Roger Clemens - Where does he rank?

[Rad_Hazard]

I was asking myself this question earlier and couldn't quite come up with the answer. I looked up all time pitching WAR to get an idea and he's 3rd. And based on the top 10 I think that's right, but I'm not sure. This is only WAR and there are other stats and factors to quantify pitching, but this is a start to the conversation.

Where do you think Clemens ranks all-time?

Where would you rank him if he put up the same numbers and was clean?

[darwinbulldog]

I have WaJo ahead of Cy, but I think Clemens at #3 is correct.

[Peter_Spaeth]

2 or 3 On his achievements. But, but, but…

[mrreality68]

He deserves to be up there depending on how you judge him and the steroid allegations.

The HOF voters have spoken and made their opinion known.

It is a shame he was amazing in his time

[clydepepper]

#1 cheatingest pitcher.


and a d*ck.


.

[G1911]

If he was clean, 1-4 range.

But he wasn’t clean. If his career ends after 1995 before he goes to Toronto and apparently starts using, reigniting and turning his career around, he has an astounding 144 ERA+, but only 2,700 innings and a 192-111 record. He chalked up another 2,100 innings at essentially the same performance level while using.

Steroids aren’t magic, they won’t make any pitcher able to do what Clemens did. He probably doesn’t deserve to have his entire second half wiped out completely. He probably doesn’t deserve full credit either, the steroids shouldn’t be dismissed entirely. I don’t know how to account for a middle ground here on any reasonable basis that isn’t completely arbitrary. I would probably put him 10-20th, on that arbitrary balance.

[butchie_t]

Once he juiced, he gets no consideration for anything.

And that goes for all the juicers. Any 'records' set in a juiced condition are tainted and simply do not count. I can get behind these changes to MLB if they had the balls to implement and enforce them.

Butch

[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.

[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.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

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.

I agree with the rules of logic and, secondarily, the precept that one is innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary. One can not prove a negative, it is of course impossible to prove that somebody has never done an action during his life.

It was not a "random trainer", it was his personal trainer. As I recall there was also shipping records to his house. The feds even had his DNA on a needle with anabolic steroid still on it as well (https://www.forbes.com/sites/christi...h=de3e9657baa2).

Is your contention that steroids don't matter or that Clemens has been framed? Or both?

[rats60]

There are 84 pitchers in the Hall of Fame, so probably around 90th.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't recall now was there evidence he juiced other than what was presented to the federal grand jury that found him not guilty of lying to Congress?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

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.

In a nutshell the problem with the whole PED era and the judgments people make. Randy Johnson won nearly all his games after 30, as an aside. Phil Niekro. Spahn.

[gonefishin]

Heck, maybe Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, Camaniti, Gonzalez, Piazza, McGwire, Sosa, Pudge, Sheffield, Manny, Palmeiro, ARod, and let's not forget Jose Conseco, etc. etc. can all (or their NOK) get reparations from MLB at some point in time because of the damage to their image and earning potential that was damaged for their alleged use of steroids. Isn't that what it's all about - money? Wasn't that how it all started - making money by selling a book "Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big"?

Is it about recognition by honorably performing at a sustained high level over a career - or - about making money after baseball by marketing your notoriety as a player?

Who knows. I don't have a vote. I do have an opinion. My opinion really has no impact on any player, former or current. My opinion is, if they used an illegal substance to enhance their play, they have no place in the Hall of Fame. Only the player knows for certain. The rest of us can only come to a personal decision based upon what information we obtain.

In 2012 Roger Clemens was found "not guilty" at his second trial for six felony counts of perjury, false statements, and lying to Congress (the first trial was declared a mistrial). So, he is not guilty of those federal offenses.

His achievements are amazing, no doubt about that. Sometimes, just sometimes, it's about a little more than an individual's performance on the field.

[profholt82]

How can anyone rate a cheater like him among the all-time greats of the game?

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by profholt82

How can anyone rate a cheater like him among the all-time greats of the game?

So, if one player "cheats" he is disqualified from consideration as a GOAT? OK, if that is the framework for discussion, then Babe Ruth also cannot be considered, right? He was caught using a corked bat in 1923 (and presumably used one more than once). Willie Mays frequently used amphetamines. Foreign substances on balls used by several pitchers have been an accepted cat-and-mouse game for decades with little stigma attached to pitchers that used them.

