Matt Clement Retires

i hope matt joins up with MLBN or ESPN, or join the Cubs pre/post gameshows.

Poor guy was never the same after he got hit in the head with that line drive.

"Poor guy was never the same after he got hit in the head with that line drive."

Yeah, Clement spent 7 years as a mediocre pitcher in the NL, then Tek and Farrell finally get him straightened out for a half season and Crawford he gets hit in the head with a line drive. Am sure it was horrible for the Rays Crawford also, but man, he was finally looking good. His slider had a good bite and he was throwing strikes for a half season.

Sucks that he never really got to be the great pitcher he had the potential to be. Still, not a bad career and best of luck to him.

As a former pitcher, Matt Clement's retirement saddens me somewhat. That line drive must have really screwed him up. When I was 11, I remember having an adjustment period after being hit in the knee by comeback line drives twice in one game! And then I got hit by another one the very next season. No matter what age you are, things like that can tweak your ability to focus. Who knows?

Around 2002-2004, Matt Clement was beginning to throw more strikeouts around than innings pitched. Which is a sign of a dominant #1 starter. His inflated ERA at times was due to the occasional bad outing. Even ERA can be a deceptive statistic.

But don't you just love how people come on here and act like they know everything (shallow nerds), even when real fans are expressing their gratitude towards a good player upon his retirement? I'm not even a Padres, Cubs, Red Sox, or Rays fan, but I'll stick up for fans of Matt Clement, and Clement himself because I would have loved for him to pitch for the Angels.

And I think a fan base like Clement's (fake goatees at Wrigley) is sometimes just as important, if not more important sometimes than the numbers.

Good luck, Matt.

"He was FILTHY?
When?
he had a 3.60 era in 02 and it was over 4 in 03 adn it sucked again in 04... he was never good when he was with the cubs..sorry..."

Actually, he was.

He posted a 3.34 FIP in 2002, behind a 9.44 K/9 and 3.73 BB/9, while giving up just 0.79 HR/9 and a .219 BAA. He forced guys to hit into groundballs 49% of the time and they only managed to hit line drives off him about 19% of the time. For one season, in 2002, Matt Clement was absolutely filthy. He was never as good again, he continued to be solid for a few years afterwards, but yeah, at one point Clement was pretty damn good.

What a shame, he lives in my hometown. Good luck Matt.

Is it just me or does anyone else not see it on that Twitter link?

Bastian wrote up a full article about it. I'll replace the link.

Thanks Jza!

GoSox, what's your opinion of Matt Cain?

"GoSox, what's your opinion of Matt Cain?

Posted by: jrfukudome | April 05, 2009 at 10:32 PM"

NICE, that is a good comparison. Matt Clement had down right electricity coming out of his arm.

You can't base pitching from ERA, W and L.
Bartolo Colon had no business winning a Cy Young over Santana, he won based on Wins.

I'm not trying to shizz on the whole Matt Clement parade going on, but in your honest opinion, do you think he might have taken PEDs? Its not nice to point fingers, but if everyone was doing it and he was overpowering at one time, it can make you wonder. The best of luck to Matt and his overpowering goatee.

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

"he had a 3.60 era in 02 and it was over 4 in 03 adn it sucked again in 04... he was never good when he was with the cubs..sorry..."

Seriously? Look at his stats from 2002... and those are from playing in Wrigley... not exactly a pitchers park. 9.4 K/9, 1.20 WHIP and over 200 inning pitched. If you want to go with ERA, it wasnt even bad.

2003 wasnt bad either. An ERA just over 4 isnt sucking hahahaha. He still had a 7.6 K/9 and a 1.23 WHIP.

Then you say he sucked again in 2004? His ERA was 3.68? How is that sucking? He returned to 2002 for which was VERY good. Back to a 9.4 K/9 again.

It makes no sense to say Matt Clement "sucked" at any point during his time with the Cubs.

"He was FILTHY?
When?
he had a 3.60 era in 02 and it was over 4 in 03 adn it sucked again in 04... he was never good when he was with the cubs..sorry..."

Actually, he was.

He posted a 3.34 FIP in 2002, behind a 9.44 K/9 and 3.73 BB/9, while giving up just 0.79 HR/9 and a .219 BAA. He forced guys to hit into groundballs 49% of the time and they only managed to hit line drives off him about 19% of the time. For one season, in 2002, Matt Clement was absolutely filthy. He was never as good again, he continued to be solid for a few years afterwards, but yeah, at one point Clement was pretty damn good."

Good job Scribble. Beat me to it.

"Good numbers...
Too bad 12-11 3.60 era isnt Filthy..
darn"

Too bad you are using the wrong statistics to judge a guys filthiness. Clement was pretty dominant as a Cub during those 3 years. Seriously, get over ERA. It can be wildly deceiving. Here is an example. Tim Redding, to the casual observer looked like a good pitcher in 2007, and a horrible one in 2008, going by era. If you look closely though, you will see Redding actually was the same pitcher in both years, with tons of luck in 2007. He gave up more HR's, but his K and BB rates both improved a good amount, and his FIP even went down a bit, despite his ERA rising a full 1.30. By all accounts, Tim Redding may have actually been a better pitcher in 2008 then he was in 2007, despite allowing a 4.90 era, to the 3.60 era he allowed in 2007.

mediocre*

Fine this is my last comment on this subject. He might not have sucked in 02', but he was not "filthy". Filthy to me is Brandon Webb, Johan Santana, Tim Lincicum