votes unless he finishes in
    a dead heat with Roger. Right now, Rog has 18 wins and a 2.10 ERA
    (appx.) Smoke has 17 wins and a 2.45 ERA ..... Plain and simple, Roger
    has the edge, but it's going to be the man who has the best September.
    Based on past years, Stew should have the edge there, has tends to get
    as hot in September as he is in April-May. But Clemens is on a serious
    roll, and Welch *has* won 20 (was shooting for 21 lasted night), and
    has to rate serious consideration if we wins 24-25, and the others
    falter even a little.
    
    DrM
    
    p.s. FWIW, I think Stew will win 20 (probably 21-22) for the fourth
    year in a row, but Clemens will win 23 and the Si Yung (tm) .....

> True Daryll but his agent said that they wouldn't  renegotiate a new
> one during this season but if the soxs do not renegotiate with him this
> off season then there will be no negotiation during next season and
> Roger will declare free agency. 

> and before someone gets smart with me I didn't read this, it was reported
> on one of TV stations news broadcast before the season started....

> during spring training his "highness" declared how it was going to be...

> mike
    
    Mike, this is a VERY common statement made by many superstars with a
    year left on their contract.  It is nothing new, and even makes sense
    if you look at it from the standpoint that he doesn't want the
    negotiations to interfere with his season.  You've been ragging on him
    about only putting out because he is at the end of a contract (wasn't
    it only a 3 year contract anyway?  What would you have said if he had
    a great year last season?) and are missing out on an outstanding
    performance.  If he ends up with an ERA close to 2.00, it is going to
    ba a magnificent feat.  Let's leave it at that rather than make wild
    guesses as to Roger's motives for "choosing" to do it now.
    
    Bruce

    
>    Mike, this is a VERY common statement made by many superstars with a
>    year left on their contract.  

     Agreed but it's still putting a gun to management's head and saying
     pay now or else. Which also in this case is pretty sleazy when they
     fatten his wallet again last year without having to do so...	

>    It is nothing new, and even makes sense if you look at it from the
>    standpoint that he doesn't want the  negotiations to interfere with
>    his season.

	Agreed this is the only thing that make sense. Only because the
        media gets involved and things get said that shouldn't. If the
        media isn't involved then I see no reason why a Mature adult
        can't come to terms with his team during the year without effecting
        his performance. First off there's always free agency and arbitration
	so the incentive for the big numbers are there dispite what manage-
        ment may feel.

>  You've been ragging on him about only putting out because he is at the end
>  of a contract (wasn't   it only a 3 year contract anyway?  What would you
>  have said if he had a great year last season?) and are missing out on an
>  outstanding performance.  If he ends up with an ERA close to 2.00, it is
>  going to be a magnificent feat.  Let's leave it at that rather than make
>  wild guesses as to Roger's motives for "choosing" to do it now.
    

 BINGO BINGO BINGO that's it Bruce he didn't have a good year last year or the 
 year before yet they still upped his pay and now he puts a gun to their head.
 Sure 2.00 will be a maginficent feat but there's still enough of the season
 left for it to be 3.00 or even 1.80 we'll see. 

 And Bruce for about the millionth time when his "highness" speaks he has never
 ever lost a game because of pitching. He was injuried, the mound was too
 high, the umps squeezed him, his teammates didn't hit or make the plays.
 The guy is classless and revered like a god up here and I'm sorry I'm not
 buying it.

mike

Clemens would have to give up about 5 runs per start for the rest of
the season to raise his e.r.a up to 3.00.  

Clemens is easily the best pitcher in baseball over the last 5 years.
His personality means nothing in measuring his success.

    	Pitchers who've won 20 games four years in a row without a Cy
    Young award.  Dave McNally, Wilbur Wood and Juan Marichal.  Stewart's
    in pretty good company if he doesn't win it this year.  I don't
    know about the "last 5 years" statement Doug.  In '88 and '89 Stewart
    was the better pitcher.  Clemens was better in '86 and '87.  This
    year is incomplete.  
    
    				/Don

What was Stewart's record in 86?

> And Bruce for about the millionth time when his "highness" speaks he has never
> ever lost a game because of pitching. He was injuried, the mound was too
> high, the umps squeezed him, his teammates didn't hit or make the plays.
> The guy is classless and revered like a god up here and I'm sorry I'm not
> buying it.

Never say never, Mike.  I've heard Roger say "I just didn't have it," after 
losing.  He didn't say the umps screwed him, etc.

The only God up here is Sir Larry Bird.    

	Due, of course, to not only park effects, but team effects.  We all
	know how good Eckersley was before he went to Oakland (can you say
	'mediocre' ) and Welch has never won more than 17 games in any 
	previous season.  By extrapolation, you could make the argument that
	it is unlikely that Stewart would have been as successful, had
	he played elsewhere for his entire career; ship him to the Yankees
	and see how many games he wins!

    overated  the eck??  i seriously doubt that, the guys a outstanding
    
    relief pitcher.. clemens  gets by when he has too... but i be willing
    to bet hes right there at top of league as far as 3-2  pitches
    
    in the course of a game goes...
    
    
    
    dinz
    

    Eck is successful because he throws hard and he throws strikes.
    He can get away with this for 3-4 batters a night.
    
    Mark.

 Maybe he has Karen, but I have never heard him say it....

 Well Don to tell ya the truth I never heard that before you came up with
 it but if you say so than it must be true....

 ;^)

mike

    Well, Mike, you are the only one I've heard claim that Clemens makes
    excuses after every loss.
    
    Even if he does, he doesn't have to make them often.

>    Well, Mike, you are the only one I've heard claim that Clemens makes
>    excuses after every loss.
 
 cause I'm the only in here it seems that doesn't think he diety...
   
