Skip to content

Roger Clemens pitches perfect inning against Longhorns

Jan 28, 2012, 7:30 PM EDT

Roger Clemens AP

ESPNDallas.com has the clip, which shows Roger Clemens throwing a couple of pitches in a game pitting former University of Texas Longhorns against the current squad. After striking out two in a perfect inning, Clemens discussed the Hall of Fame.

“Well, it’d be fantastic. I’ve said many times there’s little pieces of me there because I’ve had some spectacular games,” he stated.

The possibility of a comeback didn’t come up, even though the 49-year-old Clemens is just a few months older than Jamie Moyer. Clemens, who won 354 games in 24 seasons, will be eligible for the Hall of Fame for the first time next year, but he and Barry Bonds are both likely to miss the cut because of their steroid controversies.

  1. metalhead65 - Jan 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM

    controversy? how is it controversial when it is obvious to anybody who is not a die hard fan of either that they did use them. and it is to bad because they both were hall worth before they decided to juice.

  2. b7p19 - Jan 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    Every real baseball fan knows that Clemens is a HOFer and one of the best pitchers of all time. I’m going to take the optimistic view for now and say that the best players of my life will eventually make the HOF.

    • hopespringseternal - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:01 PM

      I agree, but have to wonder if it will happen in my lifetime.

    • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:05 PM

      I’m a real baseball fan, and that’s WHY I don’t want a player like Clemens in the Hall.

  3. sportsdrenched.com - Jan 28, 2012 at 7:44 PM

    Never mind his HOF chances. The important thing is College Baseball gets going in 20 days!

    • dondada10 - Jan 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM

      MLB pitchers and catchers is 22 days away?

  4. jonirocit - Jan 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    They voted in a ton of wife beaters and amphetamine junkies . Look the steroid era is what it is but to deny them is like spitting in the face of our generation however flawed they may be they entertained us and that what matters and they competed against each other. No separate wings of the hall and eliminate the whole crap about not voting them in their first year because of a grudge or because you bitter you were treated poorly . Numbers don’t lie and that should be all that matters !

    • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:02 PM

      You truly believe that cheating doesn’t inflate your stats? Of course the “stats lie”. They lie when someone cheats. Taking PEDs is cheating. How do people not understand that?

      • paperlions - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM

        Two things for you to consider:

        1) Evidence suggests strongly that more pitchers than hitters were taking steroids (more pitchers than hitters have tested positive or been named in investigations).

        2) Evidence suggests that amphetamines have at least as big of an effect on performance as steroids (offense did not decline when steroid testing began, it did decline when amphetamine testing began). The vast majority of players from the 50s through the 90s used amphetamines regularly.

      • deadeyedesign23 - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:08 AM

        Both of those excuses ignore the fact that the numbers probe out that there was a huge surge in power for 15 years that coincided with steroid use. Are we really going to ignore that for 100+ years 2 people had hit 60 homeruns and then all of a sudden Sammy Sosa does it 3 times in 4 years? Whether or not you feel players who juiced should be in the hall of fame, apologists need to stop trying to fight the fight that steroids are the same as amphetamines. They’re simply not.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 9:58 AM

        You are right:

        3) In mid-1993 MLB introduced a new ball as they had changed manufacturers. The new ball had a springer core and the wind was a higher % of synthetic fibers. Synthetic fibers absorb less water from the ambient environment making those ball ball bouncier and lighter, and resulting in balls travelling farther. There are actual studies of MLB ball properties that evaluate this stuff. It is published and in the public domain.

        What you are suggesting is that all of a sudden every single major league player started juicing (and seeing results from it) at the exact same time….because power numbers increased across the board in the middle of 1993.

        Many people have looked for a signal of steroid use in offensive production, they haven’t found one yet.

      • tester1875 - Jan 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

        I seen some comment where the person said “Taking PEDs is cheating. How do people not understand that?”

        Well at the time they were taking PED’s it wasn’t illegal, what will keep them out of the HOF in the immediate future is all the old school reporters that have a VOTE once they die and new blood gets in there Bonds and Clemens will be in the HOF

      • deadeyedesign23 - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:22 PM

        Ok but they’re still using that ball now and since testing there;s been a precipitous DECREASE in homeruns so how do you explain that.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM

        MLB never announces that changes in ball composition occur, in fact…they usually deny it despite that fact that laboratories get balls from different years, test them, and dissect them.

