Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens- The Greatest Pitcher Ever?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • morpheus1776
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post

    I'd have Ray Chapman duck in time, Roberto Clemente not get on that plane, Lou Gehrig get healed, Ron Santo to live to see his induction, and Ed Delahanty get sober.
    That was too cool! Don't forget about Dickie Thon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post

    Jeff Bagwell made a comment a fews ago that the players today are NOT allowed to be greater in the players of the past. The reason for this is probably fear. It offends "purists" that so many HRs are being hit today. It offends them that journeyman players can hit more HRs in a season than Hank Aaron, Willie McCovey, Ernie Banks, etc. It offends them because in their minds it somehow diminishes the accomplishments of their heros. It offends them that THEIR heros may one day be forgotten. So what do they do? They complain and attack and belittle the game. Instead of enjoying the game for what it is now, they talk about how good the game was "back then" and how the game is garbage today. These "fans" make me want to puke. I love the game of baseball. I love it's history and the current game. I don't compare eras to belittle the current game. I love all the baseball eras. They were all unique and interesting in thier own right. I love 1900s baseball, and 1920s baseball ,and 1950s baseball, and 1960s baseball, and 1980s baseball and 2005 baseball.

    We (at least most of us) were not around to see the really old payers. There is hardly any film of them , no interviews no 24/7 coverage of their careers. The constant modern media, Internet, newspapers, etc have taken away the "mystic" of current players. The current players do not have a mystic like Mays, Mantle, Koufax, DiMaggio, Ruth, Cobb, Foxx, Grove, Wagner have. We don't have any idea about the old ball player's personalities, flaws, or any feeling how they were as people. Take Barry Bonds for example. He's pretty much hated by most baseball fans. And that is sad. I have been able to watch him up close for 12 seasons and I can say he is the greatest baseball player I have ever seen, and it's not even close. And I am someone that has studied baseball history since I was 10 years old. He had a chance to join the "legends" of the past in the pantheon of true Baseball heros. But because of Balco, his surly personality, and other unfortunate incidents that will never happen. I am not an apologist for Bonds he did what he did and it is his fault for doing so. Most of his "problems" were of his own doing. Now, that he is apporaching Aaron's HR record I don't know how I feel about that. Maybe he should retire before that happens. I know that one day I can tell my grand children that I had the pleasure of watching Barry Bonds play in person many times and perform many herioc deeds on the baseball diamond.

    As for Clemens, just in the past few years I am starting to really appreciate his career in a historical context. A strong argument can be made for Clenems being the greatest pitcher ever. I'd prefer to wait until he retires before we can really say where he stands amongst the greats.

    And that is my $.02...
    Im never here anymore really. But in a revivalist sense? Post of the month by Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floyd Gondolli
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --I think if you're saying Clemens couldn't have survived the workload in the deadball period, you're in effect saying no modern pitcher could. He has worked more innings than anybody else in the last 25 years. Guess there just aren't any real men working the mound anymore, eh?
    Can we just change the title of this thread to: "Greg Maddux- The Greatest Pitcher Ever?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    Are you penalizing for PEDs?
    I don't know if it's 'penalizing' per se. I think I inherently dock a player 10%-20% from their prime suspect steroid years to try to adjust in my mind what they would have done without them. I don't think that's 'penalizing' as it is 'adjusting.'

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Cowtipper View Post
    Walter Johnson is the greatest pitcher ever. Among contemporaries, I might actually put Maddux ahead of Clemens. Lefty Grove was better, too.
    Are you penalizing for PEDs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cowtipper
    replied
    Walter Johnson is the greatest pitcher ever. Among contemporaries, I might actually put Maddux ahead of Clemens. Lefty Grove was better, too.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    And I'd have the Milwaukee Braves win one more game in 1956, and one more game in 1959, and Al Lopez start Billy Pierce in the 1959 World Series. Which has ____ all to do with Roger Clemens, but the less said about him, the better.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948

    If I could change five things from the past, I'd have Joe Jackson never involved, Ruth never start on the mound (his hitting and all-around ability was more than enough to get signed and thrive), there never being a need for the Negro Leagues, the DH being abolished long ago, and having Bonds never make that choice.
    I'd have Ray Chapman duck in time, Roberto Clemente not get on that plane, Lou Gehrig get healed, Ron Santo to live to see his induction, and Ed Delahanty get sober.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    Hits and RBI? Not sure you could have mentioned two more irrelevant stats.
    To me, you and most of us? Yes. To the BBWAA voters? Possibly not.