>    Even if he does, he doesn't have to make them often.


that's this year. if it was year you could have filled the back of a ten
wheeler with em....

mike

    
    re: .187
    
    Clemens makes excuses after every loss!
    
    
    p.s.  Rodjir Clemuns is gawd!

    I might agree with stewart and welch being overrated but not
    eckersley.  He has changed roles since he came to Oakland.  He
    went from starter to relief man and has been among the best relievers
    in baseball ever since.  He throws strikes and he throws hard.
    
    Frank Mendez
    

eck -- guy gives up  3 or 4 walks all season long, and is called overrated, guys
era is 0.7 and he's overrated??? --- absurd.  The only thing you can say about
eck is that he should have been a reliever from the start; it's the perfect 
job for him -- lots of intensity and concentration for short bursts.


all this player bashing brings up an interesting question:  is there a superstar
out there with a lily-white unbashable image??  i can't think of a single
one who hasn't been bashed one way or another.  i guess you just have to expect
it.

 He may not be lily-white but I find it very hard to find anything at all
 to bash about Kirby Puckett....

 great offensive/defensive ballplayer, great community relations and an
 excellent attitude...

 mike

kirby puckett is a good choice.  i was also thinking of david robinson

Kirby Puckett has a big butt.  Not as big as Sid Fernandez, but
a big butt which you could stack a plate or two on nonetheless.

According to the SPORTS Rules of Engagement, a big butt is something
that someone can be bashed for...therefore, Kirby is fair game....

'Saw

    Michael Jordan seems to have quite a "good guy" image. It doesn't hurt
    that he's one of the finest players around. This PUSH/Nike thing seems
    to have stirred up a little controversy, so maybe he isn't immune.
    
    Tom

    Ah, Puckett hasn't hit as many HRs as he did in past seasons.  He's
    also not stealing bases like he used to.  He's a bum......
    
    
    
    
    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
    
    -- dg

Give me Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, Chuck Muncie, and Mercury Morris any day.

    How about Orel Hershiser,he's lily white.
    
    Also how about Dewey Evans.
    
    
    As for noters how about Mike Childs.
    
    
    
    Tom

 Well thanks Tom, but you got to be joking. I got a closet so full of skeltons
 I had to build on an annex... ;^)

 here's another Cal Ripken. Sure maybe he's only batting .260 or so but this
 is a very good average for a shortstop and throw in the power and rbis and
 he comes out ahead of the rest of the gang. Range? Well he gets as many
 chance per year as anyone else and just set a record of 95 straight games
 without and error. Team player? 1300+ straight games and still counting...

 community service? Just donated 250K to Baltimore illerate funding program...

mike

    
    In the "clean image" dept.:
    
    	Ryne Sandberg?
    

    Clemens shut out the Jays today, 1-0.  ERA 1.95.  

    Re. Mike Childs
    
    Mike, I agree the guys a bum and even though he's gonna carry the
    "No Pitching" red sox to the AL east title they should let him go.
    
    Howss that Mikey.
    
    
    
    Clemens will win both the Cy and MVP.
    
    
    Tom

    I don't know why I even bother with this, but, FOUR SHUTOUTS in his last 
    seven games pitched.  0.62 ERA in those seven games.  1.95 for the
    year.  But he's not a clutch pitcher.  Ya, right.  And Saddam Hussein
    is a highly respected diplomat.
    
    					Steve

    and what about that play Clemens made at first to get Fernandez...

	RE: Eck

	Besides the change from starter to reliever Eck also beat a drinking
problem.

mc

>Besides the change from starter to reliever Eck also beat a drinking problem.

Who got the save?

   Clemens has poor range, too.

   HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (tm)

   Mike JN

    
    Rodjir Clemons is gawd!  

> 	Besides the change from starter to reliever Eck also beat a drinking
> problem.
    
    Besides the change from starter to reliever, Eck also was born the same
    day (and year, and month) I was......
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    -- dg

>>    Besides the change from starter to reliever, Eck also was born the same
>>    day (and year, and month) I was......

Nope.  Just makes you old, Don.

>> 	Besides the change from starter to reliever Eck also beat a drinking
>> problem.
    
>    Besides the change from starter to reliever, Eck also was born the same
>    day (and year, and month) I was......
    
>    Hope this helps.
    
>    -- dg
    
    
    That would explain the drinking problem.  8^)

    > Nope.  Just makes you old, Don.
    >
    > That would explain the drinking problem.  8^)
    
    Geesh, you current & former rotisserie brothers are all heart.....
    
    :-)
    
    -- dg

    Roger wins 20 with a complete game victory over the Indians.  The Sox
    offense came through with a big 9th inning to make up for some outfield
    miscues.  His ERA is still under 2, he has 198 K's (he got 8 or so last
    night and didn't walk any).
    
    3 20 game win seasons for Roger (so far).  Not bad for Mr.
    Inconsistency, eh Mike?

    RE:.0
    
    	Yes Dinz, Roger Clemens will win 20.
    
    				/Don

                         Starts   Wins  ERA
                           8       8    0.80
No home runs allowed.

    
    Mike Marshall plays a single into 2-base error, and Burks and Greenwell
    play "Alphonse and Gaston" on a ball which could have been had by
    either one.  Since no one touched it, there was no error on the
    play.
    
    Unfortunately, the two runs were "earned", when Clemens should have
    been out of the inning and would have recorded another shutout.
    
    Dickster
    

    I think I've heard Mike mention that Clemens, more often than not, fades
    down the stretch.  Now I take that to mean he's ineffective in
    August/September.  I conveniently found a stat in Sunday's Globe that
    stated he's got a career record of 16-5 in August/September with a 2.22
    ERA.
    
