Hall of Famer voters speak out about Clemens

[Linnwood]

Hall of Famer voters speak out about Clemens

Friday, December 14, 2007

 

ESPN.com asked Baseball Hall of Fame voters, "If the election were held today, would you vote for Roger Clemens?'' Here are some of their responses -- pro, con and undecided -- in the aftermath of the Mitchell report:

 

"Yes, I would vote for him on the first ballot. If, as Brian McNamee says, he started using steroids in 1998, he already had 213 wins, four Cy Youngs and a 3.00 ERA at the time. Without the steroids he wouldn't have won 350 games, but I do think he would have been a double-digit winner for many seasons, boosting his win total close to 300, and he was a dominant pitcher, unlike some other pitchers who might have racked up a lot of wins.''

-- Steve Krasner, Providence Journal

 

"No way he gets my vote. If you cheat, or even if I highly suspect you do, I'll fight letting you ever get in. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, it's the same to me. I recognize there will be some players who will probably slip in who used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, but I'll be as consistent as I can.''

-- Steve Dilbeck, Los Angeles Daily News

 

"I will never vote for anyone associated with steroids on any ballot -- first or 15th. And, if the report is true, I put him in the same category with Barry Bonds, as a person with enormous talent who did not need to cheat.''

-- Hal Bodley, USA Today

 

"At this point, I would vote for Clemens to go to Cooperstown. I know what is in the Mitchell report, but I wouldn't hold him out of the Hall of Fame until there is stronger evidence against him and more of the story is heard.''

-- Mel Antonen, USA Today

 

"Yes on Roger Clemens. God forbid we mix the guys rubbing cream on their body with the racists, wife beaters, bat-corkers, adulterers and murder suspects that currently reside in a collection of dust and baseballs that is the Baseball Hall of Fame. It's a freakin' museum, and the last 20 years is a part of that history that was allowed to happen, no matter how badly people want to deny it."

-- Joe Cowley, Chicago Sun-Times

"I vote yes. I'm to the point now where I'm just assuming that a majority of players over the past 20 years have at least dabbled in steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs, and I don't know if there is any way of knowing definitely who did and didn't. Thus, I'm just looking at everyone and their numbers through the same prism. I don't know if that is the right or wrong thing to do, but that is the only way I can do it in my heart."

-- John Perrotto, Beaver County (Pa.) Times

 

"I like to keep three words in mind when I hear of things like this. (Duke, rape, lacrosse.) So the allegations -- which of course is what they are -- don't change my stance on Clemens as a Hall of Fame player. I would vote for him were he on the ballot.''

-- Bill Ballou, Worcester (Mass.) Telegram and Gazette

 

"I'm leaning toward voting yes. My basic feeling is that this is undeniably an era that will be defined by steroids. Like the deadball era, the stats are skewed by outside factors. Walter Johnson and Cy Young won 30 games a year while Bonds and McGwire had 70-homer seasons. In the end you have to judge players against their contemporaries. And Clemens was the best pitcher of his generation. The fact that steroids appear to have been widespread, in a way, makes it easier to vote for Clemens. His unfair advantage may not have been all that unfair if you look at it that way, because more than half the league may have been juicing.''

-- John Romano, St. Petersburg Times

 

"I regard Clemens in the same light as Barry Bonds. Neither one will get my vote. My position is based on ethics, not legality. The evidence is that they cheated; they turned themselves into something they weren't created to be by altering their bodies in a significant, chemical way at a time when baseball players normally wear out instead of getting better. Because of this, their achievements and records are tainted, even though both had careers worthy of first-ballot induction into Cooperstown before they ever began juicing. The Hall of Fame is no place for them.''

-- John Erardi, Cincinnati Enquirer

 

"I would vote no, now and forever. If I have a reasonable belief that a player cheated, I will not vote him in. Bonds, McGwire, now Clemens … I'm not talking about expunging their records or throwing them out of the game. I just don't have to give them the sport's highest honor.''

-- Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

"Undecided. Let's have some consistency. If we draw the line at inducting Mark McGwire, then let's avoid having double standards by giving the free Cooperstown pass to other suspected or alleged drug cheats.''

-- Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

 

"I'd vote no. I just finished a column recalling Clemens striking out 15 Mariners in Game 4 of the 2000 ALCS, and how Joe Torre compared him to Bob Gibson in the 1968 World Series against the Tigers. That's bull. Clemens cheated.''

