Roger Clemens went out in style in 2003. After announcing that he would be retiring earlier in the year, Clemens went out and earned both his 300th career win and 4,000th career strikeout. His farewell tour also included warm receptions from rival crowds, including the faithful at Fenway Park. Clemens even got to make his final start in the World Series, notch a strikeout in his final at-bat, and receive a standing ovation from the Marlins’ crowd as he walked off.
Everyone wants to leave on a high note, but that’s easier said than done. In 2004, Clemens inked a one-year deal to join up with the Astros. In 2005, Clemens once again toyed with the idea of retirement, but was coerced to return to Houston with a one-year, $18MM deal. After yet another World Series appearance, that was believed to be the end of the road for Clemens.
On this date in 2006, Clemens signed a deal to pitch for the Astros for the remainder of the season. The pact was technically a record-setting one-year, $22MM deal, but because it was a prorated contract, Clemens received a little over half of that. Even in his age 43 season, Clemens showed that he had plenty in the tank. In 19 starts, the veteran pitched to a 2.30 ERA with 8.1 K/9 and 2.3 BB/9. Had he pitched that way starting in April, there’s little doubt that the right-hander would have earned his fourth consecutive All-Star appearance.
Of course, this wasn’t Clemens’ final comeback. In 2007, the Rocket showed up in George Steinbrenner’s box at Yankee Stadium to let everyone know that he’d be joining the Bombers. “Thank y’all,” Clemens said to the Bronx crowd. “Well they came and got me out of Texas, and I can tell you its a privilege to be back. I’ll be talkin’ to y’all soon.” Clemens would reemerge with the Sugar Land Skeeters in 2012, but the ’07 season would mark his last in Major League Baseball.
The HoF is a joke already, but its missing arguably the best pitcher, and the best power hitter in history of baseball because they took advantage of a loophole that MLB wasn’t punishing anyone for abusing it.
And the all time hits leader.
Thats for something completely different. I don’t mind the Rose ban as much, but I still think Rose should be in.
You can’t support his ban and then say he deserves to be in.
Why not? The Hall of Fame is not MLB. They chose to follow MLB’s permanently ineligible list, but they were under no obligation to do so. They are under no obligation to continue to do so, and there’s nothing wrong with believing they shouldn’t even if you support Rose being on such a list.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to different visions for the Hall. Is it about celebrating a career or honoring a man? Rose’s playing career is beyond a doubt worthy of honoring in the Hall. His behavior may be disqualifying to some. Depends where you come down on that line.
Personally, I don’t believe the Hall should bother banning player from consideration. Election is a high enough hurdle to jump as it is. If people want to vote against Rose because of his ban, so be it; if it turns out that 25% of people did, then he won’t get in. No reason to explicitly forbid voting on him, in my opinion.
I’m actually not sure why Rose is excluded…why not make that part of the history
Agreed. It’s a museum and history isn’t always pretty.
They display Shoeless Joe’s spikes and bat…I’m not a fan of this modern hall vote. I get the intention when it was first started. But it’s just become needlessly political and pointless. I mean, what’s worthy? Some guys can play otherworldly in a short span…others play for over 20 years and rack up numbers. If anyone saw Orel Hershiser throw in the late 80’s they could lay claim that he was the most dominant pitcher of the era. But what’s an era? The Clemens/Pedro/Maddux argument….Clemens predates both those guys. Where does Nolan Ryan fit in in comparing Clemens? They were contemporaries…
They did this since 1936. It’s not a modern day things. It’s the entire inception. The first class had Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Johnson, Mathewson. And they have inducted players ever since. It is all about the players and a celebration of the greats.
I realize this, but the first generations had fewer to draw from. I’m sorry, but the Jim Rice and Andre Dawson’s being elected scream writer-fanboy to me. I wouldn’t have a problem with the Hall being very selective on plaques
I’d be OK with a yes or no vote…and then it gets revisited down the road. Some players really aren’t truly appreciated until down the road. I just either think you have to honor more or make it where no one could plausibly deny their greatness
The hall of fame needs to get rid of “honoring” players and instead be a museum. If you’re a great player, you will have items in the museum and your accomplishments remembered. Inducting people to the hall was a terrible idea that introduces nothing but politics to something where politics do not belong. Everyone can agree certain events are worth remembering, and those things should be in the hall. Be it bats, balls, gloves, photographs, et cetera. That is what the hall of fame should be, a museum. Get rid of the people.
I agree but disagree.
I don’t mind them having people, i just disagree with the voting system.
What qualifies somebody as a great player to get into your museum idea?
The hall of fame already has a museum that celebrates all of the great things that happen. When someone throws a perfect game or whatever, their uniform, glove, and whatever it is goes to the hall of fame. They should stick to that and get rid of all the plaques and inducting of people.
