Roger Clemens's defense of himself against steroid allegations has been an all-out multimedia assault featuring video, press conferences, a high-profile television interview and numerous written and spoken statements. Now Clemens and his agent Andy Hendricks have taken their case to the web by releasing an 18,000-word statistical report that they say proves Clemens's late-career surge was not as unnatural as his accusers would allege.
The report is built around statistical comparisons that have been likened to those used in salary arbitration cases. Clemens's career numbers are stacked up against those of other pitchers who performed at a top level into their late-30s'/early '40s, like Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan. Since this is a pro-Roger comparison, the conclusion is that Clemens performed much the same in the latter stages of his career as those other, untainted players.
This is, on the one hand, a perfectly legitimate defense approach. Statistics are often used as evidence against people who are accused of steroids, so they should therefore be admissible in making a case in favor of the same players. On the other hand, statistics are very easy to manipulate. A smart numbers-cruncher can always sift through a given body of data and find just those things that support a given thesis. The same numbers could no doubt be used to prove the opposite of what Clemens and Hendricks want us to see.
The stats by themselves prove nothing, except that there's some guy out there who knows how to get really fancy with charts. Whether one believes Roger Clemens or not is still mostly down to whatever gut impression one receives when Roger unleashes his various defenses. It's easy, when Roger is being coarse and combative, to view him as a desperate guy who will say or do anything to protect his reputation, including bully people. But, it's equally valid to see the same behavior as that of a guy who's telling the truth, and refuses to lie down while his name is being smeared.
Without direct, indisputable proof of wrongdoing, no one will ever know for sure if Roger Clemens cheated. All that leaves us is this endless speculation, and the word of one guy against another, and a certain statistical take vs. another statistical take. It's all gray area...unless Roger were to come right out and confess. But that seems the most unlikely scenario of all.
Comments (1)
When you shifted into the l... (Below threshold)1. Posted by blogbudsman | January 29, 2008 9:18 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
When you shifted into the last paragraph, did your keyboard shudder a bit. Did you feel at least a twinge of nausea.
"Without direct, indisputable proof of wrongdoing..."
Say what? Have we all lost our minds.
1. Posted by blogbudsman | January 29, 2008 9:18 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 29, 2008 09:18