    Mike, you're watching a Hall of Famer, the type of pitcher that doesn't
    come around too often.  The type of pitcher that hasn't donned the red
    hose for a very, very, VERY long time.  And you're still too stubborn
    or blind to appreciate it.
    
    					Steve

>    I think I've heard Mike mention that Clemens, more often than not, fades
>    down the stretch.  Now I take that to mean he's ineffective in
>    August/September.  I conveniently found a stat in Sunday's Globe that
>    stated he's got a career record of 16-5 in August/September with a 2.22
>    ERA.
 
 I think I refered to last year's fade when he went through August without
 winning and his world series and playoff peformances as proof that he
 can't pitch in the clutch when his team needs him. 
   
>    Mike, you're watching a Hall of Famer, the type of pitcher that doesn't
>    come around too often.  The type of pitcher that hasn't donned the red
>    hose for a very, very, VERY long time.  And you're still too stubborn
>    or blind to appreciate it.
   
 Yes, I'm stubborn but I'm not blind and hardly watch the Red Sox. What has
 he done to deserve the hall of fame? This is the kind of BS that ticks me off.
 He's won twenty 3 times in what a 7 year career? The way people talk about
 him he should have done this year. He certainly hasn't lacked offense. When
 has he won a big game? And please spare me the after the loosing streak song
 and dance number which has been blown out of the water by others. Funny
 how again I saw him talking the media on the TV after his last win but have
 yet to see him after a loss. The guy's a good pitcher now you take into 
 consideration that he has two KOD's (mine & Dinz) working for him and you
 got a guy doing great things but the bottom line is he still a jerk with a
 bag full excuses that he hasn't had to use in a long time.

 mike
 

	When the statisitcs prove you wrong make up stories.  Clemens'
run support is something like 4.4x good but not even close to the runs
that the Mets give Gooden.  And what's this Clemens doesn't talk to the
media after losses?  I know it's been a long time since his last loss,
probably to long for Mike to remember (sure sign of age Mike), but this
new knock against Roger is, once again, without merit.  If not for 
Shiraldi, Gedman and Buckner people would've talked about the great
job did Roger did against the Mets in game 6.  Mike, I fear that you've
been talking to Dinz to much lately.  8^)

				/Don

 What new knock NotreDONus? As for his last loss I believe it came just before
 he went to worcester for his checkup that he didn't want the press to know
 about. they blapped it and he swore he wasn't going to talk to them anymore
 and now that Shaugnessy did his bow down and kiss his feet act and he's on
 an incredible win streak he's talking to anyone with in two feet of him...
 Yup a definate hypocrite...

 As for run production why bring up Gooden? The fact of the matter is that if
 Roger was this consistant mavelous machine that he is right now then he should
 have easily won more games over his career. It's not like Nolan Ryan who lead
 the league in SO and had an era of 2.2 something and a record of 16-16 now
 that's what I call no support. Clemens has had support throughout that's all
 I'm saying. 

 mike

    The run support issue becomes a moot point when your ERA is under 2. 
    No?
    
    
    - ACC Chris

>    The run support issue becomes a moot point when your ERA is under 2. 
>    No?
    
 
 Yes, I'd agree Chris, but this is the first year he's had one at the two
 level. I think the last few year he's been around 3 give or take a .20
 or so.

 mike

    
    Not when you lose 1-0! 
    
    
    
    
    Steve

    Give me your best shot, Mike.  :-(
    
    					Steve

    its september.. the real clemens is back!!!!
    
    
    5  2/3  innings..   6 walks, 6 ks..  4  hits, wild pitch, and 2
    errors  combined, course it was probaly the blister, not sure what
    
    rodger said about that on news if he indeed did..
    
    
    
    oakland  showing why they will represent the  American League in
    the  fall classic  again this yr..
    
    dinz
    

 :^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^)
 :^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^)
 :^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^):^)


 mike

    Tell us what Roger said on the news, Dinz.  
    
    > its september.. the real clemens is back!!!!
    
    Check out the August/September lifetime numbers I put in for Clemens
    yesterday, Dinz.  You're definitely barking up the wrong tree on this
    one.
    
    I WOULD like to know how he got the blister on his thumb.  It wasn't
    from pitching.  It looked to be a place where you'd get one from raking
    the leaves or some stupid thing like that.  Maybe he was helping the
    Steamer with his landscaping business.
    
    					Steve

    hi steve,
    
    
    No idea  what he said on the news, i was fast asleep with visions
    of oakland  players running rampant on the basepaths....
    
    like like a kid at x-mas with visions of sugar plums dancing in
    their  heads...
    
    
    its begginning to look alot like  x-mas..
    
    

    For those of you who bash Clemens for not talking after a loss and for
    making excuses, please be advised that he did talk and made no excuses. 
    He said he was wild and just didn't have it, and didn't even mention
    the blister.
    
    He may have lost but he stood up to the abuse.
    
    John

Thanks John for passing that on. Perhaps he has turned over a new leaf. I
just know that in the past there were always excuses. I guess the question
I have to ask is considering the standings and the post game implication
and his personal record versus Steward wouldn't last night's game be
considered a big game? A real pressure cooker?

mike

    big game.. definitely no matter how much Morgan down played it..
    
    Clemens could have been too pumped up, he wasnt  even getting the
    
    high strike call last night :))
    
    He must have thrown 20 times over to first, henderson knows how
    to disrupt  a pitcher...
    
    i see oakland in 6 .... 
    
    
    canesco  looks like a stiff in the first  2 games, him and his
    
    
    5 million dillar swing..   green well  should have had  that hit
    by  Mcgee...
    
    
    dinz
    

    
    More importantly......TORONTO LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Clemems lost....who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Toronto lost too!!! HA HA HA HA!!!!
    
