Time for Clemency - Is Roger overdue?

What do you think of Roger Clemens these days?

  • Still dead to me - keep him in the jerkstore

    Votes: 122 50.6%
  • Time heals all wounds, but I don't want his number up there

    Votes: 57 23.7%
  • Time heals all wounds, and retire his number.

    Votes: 47 19.5%
  • Was always a fan in spite of everything

    Votes: 15 6.2%

  • Total voters
    241

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Sox could have kept him signed for life. They didn't. Once he left Boston, fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Was my first baseball hero. He was our a-hole for 13 seasons. I don't care that much who is on the wall, but Roger's case IMO is rock solid.
But that's the paradox of the Clemens non-signing: he was in apparent decline by the end of the 1996 season. He was 33, had been injured the year before, was gaining weight, and while he was still one of the 5-10 best pitchers in the game, there was nothing to suggest that he would suddenly turn it around, get into shape, and improve over the coming years. His resurgence was born due to what he felt was a lack of respect for his past accomplishments by Boston. If Duquette had re-signed him, I would guess he has a decent, but not particularly notable, final few years in the league and retires after some injury around 2001 or so. His desire to say "Fuck You" to Duquette in particular, and Boston generally, was what created his re-emergence.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
No, HGH created his resurgence. If you feel Roger would have continued to get fat and become a worse pitcher without his anger over his Boston contract, there may be something to it. There is some possibility he does not come in contact with the people that get him to hard core juice, but drugs were everywhere. All of this speculation is difficult without knowing if Roger had a better managed drug program that allowed him to be successful, or if hooking up with anybody with a needle would have made him the post Boston dominator he became.
 

24JoshuaPoint

Grand Theft Duvet
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2004
4,944
Cell Block C
No. I just don't like him because he's a sorry excuse for a person; not for the juice. He used to be my hero as a kid.The dude just comes off as a big a-hole. He may not now; but he certainly did back then. While i do think everyone deserves a second chance; this is an exception. I can't believe a word he says nowadays.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,893
Alexandria, VA
Bull. Amphetamines stimulate the central nervous system and were taken to fight fatigue and improve endurance, fight hangovers, as pick-me-ups after late-night partying. If that is not a form of Performance Enhancing Drug, then what do you call it?
I didn't say they weren't performance enhancing. I said they weren't illegal nor were they against the rules of baseball. Holding them against someone in the 1960s makes as much sense as getting mad at someone for throwing a spitball in 1918. That also enhances performance and is now illegal, but it wouldn't make sense to penalize Ed Walsh for trying his best to win under the rules of the game at the time that he played.
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
The fact that the Red Sox are cozying up to him makes me ill. The radio broadcasters in particular seem enamoured of him. Listening to them talk about him as just an all-time great guy makes me want to take a shower.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Roger's # deserves to be up on the RF facade more than a couple already there. He was arguably the best pitcher of his era. He is Bonds-like in that he was/should have been a HOF'er pre-cheating. We're just spoiled since we got Pedro right after and he is a good person and interview to go along with the dominance.
How do we know he wasn't cheating from 86-92, then stopped after he got a guaranteed contract, then started again in mid1996 for his contract run?

Someone said it looks like he started juicing in the 96-97 offseason? I remember reading here years ago that he missed 20 days in the middle of the 96 season, then came back and pitched like Cy Roger for the rest of the year. The claim was the 20 days of was enough time to do a cycle.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I voted jerkstone. Even as a little kid I felt like there was something off with him. I appreciated his greatness but never became a major fan even though he was the best pitcher on my favorite team.

It's all well-documented, so no need to rehash. But, I'll just say he's a great case study. The guy was an all-time great. One of the best ever. And yet he managed to burn a lot of bridges on his mercenary career. If he handled himself better he had the potential to be loved like Ortiz / Pedro. But he did the opposite and now he's hated. I'm trying to think of other similar inner circle guys who elicit similar reactions. All I can come up with is A-Rod.
 

mt8thsw9th

anti-SoSHal
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
17,120
Brooklyn
And while others have covered it, there was no real reason to believe he had more than another 4-5 years of mediocre ball left in him when the Duke made the "twilight" comment. He was 33, after all.
The guy coming off four years of 130 ERA+, and who just led the league in strikeouts wasn't worth a handful of mediocre years?

