Comments on: Deconstructing Clemens’ Denials

By: weeew

weeew — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:32:58 +0000

Being hall of famers is one thing, producing at a higher level than they did in their primes is another.

By: Geoff Young

Geoff Young — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:54:24 +0000

Well said, Doug. “Indications” is a good word for it. And as much as I hate to defend Bonds or Clemens, your point about their greatness is spot on. People need to remember that both of these guys were HOF caliber players before the “steroid era.” It’s a shame that they would taint their legacy (assuming they did), but as is becoming increasingly clear, they were not alone.

By: Doug Fulkerson

Doug Fulkerson — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:39:46 +0000

Very interesting article. I agree that stats can’t be used to prove steroid or other performance enhancing drugs. However, I do think they can provide indications. Your analysis of Barry Bonds’ batting stats is an example. We also have to remember that steroids only affect the body, not necessarily a players skill. If a hitter can’t hit a curve ball before taking steroids then the same hitter won’t hit a curve after taking them, either. Without a doubt Clemens is a great pitcher, before or after steroids, and because he is a great pitcher his stats aren’t going to tell us when, or if, he took them. Is the ‘Clemens Report’ a smokescreen? Probably. But I would love to be wrong.