-- John McGrath, Tacoma News Tribune

 

"Yes on both Clemens and Bonds for the Hall of Fame. In fairness, both Barry and Roger should be viewed in the same light as hundreds of other guys. Tons of guys were doing something, and they were just the best of a rotten and tainted era. We're singling them out because they set records, but they were hardly alone in this thing.''

-- Kevin Roberts, Courier Post (South New Jersey)

 

"No. I did not vote for Mark McGwire and, unless new information emerges in the next few years to change my mind, I intend to withhold my vote from players with known steroid ties or with heavy allegations against them. This is the worst stain on the game since the 1919 Black Sox scandal, and somebody somewhere has to stand up for what's right. Just because baseball failed to do this for far too long doesn't mean the rest of us should give everybody hall passes.''

-- Scott Miller, CBSSportsline.com

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3155168

 

For what it is worth this other article on ESPN says they polled 90 HOF voters and got this:

 

YES 32 (35.5%)

NO 22 (24.4%)

UNDECIDED 36 (40%)

 

Edited December 15, 2007 by Linnwood

[Balta1701]

And that 25% that say no is all it takes.

 

A lot of those undecideds will turn to no if Clemens doesn't fight this very hard and if McGwire and Bonds don't get in (if neither one plays again, both Bonds and Clemens will be eligible first in the same year, 2012 I think. That'll be fun)

[daa84]

so just because hte hall previously admitted people that it shouldnt have cowley is gonna keep the trend up?

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't think Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation. I count Maddux, Martinez and Johnson better than him.

 

Can anyone tell me why he's better than any of those guys? I think Martinez has a clear-cut greater peak. Maddux has, I think, a greater career with no evidence or trace of steroid use (although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else). And I do believe that Maddux career is better than Clemens' career even without giving note to Clemens + steroids. Johnson? He was a beast.

[Gregory Pratt]

Isn't Cowley the same moron that hates Garland for being Californian and refuses to vote for MVPs from Toronto because he hates Canada?

[witesoxfan]

I don't think Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation. I count Maddux, Martinez and Johnson better than him.

 

Can anyone tell me why he's better than any of those guys? I think Martinez has a clear-cut greater peak. Maddux has, I think, a greater career with no evidence or trace of steroid use (although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else). And I do believe that Maddux career is better than Clemens' career even without giving note to Clemens + steroids. Johnson? He was a beast.

 

agreed on all accounts.

[Kalapse]

I don't think Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation. I count Maddux, Martinez and Johnson better than him.

 

Can anyone tell me why he's better than any of those guys? I think Martinez has a clear-cut greater peak. Maddux has, I think, a greater career with no evidence or trace of steroid use (although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else). And I do believe that Maddux career is better than Clemens' career even without giving note to Clemens + steroids. Johnson? He was a beast.

Considering the era in which he pitched I believe Pedro Martinez, in his prime years, was the most dominant starting pitcher in Major League Baseball History and I'm not sure it's even close. And yeah, on my list Johnson and Maddux are definitely ahead of Clemens.

[jackie hayes]

I don't think Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation. I count Maddux, Martinez and Johnson better than him.

 

Can anyone tell me why he's better than any of those guys? I think Martinez has a clear-cut greater peak. Maddux has, I think, a greater career with no evidence or trace of steroid use (although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else). And I do believe that Maddux career is better than Clemens' career even without giving note to Clemens + steroids. Johnson? He was a beast.

Just playing devil's advocate -- You could make the argument that in terms of combining performance and longevity, Clemens is the best. Maddux has about as many innings, but an era+ about 10 points lower, and many fewer strikeouts (if that matters). Johnson's era+ is lower, and he's thrown 1000 fewer innings. Martinez has the highest era+ in history, much higher than Clemens', but many, many fewer innings. So you can make an argument. Of course, now we have a better idea where the longevity came from...

 

My vote would go to Martinez, fwiw.

[hitlesswonder]

Isn't Cowley the same moron that hates Garland for being Californian and refuses to vote for MVPs from Toronto because he hates Canada?

Yes, he is that moron.

[Gregory Pratt]

Just playing devil's advocate -- You could make the argument that in terms of combining performance and longevity, Clemens is the best. Maddux has about as many innings, but an era+ about 10 points lower, and many fewer strikeouts (if that matters). Johnson's era+ is lower, and he's thrown 1000 fewer innings. Martinez has the highest era+ in history, much higher than Clemens', but many, many fewer innings. So you can make an argument. Of course, now we have a better idea where the longevity came from...

 

My vote would go to Martinez, fwiw.