Clemens is basic the man-made global warming for the Sox fan version of GOPers. He's more or less a litmus test for fandoms vs. facts. Jilted fans love to cling to the "Clemens was washed up" Cafardo/Shaunessy narrative that is born from his W-L record not his actual performance. He tailed off from a huge peak, but as Theo Epstein said, it was the biggest Sox front office mistake in the 70-90s stretch.

There are plenty of reasons to not like the guy, but not honoring this guy is rewriting history. He rescued the organization from some doldrums, and did nothing worse than the revered Tiant, who left for the Yankees just weeks after Bucky Dent.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
... He rescued the organization from some doldrums, and did nothing worse than the revered Tiant, who left for the Yankees just weeks after Bucky Dent.
I had to go back and doublecheck this, as I remembered being more upset with management than with Tiant back then. Found this recap on the SABR.org site:

"In the offseason, the Red Sox offered the 38-year-old Tiant only a one-year contract, allowing Luis to sign with the New York Yankees for two years, plus a 10-year deal as a scout. Dwight Evans was devastated at management's ignorance of what Luis meant to the team. Carl Yastrzemski says he cried when he heard the news: "They tore out our heart and soul." Heart and soul aside, Tiant's September-October record for the Red Sox was 31-12. The Red Sox would not be in another pennant race for several years."

That aside, I wasn't pissed with Clemens when he left; again, I was more upset with management and frustrated generally with how things had devolved. But when he turned everything around and again became Clemens-the CYA-Winner in Toronto, AND then forced his way out specifically to go to the MFYs... yeah, he fell onto my shit list. And he hasn't left it.
 

rlsb

New Member
Aug 2, 2010
1,373
If you read "Beyond the Sixth Game" by Gammons, there is a section devoted to the last of Tiant's Red Sox playing years. It is quite different from those of Clemens. He did sign with NY as you mentioned, but the circumstances for his departure were quite different. Red Sox management to quote him "treated me like I was an old fool, but I was wise to their bool cheat." The emphasis that management thought he was washed up was more pronounced than it was for Clemens. He was 38 when he left the Red Sox, but as it turned out, he had some left in the tank.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Let's also bear in mind, regarding Tiant's departure...that was largely the same front office that traded Bill Lee the same off-season, then eventually let Fisk walk and traded Lynn for scraps. In other words...buffoons. Easy to forgive guys who left in that case.
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
772
Crapchester, NY
No, sadly for me. Clemens was my absolute favorite as a boy. He was my guy - I collected every Roger Clemens card I could get my hands on, kept them religiously in a binder, and his rookie cards were my most prized possessions. I poured over the box score in the paper every time he pitched...then, he signed with Toronto. This was the transaction that shattered the innocence for me as a baseball fan and a Sox fan in particular. However, if this was all there was to the story I think I'd be ok with welcoming him back into the fold and forgiving...but we all know it is not.

For whatever reason I happened to stumble on to the YouTube of game 7 from 2003 the other day and the beginning of the broadcast reminded me...Remember how Clemens would go out to monument park and rub Babe Ruth's monument and all that crap? He went beyond simply being a Yankee - he forced his way there and once he got there he embraced all that MFY bullshit. For me it was like watching your ex-girlfriend dating your worst enemy. And then Suzyn having the big O when Clemens came back after taking half the year off...disgusting.

One of my favorite memories of that time was game 3 of the 1999 ALCS. Sox were completely in over their heads in that series...but oh, that game 3. Pedro completely dominant and Roger got absolutely rocked..."Where is Roger?...In the Shower!"

You add in the PED thing, the throwing the bat at Piazza...etc., etc., etc. I just can't forgive and forget. To me, with apologies to CHB, he will always be the Texas Con Man.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
He started winning me back when he became a target of the corrupt dimwits in the U.S. Congress. These dipshits didn't have the time to pass an actual budget or to force the executive branch to declare war before prosecuting wars. But they could be bothered to go after him. Fuck them, red and blue. To my astonishment it made me start to feel sympathy for Clemens. And with the passage of time, all the off notes of his actions and personality come to look more like characteristics of a tone deaf but harmless oaf rather than anything worse.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,686
Miami (oh, Miami!)
No. He was basically a jerk, but not monstrous. But the PED use, both its level and how he handled it, is what makes him special.