        Again, HR rates did not decrease after steroid testing began….they decreased later…and the fact that MLB is so PR conscience, I would be shocked if they didn’t order new balls that flew less far just help a downturn in offense lead public perception that steroid/PED use was down.

      • vivabear - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:50 PM

        tester1875 “Well at the time they were taking PED’s it wasn’t illegal, ”

        I don’t know what you think the defintion of illegal is, but eveidently it’s the opposite of what it actually is. Steroids were put into a class of illegal drugs by the feds in the late 80′s. Faye Vincent sent out an internal memo to all teams in the early 90′s letting them know steroids were against MLB’s rulse, and anyone caught using was be subject to penalties.

      • deadeyedesign23 - Jan 30, 2012 at 9:30 PM

        @paperlions. They decreased later because you slowly lose that mass. It’s not like you get off it and it looks like someone stuck a pin in you. If you continue training you’ll still maintain that muscle mass for a period of time…or at least lose it slower.

        @vivabear. jesus I’m glad someone said it. That’s the biggest misconception of the steroid era. What they were doing was ilegal federally for over 20 years and illegal within the game since the early 90s. We can talk about how silly Faye Vincent’s policy was as he essentially set a speed limit and didn’t hire any cops, but none the less it was illegal and they broke the rules. Again whether or not you think they should get in the HOF is another discussion. I’d prefer they not get in if we know for a fact they used, but I wouldn’t lose my mind either. That said if you’re going to lose your mine about them NOT getting in, then at least realize that it DID effect the performance, and it WAS illegal.

      • umpiremark - Feb 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

        Sad to see that Mr. Pouliot is prejudiced already. Maybe Mr. P. had a bad run in with Barry. I wonder back in the day if Ty Cobb was an easy interview.
        Real fans? Amazing how “pure” we all are.
        Bonds was a 1st ballot HOFer before he enhanced and he even performed well after he was off. Same for Clemens.
        Be honest all you purists.
        Who used “Greenies” or “Mexican Jumping Beans” and are still in the Hall?
        It’s not like the season(s) on PED’s were there only great years (i.e. Brady).
        Be honest, you loved watching them perform, on or off the stuff.
        “Let he who is without………..cast the first stone”

  5. ricofoy - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:00 PM

    Whitey Ford, Don Sutton and of course, Gaylord Perry. 3 big time cheaters and all in the HoF.

    • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:04 PM

      So why does two wrong make a right with you? If you don’t want players like Perry and Sutton in for cheating, why do you want players like Bonds and Clemens in?

      • cur68 - Jan 28, 2012 at 9:49 PM

        Brad, we seem to be con the opposite sides of discussions again, I disagree. Its not “2 wrongs”. The induction rules were interpreted to allow Ford, Don Sutton and Perry in the HOF. All cheated. Being a cheater is therefore no detraction from one’s HOF chances. That being the case,I’m failing to see the difference between Bonds/Clemens and Aaron/Perry.

        There’s another factor as well. Both Bonds & Clemens have records worthy of HOF induction before they were accused or there is any evidence against them of PEDs use. Even leaving out their PEDs stats, they’re still worthy of induction. Is The Baseball Hall of Fame not The Baseball Hall of Choirboys. Unless you plan to assert that Ty Cobb & Babe Ruth were model citizens, Clemens & Bonds are in like company.

      • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 9:57 PM

        People are so naive when it comes to cheating in baseball. Face it, there ARE acceptable forms of “cheating” in baseball. Perry and players who took greenies didn’t lose their Hall consideration because it wasn’t seen as a big deal back then. There are levels to all things in life, injecting yourself with super powers isn’t nearly on the same level as making a scuff on a baseball or taking an upper. Get real. Taking PEDs can freaking KILL you. Your HEART can explode. To put scuffs on a baseball or taking uppers on the same level as that makes one completely naive and foolish.

      • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:00 PM

        To compare taking greenies and scuffing a baseball with abusing PEDs because they are all a form of cheating is like comparing first degree murder with simple assault because they are both crimes.

