• Marty “Death To Healthy Hamstrings” Miller Weighs In On Clemens

    Posted by on December 14th, 2007 · Comments (20)

    From the Daily News:

    When Marty Miller heard Thursday that Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte had been implicated as steroid users by their personal trainer, he hardly blinked an eye.

    Miller, who served briefly as the Yankees’ “director of performance enhancement” last season, saw the effects first-hand of self-appointed fitness gurus such as Brian McNamee.

    “All I know is if a player is on a roster he can be tested,” Miller says. “If you’re not on a roster, you’re not a player. There’s players who just suddenly retire, and then come back. Some of the answers are sitting right in front of you.”

    Oh, that Marty, he’s such a smarty. No wonder why Cashman loved him. (Yeah, I know, it wasn’t a bad hire. Just bad luck, sunspots, or something that was totally not Brian’s fault. No way could it be a bad hire.)

    Comments on Marty “Death To Healthy Hamstrings” Miller Weighs In On Clemens

    1. TurnTwo
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:20 am

      I used to really enjoy this blog, but this obsession with Cashman is just too much. Consider the blog one regular reader lighter, until you get some decent opinions back in the fold.

    2. B
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:30 am

      Ditto, TurnTwo.

      This has become worse than the A-Rod thing ever did. It’s a shame.

    3. baileywalk
      December 15th, 2007 | 1:38 am

      Opinions of disgruntled employees are only valid in the Mitchell Report.

    4. December 15th, 2007 | 5:50 am

      enough already!!
      whining like a bitch isn’t gonna make ‘Cash’ leave any sooner….it may well make people stop checking in on this once insightful…well written….thoughroughly researched blog though!

    5. jonm
      December 15th, 2007 | 7:23 am

      Are you suggesting here that what Miller says has no validity? Given what the report says, it certainly seems possible that Miller’s view may have some truth to it.

      baileywalk, do you believe that Clemens did not use steroids? If he’s totally clean, why didn’t he talk to Mitchell and deny it? If a disgruntled employee has accused me of doing something that I did not do, I would take every opportunity to deny it to the hilt.

    6. Harley
      December 15th, 2007 | 9:39 am

      Hey, congrats on finding your white whale. Problem is, obsessions are not easily shared and tend to bore those who do not share them.

      Like most of us who enjoy this blog.

      So, let’s assume, for charity’s sake, that you’ve made your point. Cashman is overrated, unfairly shielded from astute criticism, and must be held responsible for his manifold failures.

      Now, if you don’t mind, how about returning to our regularly scheduled programming? Thanks in advance.

    7. Rich
      December 15th, 2007 | 9:56 am

      Everyone makes mistakes. The important thing is how quickly a person rectifies them. On that score, Cashman deserves credit.

      No one is saying Cashman is infallible, only that when you look at what he has done since he was put atop the Yankees’ baseball foodchain in 2005 (a position that may well be in jeopardy now given Hank’s verbal perambulations), he has done a superb job of rebuilding the farm system, which is the lifeblood of any successful organization.

      I don’t have a problem with someone attacking Cashman, because there are so many readily available fact-based defenses.

    8. Sherard
      December 15th, 2007 | 11:03 am

      Seriously, let it go. You are starting to sound like Peter Abraham and his nonsense. Bad hire ? Yes. Whoop dee doo. Are you happy now ?

      Should Cashman be fired over that ? Is THAT what you want ? Move on already. Cashman is the GM today and likely for the next year at a minimum.

    9. Zurigo
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:11 pm

      What’s the problem here?

      I’ve been casually observing Steve’s posts regarding Cashman and his ability (or lack thereof) to construct a roster that will put us in the best position to win another championship. And you want to know something?

      Steve’s right.

      Hey, I support the Yanks through thick and thin, good times and bad times, but as the old saying goes, ‘the buck stops here’. Cashman, for me at least, is the buck. Simply put, he’s the GM and therefore must assume all responsibilty regarding the play of the team on the field. We’ll never know to what extent he had a hand in constructing the major league roster, considering outside influences (Ownership, Tampa, etc.), but he is the GM and ultimately must be held accountable.