He used PEDs; there is no doubt. It gave him an historic outlier of a career. He comprehensively lied about his PED use, the PED problem in baseball, and threw a lot of mud solely because he wanted to keep up his false pubic reputation as a clean player. His level of denial is Pete Rose esque - and, like Pete, he's lost all benefit of the doubt as to when and how he juiced. His whole career is tainted.

But this is the most important point. No one has taken his money or his trophies away. Having his number retired and being in the HOF are cherries on top of the sundae that he thinks he's entitled to. I'm not on board with giving him additional awards and accolades and rewards for his cheating, lying, and tainted career.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,469
Somewhere
The baseball-related stuff stung at the time but I'm pretty much over that with regards to Clemens. If that were the end of it, I wouldn't mind bringing him back into the Red Sox fold. The steroid abuse and coverup was pretty bad, but Clemens and Bonds bore the brunt of the public's ire because of their profile. I could really get past all that in the long run.

But ultimately, the Mindy McCready stuff is quite a hurdle to get over. Fifteen years old. Think about that for a minute.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
How do we know he wasn't cheating from 86-92, then stopped after he got a guaranteed contract, then started again in mid1996 for his contract run?

Someone said it looks like he started juicing in the 96-97 offseason? I remember reading here years ago that he missed 20 days in the middle of the 96 season, then came back and pitched like Cy Roger for the rest of the year. The claim was the 20 days of was enough time to do a cycle.
Bingo. 1996 is the key. I think people forget how terrible he was for most of that season.

On Aug.1, 1996, Clemens went 5 innings against KC, allowing 11 hits and 7 runs and getting the loss, which dropped his record to 4-11, 4.36 ERA. His arm angle had noticeably dropped as well. There is no overstating how absolutely awful he was in the 1996 season. He looked cooked.He was 33 years old, out of shape, with a million miles on his arm.

He then missed 10 days. He made his next start on Aug. 11. From Aug. 11 through the end of the season, he went 6-2 with a 2.09 ERA, 89/29 K/BB ratio, which was twice as good as it had been up to that point in the season.

I firmly believe, and always have believed, that it was during this 10 day period that he either started or went back to some sort of juicing in a desperate attempt to improve his numbers going into his FA year.

Then he was either stupid enough or had enough gall to take what was clearly a complimentary statement by Duquette and turn it into some personal insult, mentioning it to the media at every opportunity as if he was the one who had been insulted after essentially taking the 1996 season off.

So he can piss up a rope.
 
Last edited:

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
And as for the 21 thing, do people forget already that the Sox tried to give Papelbon 21 once it was clear he was in the big leagues for good? He turned them down, not because he respected Clemens but because he wanted to "own" 58 for himself. The Sox certainly had no particular reverence for the number at that point.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Just want to add this for reference, that the Giants are considering retiring Barry Bonds' number so maybe enough time has passed for many mlb fans.
The comparison between Bonds in SF and Clemens is Boston is not a good one. Bonds has remained very popular in SF throughout the years, even while vilified elsewhere. Every time he appears at AT&T, he has received enthusiastic standing ovations, including when he threw out the first pitch during the playoffs three years ago, and the city has a street named after him. And he's officially a part of the organization now, to boot.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,095
And as for the 21 thing, do people forget already that the Sox tried to give Papelbon 21 once it was clear he was in the big leagues for good? He turned them down, not because he respected Clemens but because he wanted to "own" 58 for himself. The Sox certainly had no particular reverence for the number at that point.
A bunch of people wore 27 after Fisk left, as recently at Kip Gross in 1999, the year before it was retired.

As for Clemens, it was a messy ending but all parties acted in what they thought was their own best interest. Pedro had a messy ending too -- how would we feel about him if he kicked ass for another 10 years and won a few WS instead of breaking down in fairly short order? I'm OK with the number being retired.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Firstly, Roger Clemens will always in my mind be a first ballot unanimous hall of famer. I couldn't give a crap about the steroids stuff, because I strongly believe it was present ubiquitously in pretty much all sports (and still is - the stakes and incentives are too high).