      • cur68 - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM

        Hang on there Brad. Amphetamines can kill you too.

        http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/amphetamines/dangers.htm

        It seems naive to me to even assert that they are LESS dangerous than steroids. Arguably, they are MORE dangerous as amphetamine deaths tend to be immediate whereas steroid related deaths tend to take years of abuse to come about.

        You might want to do some research before you start asserting this stuff.

      • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM

        It’s unbelievable to me that you would even attempt to compare amphetamines with steroids. WOW.

      • cur68 - Jan 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM

        In my job I administer steroids pretty routinely to my patients. From inhaled to IV. Given the relatively high incidence of crystal methamphetamine use in the drug abusing population of Melbourne & Vancouver I’m also far more familiar with the effects of amphetamines in newborns than I’d like to be. I think I know what I’m talking about. Wow.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:03 AM

        Brad, amphetamines kills far more people than steroids and can kill them more easily. Amphetamines have an effect on everyone that takes them; steroids only make you stronger if you work out heavily.

        If you are going to rail against steroids, at least educate yourself about them. The side-effects of steroids are temporary and rather minor. Steroids were only made illegal to use without a prescription because of a moralizing politician; the medical profession was (and remains) against that stance because steroids simply aren’t as dangerous as their reputation suggests.

    • braddavery - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:46 AM

      Shocking that something that is much easier to get and is used my far more people has more noticeable adverse affects on the population. Truly shocking info. How many people in North America use amphetamines compared to steroids? That’s the real question.

      • cur68 - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:40 PM

        Steroids are far more used. They’re less dangerous, legally prescribed, and have far more upside than do amphetamines. If you have asthma, and many, many do, you almost certainly use steroids.

      • vivabear - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:54 PM

        cur – I don’t think braddavery is putting asthma inhalers in the same category as winstrol…which you seem to be doing.

      • cur68 - Jan 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM

        By my reading, the point that Brad was making was that ‘roids are dangerous and “taking an upper” is not as much: this is FLAT OUT WRONG. He writes, “Taking PEDs can freaking KILL you. Your HEART can explode” <- that's more a COMMON short term side effect of AMPHETAMINES not steroids. Winstrol is FAR LESS dangerous than amphetamines. Look it up, I provided a link on the danger of amphetamines so half the work is done for you. Check out how long it takes Winstrol to stroke you out or give you a hear attack. Over all, steroid use is FAR more common than amphetamines, which appears to be the opposite of Brad’s position, hence the inhaled steroid reference to make that point.

      • vivabear - Jan 30, 2012 at 10:01 AM

        cur – yeah that probably is his point. But you still can’t lump asthma inhalers with winstrol, etc. Both steroids, and I’m no doctor, but pretty different type of steroids – and people use the two for very different reasons. Asthma inhalers are normally used under doctor supervision – hardcore steroids, I would venture a guess these are used without doctor supervison quite a bit more than an inhaler is.

  6. funkygoorilla - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:11 PM

    Oh man, now I’m sure the Rangers or Phillies will sign him quick!! Let’s try and buy another championship!!

  7. tjg25 - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:16 PM

    I simply say fuck the baseball hof. No Shoeless Joe, no Pete and soon the list of blackballed obvious hall members will grow. Fuck that place.

    • goforthanddie - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:17 AM

      “No Shoeless Joe, no Pete”

      Sad part is, there never was any proof Joe did anything wrong, and he has been cleared.
      Pete at least did break a rule. Didn’t cheat, but he broke a rule. And he did admit it, eventually, when it would help him sell books. But he did admit it.
      It’s not a HoF without those two, and there’s no reason to keep them out.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:08 AM

        Any proof besides his admission that he took money in exchange for throwing games? Whether he played worse is debatable, but he took the money to do it….if you take money an agree to murder someone, I’m pretty sure the fact that you didn’t do it won’t get you off.

      • vikingyankee - Jan 30, 2012 at 2:10 PM

        I agree completely. Joe Jackson was acquitted by the Courts! Look at his record in the 1919 World Series: In 8 games, he had 33 plate appearances, of those 32 at bats. He had 12 hits, including 3 doubles and a homerun, scoring 5 runs and driving home 6 more. His extra PA resulted in a walk. His B.Avg was .375, His OBP .394, Slugging Pct .563 and OPS .956. He didn’t ground into a double play. A quick google didn’t mention his WS fielding pct. I assume if his defensive play was bad / worse than his norm, it would have been discussed up one side and down another. I repeat – Jackson was acquitted in a court of law. Landis held his own court though.

