PDA

View Full Version : Should Roger Clemens Make the Hall of Fame?



Goten
12-13-2007, 09:14 PM
If the allegations are true that clemens used steroids from 97-2001 ( and possibly longer) does he deserve to get into the HOF?

steig
12-13-2007, 09:15 PM
There is a similar thread in the ORG and I wanted to add my opinion.

If you look at Clemens career stats, three out of his last four years with the red sox were very poor in terms of ERA and wins between 1992 and 1996. However, if his stats drastically increased when he went to Toronto and allegedly started using steroids and/or HGH to enhance his performance. He became a 20 game winner in Toronto compared to a 10 game winner previously and his ERA dropped 2 points. The rest is rather well known then about his 7 Cy Youngs and time with the Yankees and Astros. Before Clemens went to Toronto he had 192 wins over 13 seasons, average of 14.7. If Clemens had only averaged 10 wins over the next 10 years he would have only ended up with 292 wins through 2006, assuming he could have lasted that long without being chemically engineered.

Would you put a pitcher into the HOF that averaged 10 wins a season during the last half of his career. In my opinion the answer is no. But would Clemens have been a HOF pitcher had he retired in 1996 and my answer is yes. He had a series of 7 consecutive seasons that could be considered nothing short of dominant from 1986 through 1992, especially 1990 season which ranks right up there with Doc Gooden's 1985 season. While his career totals pre-steroids may not have added up to typical HOF stats I think you have to look at series of dominant performance and I consider a series of 6 or more seasons of dominant play to justify serious consideration for the HOF.

I would vote to put Clemens into the HOF based on the first half of his career. Since you can't avoid mentioning the stats of the chemically engineered Clemens there should be an asterik or notation indicating that his later achievements are under suspicion for performance enhancers.

If we refuse to put players into the HOF who are believed to be steroid users then the only HOFer for the next 20 years may only be Griffey.

Goten
12-13-2007, 09:17 PM
There is a similar thread in the ORG and I wanted to add my opinion.

If you look at Clemens career stats, three out of his last four years with the red sox were very poor in terms of ERA and wins between 1992 and 1996. However, if his stats drastically increased when he went to Toronto and allegedly started using steroids and/or HGH to enhance his performance. He became a 20 game winner in Toronto compared to a 10 game winner previously and his ERA dropped 2 points. The rest is rather well known then about his 7 Cy Youngs and time with the Yankees and Astros. Before Clemens went to Toronto he had 192 wins over 13 seasons, average of 14.7. If Clemens had only averaged 10 wins over the next 10 years he would have only ended up with 292 wins through 2006, assuming he could have lasted that long without being chemically engineered.

Would you put a pitcher into the HOF that averaged 10 wins a season during the last half of his career. In my opinion the answer is no. But would Clemens have been a HOF pitcher had he retired in 1996 and my answer is yes. He had a series of 7 consecutive seasons that could be considered nothing short of dominant from 1986 through 1992, especially 1990 season which ranks right up there with Doc Gooden's 1985 season. While his career totals pre-steroids may not have added up to typical HOF stats I think you have to look at series of dominant performance and I consider a series of 6 or more seasons of dominant play to justify serious consideration for the HOF.

I would vote to put Clemens into the HOF based on the first half of his career. Since you can't avoid mentioning the stats of the chemically engineered Clemens there should be an asterik or notation indicating that his later achievements are under suspicion for performance enhancers.

If we refuse to put players into the HOF who are believed to be steroid users then the only HOFer for the next 20 years may only be Griffey.

Uh, Maddux? Pedro? Johnson? Arod? Piazza? Come on.

mroby85
12-13-2007, 09:27 PM
I have one question, and this should be what the question is based upon...

Are his stats good enough?

mlbfan30
12-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Clemens.... Yes
Bonds..... Yes

Bip Roberts
12-13-2007, 09:35 PM
id probably have to go with no

NorrisHopper30
12-13-2007, 09:42 PM
If Pete Rose didn't, then definitely not.

mroby85
12-13-2007, 10:23 PM
pete rose should be in too!
it's not a group of good doers, it's a group of great baseball players, at least it's supposed to be, but that is becoming a joke in my opinion.