I agree, but I’m not sure how mlb ever had that loophole…considering the loophole was a Federal crime. That it should have been illegal should never have to have been stated
It’s not missing “the best pitcher”, because “the best pitcher” wasn’t even close to the best pitcher. Clemens was really good, but the only reason he statistically would be in the competition is because of his massive, rampant cheating that allowed him to do things at a very old age that humans normally can’t do. Seeing as we can make a qualitative adjustment and knew how good he was when he wasn’t cheating, it’s easy to judge his legacy: HOFer, sure, but not even close to the best ever.
Same with Bonds…he isn’t “the best power hitter ever” because he wasn’t even close to that. He was a terrific all-around player, but he needed to basically become a cyborg to put up “best power hitter ever” type numbers. Why don’t we count everyone’s little league, high school, and minor league numbers while we’re at it?
Deserves to be in the hall-of-fame….Best pitcher of that era….hopefully the writers get it right…..
Pedro Martinez says hello. That said they are without a doubt the top two during that era.
Clemens career squashes Pedro’s….
Career WAR
Pedro – 86
Clemens – 139.4
The difference between Clemens’ WAR and Pedro’s WAR (53.4) is higher than Sandy Koufax’s Career WAR (53.2)
If we can ignore PED’s, Clemens by far had the better career.
This is not a knock on Pedro FYI. No doubt about it he was great
Also, I’d say RJ and Maddux > Pedro.
Clemens played a lot longer. Pretty sure he started 100+ more games
More like 250+ games. I’m just saying Clemens was better by far, however, Pedro’s 99 and 2000 season were probably better than any season Clemens had.
Pedro says hello with Greg Maddux sitting in the passenger seat. Ahh…its all a matter of preference. Can’t go wrong with either of the three
Pedro had the better peak, Clemens had the better career
Both are valid…two great generation defining pitchers. Too bad Pedro couldn’t have stayed in Montreal
I believe history will love Greg Maddux.
When the Jays signed Clemens I remember jumping up and down thinking they had a shot of winning the World Series again. He did far better than anyone expected in Toronto and I know he’ll get in the HOF eventually. Likely by the Veterans committee.
RAHJA CLEMINS, IS IN JAWJIZ BOX
One interesting thing about Clemens’ movement from the Yankees to the Astros was that there was no compensation–no draft picks. That’s because the Yankees assumed, after Clemens’s 17-9, AS, 4.1 bWAR season, that Clemens intended to do as he said he was–retire. No offer of arbitration, no compensatory pick. Now, think about that for a moment. A great player, a bit on the older side, announces this year will be his last. He has a good enough year that his team would make a QO, but doesn’t, because he’s retiring. Then, after a dignified rest of a few weeks, he signs with another team–without compensation.
Everything surrounding Clemens just makes me sad. He played on the semi-pro team in my small Kansas hometown while he was a collegiate pitcher and I was a baseball crazy 6 or 7 year old.. Before he was much of a star. Then in 1987 I met up with him again in the bullpen in Anaheim after he’d tossed a pen…he remembered us and was very friendly. He was THE pitcher of his era. I’m not going to state stats…Clemens just signified what dominance was…much in the same way people mention Nolan Ryan.
Then the steroid stuff happened…and now its hard to have a.conversation without that coming up. He was so much more than just steroids. Just wish we could talk about his pitching.
How can any summary of this guy’s career not include the steroid taint?
Because, it’s redundant, as this really wasn’t a career summary but a snippet from a chapter in his career. There’s no one reading this post that is likely unfamiliar with the steroids and congressional hearing. It’d be like discussing Nixon in China and bookending with a paragraph on Watergate. It’s just out of place. We could also discuss Clemens pitching during the 1986 series without introducing steroids into the narrative
Balance used to be the norm in reporting.
This sounds like a tribute piece.
Oh, I completely agree…but we have to conclude and agree that this is reporting. But I just don’t feel that inserting “steroid” into this piece is even good journalism. Its unnecessary and trite. Now, perhaps, if Toronto were being discussed..maybe.
I guess here you could say that “This Day in Transaction History” was expanded on. I’ll grant you this isn’t Woodward and Bernstein typically, but if someone wants to enjoy these posts they need to bury that notion. I was trained in journalism and sports journalism… I just enjoy the facts and let other things slide. What point is it to scream when a writer inserts themselves into the narrative from time to time or gives an unwarranted opinion. I’m actually a minimalist when it comes to reporting. Say what needs to be said and let others hash things out
I shall cease my two-post “scream”.
I was referring to myself when I said, “scream” actually. Journalism is an entirely different discussion, and I can guarantee you they won’t allow that in the comment space. I was highly critical of the writing on here in the early days as it grew, but I’ve seen some growth…and now a few times some slide as I think there’s an attempt to gain more access.
Is it just me, or are there penalties by law for mentioning “Clemens in the box” without also citing “OH MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS!”? And if you don’t know what I’m talking about, look it up, it’s glorious.
That was hilarious. I can’t believe I have never heard it before