Roger Clemens - Where does he rank?

[isiahfan]

Didn't realize that Maddux was slightly ahead in IP...wouldn't have guessed that. I think it is right on the rankings...or close to it. Obviously hard to compare against vastly different eras...where guys pitched double headers and usually complete games. I don't think there is anyone I would take over him other than WaJo though.

[bnorth]

He is #1 and it really isn't all that close.

As for the cheating. They all cheated in any way they could, some got caught, some didn't, and then there are those that cheated that get a free pass.

[Rad_Hazard]

I go back and forth on 1 and 2. WaJo is probably the pick for 1, but damn if Cy isn't extremely convincing. Those numbers are incredible and he dominated 2 different eras.

As for Clemens I do think 3 is the right spot after some more thought. Steroids or no, Clemens and Bonds did things that us mere mortals couldn't dream of.

[bnorth]

Since every thread need pics here is my by far favorite possession. I bought this wrong back pair directly from Score back in the day. To keep and own I wouldn't trade them for any other card(s) in the hobby.

[drcy]

His career got a "second wind" due to PEDs.

Also, people don't appreciate lying about what is obviously true.

[Smarti5051]

There is one thing I don't understand about the logic in ranking players with the steroids asterisk. If I try to compare a player like Cap Anson against a player like Mike Trout, there are all sorts of responses of how you can't compare eras, because the fields were different, competition was different, training was different, etc. So, it could be argued that a player that was the best of his generation is the GOAT because you can only really compare him in the context of the era in which he played.

But, in the steroids era, any player connected to steroids is automatically disqualified in the eyes of most folks that debate whether a player is in the running for GOAT at a position. But, it ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of players the steroid guy was competing against were on a level playing field, because they were all also taking steroids. In the case of Roger Clemens, he has no positive test or physical evidence that he took steroids, but let's take it as gospel he was a regular steroids user. When he was on the mound and throwing to the greats of his day, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco etc., he was playing against competition the likes of which never existed in every other era of baseball - do, in large part, to the fact these players and most of their teammates were also on steroids.

When we talk about home run records today and the Judge v Maris (or Ruth in 154 games) comparison, we gloss over the guys above them on the list (there are 6 seasons better than Maris' 61 - all of them during the stretch in which Clemens was a dominant pitcher), because the steroid era HR's don't count. But, to every pitcher during that era, those earned runs had the same impact on their stats as they did before and after the steroid era. Are steroids really an unfair advantage when all of the best hitters you are facing have the exact same advantage? If it was determined that every race Usain Bolt ran in the Olympics was on a 45 degree decline, would he be any less dominant relative to his competition during his reign?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

There is one thing I don't understand about the logic in ranking players with the steroids asterisk. If I try to compare a player like Cap Anson against a player like Mike Trout, there are all sorts of responses of how you can't compare eras, because the fields were different, competition was different, training was different, etc. So, it could be argued that a player that was the best of his generation is the GOAT because you can only really compare him in the context of the era in which he played.

But, in the steroids era, any player connected to steroids is automatically disqualified in the eyes of most folks that debate whether a player is in the running for GOAT at a position. But, it ignores the fact that the overwhelming majority of players the steroid guy was competing against were on a level playing field, because they were all also taking steroids. In the case of Roger Clemens, he has no positive test or physical evidence that he took steroids, but let's take it as gospel he was a regular steroids user. When he was on the mound and throwing to the greats of his day, Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco etc., he was playing against competition the likes of which never existed in every other era of baseball - do, in large part, to the fact these players and most of their teammates were also on steroids.

When we talk about home run records today and the Judge v Maris (or Ruth in 154 games) comparison, we gloss over the guys above them on the list (there are 6 seasons better than Maris' 61 - all of them during the stretch in which Clemens was a dominant pitcher), because the steroid era HR's don't count. But, to every pitcher during that era, those earned runs had the same impact on their stats as they did before and after the steroid era. Are steroids really an unfair advantage when all of the best hitters you are facing have the exact same advantage? If it was determined that every race Usain Bolt ran in the Olympics was on a 45 degree decline, would he be any less dominant relative to his competition during his reign?

The huge difference is that, while things change over time, those changes are generally honest and a result of natural change and progress. Every era has had players stretching it, usually on a ‘boys will be boys’ type of momentary basis, trying to get away with an illegal pitch, stealing signs, etc. I can think of no other point where so many of the top players broke the rules and cheated every single pitch and plate appearance in way that allowed rewriting the record book ( or anything even remotely close). I do not agree with some of the anti-steroid extremes, like ignoring their accomplishments completely, but it is also not at all the same thing as the game changing between Cap Anson being the best and Mike Trout being the best. Anson’s stat line is honest in accord with the rules of his times, as is Trout’s. Clemens stat line is not honest, it is nowhere near honest and in direct violation of the rules.

If Clemens was on trial for drug possession charges and I was on the jury, I might not vote to convict. But I think it is hard to argue that it is more reasonable to behave as if he was innocent than as if he was guilty. The evidence and testimony he used is compelling, if not absolute. The other great pitchers of his time don’t have such evidence and appear to have done it honestly.

I have a hard time seeing that the best answer is to write off and ignore steroid use. It’s unfair to those who didn’t cheat for almost half their career, like Maddux.

Disclaimer: I loved Clemens as a kid and thought he was the greatest of his time. Still do.

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by G1911

I have a hard time seeing that the best answer is to write off and ignore steroid use. It’s unfair to those who didn’t cheat for almost half their career, like Maddux.

I always love when people cite Maddux or Jeter as players that did it "right" and never used steroids. How does any know this to be true? For all anyone knows, Maddux used steroids through the minor leagues and majors, but just didn't bulk up like Bonds. Maddux and others were not tested during their careers, and the only difference between Clemens being guilty of steroids and Maddux being clean is: (1) Maddux did not have a random trainer accuse him of using steroids - and profiting from the accusations; and (2) Clemens had a late career surge that fits well into a steroid narrative.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Since every thread need pics here is my by far favorite possession. I bought this wrong back pair directly from Score back in the day. To keep and own I wouldn't trade them for any other card(s) in the hobby.

My god those are cool! I love that set too, great design.

[gonefishin]

If Rose was banned for life - what is fair for Clemens and those other players that used?

Bonds, Clemens, etc., will never be elected to the Hall of Fame in their lifetime. I feel sorry for Clemens son, not for Clemens.

As society becomes more and more "progressive", I'm sure at some point all the drug users that cheated will be selected to the Hall of Fame and statues will be erected at the parks in which they played. Maybe the statues of Marichal, Perry, Mays and McCovey will be replaced with 4 statues of Bonds. They can begin with him as a rookie through his metamorphosis into a bobblehead. For Clemens maybe the statue could be of him in civilian clothes testifying before Congress and be placed either outside Fenway Park next to the one of Ted Williams or ............

My answer to the question asked in the thread - he doesn't.