      The issue here, for me at least, is how most Yankee fans will support whatever decision Cashman has made, regardless of the outcome. This whole, ‘Direct your criticism at whomever you like, but Cashman is doing a great job for us’ doesn’t make much sense to me. I wonder, how many of you Cashman fans were happy to Torre go. Hey, on the field, the buck stops (stopped) at Torre, right? Why can’t Cashman be held to the same standard?

    10. Raf
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:22 pm

      Problem is correlation does not imply causation, which many cannot seem to understand.

      But, whatever.

      Level as much criticism as you like at _________, I don’t care, but be fair.

    11. Raf
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:26 pm

      Oh, that Marty, he’s such a smarty. No wonder why Cashman loved him. (Yeah, I know, it wasn’t a bad hire. Just bad luck, sunspots, or something that was totally not Brian’s fault. No way could it be a bad hire.)
      ————————-
      http://tinyurl.com/2w7487

      Several prominent Yankees, including Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada, do not believe the team’s sudden rash of injuries can be traced back to a change in the player’s stretching and conditioning program.

      “I don’t think so,” Posada said after watching Mike Mussina walk off the field with a strained left hamstring Wednesday night. “We’re all adults here. We know what we have to do to get ready to play.”
      *****************
      According to several players, Miller’s program de-emphasizes running as a way to increase leg strength. He also took away the large rubber bands that Mangold used to help players stretch before games.

      Some players have chosen to ignore Miller’s methods, believing the lunges and other calisthenics he prescribes are too strenuous.
      *****************
      Mussina said he incorporates only some of the new program.

      “It’s different than it has been,” he said. “Different ideas, different approaches to it. I would say it’s unfair (to blame Miller). It could have happened no matter who was doing. It’s ultimately our responsibility to make sure we’re in shape. We all kind of did it in different ways. I’m not sure it’s one particular thing.”

    12. brockdc
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:48 pm

      The bottom line is this: Steve made this sandbox; and now some of you are pissing and moaning because you don’t like the texture of the sand.

      The constant whining by posters on this blog is far more insufferable than Steve’s foil of the month. Go to almost any prominent Yankee blog, and you will find – for better or worse – authors who have a distinct POV, and, yes even biases for and against certain individuals within the organization.

      On Nomaas, they bash Torre ad nauseum, on Pete’s blog it’s A-rod baiting and Torre apologizing, on Bronxbanter…oh, wait, they haven’t posted in three days – nevermind.

      If you want your insatiable appetite for Yankee news and analysis to be met, there is really no better place to go, and we all know that – whether some of us want to admit it or not.

    13. YanksFanInNY
      December 15th, 2007 | 12:57 pm

      “If you want your insatiable appetite for Yankee news and analysis to be met, there is really no better place to go, and we all know that – whether some of us want to admit it or not.”

      =====

      You’re a real comedian! “No better place”? Yeah right. There’s no better place for New York Post style writing with snarky comments and little valid analysis. Check out some of the better sites — River Ave. Blues, My Baseball Bias, etc. — if you want to find truly “no better place” for Yankee news and analysis. This site has been a satire of itself.

    14. jonm
      December 15th, 2007 | 1:32 pm

      I get mad at Steve on occasion but I certainly appreciate all the work that he puts into the blog. Just the fact that he posts so frequently makes it a great forum for Yankee discussion.

      This week, Steve also inspired me to start a project. Basically, I created a spread sheet that has data on every Yankee post-season start since 1996. I looked at game scores for starting pitchers to try to determine how closely winning is correlated with strong starting pitching. The results are mixed. The Yankees received significantly better competitive performances from their starters in the post-seasons of 1998 (no surprise there), 1999, 2000, and 2003. They received significantly worse performances from their starters in 2001, 1996 (!), 2006, 2002, and 2007. The team has won six pennants since 1996. In four of those, post-season starting pitching was a significant advantage for them; for two pennants, it was not. Post-season starting pitching did really hurt the team in 2006, 2002, and 2007.

      El Duque was a post-season god; he was pretty easily the Yankees’ best post-season starting pitcher over this period. On the other hand, Pettitte’s post-season reputation is very much imaginary. His game score average is essentially average. He’s pitched better than his opposing starter 15 times and pitched worse 15 times.