    Again...I am saying that the voters of the time might have looked at least somewhat askance at his (and Clemens') ultimate totals, feeling that they didn't hit the automatic milestones. That is all that I'm saying.

    I'm really sorry that I even brought it up because it's a minor point and I've had to rewrite the same post about half a dozen times, now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    The reason I mentioned first ballot for Roy is that I had invoked his case as a more likely scenario for a suddenly retired Roger Clemens than Koufax.
    I think perception of Clemens's career in 1996 was >>> the perception of Doc when he retired. Clemens was a much bigger megastar. I do think Doc will make the HOF too...but not 1st ballot, of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    The reason I mentioned first ballot for Roy is that I had invoked his case as a more likely scenario for a suddenly retired Roger Clemens than Koufax.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    Bonds had less than 2000 hits and 1216 RBI. If he's facing the voters of 2003ish, he's going to catch flack for being under HOF norms for those stats. I'm not saying I agree but that possibility seems valid, to me (especially considering how despised he was by pretty much every member of the BBWAA.)

    Similarly, through '96 Clemens is 192-111 with 2590 Ks. Halladay, in comparison, is 203-105 with 2117 Ks. He has 2 Cy Youngs. Is he going to go in first ballot? I have serious doubts about it.

    Again, I'm not saying these things because I approve of the paradigm but I think everyone is dismissing it too quickly.
    3 Cy Youngs is a lot more predictive than 2. Not sure if Clemens is first ballot...but his numbers after 1996 looked pretty similar to Pedro who waltzed in. And who said anything about First Ballot? Was that on the table? Either way...400/400, 8 Gold Globes, and 3 MVPs gets Bonds on first ballot anyway if I had to guess. For being so hated, they kept giving him MVPs and Gold Gloves and other awards every year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Los Bravos
    replied
    Bonds had less than 2000 hits and 1216 RBI. If he's facing the voters of 2003ish, he's going to catch flack for being under HOF norms for those stats. I'm not saying I agree but that possibility seems valid, to me (especially considering how despised he was by pretty much every member of the BBWAA.)

    Similarly, through '96 Clemens is 192-111 with 2590 Ks. Halladay, in comparison, is 203-105 with 2117 Ks. He has 2 Cy Youngs. Is he going to go in first ballot? I have serious doubts about it.

    Again, I'm not saying these things because I approve of the paradigm but I think everyone is dismissing it too quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
    So what you're saying, is that using some kind of run support/W/L% ratio would be good for a tie breaker?
    I'd rather just use WAR or WAA or WPA or RE24 or something like that and not worry about WL all-together.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bothrops Atrox
    replied
    Originally posted by Los Bravos View Post
    All I'm saying here is that it's frequently asserted that Clemens and Bonds each had stone locks on the Hall at the start of their PED use and I've suggested, repeatedly, that I'm not so sure of that.

    They were on the proper glide paths but if either or both had been forced to suddenly retire, they would've faced a contentious battle to make it with the numbers and career that they had. Halliday is in the same boat. It's clear to most of us that he's a HOFer but I doubt he sails in easily.
    Bonds has 400 HRs, 400 SBs and 3 MVPs. He was a stone-cold lock. Uber-traditional Sporting News had him in the top 30 position players of all-time already. He was always considered up there with Griffey as POTD. SI already were printing articles asking if he were the greatest LF of all-time.

    Clemens gets in with 3 Cy Youngs too.
    Last edited by Bothrops Atrox; 04-24-2015, 08:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X