    
    
    Steve 

    	Hey MikeC, two of those runs were unearned.  Dinz how are the
    Spoilers (i.e. Yankees) doing?
    
    				/Don

    isnt this the Clemens note /don?
    
                         
    dinz

yeah /Don, find the "Yankee's dead and buried" note. It was 
started back in May....

    re: Dinz on "Twas the night before Christmas" parody.....
    
    Hey Dinz, I see that "it's flowing" again!  :-)
    
    Hawk

    Roger pitched like a rookie last night.   No excuse for the 'greatest
    pitcher in history' (stolen from the Red Sox note ;-)) to have
    butterflies in a big game.   The bBIG Oakland bats were silent,
    but the rest still put the Sox away.  Baines killed them, and McGee
    looked aweful flailing away, but once he got on base, he manufactured
    a run.  /Don, Clemens caused the errors himself.  
    
    Anderson looked good for the Sox.   It was over wonce the Eck started
    warming up.    Greenwell is still a stiff.
    
    JD

   I didn't see the game.

   What happened? Did somebody finally find an honest Ump who'd use the
   regular strike zone instead of the CLEMENZONE ?!?!?

   Mike JN

/NotraDONus they're only unearned in the books. Clemens put those boys
on base and he errored them into scoring posistion all by himself so as
far as I'm concerned he earned them and deserved them even if the official
stats don't see it that way....

mike

	RE: Clemens and excuses

	Not only did Clemens not use the bister as an excuse he said he 
wouldn't use it as an excuse.  He just didn't have it. He hurt himslef in the
field, with walks, and wild pitches.  

	This was not a BIG GAME anymore then yesterdays was or the the ones
against Milwalkee will be.  Just another game in the race.  Wether it was a
preview of the ALCS or not, at this point it was just another game down the
stretch.  Come October, should these two teams meet, this game will mean 
no more or less then any other game each team played this year.  

	Mcgee did look horrible.  Jose didn't look much better.


mc

    comon mac, pyscholigical edge goes to oakland.. of course it means
    something.. boston needs awin tonight  for thier  pysche..
    
    
    dinz

Bullsh*t.

Boston's been riding a high of a winning streak.  They've got
a semi-comfortable lead over Toronto right now.

The stupidest thing the Sox could do would be to look ahead to
the ALCS possibilities against Oakland.  If you look too far down
the road in your schedule, it's very easy to trip over something
right in front of you.

Clemens lost last night.  Big deal.  He was probably due to lose
after 8 straight wins.  The real test is  his next time out, to
see if he has it or not.

Boston has to maintain a lead over Toronto to get to play Oakland
in the ALCS.  That is their main priority right now.  Anything can
happen in the ALCS...we saw that in '86....

Last night's game means nothing more than one more in the L column, and
that doesn't hurt that much cause Toronto lost....

'Saw

    Saw you is real skeert aintcha?  The tone of your note suggests dat u
    is already suffering from Soxism. The first symptom is denial that
    anything is/could going/go wrong. It is ok. There is treatment
    available. U CAIN BE SAVED!!
    
    devil dog
    
    
    p.s.  look for Roger to rebound wif a W nexted outing.

    Yep. Clemens lost last night. So?? 20-5 isnt too bad. Oh yeah
    his ERA might have jumped to 2.00 or so, and thats terrible. I dont
    think anyone would take that kind of ERA if they could have, say,
    hmmm, I dont know, Andy Hawkins?!?!? Clemens deserves the Cy Young
    if for no other reason than I like him. So there. :-)
    
    				Rich
    

re Debil Dawg:

	Nah, I been a Sox fan too long. 

	Here's where I'm coming from.  First off, Clemens is this guy
	that pitches, and pitches well.  In the past he's been immature,
	but I think a lot of people forget that when you're in the 
	limelight all of your personal idiosyncracies and foibles are
	magnified (just like that song by Rush says ;^)).

	I mean, people wanna bash Roger, but hell, when I was his age
	I had a tremendous ability to be an asshole (still do) and who
	knows what the limelight would have done to that.  I get tired
	of people picking apart every nit of Roger Clemens or Wade
	Boggs.  They're human, and we forget that all too often.

	Regarding the schedule thing, there's still too much time left
	in the regular season to worry about the ALCS.  Set it as a goal,
	but you've got to finish first in the East if you're gonna be
	there in October...

JMHO,
'Saw

    Yo Saw.  
    
    Chill, I wasn't slamming Roger. 

 hahahhaaaa  Stop it guys you're killing me.....

 If he had won last night all I would be hearing is, "hey Mike I guess this
 shoots a hole in your theory about how Roger can't win the big games"....

 mike

    good points  saw, but, fact is clemens has trouble with oakland
    
    oakland is the stumbling  block for boston to win pennent, clemens
    hasnt  shown he can beat oakland, whats his lifetime mark against
    
    oakland  anyways?  I am highly curious, maybe its been mentioned
    already.. not sure..
    
    
    dinz
    

    
    roger vs Oakland
    
      
    As of last night he's 3 and 9 against the A's
    
    Cadzilla

    How's about when 'God' struck Rickey Henderson out????  And Henderson
    thought he was walking??  Haaaa, way to funny!!!
    
