Talk:Roger Clemens/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reverted edit

I have reverted an anonymous edit which said that Clemens is one of the preeminent pitchers of all time to the previous edit (which said he is one of the preeminent pitchers of the 80s, 90s, and 00s).

Clemens is one the games outstanding pitchers, and indeed most would agree that he is on e of the all-time greats. However, the edit had two major problems:

1) "Preeminent" can only be used as a comparison amongst ones peers (i.e. from the same era).

2) Making comments about the greatness of sportsmen is flirting with POV at best. However, his stats stand out amongst his own era (so a case can be made for him being a standout amongst his contemporaries). The game has changed to such an extent over the years that attempting to compare Clemens to, for example, Cy Young statistically is impossible without expressing a Point of View. Rje 13:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Npov edits

I believe that edits by User:12.154.167.138 on Jan 27th have made this article read in a pov fashion and may not flow as well as the previous version. Examples cited below:

  • After a shaky 1999 and problem filled 2000 Clemens hit his stride in 2001 as a Yankee. It was on warn night in September, 2001 in memory of the Trade Center that Clemens won his 20th win of the season and for the first time by New York fans was considered a Yankee.
  • Because the beloved Yankee Paul O'Neil who was the unofical clubhouse leader already wore number 21, Clemens' former number, The Rocket wore number 12 in 1999 but after his sub-par season 14-10, 4.60, 163 Clemens requested another number and number 22 he became.
  • Piazza charged the mound Clemens picked up a piece of bat and threw in the general direction of Piazza, clearing the benches of both teams. Neither were ejected from the game, although Clemens would later be fined $50,000.
  • In 2003 Clemens won his 300th victory (After losing several attempts in a row) becoming a Hall of Fame deadlock, as a Yankee in Yankee stadium, something no one else has ever done. On that night with the flash bulbs going off and 2 of his sons bagging dirt from the mound no one could doubt that Roger was a Yankee
  • He also appeared in the SI swimsuit issue with his wife Debbie (neither one of them looked forty).

Thoughts, anyone ? No Guru 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Reverted edit

W.Marsh keeps removing relevant criteria about Roger Clemens's controversies and dislikeability. While not removing all controversy Clemens has been involved in, he shapes it so Clemens's admirers have the last word.

To wit: he's deleted Bill Simmon's documented comments about Roger, Roger's disappearing headhunting act, and Clemens's inability to come through in numerous clutch situations.

W.Marsh needs to realize that a large segment of the baseball-viewing community dislike Clemens for these specific reasons, and Clemens is probably the last hall-of-fame pitcher you'd want starting any significant, pressure-packed game you had.

Stop trying to rehabilitate the guy. He's not going to get love, no matter how much you try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.240.200 (talk)

I have a few concerns. First, you're reverting other edits when you add that. Second, it's long and unformatted, and a criticism section shouldn't take up half the length of an article no matter how much you dislike a guy. Third, a lot of it is unreferenced... saying things like "has been claimed", "One could also argue", "Some fans argue that"... this is classic use of weasel words to push a POV and needs to go. Add criticism with citations of actual articles and it can probably stay, so long as the overall length of the criticism section isn't frivilous. Just re-adding the section again and again is not good.
For the record, I am not a Clemens fan personally... but that has little to do with how I edit the article. --W.marsh 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I second W.marsh's comments. I suggest that you hash out your disagreement here on the talk page rather than getting into a revert war. And, 160.39.240.200, please sign your comments with the wikicode ~~~~ so we know who is writing a message. You might also consider creating an account on Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I've made it through 3 paragraphs, citing everything. Hopefully this shows what I mean... the section works much better if instead of saying "many fans argue" and the like, which comes off as highly biased and basically meaningless, we can actually cite some sources for the controversies. But it is kind of a daunting task... it's easy to see why people prefer just to use weasel words. --W.marsh 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual Error

I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how to do this myself, but the comment that Dennis Eckersley was the first relief pitcher to win an MVP is incorrect. Jim Konstanty won in 1950, Rollie Fingers in 1981, and Willie Hernandez in 1984. It's probably better to just delete rather than correct the sentence, since it isn't really relavant to Clemens in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.15.236 (talk)

You're right, I've removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Let me know if there's anything else wrong, or feel free to fix it yourself. --W.marsh 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact Needed?

A fact citation is hardly needed for this quote: "The emphasis on the 1996 "twilight" quote took on a life of its own following Clemens' post-Boston successes, and Duquette was vilified for letting the star pitcher go."

Try living in New England some time, or talking to a Red Sox fan. The Clemens mistake more than overrides all the good Duquette did for the franchise in the minds of Sox fans (he signed Manny Ramírez, for one). Though it, like selling Babe Ruth, was hardly an unreasonable decision at the time, Duquette has been vilified for it in the context of events he could not have foreseen.

Really, it's common knowledge that Duquette was vilified for this. The Clemens decision and the Ruth decision are probably the two most bemoaned baseball operations decisions in the history of the Red Sox franchise.

XINOPH | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, that smacks of original research (see WP:NOR). "Well everybody feels this way!" is simply not a good source. If everyone feels that way, someone is bound to have written it in something that got published. So cite it :-) --W.marsh 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write that everyone felt that way; read what I wrote. I wrote that the vilification of Duquette is common historical knowledge, at least in the sports world. This is not about how many people thought that, or whether a lot of people did; this is about the existence of heavy criticism being a common fact, rather than a specialized one requiring a source. This bears no relation whatsoever to original research. XINOPH | TALK 17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 01:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Postseason/controversy/etc.

