Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds remain in PED purgatory

[ABC]

Their vote percentages jumped, but their support actually dipped...

 

By Ken Rosenthal Jan 6, 2016 at 8:38p ET

 

Don't be fooled by the percentages.

 

 

The chances of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds making the Hall of Fame didn't necessarily improve with the results of the 2016 voting, which was announced Wednesday.

 

 

Yes, the respective percentages of both former greats jumped, Clemens from 37.6 percent to 45.2 and Bonds from 36.8 percent to 44.3. But both are still well short of the 75 percent minimum needed for induction – and both actually received seven fewer raw votes than they did a year ago from the eligible members of the Baseball Writers Association of America.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/hall-of-fame-barry-bonds-roger-clemens-vote-results-ped-steroids-ken-rosenthal-010616

 

 

 

[ELEVEN]

Good

[Stradling]

I personally would vote for them, but they have no one but themselves to blame for being in PED purgatory.

[OregonLAA]

Good. Cheaters AND assholes

[bloodbrother]

The HOF loses it's luster when it doesn't have names like Clemens or Bonds in it.....probably won't see Arod or Manny get voted in either. Pretty bad

[floplag]

the hypocrisy of the bbwaa continues... lol 

[CaliAngel]

Good

[Tank]

they cheated. they don't deserve anything.

[ukyah]

they cheated. they don't deserve anything.

 

 

i think what you mean is, they deserve everything they get.

[Tank]

i think what you mean is, they deserve everything they get.

 

ha! right on.

[mulwin444]

Hall of Famers for sure but they get to rightfully twist in the wind for a few years

[ABC]

User Actions

  Follow

Mark Berman‏@MarkBermanFox26

.@rogerclemens gets 45.2% of votes for HOF,up from 37.5last year.The 7time CyYoung winner issued following statement

 

• RETWEETS57
  
• LIKES32


• 

7:26 PM - 6 Jan 2016

 

Reply

 

Retweet

 

 

 

 

Like

 

 

 

More

[nate]

Good, they are unapologetic cheaters.

 

User Actions

  Follow

Roy HalladayVerified account‏@RoyHalladay

When you use PEDs you admit your not good enough to compete fairly! Our nations past time should have higher standards! No Clemens no Bonds!

 

[laagamer]

I see Clemens is taking it like a bitch

[QuinlansMinion]

Cant wait til Ortiz gets in and people make a different excuse.

Some cheaters are allowed in, some are not. I guess it depends on how you treated the media.

[ScottT]

I hope someone confesses to PED use.... during their acceptance speech.... or after they are elected but before the ceremony.

 

I hope it isn't Griffey.

[Stradling]

Cant wait til Ortiz gets in and people make a different excuse.

Some cheaters are allowed in, some are not. I guess it depends on how you treated the media.

You're on the wrong website if you're expecting excuses in favor of Ortiz

[Docwaukee]

Bonds was a sure fire HOFer regardless of steroid use.  Granted, he may have taken them much earlier than we think, but by all accounts he started ramping them up big time between 1999 and 2000.  Even if he starts to decline after his age 34 season, he had already accumulated 103 WAR, 445hrs and 460sbs with a 163 ops+.  Even then there was still some suspicion he was on before that as he was still an uber monster at the plate for the four years previous.  He probably plays another 5-6 years with a declining hr count and avg yet still gets on base at his usual unbelievable rate.  Perhaps getting to around 600hrs and being a first ballot HOFer and one of the top ten best players in the history of the game.  

 

So he is paying his penance.  He will eventually get in but his aura as  the best player ever will always be tainted.  It a shame really.  

 

My thing about roid use during that era is that it was a very unfortunate part of the game and I wish it didn't occur.  Like racism and syphilis in other eras.  But those things did happen and they were rampant, and it's impossible to truly account for how it affected the game or any one player.  At same time, it's pretty damn obvious and not very subtle where certain players became something they never should have.  

 

Like Bonds age 36-39 yo seasons.  Anyone can instantly see that those numbers are steroid related.  His 54.3 WAR after the age of 35 is almost 20 WAR better than the next closest hitter.  There is precedent for inner circle HOFers still being very good almost to the age of 40, but Bonds good is frankly insulting.  

 

Now how about Clemens?

 

He had a magical career resurgence at the age of 34 where he was equally as good from age 34-44 (yes, age 44) as he was from 21-33.  He was on a pretty standard path with his peak years from age 27-29 and then some back and forth from age 30-33.  Then at 34 he throws 264 innings with a career high 292 strikeouts and a 2.05era.  Clemens was only very good from age 21-33.  At that point he had 192 wins, and a 3.06 era.  Which amounted to a 144 era+ for the time.  If he pitches 5-6 more years and that era+ goes does to 135 due to normal aging trajectory, he's still in the Randy Johnson, Whitey ford, Greg Maddux, Roy Hallady (ironically) range.  

 

He probably gets to about 250-260 wins and is most likely a HOFer, but not 100% because if he declined quickly after the age of 33, he's closer to a Doc Gooden or Bob Welch type.  Both of whom had excellent careers but aren't HOFers.  But I think he gets in just based on the fact that his real career peak was phenomenal and that era+ telling us how difficult it was to pitch in that era.  

 

So just by looking at the numbers, I think Clemens deserves to be in purgatory a bit longer than Bonds.  