    And Dinz, BASEBALL is the stumbling block for the Yanks winning the
    pennant.  :^)   

    did he have a blister in every one of those 9 losses? :)
    
    
    haaaaaa
    
    dinz
    

    wheel,  
    
    Did  rickeys strikeout effect the game in any way?
    
    dinz
    

    	Hey JD and Mike, the runs are still *unearned*.  Now I suppose
    you two will petition Vincent to "make any run where Roger Clemens
    commits an error earned".  And Mike, with all these quotes from
    Clemens I figure these Boston writers should be charged with libel
    since we all know he doesn't talk to the press and/or makes excuses
    when he loses.  These guys are slandering Roger's bad name!  8^)
    
    				/Don

    
    Hey dinz, why don't you go over to the Yankee-Red Sox rivalry note. 
    You were noticeably absent after the spoilers were swept.  Wonder why?
    
    Bruce 

    hi bruce buddy,
    why do the yankees constantly get brought into the clemens  note?
    
    inquiring minds need to know
    

    Hey, I'm a big Sox fan, too, but let's face it folks, last nights game
    was HUGE - and we'd all be in here saying so if they'd won!  So let's
    not be hypocritical and denounce the importance now that we've lost!
    
    It was big personally for Roger, to prove in his own mind he could beat
    Stew, it was big for the team, it was big for the fans.  It was big! 
    Period.
    
    Re: Roger not blaming his blister - I'd guess that he did something
    stupid (like raking, as suggested in the Sox conference), and he knew
    that if he made a big deal out of it that the writers wouldn't drop it,
    and he'd have to confess WHY he blew the biggest game of the year, so
    he figured out he'd be better off playing the martyr, the tough guy,
    the guy who doesn't give excuses, when everybody who saw one pitch knew
    that was the reason for his ineffectiveness.  It led directly to each
    of the first fews runs - he was out of the inning if he doubled Canseco
    off third, and he overthrows Boggs, and two runs score, and the ball
    thrown past first, and then Pena, resulted in another run.
    
    It was big, Roger did something dumb that screwed up his pitching hand,
    he got beat, and didn't want the media to crucify him for 'moving his
    own furniture' again...   Simple.
    
    ML

    	Like you always keep to topics Dinz...

    
    Because this is the only note you have the guts to show up in.  8^)

    this is the funniest note going.. bruce..
    

    So, Roger Clemens has his difficulties with the Oakland A's.
    
    BFD.
    
    The Cincinnati Reds and their "Big Red Machine" from the NL West
    routinely used to chew up the NL East Phillies' Steve Carlton, the only
    man to win four Cy Young awards.  The Reds were certainly among the
    powerhouse team of the 1970s as are the A's in this era.
    
    Carlton is a lock for a first-ballot election to Cooperstown and he's
    got a World Series ring on his finger.   Nobody cares now that he
    struggled against Morgan, Rose, Bench, Perez, and Concepcion.
    
    Roger Clemens is a great pitcher.  If he racks up another Cy Young or
    two and *if* the Bosox ever reach the Promised Land, then no one will
    care that Roger didn't have hs best days against both Hendersons,
    Canseco, McGwire, and Lansford.
    
    Give credit where credit is due.  The A's lineup is not exactly chopped
    liver.   And Roger Clemens can be excused for being slightly less than
    superhuman against some of those guys.
    
    Take it from one who's seen this movie before ...
    
    Bob Hunt

    Roger Clemens doesn't whine nearly as much as John Lennon does.  Why,
    everytime I listen to a certain Beatles song, I hear John screaming in
    the end, "I have blisters on me fingers!"
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    Hawk

I turned it off when it was 4-1.  What was the final score?

Thanks,
Mike

    
    Leave DiNs alone! He's got to have something to fall back on, seeing
    how the skankee's bit the big one thised year! And Lord knows deep
    down inside of that ex-Sox fan's heart he's rootin for them to pull
    it out, although if he changed his tune he would be utterly embarrassed
    and that's something the Vane er..uh..the DiNs couldn't stand for!
    
    
    
    Steve

    
    Mike,
    
    Did you see the game?  ESPN I saw had the stupid Bucs-Phils game, for
    some stupid reason.  Anyone have ESPN's number so I can complain (one
    thing I was supposed to do 1st thing in the AM).
    
    Bruce

Re: -1

Bruce, channel 27 out of Prescott carries all the A's games.  Check it out
tonight.  Only problem is I don't think any of the cable companies pick it up
on their systems.  You have to temporarily disconnect your cable to pick it
up.

Mike

    	>Hey JD and Mike, the runs are still *unearned*. 
    
    So what?
    
    Dan

>
>   	But in spite of your words, I think you're hoping for the future,
>   but living in fear of the past.

Each and every Sox fan does that ;^)

But seriously, I don't feel this series against the A's is big.  Toronto
is more important than Oakland right now.  True, the Sox have to find
a way to beat the A's, but a lot can happen between now and October.

re the Poem:

	I should know, Mikey, but I don't.  The first name that popped
	into my head was Jim Morrison, but that's not it I'm sure....

re Debil Dawg:

	Oh, I know you weren't slamming Rog.  I was just getting on
	my little soapbox to talk to da woild.  ;^)

    	Stay out of this Schneider!  Hey I think I read something nice
    about Notre Dame over in #59.  Go sic 'em Dan!
    
    				/Don

    >	Stay out of this Schneider!  Hey I think I read something nice
    >about Notre Dame over in #59.  Go sic 'em Dan!
    
    Where?  Where??  I'll murdelize 'im!
    
    BTW, Frank, if you don't think yesterday was a big game, you wouldn't
    know a big game if it came up and bit you on the ass!  As an AL fan, it
    was the biggest game of the year.
    