    15. baileywalk
      December 15th, 2007 | 3:14 pm

      baileywalk, do you believe that Clemens did not use steroids? If he’s totally clean, why didn’t he talk to Mitchell and deny it? If a disgruntled employee has accused me of doing something that I did not do, I would take every opportunity to deny it to the hilt.
      ——-

      I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but I’m not going to take the word of one man with no evidence and say he did steroids definitively. Maybe he did and maybe he didn’t — that’s the point — we don’t know.

      No players participated. It wasn’t just Clemens. The Players’ Union asked them not to. And apparently the investigators wouldn’t even reveal what evidence they had before talking to them.

      Anyway, whether he denied it to them or not is meaningless; he denied it as soon as the report was out. Mitchell had no legal standing, so “lying” to him would not have put Clemens in any legal trouble. His denial now is the same as a denial then.

      The bottom line for me is that this is one man’s word against another’s, and I think Clemens has more credibility. Mitchell needed his big fish, and he got him in Clemens — I don’t think it’s a surprise that McNamee denied all this, and then gave in when pressured and said it.

      Naming these names was unfair and borderline criminal, in my opinion. Clemens’ reputation and legacy has been tainted forever. All based on evidence that wouldn’t even hold up in court. I think, considering who he is and what he’s done, that’s pretty tragic. The media might love splashing its “Clemens is a cheat” headlines, but it hurts the game immeasurably… but then again, the media doesn’t care about the game. The fans do, and they’ve smartly shrugged off this report.

    16. Rich
      December 15th, 2007 | 4:15 pm

      How does the MLBPA propose that the truth of the PED era be revealed? Have they suggested the terms of an investigatory process that would be acceptable to them? Have they proposed to do their own investigation, including pursuing leads about what Selig and the owners knew, in addition to uncovering the misconduct of the players?

      If not, they are hardly in a position to make credible complaints. It seems like their sole purpose has been to ensure that the truth never comes out.

    17. December 15th, 2007 | 4:42 pm

      ~~Post-season starting pitching did really hurt the team in 2006, 2002, and 2007.~~

      Wang in 2007? Pettitte in Game 2 of 2002? Mussina in Game 3? Wells in Game 4?

      Wright in Game 4 of 2006?

      They didn’t hurt the team? Really?

    18. jonm
      December 15th, 2007 | 5:43 pm

      They didn’t hurt the team? Really?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      The starting pitchers DID really hurt the team those years. In 1996, they won despite significantly weaker starting pitching performances than those of their opponents. The low point for starting pitching performance (barely edging out 2002) was 2007.

      In any of the other years, you can’t really say that the Yankees lost because of weak starting pitching. It’s not all about (starting) pitching in the post-season.

      I want to look more closely at Mo’s performances next. I suspect that Mo’s more human performances are an under-rated factor in trying to figure out the difference between the championship clubs and the 00s also-rans.

    19. Raf
      December 15th, 2007 | 10:47 pm

      In any of the other years, you can’t really say that the Yankees lost because of weak starting pitching. It’s not all about (starting) pitching in the post-season.
      ========
      Of course not. If it were, the Braves would’ve won a whole lot more than they have…

      You can’t put your finger on why teams succeed in the postseason. Teams have slugged their way to a title, teams have pitched their way to a title. Teams that have had no shot at winning have won, teams who have been heavily favored have lost.

      If winning a title were that simple, more teams would do it.

    20. Evan3457
      December 17th, 2007 | 2:06 am

      I think that since it’s his blog, Steve is entitled to make as many anti-Cashman posts as he likes. And, as readers, you’re entitled to move on if you don’t like what he’s offering. But I think it’s a waste to tell a man who posts his opinions to stop posting things he really believes.

      It so happens I disagree strongly with most of Steve’s anti-Cashman posts. They are totally results oriented, which has some merit, but is also the way George Steinbrenner decided who was manager of his team on a weekly basis back in the 70′s and 80′s.

      Where I disagree with Steve is the failure to take in the context of each move individually at the time it was made, but rather to judge them in the aggregate. The aggregate being the Yanks havn’t won a title in 7 years, as if it were easy to assemble a team that wins it all. Asif constructing a dynasty capable of winning it all 3 years in 4 were the usual thing, even if you spend more money than anyone else.

      So, Steve, you keep writing whatever you like. That’s your part of the deal. And if it’s attacking Cashman, and I think you’re wrong, and I think it’s worth my time, I’ll write back and tell you why. That’s my part.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.