AdamDunn
12-13-2007, 10:27 PM
no

Hey Meat
12-13-2007, 10:38 PM
If he does, the so does Pete.

kbrake
12-13-2007, 10:56 PM
People need to quit comparing Pete and Clemens. Such different things.

captainmorgan07
12-13-2007, 10:57 PM
steriod users should be looked at on their whole career before and after the steriod use. If before they used steroids they had a hall of fame career than yes they should be in.

757690
12-13-2007, 11:34 PM
His stats up to the time he started using steroids (291 Wins, 2,500 K's) are not as good as Bert Blyleven's, who is not in the hall. The key is that he stats were in a free fall until he started using steroids. So it is doubtful that he would come close to HOF numbers if he had not used steroids. Boston let him go because they thought his best years were behind him. Looks like the were kinda right, now.

He probably would end up with 210 wins and 2700 K's. There are a few pitchers with stats similar to those who are in the Hall, but most are not. The one's that are in, had a reputation for winning and great character. Clemens has neither. He had a history of choking in key games and not being a team player. So even without the steroids problem, he had a lot against him in terms of character. Steroids use really puts it over the top.

No way he deserves to get in.

George Foster
12-14-2007, 12:07 AM
If you think Bonds does not belong in the hall, then if you are intellectually honest...niether does Clemens. Just sayin'

George Foster
12-14-2007, 12:12 AM
If you would not vote for Bonds, then you can't in good conscience vote for Clemens either...right?

If you think Bonds deserves to be in the hall then Clemens also deserves it.

I doubt that the voters will be as honest. The writers hate Bonds and Clemens gives good interviews.

Jefferson24
12-14-2007, 12:13 AM
Clemens and Bonds cheat at the game, Pete just bet on it. Pete yes, Bonds and Clemens no.

mlbfan30
12-14-2007, 12:33 AM
His stats up to the time he started using steroids (291 Wins, 2,500 K's) are not as good as Bert Blyleven's, who is not in the hall. The key is that he stats were in a free fall until he started using steroids. So it is doubtful that he would come close to HOF numbers if he had not used steroids. Boston let him go because they thought his best years were behind him. Looks like the were kinda right, now.

He probably would end up with 210 wins and 2700 K's. There are a few pitchers with stats similar to those who are in the Hall, but most are not. The one's that are in, had a reputation for winning and great character. Clemens has neither. He had a history of choking in key games and not being a team player. So even without the steroids problem, he had a lot against him in terms of character. Steroids use really puts it over the top.

No way he deserves to get in.

You really think he won 140 more games due to roids? Your going to say, he would have done ....w/e.... YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW! If roids suddenly adds 140 wins why do so many pitchers not even have 50 wins and are users. Where are all the 300 win guys if 50+ pitchers have done roids. You don't know if roids did or didn't help. You would think it would, but what would have happened if he didn't take them. You really think he suddenly loses 10 YEARS off his career, retiring at age 34. You.. can honestly say, this pitcher has won 200+ games, but the moment he decided to do roids he wouldn't even be good enough to play? Roids are not some magical thing that suddenly makes you better. It may help improve recovery and strength, but not suddenly make someone great. Look at all the bad players named, roids just enhance a little but its not who that person is.
Same thing with Bonds. You can't say... if he didn't do roids he wouldn't be worthy of the HOF. My argument is simply, he was possibly the best player in baseball, with or without. Same with Clemens. Assigning arbitrary numbers is ridiculous and pointless, it happened and thats the way it is.
Here's a stupid analogy...
Your working and your getting tired towards the end of the work day. It becomes frequent and starts to affect your job. You want to do something about it so you take sleeping pills, multi-vitamins, concetration pills, and popping some caffeine pills while your working. All this stuff makes you the best at your job you've ever been. But if you never did that stuff would you have suddenly been fired? You would have just stay with the same routine and went along normally. Obviously all that extra stuff helped, but did it really suddenly change your baseline?
And don't talk about "illegal" crap since thats not the point. Your point is performance.
Also Clemens has won a WS before, so he is a "winner" and his 354 W makes him a "winner'. What role does SP have in being a "team player" He's pitching once every 5 days and only pitches. Pitching is a single person thing, and there have never been conflicts with his catchers.

mlbfan30
12-14-2007, 12:39 AM
Clemens and Bonds cheat at the game, Pete just bet on it. Pete yes, Bonds and Clemens no.