    Dan

	It was a big series for ESPN, NESN and the papers.  Thats it.  To
the teams it was just another game.  More important then some because 
both teams are in a penant race and its September but no more important then
the game before or tonights game.  Sure Clemens would like to win against the
A's but I don't think the loss is going to effect him more then any other 
loss might.  He didn't have his stuff.  When he has his stuff he knows he 
can pitch effectivly against the A's, he done it this year.  Unfortunatly 
Stewart blanked the Sox that day.  Come the ACLS if these teams meet Clemens
isn't going to be thinking back to this game and saying "Wow, they beat me 
on Sept 5, I don't have a chance" anymore then Stew will be looking back and 
thinking "I did it on the 5th, this should be a piece of cake."  The slate will
be clean and both will just be looking at the game ahead of them.  

	As for the blister, the guy just can't win with you guys.  If he 
mentions the blister he's a jerk for making excuses if he doesn't he's a jerk
for having a blister in the first place.  

mc

>    
>    BTW, Frank, if you don't think yesterday was a big game, you wouldn't
>    know a big game if it came up and bit you on the ass!  As an AL fan, it
>    was the biggest game of the year.

Dan, I've been in plenty of big games.  I just don't think it was.  There's
too many things that can happen between now and season's end, not the least
of which is a Red Sox fold which would make last nights game about as 
important as my last dental checkup.

The two top gunslingers came out and drew, and Stewart shot Roger dead
away.  The psychological affect this can have can't be measured at this
time.  It might fire up the Sox to play beyond themselves at a possible
ALCS meeting, or it might have been just the edge Oakland needs to
roar through to the Fall Classic.

When all is said and done, however, I don't feel this will have been
as pivotal as say Gettysburg was in the Civil War, or D-Day was in WWII.

I suppose the biggest game that you're ever in, is the one you're currently
playing, since you can't do anything about tomorrows game yet, and yesterday's
is past doing anything about anyway.  So until tonight's game, I suppose
you could say yesterday's was big ;^)

'Saw

    Any Red Sox fan who thinks yesterday was 'just another game' is
    really reaching.  First, all games in September are important,
    especially when still, realistically, in a pennant race.  the Sox
    haven't won anything yet.  If any of you have played sports, you
    know that psychologically, it is always nice to know you can beat
    the other team.  The Sox, and Clemens, have not shown they can beat
    the A's.    And it is damn important - because if Roger Clemens
    can not beat the A's, then the Sox don't stand a chance of beating
    the A's.    Don't kid yourselves.  If the Sox get swept, a distinct
    possibility with Welch pitching today, it will have a severe effect
    on the Sox psyche - no matter how many 'it was justanotherseries'
    crap that Morgan and the players throw out....
    
    JD

>    First, all games in September are important,
>    especially when still, realistically, in a pennant race.  


	I think the most comments said it as important as any other Sept
game in a penant race but not the big game that the media made it out to be.
It was the classic match up that they made it out to be though, two of the
best in the game on the mound.


>    If any of you have played sports, you
>    know that psychologically, it is always nice to know you can beat
>   the other team.  The Sox, and Clemens, have not shown they can beat
>    the A's.    

	Any one who plays sports as also seen teams get over confident and
take other teams too lightly.  I've also been on teams that went 0-4 against
teams in regular season and then swept them come the playoffs.  

>    If the Sox get swept, a distinct
>    possibility with Welch pitching today, it will have a severe effect
>    on the Sox psyche - no matter how many 'it was justanotherseries'
>    crap that Morgan and the players throw out....
 
	Sure it's a possiblity, but a good team puts thing like that behind
them or use them as lessons/incentive.  

	I think alot of people are making this series into something it isn't
and magnifying it's inportance.  It's no more important then the series coming
up next.  Come the playoffs both teams start with 0 wins and you get no bonus
for wining the regular season over the other team.

mc

    
    re-1
    
    Get real, if the Dred Skunks had been the one's winning the last two
    you can bet the importance would be a main topic of discussion. Now
    that the winning streak has come to an end you keep trying to downgrade
    what happens to be another example of the Superior team showing it's
    dominance over one of lesser abilities. No W.S. in BeanBurg this year.
    
    Cadzilla
    

re -1:

Bullshit.

Sure, there are some in here who would have done that, but I know
mc, and I know myself.  If the Sox had swept Oakland this series, it
would have been nice, and obviously provided breathing room becuase
Toronto has lost, but that would have been about it.

*If* the Sox make it to the ALCS, and any Sox fan knows there's no
guarantee of that, it's a brand new series -- which will, btw, be
VERY important.

Baseball is not necessarily one of those sports where meeting a team
in the regular season buys you any extra knowledge come playoff time, 
whereas in football, or rugby, or soccer, it might.

The Oakland series that *is* important is the one which will take
place come October, provided both teams don't go on extended losing
streaks....

'Saw

     Re-1:
    Bovine feces:
    1.
    The knowledge gained in each meeting of teams is always used during
    the next encounter. Each pitch and swing is tracked by the opposing 
    team and kept in that teams file on the other. How do you think these
    guys ever learn what to pitch to who or what the guy;s going to throw
    in a given situation.
    
    2. 
    
    It has been my experience that Boston fans can gloat better than
    all others combined.
    
    Cadzilla
    
    PS   No W.S. in Beanburg this year

    Stewart got 1/2 a foot extra on the outside corner from Mr. DINKinger
    last night on all right hand batters...turning point - emotionally -
    comes when Boggs takes a close one for a ball, Stewart protests,
    Denkinger puts hands on hips and LaRussa STORMS out of the dugout to
    confront the ump.
    
    Morgan stays on the bench - game, set and match.
    

    C'mon, Stew didn't get preferential treatement.  heck, I root for
    the Sox but had no complaint.  In fact, I felt Denkinger's worst
    call was the called 3rd stride on Henderson.  It looked low and
    inside, but Pena did a great job of moving the glove up.  
    
    JD

    Last time I saw Clemens pitch he was going for his 25'th...he got
    injured.......
    
    last night I went.............
    
