With his acquittal yesterday on all charges relating to perjury in front of Congress, we’ve hopefully written the last chapter in the book on Roger Clemen’s professional baseball career. At this point, he is unlikely to face any professional or legal repercussions for any performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) he may have used and he is even more unlikely to ever pitch again.
So, LoOGers, two questions:
Should Roger Clemens be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame?
Will Roger Clemens be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame?
A little bit of evidence for both sides…
Should/Will:
- 354 Wins, 9th all time
- 4,672 Strikes outs, 2nd all time
- 7 Cy Youngs, most all time
- 133.9 bWAR, 9th all time
- 1 MVP award
- Generally regarded as the greatest pitcher of his generation and one of the greatest pitchers ever
- No conclusive evidence of PED use (see below)
- Acquitted of all charges (see below)
Shouldn’t/Won’t:
- Accused of PED use, most damningly by former trainer Brian McNamee in the Mitchell Report
- Accused of and stood trial for six counts relating to perjury, making false statements, and obstructing Congress when he testified that he never used PEDs
- Atypical career arc, including posting some of his best seasons between the ages of 34 and 42, the time period during which he was alleged to have used PEDs
So, LoOGers, stake your claim! Would you vote for the Rocket? Why or why not? Do you think enough of the voters will (75% are required) for him to gain enshrinement? If so, how many years might it take (players can remain on the ballot up to 15 years)? (Let’s ignore any arguments about what the Veterans Committee might do, since who knows what form that will take and predicting their actions is near impossible anyway.)
For what it is worth, as much as I hate the guy, I’d vote him in. And I’m convinced he did use PEDs. I don’t think he’ll get in anytime soon and might take 10+ years before the makeup of the electorate changes and/or we gain a better perspective on what went on in baseball during the “steroid era”.
And Pete Rose too!
I’d put Clemens in over Rose. Clemens’s on-field performance is FAR superior and I’m less bothered by his transgressions. I’d still put Rose in, though I’d note his ban somewhere. I can’t get super worked up over him largely because his greatest skill was his longevity. He has some elite numbers, primarily because he played so long. He’s not an elite player, in my humble opinion. But his on-field accomplishments do warrant enshrinement.
The hit record comes from longevity, but he’s still lifetime 77 WAR, and longevity hurts him there (he was net negative after 40). He was a 15-time All-Star, all over the field except catcher, shortstop, and center field. The only way he doesn’t belong in the HoF is of you think gambling is an automatic death sentence.
I personally don’t think Rose belongs in the HoF because gambling should be an automatic death sentence.
I didn’t see Rose play, so I’m a bit limited. As I said, I have him in, but his exclusion, for whatever the reason, isn’t the outrage of some of some other folks.
Regarding gambling, can you be more specific about when it should be an automatic death sentence? Any gambling by anyone in the game? Gambling on baseball by anyone? Gambling on your own team?
Gambling on baseball by a baseball player. Unacceptable. Automatic lifetime suspension. That wastrue in 1919 and nothing important has changed.
And. yeah, a manger betting on his own team has motives to win that game that can conflict with his responsibility to think about his players’ well-being and success of the whole season.
I don’t get the death sentence, never have.
The NFL has had two scandals in a decade that were more negative for the sport than Rose’s gambling thing should have been.
If they want to erase him from the books as a manager, fine. But he deserves a spot based on his playing career and it’s not even close.
I heard a rumor that gambling was the reason that Jordan retired the first time.
He could have a post-career worse than OJ’s and still make it in.
Now, Pete Rose wasn’t the Jordan of baseball… but he was, oh, I don’t know basketball well enough. The Barkley? I’m pretty sure Pete Rose had a ring though and Barkley didn’t…
I’m afraid I’m going to have to have one of you gentlemen make my argument for me as I’m completely ignorant of sports.
It relies heavily on eqivocation and emotional appeals, if that helps.
JB-
There are rumors that Jordan was secretly suspended for gambling during his first retirement. I haven’t seen much evidence to support this besides innuendo and conspiracy theories. Jordan was a known gambler but nothing every directly tied him to betting on basketball. There was some outcry when he was spotted at an AC casino during a big playoff series (I forget which), but I think he was playing table games and sports gambling is illegal in AC anyway (which is not to say he couldn’t have been betting on games, but he didn’t need to be in AC to do it if he was doing it with bookies).
Rose wasn’t the Barkley of baseball. It’s sort of hard to find analogous plays between baseball and basketball, though I do respect your willingness to make a cross-racial analogy, something many folks won’t do. I’ll let those who had a better first hand account of Rose weigh in as to whether there was a fair analogy, but my gut on Rose is that he was a good but not great player who is a deserving member of the HOF based solely on what he did on the field, but far from an “inner circle” member.