It sure feels like we are drawing some pretty wavy lines on what is acceptable and unacceptable "cheating" for players on field conduct. I can't help but also notice those lines are heavily influenced by how the media feels those players treated them. Bonds and Clemens were not fun interviews and surly, so the media decided to make steroids the line that cannot be crossed. And, many players not friendly to the media were heavily vetted for a connection to steroids for #cancelling.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Something tells me if David Ortiz had been a surly bastard, we'd be looking at a very different outcome. And how sure are we Bagwell and Piazza didn't use? I-rod?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Something tells me if David Ortiz had been a surly bastard, we'd be looking at a very different outcome. And how sure are we Bagwell and Piazza didn't use? I-rod?

Yes. I’m fine with punishing them for breaking the rule or forgiving it and letting them in, but this current state where Ortiz is forgiven and his use memory holed while Clemens is cancelled and Bonds got straight blackballed out of baseball is absurd.

[steve B]

This whole thread is a bit surprising, mostly because I haven't really considered Clemens to be anywhere near the top 5.

I saw him pitch, and saw Pedro pitch, and Pedro was better. Randy Johnson I didn't see pitch but also thought was better.
And old guy Nolan Ryan - who had figured out pitching over just throwing 100... and seemed to pretty regularly pitch a no hitter.

Probably a few others, but not consistently.
Maddux and Glavine - Good reliable guys with good control on teams that were both good and knew how to win. But removed from the Braves? Not so sure. At least you knew they wouldn't beat themselves with walks and lots of bad pitches.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes. I’m fine with punishing them for breaking the rule or forgiving it and letting them in, but this current state where Ortiz is forgiven and his use memory holed while Clemens is cancelled and Bonds got straight blackballed out of baseball is absurd.

I agree with this 100%.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Something tells me if David Ortiz had been a surly bastard, we'd be looking at a very different outcome. And how sure are we Bagwell and Piazza didn't use? I-rod?

I want to say I heard something about Bagwell, maybe?

Piazza and I-Rod? That's the first I'm hearing of these accusations and I don't buy them for a minute.

I listened to Piazza's book and he is open about how much privilege he grew up with resulting in him having a batting cage at his house for god sake. He was destined to be a great hitter. He would max out the most difficult grip trainers and just do that all day, his wrists and grip were insane.

[Seven]

Pound for pound I think he was one of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. Few can argue the dominance of his early years with the Red Sox, and then later on with the Blue Jays. He wasn't too shabby for the Yankees and Astros either. His Longevity was very impressive.

PED's are practically a nonfactor in my book. Too Many players have taken them, and few have achieved the greatness of someone like Bonds or Clemens. I also think you can't draw a line in the sand, and say "well some cheating is ok, others aren't"

Are we going to ignore the bowls of Greenies in the clubhouses? Aaron, Mays and Mantle all admitted to trying it at least once. In many peoples opinions, even once should disqualify someones chances. Babe Ruth took sheep testosterone, is that alright? Or what about Koufax abusing painkillers to pitch his last few seasons? Is that okay?

The knock against taking PED's is that it's wrong, and reflects poorly on a persons character. But if you bring up a players character, we enter the territory where there was a smattering of players who were racists, wife beaters, degenerate gamblers, etc. Clemens was a great pitcher, one of the best I've ever seen.

[drcy]

If there's nothing wrong or cheating about it, then why doe Clemens (and others) deny it?

Obviously, Clemens (and others) disagree with you, or they'd say "Yes, I took PEDs. So what?"

Originally Posted by Seven

Pound for pound I think he was one of the greatest pitchers the game has ever seen. Few can argue the dominance of his early years with the Red Sox, and then later on with the Blue Jays. He wasn't too shabby for the Yankees and Astros either. His Longevity was very impressive.

PED's are practically a nonfactor in my book. Too Many players have taken them, and few have achieved the greatness of someone like Bonds or Clemens. I also think you can't draw a line in the sand, and say "well some cheating is ok, others aren't"

Are we going to ignore the bowls of Greenies in the clubhouses? Aaron, Mays and Mantle all admitted to trying it at least once. In many peoples opinions, even once should disqualify someones chances. Babe Ruth took sheep testosterone, is that alright? Or what about Koufax abusing painkillers to pitch his last few seasons? Is that okay?

The knock against taking PED's is that it's wrong, and reflects poorly on a persons character. But if you bring up a players character, we enter the territory where there was a smattering of players who were racists, wife beaters, degenerate gamblers, etc. Clemens was a great pitcher, one of the best I've ever seen.

[G1911]

I don’t think the knock on PED’s is that they reflect poorly on character. It’s that they give a huge performance advantage and allowed a generation to put up video game statistics, unlike greenies, energy drinks or Babe Ruth’s hot dogs.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

I want to say I heard something about Bagwell, maybe?

Piazza and I-Rod? That's the first I'm hearing of these accusations and I don't buy them for a minute.

I listened to Piazza's book and he is open about how much privilege he grew up with resulting in him having a batting cage at his house for god sake. He was destined to be a great hitter. He would max out the most difficult grip trainers and just do that all day, his wrists and grip were insane.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/s...-steroids.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/s...-steroids.html

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/s...-steroids.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/s...-steroids.html

Interesting, I don't remember ever hearing that about either person.

So for Pudge all we have are Canseco accusations, and for Piazza we just have straight up suspicion with no evidence nor a flimsy story?

I truly don't think Piazza ever juiced. He was always big and worked very hard.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Interesting, I don't remember ever hearing that about either person.

So for Pudge all we have are Canseco accusations, and for Piazza we just have straight up suspicion with no evidence nor a flimsy story?

I truly don't think Piazza ever juiced. He was always big and worked very hard.

Who knows, agree it has not been proven. But there was lots of talk about both.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who knows, agree it has not been proven. But there was lots of talk about both.

True, I guess I never realized so thanks for pointing it out.

With Ortiz he was listed in a report and was straight up busted so it's a bit odd how he gets preferential treatment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

True, I guess I never realized so thanks for pointing it out.

With Ortiz he was listed in a report and was straight up busted so it's a bit odd how he gets preferential treatment.

He was beloved. That's why.

[gonefishin]

I must have got Baseball's Hall of Fame mixed up with the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame. There it doesn't matter even if you were/are so drugged up that you died/die of an overdose; Hendrix, Joplin, Morrison, heck even Tom Petty. I loved their music! It doesn't matter to me that they are elected to the RnR Hall of Fame. I guess one could correlate the 2 HoF's; i.e., Play in stadium's, charge admittance to see them play, appeal to young people, performances broadcast on TV and radio, etc. etc. etc.

There is one MAJOR difference: MLB bans the use of illegal drugs! What is it people don't understand about that. Why don't we ask Tatis Jr. how he's doing right now?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by gonefishin

MLB bans the use of illegal drugs! What is it people don't understand about that.

I don't think anyone debates this or thinks otherwise.

[steve B]

One thing that's interesting is how differently fans of sports think of those caught.

Most US sports, it's almost a career ender. And many fans are unforgiving and/or can't appreciate what a player did before doping.

In many other sports, especially European ones, it's treated much differently. Player dopes, gets a year ban which can be appealed. If the reason is plausible and the athlete contrite, they may get it reduced. Even if it's not reduced, they take their year ban and are welcomed back afterwards.
Sort of an "aw shucks, you caught me, I'll take a year off"
They may not come back to the same team, or in the same prominent role immediately, but they do come back with few problems.

Totally different if the reason is wildly implausible. So steroids from meat sent by fans is forgivable, but excess body chemicals from a hidden conjoined twin that was never brought up until getting caught and that they present no evidence for is very much not OK. (Yeah, some crazy excuses. )
The UCI at a minimum tracks riders in the offseason, location who they're with, must report for random testing within a few hours. They publish a list with the riders categorized by how suspect they are. That categorization determines how often someone gets tested.
And still... One of my favorites was always listed on the squeaky clean not at all suspect list while regularly beating the highly suspect by large margins.
Mid career he was accused of being an early user of hidden electric motors, but the available ones at the time were too noisy and no evidence was found.

[smokinjoe]

The whole PED thing is actually irrelevant. It makes great fodder for folks to argue and debate about but at the end of the day every era had its own share of players trying to "game it" whether through PEDS, greenies, coke, ball doctoring, bat loading or corking.. you name it they did it. And in every era it was never brougfht up until MLB decided that the bad press was bad for the establishment. MLB has never made decisions based on good of the game, only good for MLB. At the end of the day players just built better mousetraps....

While Clemens, Bonds and many others may or may not have egaged in the use of steroids (never tested, so never tested positive) their accomplishments can not be just deleted from history as society wants to do with everything else tahat is feels is controversial.

The same media that is bashing some players and not others with either reasonable suspision or actual failed tests and bans are the same ones who with the same reasonable suspisions were hailing the players as saviors of the sport during their playing years.