    
    
    So much for the Cy Young award,....so much for the season......
    
    so much for the long term contract............
    
    
    Hopefully its not as bad as rumored....One reporter claimed that he
    talked to a player that got a call from Roger after he returned from
    the hospital and said there was a tear in the arm.
    
    
    Hopefully he will recover if not this season, next.
    
    
    Lou

    The guy has a BLAZING August!!!!  One of the BEST ever!!!!!
    
    
    Now he should go back to triple A.

    Why is Clemens a bum for having a poor record against the A's? 
    Based on their record, not too many pitchers could have had great
    success against them.  And even if a pitcher did, so what?  Frank
    Lary, a pitcher for the Tigers back in the 50's, was known as the
    Yankee Killer.  He had a phenomenal record against them, and they
    were THE team.  But that didn't make him a great pitcher overall.
    He won 20 once, I believe, but he was no HOF'er.
    
    As far as Clemens making excuses, his comment about his throw to
    3rd didn't sound like wimping-out to me.  It was something like,
    "I was throwing to Wade's feet, and it went over his head."  And,
    he didn't make any comment about his shoulder problem.  
    
    I think he's made some stupid statements in the past.  But that
    doesn't have anything to do with his ability to pitch.  As far as
    I'm concerned, the media is the problem with sports, period.  Too
    much emphasis on the personalities, and it doesn't matter what sport
    it is.  Hell, I remember when sportswriters were just guys who wrote
    columns and wouldn't have been recognized by anyone on the street.
    Now, some of them have their own TV shows, they're interviewed almost
    as much as the players, they've become celebrities. 
    
    I wish to hell they'd just get back to reporting the game, period.
    
    It'll never happen now, but that won't stop my wishing that it would.
    
    Lee

    
    Clemens once again showed his bull-headed-ness Tuesday night by
    attempting to pitch through the pain he was experiencing.  This isn't 
    the first time he has pulled the same manuver.   It never fails that 
    when a pitcher attempts to play through a minor injury he creates a
    major one.  Obviously, Clemens thought it was a BIG enough game to 
    risk ruining the rest of his year, just remains to be seen how much his
    stubborness hurts his team down the stretch.     
    
    /Jeff

>    <<< Note 306.284 by FMCSSE::BROWN "Round'n Third and Head'n for Home" >>>
>    Get real, if the Dred Skunks had been the one's winning the last two
>    you can bet the importance would be a main topic of discussion. Now
>    that the winning streak has come to an end you keep trying to downgrade
>    what happens to be another example of the Superior team showing it's
>    dominance over one of lesser abilities. No W.S. in BeanBurg this year.
 
	Had they swpet the A's I'd still have the same opinion of the series.
I probably won't be able to convince you of that but frankly I could give two
hoots.  

	I might be downplaying the importance a bit but the Sox being swept
is certainly not the doom and gloom that some would like to believe (Roger's 
arm going south falls into that category.)  If I'm guilty of a little 
downplaying some others are guilty the oposite.      

Mc

>    C'mon, Stew didn't get preferential treatement.  heck, I root for
>    the Sox but had no complaint.  In fact, I felt Denkinger's worst
>    call was the called 3rd stride on Henderson.  It looked low and
>    inside, but Pena did a great job of moving the glove up.  
 
	That was a tough call.  I would have liked to see ricky get tossed
on that, I think he deserved too.  His attitude irrates me...

mc

RE:  <<< Note 306.292 by SNDBOX::HAUSRATH "Too many projects, not enough time" >>>
      

	It wasn't the smartest thing to do but ALOT of pitchers do it.  It's
human nature, you just want to believe it's only soreness that will go 
away.  Nothing to worry about.  Jeff Gray did the same thing earlier this
year.  Jim Bouton writes it in _Ball Four_.  He said pitchers would avoid
the trainer like the plague.  If the trainer asked who you feeling you auto-
maticly say fine.

Mc

I realize that baseball teams pick up stuff from other teams like
charting pitches and stuff, but all I'm saying is that it's
not as important (ie a large part of the game) as it would be
in some other sports.

Like mc, I might be downplaying this a bit, but I truly don't feel
as if it is gonna make a bit of difference in the long run.  In
a season of 162 games, one game, or even one series doesn't make
that much difference.

'Saw

    SportsChannel reported this morning that Clemens will definitely miss
    one start, and will undergo tests today to determine the extent of his
    injury.
    
    I just hope the "worst case" rumors I'm hearing (i.e., rotator cuff) 
    aren't true...
    
    
    py

    It's the front of his shoulder, Paul.  I believe if he had rotator cuff
    problems the pain would be in the back of his shoulder.
    
    					Steve

    
    If Clemens' season swirls down the crapper, then the Sox will follow
    like toilet paper.  Unfortunately, they might have enough of a lead
    in their division to win it anyway, and get *really* embarrassed
    in the playoffs without him.
    
    If they make the playoffs under those circumstances, they should
    clean out their lockers, break out the golf clubs, and mail in the
    results from the Bahamas.
    
    Dickster
    

    Re: pitching through pain
    
    Not only human nature but an intense competitive attitude.  It's no
    secret that Clemens is an intense competitor and thrives on
    confrontations that develop in the sport.  If I were him, I would've
    done the same.  
    
    Mike

    Re: .298
    
    As someone who has had "rotator cuff" surgery,  you can have a tear the
    front, back and/or near the top of the shoulder.  Three of the five
    muscles are in the back.  I sure hope thats not his problem, its not a
    fun experience!
    
    John

    Radio reports this AM say he is feeling much better, and that
    he said he might be able to start on Friday.