Yes, and yes.
Pete belongs, too.
Yes for the HOF. If somehow he was the only player of his generation to use PED’s, then it would be a no. However its pretty clear his generation of players were using a lot. If he doesn’t get in then nobody in his generation should. Its like a dead ball or live ball era, his was the PED era.
Pete Rose- no, never, nyet.
Yes. (no for rose)
As said above, if Clemens was the only HOF-level player to be known as a PED user, then keep him out. But, he isn’t by far. And even if you take a giant PED hunk out of his numbers, he’s still a Hall of Famer.
Damn, we really are an echo chamber!
Okay, to those of you who said yes, what do you make of other folks caught up in the PED hysteria…
Bagwell? He’s guilty of only innuendo, as far as I know it.
Bonds? I believe it has now been confirmed that he took it but he maintains he didn’t know what it was.
Palmeiro? Denies it but reported to have failed a test.
McGwire? Admitted it, finally.
Sosa? Failed test.
ARod? Failed test and awkward apology.
I’ve chosen these guys because their numbers alone seem to be open-and-shut cases. Folks like Manny or Ortiz aren’t quite slam dunks. Which is an interesting follow up question… does the strength of their numbers and/or the belief that their unaided numbers (assuming all of them were aided, which is a conceit I’m making because it sure seems that way and I don’t really care about PEDs, at least not the way most sports journalists do) were good enough to get them in factor in to your decision? As someone above said, Clemens likely was a HOFer even before he started doing whatever he may or may not have done. McGwire probably wasn’t, especially if you believe Canseco that he did them his whole career.
And that reminders me… JOSE CANSECO?!?!
I think you have to just take them at their numbers and accept it was the PED era. Yeah it skews the numbers for the rest of recorded history, but so be it. We can’t pick which guys use we don’t care and about whose we do. We don’t know everybody who used and how much of a benefit they all recieved.
This is much the same thinking I subscribe to.
The only objection I have to PEDs is that it was against the rules. To the extent that the players agreed to follow a set of mutually-agreed upon rules and which some saw fit to ignore, the competitor in me is bothered. But few players from that generation have really come out and said the same thing, which tells me they all tacitly knew doing it was acceptable within the fraternity, even if not everyone opted to do it. If the players are cool with it, so am I. If opponents cry foul, saying, “Hey man, we said we weren’t going to do that. And you’re doing it?” I’d probably be more upset about it. Otherwise, I can’t seem to summon the outrage that so many sports writers seemed to insist was demanded of fans (though many of them have gone back to their caves to figure out what new thing to be sanctimonious about… umpiring seems to be the cause du jour).
Really, I think they should just let everyone do what they want. Make it all above-board. Honestly, what’s the difference between cortisone/Tommy John surgery/stem cell injections and “illegal” PEDs? Nothing, in my book.
So, yea, I say put all of them in. At least all the guys who are slam dunks. If a guy is on the line and is a known (not just suspected like Bagwell, who has really gotten a raw deal) user, I might tip the other way. Then again, I’m a “Small Hall” guy, so I don’t need much motivation to tip.
Take into account that I’m a lifelong Giants fan when reading this rant, but:
In 1998, two obvious steroid users on a home run-fest are praised for saving the game of baseball from its post-strike funk and become national heroes. A guy who’s a better player than either of them and always has been, but has never kind a kind word from the press or the baseball establishment [1], sees that that’s how it’s done, and becomes the best player any of us will ever see in real life. He does things no human should be capable of, and even the sports media, which hates his guts, has to vote him four MVPs in a row or lose any credibility. And the result is that he becomes even more hated, the owners collude to exclude him from the game [2], and he winds up charged with multiple felonies.
That is, it’s very much a question of who and when, not of what.
1. Granted that it’s because he’s a petty, petulant, obnoxious jerk.
2. In 2007 he hits 28 HRs and goes 276/480/565, and in 2008 doesn’t get offered even a minimum-salary contract to DH.
I can’t disagree with anything here and have long championed the cause that Bonds was indeed blacklisted. And I have no particular fondness for the Giants.
Bagwell, hell yes. How can you possibly keep someone out purely on unfounded suspicion?
Bonds was the best player in baseball for 10 years before steroids, and the best player since Ruth after then. He always far outshined his peers. Yes.
Palmeiro, Sosa, and McGwire don’t look that impressive when you discount their numbers for the era. Marginal at best.
ARod is a HOFer even after any discount is applied.
+1
If people want to knock off 20% of various stats, Clemens/Bonds/etcetera all get in. But, if we do that, should we knock 20% off the stats of pitchers who played during the high mound era? Should we knock 10% off the stats of players who took greenies during the 60’s or started actually working out in the 70’s and 80’s before most players did?
