The Futility Infielder

The other day I emailed Salon sports columnist King Kaufman regarding his article on Roger Clemens and then wrote a whole blog entry around that email. Kaufman was not only kind enough to send me a reply, he also excerpted some of what I had to say while surveying the range of responses in his column today. Additionally, he included a link to "the excellent Futility Infielder site." Very cool. A special welcome to those of you who've come here via that link.

Here's the portion of today's column which refers to me, not all of which was included in what I published the other day:

Jay Jaffe: While I don't consider myself much of a Roger Clemens fan -- I've screamed myself hoarse at him on more than one occasion -- I do feel compelled to defend him against your charges of him coming up short in big games.

First of all, Bud's Game 7 gambit to the contrary, Tuesday's exhibition does not count as a big game despite the eyeballs and the fact that ex-presidents and heavyweight champions were on hand. I don't take it seriously, you don't take it seriously, and most importantly, the players don't take it seriously. It's a great opportunity to market the game, a moneymaker for the network and its sponsors, and an exhibit for fans, nothing more. Throw it out the window as far as the Rocket was concerned.

Second, while Clemens had a reputation for big-game disaster in Boston, he did a considerable job of shedding that tag in New York: 7-4 with a 3.21 ERA in his pinstriped postseasons, including 3-0, 1.50 ERA in five World Series starts. Yes, there are a few meltdowns in there, but there are also some stellar performances.

Note: Jaffe is the author of the excellent Futility Infielder site.

King replies: The All-Star Game is an exhibition not to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean Clemens didn't consider it a big game, in the sense of wanting very badly to do well. It was his night, his coronation. Anyone would want very badly to do well on a night when he's the center of attention. It's a challenge similar to any other big game, even though it doesn't count in the standings. It was an occasion to be risen to, and Clemens didn't rise.

And while I stand by my assessment of Clemens as underperforming in the postseason and in big games generally given his greatness overall, you're right that he has, indeed, had some great performances in the postseason.

I'm still not sure I agree with Kaufman's on the first part, but in retrospect I think that we both make the mistake of trying to get inside the Rocket's head, total conjecture rather than sound analysis from either of us. Keeping in mind the second part, here's the meat of what he sent me via email this weekend:

Certainly it's selective memory for me to talk about his meltdowns and punkouts without talking about his successes, but the reverse is selective too. Put it all together and you have 26 starts. That's damn near a season's worth. Fair enough we can't expect Clemens to put up Gibson's numbers, mostly because he had so many more opportunities. But Clemens is arguably the greatest pitcher of all time. How about Koufax numbers? Seaver? Hubbell? These are the people around him in the NBJHA [New Bill James Historical Abstract, an awkward acronym but one worth remembering] rankings, and James wrote that Clemens maybe should be higher.

I don't think it's unfair to say that Clemens has been less than Clemens-like in the postseason, beyond just the stiffer competition. And there's enough data there that it's not an unfair way to assess him, as it is with most people, including Willie Mays, who played 25 postseason games, or Barry Bonds, who had played 27 before he started playing well.

Good points on both counts, though I'll Clemens' overall postseason record (8-6, 3.47 ERA) is nothing to be ashamed of, particularly when one considers what he did with the Yanks (7-4 with a 3.21 ERA) and his overall World Series line (3-0, 1.90 ERA in 47.1 innings), not to mention that all of this took place in a much higher scoring era than, say, Gibson.

I did a bit of figgerin' regarding that World Series record as compared to Gibson's (7-2, 1.89 ERA in 81 innings). It may not be a strictly kosher comparison, but I figured the two pitchers' ERA+ numbers (the ratio of their ERA to the park-adjusted league ERA, expressed on a scale with 100 as average and over 100 as better than average; a 120 ERA+ translates as 20 percent better than average) for the World Series as if they were done in the regular season. That is, Gibson's 1968 World Series ERA is compared to the park-adjusted league average for the regular season, in this case 2.90. Gibby's World Series ERA for that season was 1.67, so his ERA+ was (2.90/1.67) * 100 = 174.

My back-of-the-envelope calculations put Gibson's overall World Series ERA+ at 176, considerably better than his regular season ERA+ of 127, which wasn't too shabby to begin with. But Clemens, who had posted a 140 regular season ERA+, comes in at a whopping 237 for his Series starts. His overall postseason ERA+ is "only" 129, so if you want to argue that he wasn't quite as good, you've got that number on your side.

Here's how Clemens fits in among the pitchers with the most postseason innings (a category in which Clemens ranks fifth, with Gibson further down than the rankings at Baseball-Reference.com go). While many of these pitchers are boosted by the two- and three-tiered playoff systems in terms of their total number of innings, just about all of them have been hailed as clutch postseason performers at one time or another.

Pitcher         PSIP   PSERA  PSERA+  RSERA+

Orel Hershiser  132.0   2.59   158     112

John Smoltz     194.7   2.77   149     124

Jim Palmer      124.3   2.61   139     125

Whitey Ford     146.0   2.71   136     132

Dave Stewart    133.0   2.84   135     100

Greg Maddux     190.0   3.22   132     143

Roger Clemens   155.7   3.47   129     140

Tom Glavine     194.0   3.71   121     121

Andy Pettitte   186.7   4.05   115     117

Catfish Hunter  132.3   3.26   103     104

Seventh out of ten, not a stellar showing, and a tie with Maddux for the biggest shortfall (postseason ERA+ minus regular season ERA+) among these pitchers. Still, his performance isn't all that different from that of Whitey Ford, who's in fourth place. But with this data on the table, it's tough to refute Kaufman's assessment ("...less than Clemens-like in the postseason, beyond just the stiffer competition. And there's enough data there that it's not an unfair way to assess him..."). I still hold that Yankee fans have nothing to bitch about regarding Clemens' postseason performance, but insofar as the overall argument goes, it looks as though I must bow to the King on this one.