JOBA who? (1 Viewer)

[DropKick]

From Mr. Chamberlain...

"It's a question that's gonna be brought up for a long time, but the man has been successful for so long, he obviously was doing something right,... That's really all you can say. His work ethic has been shown, and he does what he does... He'll do what he wants to do, and he has nothing left to prove in this game, and he has nothing to prove to anybody."

Joba looks like a fine young pitcher but why does this "wet behind the ears" rookie think he is a suitable spokesperson for Roger?

Actually Joba... he has done it for so long that apparently he was doing something wrong. But it's very enlightening to know he does what he and he'll do what he do. What's next, "I yam what I yam"?

 

[erodrac xaM]

what

 

[shadyridr]

Huh? A person from the media asked him a question and he answered

 

[TitusIII]

He is biased, and is going to defend a teammate...

The same can be said for baseball players in general, they are biased, and will defend their collective actions, illegal or not...

MLBPA wants players like Joba speaking out and giving free PR...

Which is why Congress is involved in the whole steroid debacle...

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

 

[DropKick]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

 

[DropKick]

Huh? A person from the media asked him a question and he answered

That makes more sense. He doesn't seem to be the right guy to volunteer something like this. There are others, such as Torre, who would have far more credibility.

 

[the moops]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

 

[the moops]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

I cant be sure. And I am not on a jury, so the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is irrelevant as to my opinion.Barry Bonds works out like crazy also. It's not as if you take HGH and become a physical freak. It takes work.The guy turned his career around at an age when every other player (except Bonds) declines. Circumstantially, that is pretty damning.

 

[RC94]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

What does the amount of games he has played have to do with it? At least he knows Clemens personally, which makes him more qualified to talk about it than most people. Plus, as it has already been pointed out - he was most likely answering a question and he was protecting one of his own. There is nothing unusual about his comments.

 

[Autumn Wind]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

How many games does he have to play to earn qualification?

 

[DropKick]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

How many games does he have to play to earn qualification?

More than one partial season. How well could anybody know someone with this trivial level of familiarity.

 

[DropKick]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

What does the amount of games he has played have to do with it? At least he knows Clemens personally, which makes him more qualified to talk about it than most people. Plus, as it has already been pointed out - he was most likely answering a question and he was protecting one of his own. There is nothing unusual about his comments.

Kudos to him for defending a team mate. It was mentioned that he was just answering a question. I found the statement "but the man has been successful for so long, he obviously was doing something right" to be a little ironic.

 

[RC94]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Seems strange to me that a player with less than 20 games experience is qualified to discuss a career that has stretched for almost a quarter century.

What does the amount of games he has played have to do with it? At least he knows Clemens personally, which makes him more qualified to talk about it than most people. Plus, as it has already been pointed out - he was most likely answering a question and he was protecting one of his own. There is nothing unusual about his comments.

Kudos to him for defending a team mate. It was mentioned that he was just answering a question. I found the statement "but the man has been successful for so long, he obviously was doing something right" to be a little ironic.

I don't disagree. I am sure these guys aren't the most intelligent and highly educated people around. However, I think you are way off base in saying that he needs to play for a longer period of time and has to know Clemens for years before he can say something about his team mate. You don't know Clemens at all and yet you still comment about the situation. Lots of people who don't know Clemens are commenting about the situation.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

incorrect :Unfortunately, Roger Clemens is a steroid fueled freak..

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

I cant be sure. And I am not on a jury, so the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is irrelevant as to my opinion.Barry Bonds works out like crazy also. It's not as if you take HGH and become a physical freak. It takes work.The guy turned his career around at an age when every other player (except Bonds) declines. Circumstantially, that is pretty damning.

If you look at Clemens career, he really didn't turn it around, he had 2 great years in Toronto, but they were not the two best of his career at all. Just moving to a more pitching friendly environment helped a little as well.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

incorrect :Unfortunately, Roger Clemens is a steroid fueled freak..

Look, if you ask me I think a lot of guys are on the stuff, but I have NO idea and neither do you whether Clemens is one of them. He says adamantly no, baseball has yet to find any evidence of yes as he hasn't been caught writing checks, or ever testing positive, but one guy (who is NOT credible) says yes and YOU know it for sure? Please.If you want my opinion, I would say that I would think Clemens has had some HGH or steroids at one point in his career, but that is PURE speculation and until proof is there, I will not convict the guy.

 

[the moops]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

I cant be sure. And I am not on a jury, so the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is irrelevant as to my opinion.Barry Bonds works out like crazy also. It's not as if you take HGH and become a physical freak. It takes work.The guy turned his career around at an age when every other player (except Bonds) declines. Circumstantially, that is pretty damning.

If you look at Clemens career, he really didn't turn it around, he had 2 great years in Toronto, but they were not the two best of his career at all. Just moving to a more pitching friendly environment helped a little as well.

