Now that all the lying is done...do you think clemens makes the hall?
 

Curious what other members think.....

In the 'jury' of the BBWAA, I believe he will NOT make it, at least not for a while...he'll be ,umped in with Palmeiro, Bonds, et al.

No...not anytime soon. Almost everyone believes he used steroids...anyone associated with that deal is going to wait a long time before enshrinement.

Not in the near future

Joe Jackson was acquitted, too.

Clemens and Bonds will get a higher percentage of votes than McGwire, due to their incredible statistics. But none of the steroid era players will ever achieve the necessary 75% to be inducted. Perhaps sometime down the road, some specially formed committee will vote them in. But they will never make it in through the front door.

Not a chance. His attitude seems to make it worse. If fading away hasn't helped perception on some players, being in the limelight I think would make it even worse and make it less forgiving to the BBWA.

Gets in his first year of eligibility (2013?)

I watched one of the judges (voters) commenting on TV yesterday. He said he will never vote for him and he believes his sentiments echo most of the people voting. I think he said he didn't see it happening in the next 30 yrs.

Clemens
 

If he gets in at all I think it will be pretty far down the road. Hopefully, and this coming from a lifelong Bosox fan, he never gets in. Rather see a guy like Louie Tiant in ANY DAY over that self serving blowhard !

I think it all depends on attitude and don't think it can't change. There will likely come a time where voters will have to say,"If we wish to reflect the history of our national game, we must include someone besides Ken Griffey, Jr and Craig Biggio in that two decade span." May or may not happen, but outrage fades.

I don't think Clemens will get in. I DO think Pettitte will get in eventually.

I think the guys who admitted to usage may get in...I think Pete Rose would get in if the commissioner would reinstate him simply because he finally admitted to betting on baseball. All that anyone wanted was a confession, and I think that's the case with the steroid crowd too.

Yes, but he was banned from baseball, and ineligible.

I think Dan has it right. Andy is a stand up guy. He admitted what he did and the public forgave him. He never passed the blame onto someone other than himself.

Not to mention only one 500 season in a 17 year career, no losing seasons, winning 100 more games than he lost and his incredible post season numbers.

I think Clemens and Bonds (and we might as well lump Arod with these guys) were so far superior to the players of their era and, whether they did steroids or not, that they deserve to get in. I agree that either will be hard pressed to make it on the first ballot, but I think they will get in. Palmeiro was not a dominant player of his era, just an accumulator of stats IMO. I would not have been a fan of his getting in with or without steroids. McGwire was a one dimensional player and I am not that upset that he is not in. Clemens and Bonds are different.
BTW, Griffey is a first ballot HOFer and IMO Biggio is not a HOFer, regardless of his hit total, but he will probably get in. Ozzie Smith was no HOFer either (just thrown in since I think that his getting in was the biggest joke since Tommy McCarthy getting in).

Honestly I don't even care. First I will say he was proven innocent in a court of law so I have to accept that. I do however think he is clearly guilty, it is impossible to fabricate dna evidence and while the chain of custody is in question I don't see any plausible way his dna could get on that needle other than receiving a shot. Given that he should not make the hall of fame in my opinion and think many sportswriters will feel similarly. What irks me is that the gov't brings a case they know they can't win and now because he is found not guilty in a court of law it lends creditability to him. Ridiculous. Who even cares anymore its a sham. Just my opinion though of course.

I sincerly hope not. No juiceheads she be in. No Bonds, Giambi, Canseco, or any juice heads. Let in Pete Rose or Joe Jackson instead!

I don't think numbers or talent has anything to do with the steroids guys not getting in. I think it all boils down to admitting what you did. Even A-rod sort of admitted using. Bonds and Clemens will never admit what they did, so they should never get into the HOF.

like bonds, 2nd year of eligibility. they were far superior than the other "steroid guys" and shouldn't be lumped.

Somewhere Down the Road
 

I think Jay is right - players like Bonds and Clemens were extraordinary talents and should eventually get in. The voters will just torture them before it happens.

I'm a Yankee fan, but I disagree that Andy Pettite should be a HOFer. There are other pitchers I'd rather see get in. I even think one of Pettite's contemporaries - Mike Mussina - is more deserving that he is.

Not to fully defend Ozzie Smith's induction, rather defend it being the biggest joke since Tommy McCarthy, Luis Aparicio was very similar to Ozzie and he is in.

So there were other players between McCarthy and O.Smith to make the statement "...since Tommy McCarthy" false.

I think Mussina and Pettitte are both HOFers. I think Mussina's career numbers are better but I think Pettitte is the superior pitcher. Andy is the guy you want on the mound with the game on the line. I don't think the same can be said for Mussina.