        When we talk about Pete Rose… The man was incredible – as a player. Between the lines, no one played the game with the same childish eagerness as Rose. He entertained the press daily. I thrived on the game. Pete Rose WAS the Cincinnati Reds. Two-three years AFTER he retired as a player, he did the stupid deed. He most definitely should be put in the Hall AS A PLAYER. I’ve read a couple books that offer interesting facts regarding Rose. Firstly, his own autobiography from 1970, where he described the dog tracks and horse tracks during spring training and when he was on road trips. Gambling was a part of his life early. Gambling is also a disease. I just finished reading Joe Morgan’s A Life in Baseball. He alludes to the fact that he thinks Rose was allowed to leave the Reds via free agency because of his gambling habit – without directly saying Rose was gambling on baseball. Regardless, there was never any accusations, nor proof. Therefore, we can only assume his innocense.

        Both should be in the Hall of Fame. (I was at the Hall for the first time in June 2011 – being from SW Ohio, I really missed Rose’s plaque.)

        Regarding gambling in baseball, I’m reading “The Original Curse” by Sean Devaney where he asks – and (hopefully in the end) answers this question: “Did the Cubs throw the 1918 World Series to Babe Ruth’s Red Sox and incite the Black Sox Scandal?”

        I’m halfway through it, and it’s amazing how gambling was accepted by the owners for years. The Black Sox just had poor timing, after the end of WWI, as I see it.

      • goforthanddie - Jan 30, 2012 at 6:45 PM

        He was the best offensive player for either team in that Series, his fielding non-controversial. And people have NEVER admitted to something they didn’t do? An uneducated guy can’t be told/believe assholes who tell him “Admit it, it’ll be easier on you”? Also funny that everyone else involved said Joe had nothing to do with it, but whatever.

    • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:11 AM

      Fun fact. The HOF is not keeping those suspected of using (or proven to use) steroids out of the HOF. If you want to vent spleen and bile, do so in the direction of moralizing baseball writers that are taking a heavily skewed view of both baseball history and steroids.

  8. Ben - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM

    LL Cool Jay has something to say about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimZj8HW0Kg

  9. plmathfoto - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:51 PM

    Wonder if someone took him deep on the college team if he’d come head high to him next time up

  10. papacrick - Jan 28, 2012 at 8:58 PM

    So no players from the 90′s will make it to the HOF? I’m sure that was the only decade in which players cheated (rolls eyes). That’ll be fun explaining to the kids one day. It’s sad that none of the players I grew up watching will be recognized for their accomplishments.

    • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:09 PM

      What will be more fun is explaining to your kids how it’s okay to cheat to get ahead because “Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did it, so that makes it okay.”

      • cur68 - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:13 PM

        I have a hard enough time explaining Cobb. Bonds & Clemens are chicken feed next to that guy.

      • braddavery - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:18 PM

        You do realize that there is a playing field in baseball and that what happens off of that field doesn’t have anything to do with the game of baseball, right.

      • cur68 - Jan 28, 2012 at 11:21 PM

        So beating up that grounds keeper on the field and then the guys wife, that was all cool, eh? wow

        Y’know, I think you need to check that moral compass there. Seems a bit off, IMO.

      • braddavery - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:38 AM

        Are you an idiot? I never said that was “cool”, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I’m talking about baseball, you are talking about something else.

      • cur68 - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM

        Brad, don’t be an obtuse jackass if you can possibly help it. The issue is that Cobb (any many others like him) is in the HOF. He did what he did as a representative of an MLB team. There’s a ‘morals’ clause for induction. He fails, as do the those who openly admit breaking the written rules of baseball (doctoring a ball has NEVER been allowed yet those guys are in). The HOF won’t be any less a repository of guys with GREAT stats and very human failings with the induction of Bonds & Clemens than it already is.

        I wish I owned those rose colored glasses you seem to use to look back on history with: sadly I don’t. I look at the hall and I see LOTS of guys with worse character who cheated just as much, if not more. They have lousier numbers than Bonds & Clemens, too.