    Lee

    Latest report is that Roger should be OK to open the Blue Jay series on
    Friday.  He'll do some throwing and then get a checkup on Thursday for
    the final OK.

    The Red Sox conference reports that Roger Clemens has received a
    $10,000 fine and will be suspended for the first five games of the 1991
    season for the incident in Game 4 of the ALCS.
    
    
    py

       He also loses 5 game checks, or about $77,000.
                                       Denny

    I guess the suspension was warrented, but I wonder what was said to
    Cooney - if anything. His actions definitely had an negative impact in
    the situation, and the punishment against Clemens must be read as an
    endorsement of Cooney's actions.
    
    If you think umps were out of control before this ....

    
    Maybe Clemens deserved a suspension, maybe not.  But I'd dare say
    that this is the longest suspension for verbal abuse by a player or
    manager *ever*.  If it hadn't been the post-season, I seriously doubt
    there'd have been one at all.  I think the on-the-spot punishment of 
    being thrown out of the game should have been considered when 
    determining further action, but I guess Bobby Brown considers being 
    ejected from a post-season game to be in itself a punishable offense,
    as it tarnishes the purity of the game or something.  The original 
    offense of using profanity to an umpire has multiplied on itself and 
    ended up getting lost in all the ugly post-event publicity, and 
    apparently that's what bothers the league the most.
    
    I think the length of this suspension should be considered the next
    time someone instigates a bench-clearing brawl or Lou Piniella tosses
    bases around in a frenzied temper tantrum (without profanity, of
    course).  Let the punishment fit the crime, not the ink wasted on the 
    crime's analysis. 
    
    glenn
    

    
    Didn't Clemens Bump and push Umpire Jim Evans?  YES
    Didn't Clemens threaten to come after Cooney in the off-season? YES
    (he said he knew where he'd live and would come to settle the score).
    Didn't Clemens fail to leave the dugout after being ejected? YES
    
    And yes Clemens did verbally abuse an umpire and warrant an ejection
    on top of everything else.
    
    Personally, I think players that do things like this should be
    suspended longer and fined more.  They are an embarrassment to the
    game.
    
    Cap

    Yes, the suspension and fine were probably warranted, but I still
    feel that the whole thing started  when  Cooney felt he was being
    shown up and he stepped out from behind the plate.

    John

    It's only 1 start... if he were an everyday player, I bet it's
    a 3 game suspension...

    > Didn't Clemens Bump and push Umpire Jim Evans?  YES
    
    Accidentally, by even the umpires' account, and only after having 
    been ejected.  A similar offense in the regular season earns a shower
    and a small fine, tops.
    
    > Didn't Clemens threaten to come after Cooney in the off-season? YES
    
    Again, after the ejection, Clemens went beserk, and understandably so
    given the pressure of the situation, although the execution was
    excessive.  Does Cooney or anyone else think that this "threat" was 
    serious?  No, but it made for a great "shocker", and admittedly helped 
    justify the ejection.  A five-game suspension, no.
    
    > Didn't Clemens fail to leave the dugout after being ejected? YES
    
    This one is trivial.  When the umpire came over to ask him to leave, he
    did, and without protest.
    
    > Personally, I think players that do things like this should be
    > suspended longer and fined more.  They are an embarrassment to the
    > game.
    
    That's fine, as long as Clemens isn't the first and last.  What did
    Vince Coleman get for drawing blood from an umpire's nose by banging
    him with the bill of his helmet?  What did Rick Dempsey get for
    sucker-punching Lenny Dykstra in the face?  For that matter, what did
    umpire Joe West get for body slamming Carmelo Martinez?  Hell, Juan
    Marichal got ten days for taking a bat over John Roseboro's head, for
    god's sake.  No matter how bad, what Clemens did was verbal, and is as 
    old as the game itself.
    
    And again, Cap, for consistency's sake, what should have been Bobby 
    Knight's punishment from the NCAA for throwing chairs?  Scuffling with 
    fans?  Pulling his team off the court?  Half a season's suspension?  
    And don't tell me how you've been so objective and critical of Knight's 
    behavior.  I know you have.  I want to know if he's an embarrassment to 
    his profession and what his punishments should have been.
    
    glenn
    

    Clemens finished 3rd in the MVP voting behind Henderson and Fielder.

    
    Knight should have been suspended and would have accepted suspension
    for the chair-throwing incident.  It would have been an eye-opener.
    The Big10 should have acted. 
    
    But hey, Knight hasn't even received a technical in over 3 years
    now.  He's cleaned up his act, maybe a 1-game(for a 30 game season,
    it's equivalent to a 5-game one in baseball) would have accomplished
    that earlier.  Dean Smith probably has more technicals in that 
    time-frame.
    
    Roger embarrassed himself, the team, the fans and baseball.  Definately
    not a class act so maybe this will help wake him up.  
    
    Coleman deserved longer, West deserved a suspension and/or fine
    as well for manhandling players.  It's time that this #$@#$ stopped
    in baseball.
    
    Cap

    Coleman's incident was accidental by ALL accounts. He certainly did not
    mean to hit the ump the bill of his helmet - it was one of those nose
    to nose encounters that had a unfortunate twist. 10 days was too long
    if anything.

    Roger was on the evening news last night and said he's going to appeal.
    Seems now that the Rocket has read Cooney's report he said that there
    are some fabrications.  Roger also said he couldn't wait to meet Cooney
    in person and see if he would look in Roger's face and still lie.

    
    The report on Clemens is called "The Rocket Pitcher Horror Show."
    
    Dickster
    

    This may have been mentioned already, but there's an excellent article
    in this weeks SI about Clemens and the incident.  
    
    Pretty fair-handed treatment of the whole thing, and extremely
    well-written.
    
    
    - ACC Chris