 

Just a few other thoughts:

 

The guys who have been vilified the most are the potential inner circle guys whereas the guys who were just excellent yet still had a little bit of steroid stink on them are now getting in like Piazza this year and likely Bagwell next year.  Take home point - if you are gonna take roids, just be really good and not the best.  

 

Next years ballot is gonna be interesting.  I think Bagwell, Raines, Hoffman and Vlad get in.  Manny, no way in hell.  I don't think Bonds or Clemens makes it yet.  The most interesting name on next years list is going to be Pudge.  He is heavily clouded with canseco saying he personally injected him and Pudge himself saying 'only God knows' when asked if he was on the list of players who tested positive before such things were public.  I don't think he gets in next year though.  I think he'll get lumped closer to Bonds and Clemens than he will Bagwell and Piazza.  

 

I don't get the lack of love Edgar, Mussina, Kent and McGriff.   I guess I get the Edgar thing considering that he was a DH, but he gets dinged for that in his total WAR and his OPS+ puts him in the top 50 all time.  I guess because McGriff didn't hit 7 more hrs, he's not getting even though his other numbers are still excellent.  Kent was probably one of the best 2bman of all time but it's a pretty thin position to begin with and he played during the wrong era.  

 

Mussina should get in.  There are no roid allegations that I know of and he pitched during a time when everyone under the sun he was facing was juiced to the max.   So his 82.7 WAR offsets his not so HOF worth era of 3.68 in my opinion.  That's 23rd all time for starting pitchers.  Just about everyone on either side of him is in and he should be as well at some point.  Just like you have to take into context the hitters who may have used, you have to take into context the idea that his numbers would have been better had he played in a different era.  So he's in steroid era limbo but for the opposite reason.  

[zenmaster]

Anyone else think the voters should be players (past? present? not sure) and not bbwaa? This has always seemed odd to me. The whole thing is just screwy.

Edited January 7, 2016 by zenmaster

[Troll Daddy]

^^^^^^^^^^

Pete Rose agrees with you Doc.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Troll Daddy

[eaterfan]

Anyone else think the voters should be players (past? present? not sure) and not bbwaa? This has always seemed odd to me. The whole thing is just screwy.

Why? You think the players would do a better job? It would just be guys voting for their friends.

They already have the veteran's committee and from what I understand they are far more of a joke than the writers.

Edited January 7, 2016 by eaterfan

[AngelsLakersFan]

Anyone else think the voters should be players (past? present? not sure) and not bbwaa? This has always seemed odd to me. The whole thing is just screwy.

 

That might be the worst thing that could ever happen.

[Docwaukee]

^^^^^^^^^^

Pete Rose agrees with you Doc.

completely different situation.  If there was an era where betting on baseball top to bottom was rampant and it wasn't clear who was involved and to what level, then I could make a case for Pete.  

 

personally, I don't feel like what Pete did was fundamentally any worse that what the roid users did.  Both potentially changed the game on a nightly basis.  Neither is acceptable just because everyone was or was not doing it.  

 

The difference lies in the precendent and complicit nature of the crime.  For steriod use, everyone is guilty.  Even those that didn't use turned a blind eye.  Owners, coaches, writers, players etc.  It's a stain on the game and will go down as something that we wish never happened.  

 

For gambling, there was precedent set that there is no gambling and especially on baseball games where that individual could control the outcome of the game.  Pete acted independently.  A soloist in committing his inappropriate act.  An act that was well known as tabu throughout all of baseball.  In addition, since it was revealed and the penalty levied,  Rose has been indignant, defiant, unappologetic and has flat out lied about it on multiple occassions.  Baseball wanted a mea culpa and Rose has given them nothing of the sort.  They have asked him to address his gambling addicition and to this day he still bets on baseball.  

 

I believe that the veteran's committee will vote him in upon his death because the player deserves to be in the HOF based on his achievements, but the man doesn't.  

[Biergott]

As much as I dislike Bonds and Arod and would love for them to get shafted at every turn in their lives, to me it does not make sense that they do not go into the Hall along with McGuire as well.   Yes, they used roids.  But MLB rode those roided coattails back to prosperity.  Baseball wasn't dying, but it was stagnant and stale.  Those home run chases, the big bombs, they lit baseball back up.    MLB FULLY knew what was going on.  They didn't just turn a blind eye, they encouraged it, marketed it, and took advantage of it.  To leave the guys that created that wave of enthusiam out swinging in the wind now, is not only hypocritical, but a major CYA.  Should every roider get in?  No.  But the ones with the HOF numbers should.

 

If they are allowing the records to stand, and the numbers to remain, then they should be allowing the guys who achieved them, whether roided or not, into the Hall.

 

Would I prefer there be no roids in baseball?  Absolutely.  Were they there, and probably more widespread that we even believe they were today?  Sure.   They were probably so rampantly used that the playing field was arguably equal.  It was a different time culturally.  Coke was mainstream, excess was everywhere.  Not to mention, it seems every generation has had it's performance enhancers.  Greenies being a big one from a bygone era.

 

So while I'd love to keep them out because I dislike most of them, they are being used as scapegoats for the entire league (from the league itself, to the owners, to the television stations, to the merchandisers, and even the fans who clamored for more homers).   And that isn't right.    

[zenmaster]

HoF in general is just a big museum anyways so I don't get all the fuss. It's not life or death. It's an era of baseball that needs to be captured. We are disregarding a whole generation of players because of their drug of choice (roids) when the previous and current generations use other things (alcohol or who knows what else).