      • braddavery - Jan 30, 2012 at 1:09 PM

        If you are against players like Cobb being in the Hall, why do you want players like Bonds and Clemens in? You should be railing against Cobb and the like instead of calling for more “cheaters and bad people” to be put INTO the Hall. You aren’t being honest. If you REALLY have a problem with “bad people who do bad things” being in the Hall, your position should not be ass backwards as to WANT more of the same elected to the Hall.

      • vikingyankee - Jan 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

        I haven’t looked at Bonds’ numbers pre-juice. But if the Rocket had retired after 14-15 years, he’d’ve been first vote Hall of Fame. The kid was incredible. That he juiced to keep his career going witnesses stupidity on his part, yes, but he deserves the Hall based on at least 300 wins, his no-hitters, and his strike-outs. IMHO anyway.

  11. jwbiii - Jan 28, 2012 at 9:02 PM

    T. Boone Pickens is already hard at work to get paperwork together to prove that Clemens is actually a 17 year old Dominican and to recruit him to Oklahoma State.

  12. goforthanddie - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:08 PM

    Next week he’s going to try for a complete game against an all-girls’ high school.

  13. doublebro - Jan 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM

    I thought Clemens didn’t give a rats a** about the HOF?? Oh wait….that was when he was under oath.

    • dirtyharry1971 - Jan 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

      better get your facts straight, he said that when he wasnt under oath. Also with the recent watering down of the HOF with the tony perez’s and kirby puckets being inducted who really cares about that place anymore. Should be the hall of the very good

  14. xmatt0926x - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    Just let them in the HOF. I think it’s generally accepted that bonds and Clemens are not likeable people, steroids or not. The use of steroids doesn’t improve that status for me but the fact is that they were hall of famers, steroids or not. Yes, we all know the stats are somewhat inflated and future generations will learn about this period in the game and also will understand why Henry Aaron is a more respected player than Bonds is.These guys will always be tarnished to some extent and that’s enough punishment for me. I don’t buy the argument that greenies gave just as much of an advantage as steroids but they did give some advantage to players who took them. How do we determine who was a cheater and who wasn’t? Just vote these guys in based on their numbers and let everyone be their own judge. The thing is that everyone seems to accept that these guys had the #’s no matter what but the moral aspect is getting in the way. Ok then, how about Cobb’s morals or the drunk womanizer, Mickey Mantle? See how far we can take this? Vote them in.

  15. zachcomtois - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:40 AM

    Am I the only person here who wants to know what he threw, and where he was clocked?

    • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

      Both of the strikeouts in the video were on splitters.

    • goforthanddie - Jan 30, 2012 at 6:49 PM

      Yep. Who gives a crap about what a retired cheater throws at college players during a glorified BP?

  16. dawgpoundmember - Jan 29, 2012 at 3:16 AM

    I have been on the fence about steroids and HoF because how do we look at the obvious inflated stats like bonds and what they actually mean to baseball

    I agree with jon now that atleast clemens and mcgwire should be in the BASEBALL HoF because if you don’t agree with what our generation voted for, than look at what raised us

    The first MLB game I went to was in 1996 at Tiger stadium against the yankees. I walked on the field, looked at the limited view seats, and walked down and sat at the left field pole first row (empty stadium lol) and could not believe someone like Curtis Pride was playing a game like baseball. I was 10.

    In 1998 I was in cleveland visiting family and was trying to get tickets to the game. I was really excited to go because clemens was pitching that day, couldn’t get enough tickets for six which makes me sad because I got six tickets for Miggies first three home run game just minutes before he hit his first.

    Obviously that was before steroids was an issue, but HoF is about what baseball means to the fans as much as sabermetrics

  17. braddavery - Jan 29, 2012 at 4:41 AM

    The HOF voters have a moral obligation to NOT allow kids to think that cheating is acceptable. That is why they won’t vote in known PED abusers. I’m fine with it.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Jan 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      Parents teach kids. To suggest the MLB Hall of Fame is a proper substitute in how to teach your kids to become good world citizens, then my response is that you shouldn’t have kids.

      • goforthanddie - Jan 30, 2012 at 6:51 PM

        Yes, parents should be the primary teachers of morality. That doesn’t mean the rest of society should continue sinking into a sh!tpile.

    • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:17 AM

      That is fucking hilarious. Think of the children! As an educator, I can tell you…the biggest problem with the up-coming generation is not the role models they choose, but the parenting…which is generally demands nothing of the child and seeks only to insulate them from learning lessons by denying their failures. I have news for you. Kids think cheating is okay because their parents (and school administrators) won’t let anything happen when they are caught cheating…there is never a price for it, just a benefit. They learn those lessons first hand, not through baseball, and the primary culprits of those lessons are their parents.

      • vikingyankee - Jan 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM

        I’m an American, teaching 2nd language English in Norway. Sad to say it, but the situation is the same over here. The world (through the next generation) is going to hell in a hand basket :( and it has nothing to do with baseball in Europe! Like you say, it’s the parenting.

    • braddavery - Jan 29, 2012 at 11:58 AM

      People really like to put words in others’ mouths around here. I never said anything about the HOF “teaching kids instead of the parents”. I said they have a moral obligation to keep cheaters out of teh HOF because it sends the wrong message to kids. You are kidding yourself if you really believe that giving cheaters accolades is a good thing for children and impressionable young people who follow baseball.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:57 PM

        “The HOF voters have a moral obligation to NOT allow kids to think that cheating is acceptable.” Those are your words, which state unequivocally that the HOF has a moral obligation to teach a less to children. The only reason to think that the HOF has such an obligation is because parents of those children can’t be bothered.

        The HOF has not such obligation. None. The HOF is about baseball performance and nothing else. If people showed as much outrage toward organized religion and political leaders (two societal power structures that do have moral obligations to people) as they do toward baseball players, the world would be a better place.

      • braddavery - Jan 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

        No, the Hall of Fame has guidelines for it’s voters to follow, and known cheaters don’t fit the bill.

      • paperlions - Jan 29, 2012 at 8:07 PM

        Actually, that isn’t true. The guidelines, such as they are, comprise one sentence and nothing about cheating or fair play is in there.

        It’s voters actually make up their own rules about whom to vote for and not vote for….and they are not consistent, among voters or even the same voters from year-to-year or player-to-player.

      • braddavery - Jan 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM

        “5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.”

        What part of “…integrity, sportsmanship and character…” makes you believe that cheating is not a part of those “guidelines”?

  18. pastabelly - Jan 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM

    If they’re going to keep Pete Rose out, then those two cheaters should also be kept out.

    • dirtyharry1971 - Jan 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM

      What is it with pete rose supporters that they cant understand why he’s not in the HOF? MLB has one golden rule and every knows it because its in every single clubhouse in the bigs and pete simply broke that rule. And even if someone wanted to feel sorry for pete its impossible to do that after he came out and told the truth just to sell some books.

      • vikingyankee - Jan 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM

        Pete Rose did NOT break the rule as a player. Therefore, he could be inducted for the things he did as a player – and not as a manager. Simple! Voila!

      • braddavery - Jan 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM

        He was a player/manager, as in, he actually played in games when he was betting on baseball.

      • kalinedrive - Jan 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM

        The HOF changed its rules after the Pete Rose issue arose. They changed the rules. After the fact.

  19. kjt929 - Jan 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM

    If Roger comes back bret farve signs a 5 year 100 million dolar deal

  20. mattthebat - Jan 29, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    The steroid era was abetted by league officials in an effort to undue the public relations damage caused by the ’94 strike, as well as regenerate interest in the sport after the speed/artificial turf years in the 1980s. That, combined with better athletic conditioning, smaller stadiums, diluted pitching caused by expansion, and a doctored baseball led to the surge in offense during the mid-late ’90s.

    I think it’s safe to assume that all players understood the deal- steroids might be illegal, but the league wasn’t going to test them so they were going to get away with it. In a highly competitive industry, with short career-spans and that much money on the line, it’s only natural for a ballplayer to want to risk his health for the possibility of greater prestige and money. It’s easy for us armchair shortstops to sit here and yell about moral outrage, but none of us- I’m assuming there are no actual ex-players commenting on HBT threads- can say for sure that we would have avoided taking steroids had we been in their shoes. Those of you who insist otherwise are being disingenuous.

    Roger Clemens was the best pitcher in the pre-steroid era, and also (one of the) best in the steroid era. Barry Bonds was the best player before he started juicing, and the best player afterwards. Players have to be considered in the context in which they played. The Hall of Fame is a historical museum, not an arbiter of virtue. A Hall of Fame without Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod, and other suspected and admitted steroid users would be meaningless, in my view.

