Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
And yet voted him MVP 7 times.
And that was enough to bring his total down to 94.6 percent, while Ryan was up above 98 percent.
I doubt if anyone other than Ray is likely to compare Clemens' personal reputation to Seaver's or Ryan's.
But many pitchers with Kevin Brown-ish careers and no hint of steroid taint have been one-and-done in recent BBWAA elections.
I think the only players with "Kevin Brownish" careers who are NOT in the Hall are:
Cicotte (banned) and perhaps Billy Pierce
Expand the parameters a bit and you get:
1 and out:
2 and out:
I guess those were the guys you were thinking of.
before BALCO the writers really seemed to go out of their way to deny him awards
I guess those were the guys you were thinking of.
Brown got 12 votes - how many could Mitchell have possibly cost him? 5? Maybe 10 at the most?
Writers "hated" Bonds (for lack of a better word) and carried on crazed vendettas against him
Low 90s sounds about right to me for where a no-roids Bonds would be in his first year on the ballot. Everybody starts at 97-98% regardless from a likely-rotating cast of no-first-year-ers (everybody makes exceptions), 4-5% would dock him for he was a jerk to teammates/me, and there are always a few randoms ranging from I forgot to everybody else is voting for him, he's going to get in, so I don't have to. Clemens probably 94-95% - the aforementioned 2-3% automatic, then a few points for attitude, "quitting" on the Red Sox. Again, pitchers are just held to different standards than hitters, probably because hitters play every day so the writers interact with them more. Clemens wasn't liked, but he was much more liked than Bonds, who was loathed.
I'd say Bonds around 93%, maybe as high as 95.
In the completely hypothetical PED-free Bonds, I suspect he would have lost some number of votes due to the lack of rings and the reputation as a playoff choker. It seems to me that his failed attempt to throw out Sid Bream and early performances (.200 BA through his first five post seasons) set in stone a reputation that his fabulous 2002 didn't erase in the public mind. Clemens, of course, had a couple of bad performances, including the melt-down where he was thrown out of the ALCS against the A's and the contest for the Yanks in '99 that, according to the prosecution, caused him to shakily demand that NYY employ McNamee, but he also has 2 rings and a 3-0 2.37 line for his World Series efforts. I think that is enough for a couple point difference in results.
And now a new article has magically appeared.
Maybe because Rep. Cummings pointed out the obvious during the 2008 hearing: Andy Pettitte could not possibly have thought Clemens was talking about Debbie using HGH if they talked in 1999 or 2000 and she got injected in 2003. Clemens had to have been talking about himself. Unfortunately, his speaking time expired before Clemens had a chance to answer. But I wouldn't be surprised if Hardin immediately wrote a note on his legal pad: "Got to find a USA Today article on HGH from 2000..." And now a new article has magically appeared.
McNamee changes his story and Hardin paints it as reprehensible. But if Debbie/Roger change their story (and for that matter, Mrs. McNamee, who changed her story from what she told the feds) -- well, that's okay, I guess.
you're the only person on the BTF planet who thinks that a not guilty verdict will change "absolutely nothing", and that every last writer who cares about steroids has already pre-determined Clemens' guilt or innocence.
whether you choose 2003 or 2004 as a starting point, neither of those dates would add to any argument that the writers were particularly looking to deny Bonds any deserved honors
If Clemens gets acquitted and he gets 10 or more percentage points over Bonds, I don't see how that can possibly be spun as anything other than steroids.
the simplest way of "knowing" who's right in this (given an acquittal) is going to be by reading the explanations of those writers who voted only for Clemens
I'm not sure how that would affect anything...
You don't think his inclusion in the "Mitchell Report" had anything to do with him getting "screwed"?
IOW heads you win, tails you don't know.
What about Piazza and Mussina? I'd go Dodgers and Orioles.
My question is why the three of you are so reluctant to admit the opposite possibility.
Anyway, as for the Clemens team changing their story, you seem to ignore that Debbie apparently testified that Clemens was at Canseco's house on the day of the party -- and I can't see how that helps Clemens at all.
25. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 07, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4151128)
I don't have a clue how Clemens' vote total will stack up in comparison to Bonds' and vice versa. But I'd be shocked if there were five hands out there, ballpoint pens at the ready and poised over the Hall of Fame ballots, quavery and uncertain because they're waiting to see what happens next in court.
How will Hall of Fame voters treat Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens? In a survey of 90 veteran baseball writers who vote on player inductions, neither Bonds nor Clemens garnered the 75 percent that is required to gain entry into the Hall. Although this is only about a sixth of the writers who usually vote each year, it seems portentous for Bonds, the career home run leader with 762, and Clemens, who has 354 victories and a record seven Cy Young awards. Bonds received 53 votes, or 59 percent, while 28 writers said they would not vote for him and 9 were undecided. Clemens received less support, notching 50 votes, or 56 percent, while 27 writers voted against him and 13 were undecided. Writers were encouraged to give a definitive answer, with the understanding that future developments could change their opinions.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 1.2694 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed