gold star for USAHOF

2016 HOF Debate: Roger Clemens

2016 HOF Debate: Roger Clemens
01 Jan
2016
Not in Hall of Fame
Last year, we did our first ever debate on Notinhalloffame.com where we tackled the Hall of Fame merit of twenty-four men who are on the Hall of Fame ballot, in what was in our opinion the most loaded ballot in our lifetime.

Since it was so much fun last time, we thought we would do it again!

One thing that has not changed is the number.  We will again debate twenty-four men who are on the ballot.

What has changed are the ones debating.  Last year I had the pleasure of having DDT, the curator of DDT’s Pop Flies blog and D.K. of the Phillies Archivist blog.  This year, Spheniscus, who has participated in past Rock and Roll discussions, will be joining me.



Chairman: Didn’t I just talk about Roger Clemens?  Oh, wait that was Barry Bonds.  I feel like these two are forever lumped and for me always will be.  Both are known for PEDs and played better in the second half of their career than their first.  Both entered the Hall of Fame ballot in the same year.  Both are assholes. 

I am not repeating my stance how I don’t care that they used performance enhancers prior to it from being banned from the game (although I guess I just did).  Like I said with Bonds, I can’t help but feel that this cloud is lifting over the heads of the PED guys, and almost as if an era is being defined.  Yet, am I wrong that there seems to be this animated dark cloud over his head?  I can’t recall one time his name came up in the news over the last two to three years where you can’t help but think less of the guy personally, but as Pete Rose said many times (including to me, which was one of the best days of my life) that the Hall is not filled with choirboys.

Again like Bonds, Clemens went up marginally last year from 35.4 to 37.5% and I think I smell a jump here.  Here is my rhetorical question though.  Since Bonds and Clemens have never had the same percentage, who are the voters that chose one and not the other?  I would love to hear the “logic” in that one!

Spheniscus: Yeah, the logic may come down to Clemens was marginally less of a jerk to certain media members than Bonds. Although to quote a song we all heard far too much of over the past month, they both have the all the “tender sweetness of a seasick crocodile”.

Strangely, after my rant about McGwire’s candidacy in the Bonds section, I actually feel slightly more optimistic that Clemens is going to get in. Mainly because he is a pitcher and it has always seemed to me that steroids have been held as a much greater sins for hitters than pitchers. This is probably because pitching stats don’t carry the same nostalgia as Hammerin’ Hank, the Babe, and the Summer of 61*.

And since there isn’t a pitching record that Clemens broke that destroyed the childhood of Rick Gosselin or Dan Shaughnessy I don’t think the steroid era will stick to him like it will many of these hitters. I give him a significantly better chance, like 15-20% better of getting in than Bonds.


Chairman:  Well, he is a little ahead of him now, so maybe he can hold off Bonds, so maybe that will be a “victory” of some sorts.  The numbers are true for hitters.  Most baseball fans knew how many Home Runs that Aaron had, but not how many wins that Cy Young had; though in the case of the latter, that is a number that will never be touched.

So let’s say Strikeouts.  I admit I have to look up to see how many Strikeouts that Nolan Ryan has.  Pitching is defense, and defensive numbers regardless of the sport will never have the same sex appeal. 

So are you thinking that there is a possibility that Clemens could get in without Bonds?  I am thinking we might have a Samuel Adams VS Molson Canadian type of bet between Bonds and Clemens vote totals.

Spheniscus: I always make my bets in beer. That way if you lose, at least you get a beer. Because who is going to take a six pack as payment and not give one back the other way? Someone who would vote for either Clemens or Bonds but not both or neither. That’s who.

My point is this. Clemens has a better shot of getting in the Hall than Bonds. Both from the writers and from a future Steroids Era Committee. First, steroids are definitely held more against pitchers than hitters. Second, Bonds used “the cream” and “the clear” and was definitely attached to BALCO. Clemens, despite all the accusations from Brian McNamee, actually has denied everything, got his day in court, and won.


Now, I don’t believe that Clemens’ strength comes entirely from grinding a barrel of rice with his fist (a legendary technique we saw once during a Sportscenter profile of Clemens). But his acquittal in his perjury trial sure makes him a lot easier to vote for, even if he did give all of his kids names starting with K.

Chairman:  I love it.  A beer bet it is.  A full pint when we meet in Boston one day?   Perhaps someplace where our wives can shake their heads at our combined knowledge of useless information?

I can tolerate Clemens naming all his kids with the same letter.  Maybe it is because I know so many families that have done the same thing, and in my wife’s family, everyone’s names finished with an “ine”.  Besides, George Foreman’s kids all named George set the bar so low for me, I barely batted an eye on that one.

Anyways, Clemens gets my vote, and climbs 15 points this year.

Spheniscus: Sounds good on the beer front. A trivia night would probably be good. And I don’t mind the same letter. It is just the fact that it is K because that is the symbol for strikeouts, which is a little off-putting.


Clemens gets my vote too. I can’t say that 15 points is a likely thing, however. He still is on the “steroids list” even if he beat it in court. I’ll give him 5% to 42.5%.

Last modified on Thursday, 22 March 2018 02:02
Tagged under
Committee Chairman

Kirk Buchner, "The Committee Chairman", is the owner and operator of the site.  Kirk can be contacted at [email protected] .

Comments powered by CComment