That being said - no to putting him on the wall. Retiring numbers, for me, has always been about the sort of guys who not only define the franchise with their performance, but the franchise defines them - guys like David Ortiz, who are elite at what they do, but also bleed and sweat Red Sox. Roger Clemens always wanted to be a Yankee. Putting him on the wall is an insult to everyone else on that wall. I'd much rather see Pedroia's 15 retired than Clemens' 21 - he's not as good, but he's a Red Sox thru and thru.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
The comparison between Bonds in SF and Clemens is Boston is not a good one. Bonds has remained very popular in SF throughout the years, even while vilified elsewhere. Every time he appears at AT&T, he has received enthusiastic standing ovations, including when he threw out the first pitch during the playoffs three years ago, and the city has a street named after him. And he's officially a part of the organization now, to boot.
There's no really great comparison, but I believe that Giants fans never fully turned on him, even through BALCO and the obstruction of justice/perjury indictments. That's just part of the difference in fan bases. I'm sure if Papi ever had gone through anything like that, the public reaction towards him would be mixed at best.

All bets are off if Bonds had signed with the Dodgers and won a few world series, though.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
There's no really great comparison, but I believe that Giants fans never fully turned on him, even through BALCO and the obstruction of justice/perjury indictments. That's just part of the difference in fan bases. I'm sure if Papi ever had gone through anything like that, the public reaction towards him would be mixed at best.

All bets are off if Bonds had signed with the Dodgers and won a few world series, though.
You answered your own question. Meaning that I doubt Sox fans would have turned on Clemens to the extent that he did had he not signed with the Yankees, so heavily lapped up being a Yankee with the hideous sweat wiping or whatever the hell it was on Babe's monument, gone back there a second time when he could have signed in Boston, caused Suzyn Waldman to give birth to a full litter of kittens in the process and won a WS with those miscreants.
 

trotsplits

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
665
I don't care about the pharmaceuticals, leaving, kicking ass after leaving - but I do give a shit that he went to the Yankees 2x. He could have mitigated his stench by approximately 35% by coming back to us in '07 and pitching well in some meaningful games and I might have shrugged at a number ceremony. But in the here and now? It simply doesn't feel right. And much like Cooperstown, if there's a debate, he doesn't belong.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Bingo. 1996 is the key. I think people forget how terrible he was for most of that season.

On Aug.1, 1996, Clemens went 5 innings against KC, allowing 11 hits and 7 runs and getting the loss, which dropped his record to 4-11, 4.36 ERA. His arm angle had noticeably dropped as well. There is no overstating how absolutely awful he was in the 1996 season.
Except that he wasn't.
Even if he finished at 4.36, he would have been #13 in the league in ERA. He had a 4.04 ERA in the first half and a 3.15 ERA in the second. He was striking out one or more per inning throughout the season.

He was still quite good and certainly not awful.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Except that he wasn't.
Even if he finished at 4.36, he would have been #13 in the league in ERA. He had a 4.04 ERA in the first half and a 3.15 ERA in the second. He was striking out one or more per inning throughout the season.

He was still quite good and certainly not awful.
Agreed. He wasn't as bad as his record indicated. There's no doubt he kicked it into another gear over the final two months of the 1996 season. Big time doubts that it was spurred by sudden pharmaceutical enhancements.

Isn't it pretty well established that PEDS don't increase one's abilities in a given sport, they only enhance how and how long one can train? In other words, there's no magic pill that, overnight, will change a player from mediocre to good/great. It's still necessary to put in the work to make physical changes/adjustments.

I can buy the argument that Clemens started in on the PEDs big time post-1996 (fueling both his insane resurgence in Toronto and the lengthy second half of his career), but it's a weak argument to say that he started them mid-season 1996 and that they alone triggered his strong finish to the season.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
The comparison between Bonds in SF and Clemens is Boston is not a good one. Bonds has remained very popular in SF throughout the years, even while vilified elsewhere. Every time he appears at AT&T, he has received enthusiastic standing ovations, including when he threw out the first pitch during the playoffs three years ago, and the city has a street named after him. And he's officially a part of the organization now, to boot.
I think the better comp is how Bonds is perceived in Pittsburgh. He has pretty much stayed away since leaving in free agency, although I think he came back when McCutcheon won MVP and got mostly booed.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,727
Deep inside Muppet Labs
He also developed the splitter during 1996, did he not? The 20 K game in Detroit the splitter was nasty.
Maybe that was why his arm slot was totally messed up throughout the year.