Pete bet on the game while managing, which means it was possible to change his managing style to win/lose the game. That is a pretty big thing. The rules were known at the time....

Whats different with roids is that they were not "illegal" in baseball up until the testing. The early memo said not to do it, and they could be punished, but that was nothing. Mac has the Andro in his locker, BUT Anyone could just buy it at GNC. Back in 2001 there was no penalty, no testing, no anything. If a player did it, it wasn't a big deal, really.

With Pete, he knew the rules, and knew what would happen but still bet. BUT HE WAS MANAGING

I think Pete should be in as a player, since I believe when he played he never bet on the game. If he never tried to manage, then he would be in the HOF, so put him in as a player.

757690
12-14-2007, 01:53 AM
You really think he won 140 more games due to roids? Your going to say, he would have done ....w/e.... YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU DON'T KNOW! If roids suddenly adds 140 wins why do so many pitchers not even have 50 wins and are users. Where are all the 300 win guys if 50+ pitchers have done roids.....
And don't talk about "illegal" crap since thats not the point. Your point is performance.
Also Clemens has won a WS before, so he is a "winner" and his 354 W makes him a "winner'. What role does SP have in being a "team player" He's pitching once every 5 days and only pitches. Pitching is a single person thing, and there have never been conflicts with his catchers.

You are correct that I do not know what Roger Clemens would have done without steroids, but I can make some pretty good educated guesses. Isn't that what we should be doing? Looking at the evidence and trying to figure out, player by player, how each one was affected by their steroid use?

In regards to Clemens. the key is to look at the last four years before he started taking them. That is a very large sample size, he clearly was in decline in each of those four years. His WHIP went up, his ERA went up, and most importantly, his innings pitched per game went down.

Before steroids, he was averaging close to 8 innings a start. in those last four years, he was closer to 6 innings a start. This is very important since by not lasting as long, he was getting many less victories. That decline is very normal for someone his age. I think a fair estimate, based on how other pitchers his age faired, that he would continue to decline and last maybe a two to three more years, without steroids.

Even if he lasted 10 more years, they would have been mostly as a crowd draw, and I doubt he would have had much success. Most power pitchers burn out at around 35-38. Clemens showed all the signs of that up to when he started using steroids.

But you are right, I am just guessing, but guessing based on evidence.


Now in terms of him being a team player and a winner. You really are making yourself look bad here. First, Clemens has a long history of not getting along with catchers. It is very well documented. The biggest being when he was with Boston. Rich Gedman is the one who accused Roger of pulling himself out Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, even though he was the teams best chance to win the game. No on knows if it is true, but the mere fact that his catcher is telling that story to the press is proof that he does not get along with his catchers.

Second, yes he did win a World Series, when he was on steroids. And he won 140 of those 354 games, while on steroids. So he is a winner, when he cheats.

Third, I never mentioned "illegal", but it is not just a matter of performance in terms of the Hall. In terms of being on my fantasy team, yes performance is all that matters. But the Hall of Fame is about more than numbers, it is about what you brought to the game, and Roger Clemens brought cheating.

By the way, I think Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker should be removed from the Hall, since there is now proof that they threw games.

RedsKev
12-14-2007, 02:20 AM
NO

Trace's Daddy
12-14-2007, 06:57 AM
No to Bonds and Clemens. By the way, was it roid rage when he threw that bat at Piazza? haha

putrnrd
12-14-2007, 12:27 PM
would be fitting that the best hitter and pitcher (statistically) of this "chemically enhanced" generation of ballplayers not go to the hall. all of this makes me sad more than anything else. a combination of super-competitiveness and ego by the players and greed by ownership.

zemtech
12-14-2007, 12:48 PM
Baseball cant have no cheaters in the Hall!!!! Both Bonds and Clemens should be excluded