1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Schilling to Clemens: Give Back the Awards

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 21, Dec 20, 2007.

Page 2 of 3
  1. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Based on his ability to just look at someone and know what kind of player they are?
    Curt's arrogance knows no bounds.
     
    markvid, Dec 20, 2007
    #13
  2. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    I'm relieved because it does appear some guys truly are clean.

    As a fan, you start to wonder if everybody's on them.

    I saw an interview with Mariano Rivera on the eve of the Mitchell Report. He was handing out toys at a charity event. He was relaxed, happy, laughing... Asked about the Mitchell Report, he said, "Why would I worry about it? I'm clean." It's pretty obvious he is.

    I've seen Smoltz say similar things.

    It's just a relief to know the entire game isn't dirty.
     
    Lugnuts, Dec 20, 2007
    #14
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Hasn't Canseco said something similar about himself, or at least said that steroids were a big part of his success?
     
    outofplace, Dec 20, 2007
    #15
  4. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    I know a lot of people don't like Schilling...and that's fine. But why should our feelings about his personality have any impact on what are some pretty legit points?
     
    alleyallen, Dec 20, 2007
    #16
  5. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Clemens vs. Schilling? Not much to root for here.
     
    Guy_Incognito, Dec 20, 2007
    #17
  6. Dangerous_K

    Dangerous_K Active Member

    They shouldn't, but his deer in headlights routine before Congress should. He looked dumbfounded there and had zilch to say, but two years later he uses his not-under-oath blog to start blasting people.
     
    Dangerous_K, Dec 20, 2007
    #18
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I think the more ridiculous thing is that Mitchell invited everyone he was going to name to come on in and give their side of the story. Nearly all of them declined, including Clemens. David Justice is the one that cracks me up the most. He's high profile, easily reachable, an analyst on the YES! Network and he actually said something like he wasn't avoiding Mitchell, he just may have been hard to track down because he had changed his cell phone number. Do you think Mitchell really didn't go to great lengths to get in touch with each of these players and allow them to have a say before he released the report? Mitchell has commented that one active major leaguer who were accused by Radomski was not named in the report, even though Mitchell had proof that the player bought the drugs. He was left out of the report because he came in and spoke to the investigators, and according to Mitchell, offered persuasive evidence that he had disposed of the drugs without using them. Where were the denials and attempts to keep their names clean when they had their chance to talk to the investigators?

    And of course steroids make a big difference. Jeez. For more than a century, the high water mark for home runs in a season is around 60, and you might have had someone credibly approach that number every decade and a half or so. Then all of a sudden multiple guys blow right past the high water mark all at once and turn the record book upside down.

    This player wasn't named by Mitchell, but you all know who he is and what he did. If you don't think steroids make a difference consider this three year stretch:

    Gm AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BA SLG
    143 554 108 145 33 10 16 64 .262 .444
    149 579 117 172 37 5 50 110 .297 .637
    151 590 97 170 39 7 18 73 .288 .469
     
    The Big Ragu, Dec 20, 2007
    #19
  8. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    The exception is David Justice, who came on ESPN Radio to deny every using.
     
    ondeadline, Dec 20, 2007
    #20
  9. heyabbott

    heyabbott Well-Known Member

    This is why I hate the DH, Schilling doesn't have to bat against Pettitte this year. If they abolished the DH, Clemens would pitch for free.
     
    heyabbott, Dec 20, 2007
    #21
  10. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I entered this thread thinking the worst with Schilling's spotlight hog name attached to it, but I actually enjoyed reading his treatise. Nothing terribly original, but interesting nonetheless.
     
    Bubbler, Dec 20, 2007
    #22
  11. cortez

    cortez Member

    [/quote]This is why I hate the DH, Schilling doesn't have to bat against Pettitte this year. If they abolished the DH, Clemens would pitch for free.
    [/quote]
    Then maybe Schill the Rhodes Scholar will actually learn to spell Pettitte
     
    cortez, Dec 20, 2007
    #23
  12. Pancamo

    Pancamo Active Member

    Roger isn't innocent and everyone used his success at a latter age as proof. Well take a look at Schilling.
    He wins 20 games for the first time at age 34 with an ERA under 3.00. First time in 6 years the ERA dips below 3.25 . At age 34 his innings jump from 209 the previous season to 256 and 259 the successive years.

    In his blog he states a friendship with Canseco and worked out with Roberts.

    Connect the dots.

    164 of Schillings 216 victories are from age 30 to present. 76% of his victories.

    Must be good genes.
     
    Pancamo, Dec 20, 2007
    #24
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page