 

I certainly understand that, and those are valid points from a 'devil's advocate' perspective and a 'real' perspective. I do a little sidework as an amateur baseball historian so I understand. I have a little trouble saying that Pedro's "career" is greater than Clemens' because of the sheer amount of innings separating them; same with Maddux and Martinez, or Johnson and Martinez. But I have absolutely no doubt that Pedro is better, at his peak, than any of those and he has certainly had a long enough career, to this point, for us to understand that he is more than a fluke: he is simply phenomenal.

 

There are a variety of things that I cite when giving presentations on Pedro Martinez as The Greatest Pitcher Who Ever Lived -- or, if not that, then The Best There Was. His shattering of Walter Johnson's single-season WHIP record is one. His domination during the era he pitched in. His penchant for 10K games, having the longest consecutive streak in history. His outstanding K/BB ratio. His numerous plus-plus-plus-plus-plus pitches. The fact that he has no physical advantage over hitters: he is tiny, with a smaller mound than those of the past. And yet he is the shortest man (I think the only one under 6 feet) to have a 300K season or 3000 Ks. Besides RJ and Nolan Ryan, nobody else has as many innings as he and strikes out over one per inning. (Unless I recall incorrectly; I don't have my presentation on me.)

 

As for Maddux/Clemens, I think Maddux had a greater prime and a greater career. I think he was a better overall player, what with his Gold Gloves. He's better at winning games consistently. He isn't flashy with Ks but he simply gets the job done. Some people penalize him for pitching in the NL. I don't do that with great pitchers and I try not to do it all that much with modern pitchers, either. And Johnson? Johnson was raw power with much less longevity, so I'd have some trouble ranking his "career" above Clemens' even though I think he was better.

 

I just don't really understand where the Clemens love comes from. Dude was good, but I think all three of these guys had greater peaks and they're in his time! I am sure that Martinez/Maddux had much greater peaks.

 

This is all in reference to him being the "greatest of his generation"; I do think he belongs in the Hall but that is for an article I am working on.

[jackie hayes]

I just care a lot more about the "peaks" than the innings, especially when it comes to pitchers. Koufax is considered a great pitcher, even though his entire reputation rests on only 5 or 6 years, those coming after a number of mediocre seasons. It's more fun watching that than seeing Blyleven churn through yet another solid season. (I'd use a Sox example, if there was one.)

 

I'll even almost be sad if we never see the same Liriano again, if they change his delivery to trade off effectiveness for durability. Almost.

[Texsox]

Well at the fourth or fifth best pitcher of his era, that is usually good enough to get in. Or they would only be voting in a pitcher every four or five years.

[Brian]

Than Pete Rose should be voted in for everything he did BEFORE gambling. Joe Jackson should be in based on what he did before the World Series.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

Clemens is a hall of famer, so is Bonds.

[Steve9347]

although some argue that he doctors the ball, but I couldn't care less about that as I don't believe in throwing a fit over Gaylord Perry or anyone else

So you condone one type of cheating and not another? That's wrong on every count...

[Linnwood]

Than Pete Rose should be voted in for everything he did BEFORE gambling. Joe Jackson should be in based on what he did before the World Series.

 

 

I have to agree... if Bonds and Clemes get voted in, people need to raise holy hell about Rose and Jackson not being admitted.

[GoodAsGould]

So you condone one type of cheating and not another? That's wrong on every count...

 

I guess cheating has a double standard in baseball. All the way back to the begining, pitchers have done stuff to have an advantage and its always been acceptable. To me, when you stick a needle in you, that kind of draws the line.

[Gregory Pratt]

So you condone one type of cheating and not another? That's wrong on every count...

 

I have no problem allowing Gaylord Perry into the Hall of Fame if Major League Baseball never saw fit to suspend or exile him for cheating permanently. The League allowed him to do what he did; he went on to win 300. Let him in. Same with Bonds/Clemens/Every other Juicer: the League allowed them to "cheat". What they did isn't as impressive to me as what Hank Aaron/Babe Ruth did. It isn't as impressive as Warren Spahn, Pete Alexander, Warren Johnson -- but it's still a part of baseball that I don't believe should be ignored just because people disapprove of steroids. Well, so do I, but baseball allowed it to go on and it is very much an important part of baseball history.

 

I'd put Rose in. I'd probably put in Jackson. More on that later.

[jackie hayes]

I guess cheating has a double standard in baseball. All the way back to the begining, pitchers have done stuff to have an advantage and its always been acceptable. To me, when you stick a needle in you, that kind of draws the line.