Baseball has always had an undercurrent of “finding the best way to cheat” that is unparalleled in football, basketball, or hockey. Whether it’s spitball, spikes into other players bodies, greenies, or PED’s, it’s always happened.
Or that whole “not having to play against black folks” thing… that was probably a nice little advantage for the Babe and others.
The Babe was the best player in the history of baseball, including all the black (and now Hispanic) players that came later. There are a few black players from the Negro League days that might have been as good (or even better), but how many guys could set records in both pitching and hitting home runs?
Mike-
I don’t doubt that. But my point is, would he have hit 755 HRs if he had to bat against ALL of the best pitchers alive during his career instead of just the best white pitchers alive? Logically, I just don’t see how we can assume that. Maybe he only hit 735. But he certainly would have looked slightly less impressive.
But, yea, the Babe wasn’t the best guy to throw in there. Let’s just defer to the “and others”…
would he have hit 755 HRs
Almost certainly not. 714, maybe.
Another big difference between hitting then and hitting now is that coaching has changed for pitchers. Pitchers used to be left in longer, rosters were smaller. A bad pitcher wasn’t just yanked in favor of a minor leaguer. Pitching is not only better because of more inclusiveness, but because of better managerial technique. And training technique, of course.
Nice catch, Mike. But upping the quality of the opposition no doubt would have lessened the quality of his numbers, even if only slight so.
Will-
I think that is why making comparisons across eras is very hard. Some advanced stats “normalize” to the era, which is a huge step toward being able to do that, but there is only so much they can take into account. We (generally) don’t hold segregation against Ruth or the mound height against pitchers from that era or greenies against folks from the 70’s, so it seems a bit inconsistent to hold guys from the PED era, including those with zero link to PEDs (Bagwell) accountable as they have been.
As far as ARod is concerned, the nature in which he was exposed means, as far as I’m concerned, it was never exposed. I’m still pissed off about that.
Me too. A drug test that can’t be rechecked should be inadmissible in any court, including that of public opinion.
It’s hard to make ARod a sympathetic figure, but he really got jobbed on that shit. MLB should be ashamed. It won’t be. But it should be.
I’m not particularly a baseball guy, so the backup knowledge of what’s really “Hall-worthy” here is rather weak, but I see all those guys as in except McGwire and maybe Sosa.
I agree PEDs should be outlawed and they should test for them, but the guys hit the balls and ran the bases. No one’s accusing them of using corked bats (well, outside of one of them) or juicing a ball. Unless you want to scrub the entire era from history, I don’t see how you can pretend you know who was and wasn’t clean and who would or wouldn’t have done some such in the counterfactual.
Yes to nearly all of the above — but of all of the above, the Rocket stands above them all.
Particularly in the case of McGwire, we don’t want to punish admitting the use of a PED. Whether McGwire’s whole career merits an HOF vote or not (or Palmiero’s for that matter) is subject to debate; IIRC he spent many years as a good-but-not-great streaky sort of player. The use of the Andro did not add luster but at the same time, it was damn fun watching him perform that summer when the drug was only a rumor and it wasn’t even clear if it had been banned. Worth considering.
As for a failed test (viz. Palmiero) that ought not to be enough to do more than merit a slap on the wrist.
Fine. I’ll be the lone voice of dissent.
No. No to Clemens; no to Rose.
Of course we can talk numbers and eras, ERAs, WARs, and wars all day and night, and I’ll come out on the losing end of every argument.
Maybe I’ve spent too much time with the Greeks and see something aesthetically pleasing, or at least appropriate, in punishing the two greatest players of their era — and two of the greats of all time — for wanting still more. And overreaching. And falling.
(And nearly taking the game with them — or at least that’s how it was perceived when they fell — which probably has more to do with why the first few steroid-tainted players have had such trouble with their Hall votes.)
Or maybe — and I’ll confess this is more likely the case — it’s simply because I feel that Sammy Sosa betrayed my youth and Pete Rose my father’s.
JL-
How do you rectify this viewpoint with the other “cheaters” in the hall? While I don’t think we should remove guys after enshrinement, would you have voted against them when they were on the ballot?
SPEAKING OF CHEATING!
Joel Peralta was ejected from tonight’s Rays/Nationals game for having a “foreign substance” on his glove. The ejection came before he even through a pitch based on an objection lobbied by the Nationals. Peralta played for the Nationals in 2010. The understanding is that the Nationals were quick to object because they knew about Peralta’s “foreign substance” from when he utilized it while pitching for the club.
Round and round we go…
Peralta for HOF anyone???
Isn’t that how they caught Belichick? A former assistant coach told the league to look for a dude in a particular part of the stands and, wouldn’t you know it, he was right there?