    I dislike steroids in baseball and am happy the league has instituted testing. But steroids did not affect the integrity of the game, as Pete Rose’s gambling did. I understand the human need to be outraged and label people you dislike as cheaters, but to do so ad nauseum smacks of a narrow-minded understanding of the sport’s history.

  21. tester1875 - Jan 29, 2012 at 3:22 PM

    I seen some comment where the person said “Taking PEDs is cheating. How do people not understand that?”

    Well at the time they were taking PED’s it wasn’t illegal, what will keep them out of the HOF in the immediate future is all the old school reporters that have a VOTE once they die and new blood gets in there Bonds and Clemens will be in the HOF

  22. kjt929 - Jan 29, 2012 at 10:19 PM

    Roger dont be brett farve 2

  23. hophmi - Jan 30, 2012 at 12:38 PM

    I don’t know. Clemens is at the very least a jerk, but the man won seven Cy Youngs. Seven. At some point, it makes baseball look ridiculous to keep a guy like this out of the Hall.

  24. georgebrett - Jan 30, 2012 at 1:00 PM

    Well at the time they were taking PED’s it wasn’t illegal, what will keep them out of the HOF in the immediate future is all the old school reporters that have a VOTE once they die and new blood gets in there Bonds and Clemens will be in the HOF

    If they weren’t over the counter or prescribed by a doctor then they were illegal. They are no different than cocaine, pot or any other drug that you can’t by out in the open.

  25. oldudedad - Jan 30, 2012 at 2:05 PM

    This is not a statement about “in” or “out” as such. It is about the morals of those who are in, in particular there’s Cap Anson. His actions and rants against black players are well documented. He is at least partially responsible for over 50 years of segregated baseball. IN. Another example which I read in “Opening Day 1947″ was credited to Herb Pennock…paraphrasing “don’t bring that n—– to Philadelphia” when asked what the reaction of fans and players might be during Jackie’s rookie year. Both Anson and Pennock are HOFers. Cobb, too, was a noted racist. Not saying they shouldn’t be in, but come on folks, get real. It’s a HOF for ball players, not Presidents or Priests. I know that Anson, Pennock, and others did not “cheat” in the sense of effecting the outcome of games. But the statement that voters are obliged to discount anyone for their actions is foolish. Bonds and Clemens were cheaters, ok. But they were competing against other cheaters and still stood out. If I play poker and hide an ace up my sleeve, and the other three players also hide an ace up their sleeve, what advantage is it for me? Just saying.

    • braddavery - Jan 30, 2012 at 3:16 PM

      You can’t kick players out. All you can do is strive for better selections. Just because they allowed some scumbags into the Hall in the past, doesn’t mean they should continue doing so.

      • oldudedad - Jan 30, 2012 at 3:59 PM

        I did not say anything about kicking them out. That would be ridiculous. Just saying that if you seek imperfections and attempt to define “cheating” then you will find both wherever you look. What about alcoholics, cocaine abusers, wife beaters? I don’t think the HOF voters should be the judges of what occurred anywhere but on the field of play. In addition, face the reality that Bonds, Sosa, Clemens, et al all put fans in the seats. Cheating was not even an issue when the turnstiles were spinning. I don’t see any of the owners giving fans their money back. If cheating was a fact, then they were all complicit. Not saying who should be in or out since I, like everyone else here, don’t have a vote. The writers vote. Just don’t keep them out based on some holier than thou attitude while you contemplate your vote over your third martini. Just saying.

      • braddavery - Jan 30, 2012 at 5:02 PM

        I didn’t say you said to kick anyone out. I made a statement. My point is, why support adding more scumbags and cheaters if you feel that it’s bad enough that there are already scumbags and cheaters in the Hall. These current voters didn’t vote in Cobb and the like, so why do you hold them to the same shitty standards of the people who voted in Cobb and the like.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Springer (3981)
  2. I. Davis (3064)
  3. C. Kimbrel (2902)
  4. B. Harper (2826)
  5. M. Cuddyer (2791)
  1. M. Machado (2765)
  2. C. Granderson (2545)
  3. J. Chavez (2465)
  4. J. Reyes (2376)
  5. K. Calhoun (2287)