Seriously, if you guys didn't watch him that season, it's hard to describe how messed up his delivery was through August. He definitely looked to be hiding or pitching through some sort of problem. The 20K game from that year is up on youtube, but none of his others are, and it's a shame because you could see him be really off. Suddenly you've got a 33 year old pitcher with past shoulder issues looking awful and laboring mightily throughout the year, and then Poof! He's pitching like a guy 10 years young through the last 6 weeks.

It was odd then. It's suspicious as hell now.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,057
Hingham, MA
Maybe that was why his arm slot was totally messed up throughout the year.

Seriously, if you guys didn't watch him that season, it's hard to describe how messed up his delivery was through August. He definitely looked to be hiding or pitching through some sort of problem. The 20K game from that year is up on youtube, but none of his others are, and it's a shame because you could see him be really off. Suddenly you've got a 33 year old pitcher with past shoulder issues looking awful and laboring mightily throughout the year, and then Poof! He's pitching like a guy 10 years young through the last 6 weeks.

It was odd then. It's suspicious as hell now.
Nice way to kill an afternoon

 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,686
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Agreed. He wasn't as bad as his record indicated. There's no doubt he kicked it into another gear over the final two months of the 1996 season. Big time doubts that it was spurred by sudden pharmaceutical enhancements.

Isn't it pretty well established that PEDS don't increase one's abilities in a given sport, they only enhance how and how long one can train? In other words, there's no magic pill that, overnight, will change a player from mediocre to good/great. It's still necessary to put in the work to make physical changes/adjustments.

I can buy the argument that Clemens started in on the PEDs big time post-1996 (fueling both his insane resurgence in Toronto and the lengthy second half of his career), but it's a weak argument to say that he started them mid-season 1996 and that they alone triggered his strong finish to the season.
I'm agnostic on the 1996 mid-season use, but steroid-based (and other) PEDs often decrease recovery time, rev up the metabolism, and promote rapid strength gain, often in a matter of weeks. It's why people use them. (But just because they commonly used to work out more and hence build muscle mass don't mean that's the only way to benefit from them.)

It's not completely impossible that Clemens wanted to end the season strong for the FA market, juiced starting mid-season, and saw effects in the second half. If he had been previously flagging, he may have gotten a definite gain in performance, without bulking up, or doing additional training. PEDs didn't have to transform him from a Barnes into a Clemens - he was always Clemens with the same skills and experiences. As a rough thumbnail, we could think of that kind spike in recover as something like getting an "extra" day of rest in a rotation cycle, since your 33 year old body is recovering like a 23 year olds. That, or an extra 1mph on a FB can make a real difference for a guy with Clemens ceiling.

Of course, since he used PEDs eventually, not using them in 96 would mean he had a completely natural resurgence at the end of 96 (contract year) and then decided to juice after the contract year, just because he didn't trust his natural resurgence. . . Eh. I just don't give the guy the benefit of the doubt on anything.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Seriously, if you guys didn't watch him that season, it's hard to describe how messed up his delivery was through August. He definitely looked to be hiding or pitching through some sort of problem.
Clemens was dealing with lower body injuries (hammy) in the mid 1990s...lower body strength was one of his biggest assets.

I don't remember him seeming lost in 1996, especially considering he was leading the league in strikeouts. Heck, even if you take out the 20K game, he would have still won the K crown.

I do remember him experimenting with other pitches and arm slots (including a circle change, foshball, and a submarine pitch), influenced by Al Nipper. I think he was still messing with those pitches after Nipper was canned that spring.
 