The former assistant happened to be the head coach of the NY Jets at the time… 🙂
And most people think coaching trees are positive things…
The situation got *really* interesting to me when Davy Johnston had to explain how he was aware that a foreign substance (and not Corinthian leather) was on Peralta’s glove. He basically admitted that he knew about it because Peralta threw pine-tar spit-balls when he *played for Johnston*.
If Bonds, McGwire et al. are kept out, there’s no reason for Clemens to be there, either.
And my opinion by the way, is Nay.
skip them, put Ichiro, Griffey, et al there.
I like the idea of Ichiro Griffey. He was a great player for the Mariners, who began his career as a power hitter and ended it as a singles machine. Ken Suzuki Jr., on the other hand, didn’t reach the majors until he was close to 30, and after just a few years his play declined to replacement level.
Did I leave out a comma there?
Not at all. It just struck me how opposite the two careers were.
Re: Roger Clemens, if I had a vote it would be ‘no’. That doesn’t mean I don’t think Roger should be inducted. It’s a close enough call that I could understand someone (lots of someones) thinking and voting the other way.
I think the same goes for other individuals where there’s lots of evidence for PED use (Barry, Sammy, Palmeiro): my vote would be against, but I cold certainly understand why someone might disagree. Admitted PED users would be a definite no vote (Arod, McGuire). And Rose is out forever, not so much because of what he did as manager (betting on your own team to lose???) but because he agreed to the lifetime ban in the deal struck with Giamatti.
Regarding Clemens, I’d go with a marginal “Yes.” Not because he was innocent or even a decent person, neither of which seem to be true, but for two reasons:
1. To send a message to abusive prosecutors that there are social repercussions to their abuses; and
2. He was probably a HOFer before the ‘roids.
On the others, I’m a strong supporter of Barry Bonds for HOF – dude was one of the best all-around players ever without the ‘roids, and could have retired in ’98 and been a first-ballot HOFer (at least he would have if he had a better relationship with the media).
McGwire and Sosa: No. Not good enough without the ‘roids. Frankly, neither would be a surefire HOFer to me even if we just looked at the numbers- McGwire was too one-dimensional, and Sosa was a fringe player the first four years of his career, and was only good, not great the next two years, and didn’t become otherworldly until ’98. So he’s got four otherworldly seasons, all heavily tainted, two very good seasons (’95 and ’97), both probably tainted, four pretty good seasons (’93, ’96, ’02, and ’03), all probably tainted, and six mediocre-at-best seasons. Not exactly the stuff of legend.
Palmeiro: Definitely not- he was never a truly dominant player, even with the ‘roids, and so I wouldn’t put him in the HOF under any circumstances.
Bagwell: Yes. Innuendo’s not enough.
ARod: That’s the tough call. My inclination is “no,” but he was so fishing dominant….
abusive prosecutors
I dunno. If someone insists on testifying in front of Congress for the express purpose of perjuring himself, is it abusive to prosecute him for it?
From what I’ve heard, the prosecutors deserve criticism because they brought a weak case that they should have known had no chance of winning, especially after the initial mistrial.
Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn’t give Roger a pass when he went out of his way to lie in front of Congress. But the case seemed more about grandstanding than it did about actually seeking justice. As have just about all efforts by the federal government to insert itself into sports.
Aye. And the events that lead to the mistrial being declared in the first place were, in my opinion, absolutely outrageous. To then proceed with a do-over without absolutely ironclad evidence is wholly unacceptable in my view. I’ll stop there, though, before I start violating the “no politics” rule. 😉
Someone did a quasi-satirical piece on how each of the Congressmen had to start their line of questioning with a story about just how much they loved baseball and how much it meant to them as a child, with each one trying to outdo the latter. I’ll see if I can dig it up. It was hilarious.
I’m not voting for anybody who got the lion’s share of their career in between 1990 and 2004. I’m a curmudgeon on this point.
I more or less agree with Mark’s assessment on skill; Barry and Roger would have both been Famers without the drugs. Hell, Barry was way more fun to watch back when he was skinny.
If Pete Rose is ever voted into the Hall, I’m done with baseball. I’d write a post about that for MD, but no religion.
I’m pretty well done with baseball and have been since the strike, way back when. Still enjoy the game, when it’s played by real people, not Roid Monsters. The owners’ attitudes, the wretched status of minor league players and the continuing monopoly they enjoy were the final straws.
It’s been cricket for me both before and since baseball. Yes, the punters have besmirched cricket and the ODI and 20/20 have not done good things for the game, but if I’m to form an emotional bond with a game and its players, it will be on the basis of men who play by the rules. A home run is nothing but a sixer to me.
Oh god, do NOT get me started on those bloody besmirching punters!