Did you even bother to look up any stats before you posted this?He went to Toronto and proceeded to win 2 Cy Youngs, have his best staistical year ever in 1997 at age 34. He put up an ERA+ of 221, going 21-7. He struck out 292 guys, the most of his career. He pitched 264 innings, also the most of his career. He followed all that in 1998 with what is probably his 3rd best year of his career.He most definitely turned his career around at age 34. And then again at age 41 when he went to Houston.You can most certainly not want to convict the guy on speculation, but to close your eyes and ignore an "interesting" career path, coupled with the Mitchell report...well, that seems a bit foolish to me.

 

[DropKick]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

I cant be sure. And I am not on a jury, so the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is irrelevant as to my opinion.Barry Bonds works out like crazy also. It's not as if you take HGH and become a physical freak. It takes work.The guy turned his career around at an age when every other player (except Bonds) declines. Circumstantially, that is pretty damning.

If you look at Clemens career, he really didn't turn it around, he had 2 great years in Toronto, but they were not the two best of his career at all. Just moving to a more pitching friendly environment helped a little as well.

Did you even bother to look up any stats before you posted this?He went to Toronto and proceeded to win 2 Cy Youngs, have his best staistical year ever in 1997 at age 34. He put up an ERA+ of 221, going 21-7. He struck out 292 guys, the most of his career. He pitched 264 innings, also the most of his career. He followed all that in 1998 with what is probably his 3rd best year of his career.He most definitely turned his career around at age 34. And then again at age 41 when he went to Houston.You can most certainly not want to convict the guy on speculation, but to close your eyes and ignore an "interesting" career path, coupled with the Mitchell report...well, that seems a bit foolish to me.

I agree with you... but, I have to admit I can't help but read your posts in a George Costanza voice.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm confused. What, exactly, is the issue here? An MLB player is (sort of) defending his own? What next, the earth will spin off its axis? I mean, who would think...?

Not only that, it appears that Roger may be clean.

People think that Roger is/was clean?Please

Well I live in this country where people are innocent until proven guilty and so far the only evidence about Roger is that someone who is making a plea deal lumped him in with others (who they had canceled checks on)What is Roger is clean? his statement is pretty strong against drugs and says that nobody should take them. he is known as having the best work ethic so isn't it possible he is clean? I don't like Roger, but how can you be so sure?

I cant be sure. And I am not on a jury, so the whole innocent until proven guilty thing is irrelevant as to my opinion.Barry Bonds works out like crazy also. It's not as if you take HGH and become a physical freak. It takes work.The guy turned his career around at an age when every other player (except Bonds) declines. Circumstantially, that is pretty damning.

If you look at Clemens career, he really didn't turn it around, he had 2 great years in Toronto, but they were not the two best of his career at all. Just moving to a more pitching friendly environment helped a little as well.

Did you even bother to look up any stats before you posted this?He went to Toronto and proceeded to win 2 Cy Youngs, have his best staistical year ever in 1997 at age 34. He put up an ERA+ of 221, going 21-7. He struck out 292 guys, the most of his career. He pitched 264 innings, also the most of his career. He followed all that in 1998 with what is probably his 3rd best year of his career.He most definitely turned his career around at age 34. And then again at age 41 when he went to Houston.You can most certainly not want to convict the guy on speculation, but to close your eyes and ignore an "interesting" career path, coupled with the Mitchell report...well, that seems a bit foolish to me.

I just erased a long response to this with a lot of detail Son of a %$##%!I will paraphrase now.Clemens had an ERA of 2.33 while in Toronto, he was dominant there (I stated he had two great years - I assume you read that?) But the league ERA was a full half a point lower in 97 when in Toronto and Clemens has had plenty of years with an ERA around that mark, including a 2.85 ERA 3 years prior when the league ERA was a half a point higher.Going to a more pitching friendly park like Toronto, combined with a larger strike zone (ERA down), combined with being extremely motivated by leaving Boston may have been contributing factors. The part that doesn't add up to me is if he was juicing in Toronto and "turned around his career" as you say, then why did his career all of a sudden go back to worse than he was before Toronto with the Yanks? And for 5 years he was a solid/above average pitching but not at the same level as Toronto (or even close). So are you saying he was clean in Boston and then he juiced in Toronto and after all that success, was clean in NY but didn't have the same level of success, but he stayed clean for all 5 years? Then after leaving the Yanks went to the much weaker hitting NL and must have juiced again because he did great for 3 years...but then was clean when he came back to the Yanks? If you are saying he turned around his career "twice" then do you really believe he only juiced when he went to Toronto and Houston?Honestly the years that stand out more for me are the three years in Houston. At ages 41-43 his ERA in Houston was 2.40!