Wake's knuckle

New Member
Nov 15, 2006
565
Aarhus, Denmark
He stays in the jerkhouse. Not just for baseball reason, but because of that whole Mindy McCready affair. Supposedly it started when she was 15... and she ended up committing suicide after a long battle with drugs and depression.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
He (and Bonds, and Rose) belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. It is a history museum, FFS. How you tell the history of baseball without the two of the best players from the steroid era is beyond me. Put 'em in, put a statue of a syringe in the area and put up a plaque explaining what happened and why. Baseball "purists" need to take a long walk off a short pier.
I'm agnostic on Bonds and Clemens. That, said if you're lumping in Pete Rose with these two, and mocking those of us who think he should pound sand, you can fuck right off with the self-righteousness.

Baseball was nearly killed by gambling, and Rose knew that. If I'm Mario Soto (to cite one example), I'm wondering if my career was cut short because asshole Pete Rose had action on a game I was playing in. This isn't like steroids or greenies where one could plausibly argue "most of them were doing it". This isn't "getting an advantage to win. This is "calling into question whether the game is on the level". Moreover, that fuckhead arguably drove Bart Giamatti to an early grave.

I disagree with anyone who thinks Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. But the hand-waving dismissive bullshit is obnoxious.
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
I'm in the "fuck the fucking fucker" camp, but I felt like shit getting up this morning and reading over all the vitriol in this thread has given me the energy and drive to face a long day! Veins in my teeth!

A specific comment- he was a jerk, not an asshole, going to the Jays (with the press conference) and with the obvious juicing and going to the MFYs, forget it. I think he's only getting nice lately because he has to to even have people avoid spitting on him.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I'm agnostic on Bonds and Clemens. That, said if you're lumping in Pete Rose with these two, and mocking those of us who think he should pound sand, you can fuck right off with the self-righteousness.

Baseball was nearly killed by gambling, and Rose knew that. If I'm Mario Soto (to cite one example), I'm wondering if my career was cut short because asshole Pete Rose had action on a game I was playing in. This isn't like steroids or greenies where one could plausibly argue "most of them were doing it". This isn't "getting an advantage to win. This is "calling into question whether the game is on the level". Moreover, that fuckhead arguably drove Bart Giamatti to an early grave.

I disagree with anyone who thinks Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. But the hand-waving dismissive bullshit is obnoxious.
It is a history museum. The "purists" who think of it as something other than the place where the entire history of baseball can be browsed have their priorities in the wrong place. How do you tell the whole story of baseball history without Rose? You cannot.

I am in no way suggesting Rose should be "honored" or that his sins - and they are many, and unforgivable - should be forgotten. For the steroid guys (Clemens, Bonds, etc.) there should be a separate wing, with the aforementioned statue of a syringe, and an explanation that "while many people think these users might have been talented enough for the Hall without enhancement, their choice to cheat keeps them out of the "Hall" proper."

Same with Rose. Same with Joe Jackson, and Eddie Cicotte, and the others. Their history is part of baseball's history, and ignoring it to keep the Hall "pure" is misguided, and more than a little stupid. It's a history museum, not an election for Heaven or whatever. Put them in a separate wing, too, complete with a betting sheet or a statue of Giamatti - whatever token allows you to get over the desire to whitewash history and exclude anything that doesn't show baseball in the best light. Rose should never be treated like other Hall of Famers; but he shouldn't be ignored. That's a shitty solution to a really easily solved problem.

If you think baseball should ignore the steroid era, or Rose's career and the effect his gambling had on the game ... well, yeah. I think that's all kinds of dumb.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
I`ve never understood the big deal about Pete Rose and the HOF. He`s talked about more there than anyone else because of his ineligibilty. Mays and Mantle couldn`t work for baseball because of their work in casinos. That shows how serious baseball was about gambling. It`s just a big nothing to me.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,587
Panama
It is a history museum. The "purists" who think of it as something other than the place where the entire history of baseball can be browsed have their priorities in the wrong place. How do you tell the whole story of baseball history without Rose? You cannot.
And they are not doing so. It's not that he was expunged from the game or his records invalidated. He is still recognized for what he was, just that he is not a member of the Hall of Fame, and is now banned from baseball.

His exclusion makes more sense than those of Bonds, et al but the difference is that the "steroid guys" do not make it because voters refuse to vote for them. Rose is not in because he has been decalred ineleigible.

Again, he is part of the museum and history.

Frankly, I have a bigger problem with some other people being IN the Hall of Fame, such as cheap owners, racist owners, etc.