Should Roger Clemens Make the Hall of Fame?

[Goten]

If the allegations are true that clemens used steroids from 97-2001 ( and possibly longer) does he deserve to get into the HOF?

[steig]

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]

Originally Posted by steig

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]

I have one question, and this should be what the question is based upon...

Are his stats good enough?

[mlbfan30]

Clemens.... Yes
Bonds..... Yes

[Bip Roberts]

id probably have to go with no

[NorrisHopper30]

If Pete Rose didn't, then definitely not.

[mroby85]

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]

no

[Hey Meat]

If he does, the so does Pete.

[kbrake]

People need to quit comparing Pete and Clemens. Such different things.

[captainmorgan07]

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]

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]

If you think Bonds does not belong in the hall, then if you are intellectually honest...niether does Clemens. Just sayin'

[George Foster]

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.