I don't see Clemens getting in the Hall for quite a while. If McGwire and Palmiero can only get 20% of the votes, I don't see the writers making an exception for Clemens (or Bonds), both who probably would have made the Hall prior to the scandal.

I don't see Mussina getting in....good pitcher for a short amount of time...

Really? Mussina has almost 120 more wins than losses over an 18 year career played at the height of the steroid era in the toughest division in baseball. That sounds good enough to me.

yeah, only 17 years

My vote is for Glenn Burke. He had guts.


Certainly not this selfish doosh
http://sportsbycolin.com/wp-content/...2012/06/RC.jpg

If your against worthy roid users entering the hall and state one player should get in over the next because they were far superior than the other guy when they all did em', that's just wrong. You either keep them all out because of that or put them all in if warranted. Picking and choosing from this group is a slippery slope imo which many seem to do.

Boston fans twice counted out Clemens prematurely. First, after the 1996 season, when the team failed to sign him and Dan Duquette famously said that he was in the "twighlight of his career." Second, after the 1999 Fenway playoff game with the Yankees, when Clemens got shelled early and lost to Pedro. The press was giddy after that one, and with a 36 year old Clemens coming off a mediocre season, who could blame them? Of course he went on to win two more Cy Young awards.

Pettite's misremembering during his testimony at the trial was a large part in Clemens being acquitted. He lied on the stand, he's not stand-up guy.

Nah, it was just a skillful cross-examination.

Pettite
 

Jeff's exactly right about this flake....screw him

Duquette may have been right - had Clemens not turned to steroids (which many believe started right around the time of leaving the Red Sox), it could have been the end of his career.

He had been right around .500 in the previous 3-4 years with Boston (something like 40-39 rings a bell), so to go from that to back-to-back Cy Youngs in your late 30s, sounds like there could have been some strong motivation. Or medical help.

Scott, recall that in the second half of 1996 he was pretty damn good, including a 20 strikeout game. I think it was more motivation than help.

Some of Nolan Ryan's best years were late in his career (in his fourties). Was he on steroids too?

He should get in. People that never have played the game should not be allowed to vote. HOF voting should only be done by former players held in high regard.

Clemens, who was legendary for his workouts, won 61 games after age 40. That seems like a lot till you realize that Randy Johnson won 73, Warren Spahn and Cy Young won 75, Jamie Moyer won 105 and Phil Niekro, an obvious juicer, won 121.

Except it was on direct too :)

the real question here is why our "broke" federal government is spending money on these witch hunts.

Because making sure that professional athletes who make millions a year are clean is an absolute priority for our congress (little c intended). Otherwise, they might actually have to deal with issues that are important and no one wants that.

All distractions to keep the war machine rolling..........

How true.

It's estimated that this trial cost the taxpayers roughly $2M. Pettite should pick up the tab, because he waffled on his prior testimony and the prosecution was counting on Pettite. It's rather doubtful if the Feds would have pursued Clemens otherwise.

I lost all respect I had for Mr. Petitte.
He either lied before or now, either is unacceptable.
As for Roger, he's lost in the court of public opinion at any rate.

I have seen/met Roger Clemens many times around town. I have actually spent time in the home of Andy Pettitte and had a nice conversation with him. Met his wife and kids as well. I don't care if he lied or not. Makes no difference to me. Lying doesn't mean that he's not a stand up guy. Who here has never told a lie? Come on, speak up (or shut up!!!)!

You guys are entitled to your opinions about Andy, but how would you react if the cops told you it was up to you to put your friend in jail? You might give your friend an out too. I know I would if I knew it was me who would be sending him to prison. I love my friends. Even if I don't like them.

David,
The answer to your question is no one.
But if the question is who has never under oath, you might get a different answer.

Jeff, is lying under oath any more morally wrong than lying not under oath? I was always taught that a lie is a lie. Maybe I was taught wrong.

As "Packs" pointed out, many of us would probably do the same thing if we were in Pettitte's shoes to save a friend, a relative, our job, etc (as long as it didn't mean getting someone else in trouble).

David,
What does it matter, you said it makes no difference to you whether he did or not. I said that I believed the answers to the two different questions would be different. The consequences of one are much more dire (in most instances) than the other and have the desired effect on most people's behavior I believe.

I pointed that out bc your inference was that if he lied, he just did what we all do or have done. I pointed out that all have lied but (I believe) most have not under oath and would not.

As to the original question, I believe that Roger Dodger will get in the HOF and so will Petitte for that matter.

Jeff

I disagree. I think most would lie under oath if it meant saving their own butt or someone else's (as long as the lie didn't hurt anybody else). Just look at Bill Clinton. He held the highest office in the country and lied under oath. Case closed!