Well, back at the beginning there was no rule against most of that.

 

Doctoring the ball was only made illegal in 1920.

[iamshack]

I actually think what Cowley wrote had quite a bit of merit.

 

And I agree with GP about the Gaylord Perry/PED comparison. Baseball allowed it. Those players achieved those benchmarks.

 

Many of the players and accomplishments that are Hall-worthy are tainted. Why start making a distinction now?

[RockRaines]

I agree on Pedro and Maddux, but there is definately a thought in my mind that Randy Johnson may have had some pharmaceutical help. Not a single one of those guys has been cleared of using PED, and with Pedro, even if he did , its lost in the whispers of his native country.

[Gene Honda Civic]

I actually think what Cowley wrote had quite a bit of merit.

I'm no baseball historian, but I'm pretty sure they haven't elected any murderers to the hall, which is exactly what he said.

[Gregory Pratt]

I'm no baseball historian, but I'm pretty sure they haven't elected any murderers to the hall, which is exactly what he said.

 

1. No, it is not "exactly what he said". Exactly what he said: "murder suspects"

2. Ty Cobb is whispered to have killed someone. My guess is that that was what Cowley was alluding to. (The story is disputed; Cobb is said to have claimed to have killed someone in Detroit but no body matching his story was ever found.)

3. I can't believe I'm somewhat-semi-sorta defendin Joe Cowley.

4. I am guessing there's another murder allegation in the Hall somewhere, but I'm yet to find it and so that is all I can comment on.

[SoxFanInDallas]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3155168

 

For what it is worth this other article on ESPN says they polled 90 HOF voters and got this:

 

YES 32 (35.5%)

NO 22 (24.4%)

UNDECIDED 36 (40%)

 

 

I posted this in another thread:

 

The first mention of 'banning steroids' started in 2003 when after years of turning an eye on what was happening in baseball (by Selig, Owners, players, and even the media). So, much of what is being reported took place PRIOR to when the league was basically forced to not look the other way anymore. So, why are the fans and now the voting HOF writers so high and mighty about keeping out players who 'cheated'. For a long period of time, EVERYONE was playing "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" when it came to steroids, greenies, etc. So, why should players during that time be punished? The GM's didn't care (See Brian Sabian in SF). There are numerous stories about how the media that is 'close' to a team will keep certain dirty little secrets so that they can get all their other stories.

 

I truly find all this so hypocritacal. There was an era of steroid use. There has been an even longer era of greenie usage. Don't greenies provide an advantage? Both are illegal if prescriptions are not obtained. So, are we going to go back to the 50-60's and start investigating everyone that took a greenie?

 

My vote would be to vote these players based on their stats, not whether they took steroids or greenies unless it is proven they took them from the time these were banned and testing was begun.

[Gregory Pratt]

All right, so a bit of research shows a few things:

 

1. John Clarkson may have killed his wife. He was eventually committed to an insane asylum. From his HOF page:

 

Though he played just 12 major league seasons, John Clarkson was a standout among 19th century pitchers. His wide variety of curve balls and his outstanding ability to pitch to the batter's weakness propelled him to a lofty 327-177 career record. He won 53 games in leading the Chicago White Stockings to the 1885 National League pennant and twice hurled over 600 innings in a season. At the time Clarkson retired from the game, he was the winningest pitcher in National League history.

 

It has been alleged that he slashed his wife to death. I can't "confirm" it through a book or official news article but I have seen it in two places and besides: the word is "suspects" not "convicts". I HAVE read in two places or more that Cobb did NOT kill the man he claimed, although he claimed it, and I've read one place that Clarkson did NOT kill his wife. At this moment, I can't verify anything, though.

 

2. Cobb, as has previously been noted. (Cobb doesn't need any introduction as a player.)

 

Here's a great piece on whether or not Cobb killed anyone: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=2...amp;postcount=2 (The consensus is No.)

 

That is still two players in the Hall with murder's suspicion on them. I just found it interesting when Cowley made the claim as it is true enough. I was introduced through my search to the sad story of Marty Bergen: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=2...mp;postcount=74

 

He was what might've been a great catcher who went nuts and killed his family. Dave Brown, Negro League pitcher, killed someone and ended his career prematurely in the 20s.

 

There's so much history in this game.

 

Oh, and I found rumors that Rube Foster might've run someone over on accident.

Edited December 18, 2007 by Gregory Pratt