As for Clemens himself, he is statistics clearly show that he was one of the top 5-6 pitchers in baseball history. Many dominant years and longevity (regardless whether PEDS helped)

[ClementeFanOh]

Smokinjoe- I'm preparing to head to the Midwest Monster card show in
Indy, so I thought I'd check net54 to see if there were threads about it.
Couldn't find any mention, so I read your comment on PEDs/Clemens and
will weigh in.

My first thought is that I recall Bonds/Clemens being wonderful players pre
rampant cheating. I was a "fan" of neither, but man they could play. So, I
don't have a 'fan" based dog in this fight. That being said, your remarks left
me scratching my head a bit...

1) PEDs are indeed relevant, their proliferation changed the way observers
perceived the game while clearly influencing statistical/performance results
of those who abused. By the way, there is no "may or may not" in regard to
PED use by these 2 players specifically- they did it, period.

2) Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "canceler". I recall their play well.
This thread calls for opinion (which is judgment) on where Clemens ranks
on a scale. His "ranking" suffers due to PED abuse. (That's not just me,
but a bunch of folks). Someone mentioned that there are 84 pitchers in
HOF, thus putting him somewhere around 85-90. Sounds about right.

3) I would argue that these PED guys (specifically) hardly built better
mousetraps. Their abuse became obvious and permanently intertwined
with their achievements, it was not "clever".

4) Don't feel too bad for these 2! The Google machine reveals Clemens
was paid between 150-170 million in his career, absent endorsements.
Bonds was slightly higher at 188 million. They are laughing all the way to
the bank, compensated exponentially more than the greats who came
before them. They still have plenty of fans too! I can't imagine they lose
sleep over what they did.

I'm not qualified to determine the ultimate resting place for their eternal
souls, but they've earned those asterisks in baseball history. I hope they
always stay by their names.

Trent King

[uniship]

Great discussion. I too was surprised to see Clemens ranked so extremely high.

It’s interesting how a player’s personality/charisma/like-ability has such a huge and direct impact on how he’s viewed regarding PED’s.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Smokinjoe- I'm preparing to head to the Midwest Monster card show in
Indy, so I thought I'd check net54 to see if there were threads about it.
Couldn't find any mention, so I read your comment on PEDs/Clemens and
will weigh in.

My first thought is that I recall Bonds/Clemens being wonderful players pre
rampant cheating. I was a "fan" of neither, but man they could play. So, I
don't have a 'fan" based dog in this fight. That being said, your remarks left
me scratching my head a bit...

1) PEDs are indeed relevant, their proliferation changed the way observers
perceived the game while clearly influencing statistical/performance results
of those who abused. By the way, there is no "may or may not" in regard to
PED use by these 2 players specifically- they did it, period.

2) Speaking only for myself, I'm not a "canceler". I recall their play well.
This thread calls for opinion (which is judgment) on where Clemens ranks
on a scale. His "ranking" suffers due to PED abuse. (That's not just me,
but a bunch of folks). Someone mentioned that there are 84 pitchers in
HOF, thus putting him somewhere around 85-90. Sounds about right.

3) I would argue that these PED guys (specifically) hardly built better
mousetraps. Their abuse became obvious and permanently intertwined
with their achievements, it was not "clever".

4) Don't feel too bad for these 2! The Google machine reveals Clemens
was paid between 150-170 million in his career, absent endorsements.
Bonds was slightly higher at 188 million. They are laughing all the way to
the bank, compensated exponentially more than the greats who came
before them. They still have plenty of fans too! I can't imagine they lose
sleep over what they did.

I'm not qualified to determine the ultimate resting place for their eternal
souls, but they've earned those asterisks in baseball history. I hope they
always stay by their names.

Trent King

Trent, let us know how the show is. I used to go to the monthly shows there. There was never a lot of vintage. Wayne is no longer with us, he started me collecting t206s. JD is great to deal with, but after that slim pickings.

As far as Clemens and steroids, the players negotiated baseball's drug policy with the owners, it was part of their labor agreement. When Congress made them illegal in 1990, they were illegal in baseball. Fay Vincent sent out a memo in 1991, restating they were illegal. The players again in 1995 agreed to a drug policy where steroids were illegal. So any players who chose to ignore what they negotiated, agree to and voted to ratify are nothing more than cheaters and their stats should be ignored.

[clydepepper]

Ron Santo & Minnie Minoso were great players, but border-line HOFers.

They were also great assets ,examples and ambassadors for the GAME.

They were both done a disservice by being elected posthumously.



Rose, Clemens, Bonds, etc's punishment should be that they are elected ONLY after they're gone.


Being selected is not a right, but an honor- and those who cheat are first and foremost NOT honorable.


.