Much of the material being reverted to has POV issues, or worse. "His inability to play well in clutch situations arose again..." is incorrect, as Clemens has performed exceptionally well in some big games, exceptionally poorly in others. He won Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS, won the 18-inning Astros-Braves game, and would have won Game 7 of the 2001 World Series if the Yankees had held his 2-1 lead. References to these games are being deleted in favor of comments about "a phantom hamstring injury." Furthermore, Clemens' reputation for throwing close to batters most certainly did not "begin" to exist "in later years with the Yankees." W.Marsh has greatly improved other sections of this page, but I don't understand these reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.199.33 (talk)

Thanks for discussing it... and I think you have a point that there are some issues with POV even still. But the solution is not to rewrite the controversy section to give equal time to his accomplishments, that's redundant and seems rather awkward, the solution is to make the controversy section simply accurate, well referenced summaries of the controversy he's been in over the years, and let the article as a whole (which is mostly summaries of his positive accomplishments) speak for itself. I've made a few changes to the section, and I encourage you to address anything else I've missed. --W.marsh 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---I broke things up as per your suggestions, and added a more general overview of Clemens' negatives and controversies. How's it working for you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.199.33 (talk)

It's looking better, I've made some tweaks. I think we're getting closer. --W.marsh 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Greatest

clemens is the only active pitcher on the all century team this means that he would have to be the preeminant pitcher of his generation and he has won the mvp and the cy young 7 times no pitcher of his era has done that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themetalgod (talk • contribs)

The article needs some work... but making claims like someone is "the greatest" and so on is simply not what Wikipedia articles do. You can say that some notable sporterswriter has said Clemens is the greatest pitcher of his generation (I'm sure some have) but that really shouldn't be in the intro, for the sake of balance. --W.marsh 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
note number 2 on the clemens page shows clemens graduating in 1980 he was 17 he was not picked when the mets selected him in 1981 he was 18 turning 19 when picked by the red sox he was 20 turning 21
90's: Maddux, 174-88 2.54 ERA. Clemens, 152-89 3.02 ERA. It is extremely difficult to say that Clemens was the dominant pitcher of his era.
Some reasons as to why Clemens is more well-known than Maddux: Clemens played on a WS-winning team multiple times, he has dominated pitching in his league, and he also has led the league in strikeouts multiple times, something of which Greg Maddux can't compare to. Nishkid64 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 Salary

can anyone locate for me a reference online listing Clemens' 2006 salary? thanks. Kingturtle 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Here. Nishkid64 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Team Stats

While he accomplished a lot on the Yankees, obviously, his 12 years with Boston should credit the same if not more information then the Astros and Yankees, regardless of the WS wins on the Yankees.

That is true. I think I will try to work on that and hopefully I can expand upon his best years with the Red Sox. Nishkid64 03:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Restaurant Controversy

Did that episode in the Controversies section really occur, where Clemens argued over paying his bill? The articles gives the date January 31, 2007 but I can't find any references of it online or in the news. --Aahchiou 12:19, 3 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Major Issues With this Article

If I were to come onto Wikipedia to find out about Roger Clemens' career, I wouldn't find out very much. This article spends a large amount of time on his controversies, which *are* worthy of discussion, but doesn't spend enough time on actual performance. It's a good article in my opinion, but it needs some reworking. The entire paragraph about his time with the Yankees contains two paragraphs of non-controversy information, and even those are all about his "retirement". That's my two cents.
Blaiseball 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Believe me I know... over the years people seem to want to drop in and deposit lengthy summaries of their favorite Clemens controversies... few people want to drop in and cover his career neutrally. I trimmed the epic coverage of the Piazza soap opera thing... I'd done it before but it crept back in at some point. --W.marsh 15:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this article include a sentence or two under the Controversy section about how Clemens "emphasized numerous times his desire to go into the Hall as a Yankee" and said on Saturday June 15 2003 that "he will not attend his own induction ceremony if he is not allowed to go into the Hall of Fame as a member of the New York Yankees"?? Here is a reference article on ESPN.com [1] --Lutz977 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Lutz977

  • That's a hard one... eventually it will probably go with information on his post-playing career, where we'll put stuff about his induction into the hall. Until now, if you can't find a place in the Yankees section where this fits, then it could go in controversy... but is this really primarily a controversy? It more has to do with his time with the yankees. --W.marsh 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pitching Inside Is Controversial?

Pitching inside is controversial? I suppose playing to win is also controversial. I know, in today's baseball batters think they can dig trenches with their cleats and then hang over the plate, but that's not the way a true competitor like Clemens plays. It's no wonder he dominates players today even more than he did 20 years ago. Mikevegas40 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the steroid claims?

Someone deleted all the steroid information in this article and that looks to me like pov. There is well sourced article from new your times. Leave the steroid thing in here. 67.41.157.5 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I reworked your edits, leaving the steroid accusation by Canseco in this, but balancing it so it doesn't imply he is guilty because he didn't refute it to that particular reporter at that particular time. Hardnfast 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation problems

Please consider using Template:Cite web for website citations, Template:Cite book for books, and Template:Cite news for any news related reference. I'm a big baseball fan and this has been a problem throughout many Baseball articles. -- JA10 Discuss • Edits 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this article needs some overhauling

how is it that clemens' section about his return to the yanks in 07 is nearly twice as long as the section about his career with the red sox? i would gladly put in some work on this page but im busy with a different pitcher rite now.


I agree, not only is the Yankees section longer, there was one paragraph about his 8/7/07 ejection that rivalled the size of the entire Boston paragraph. I fail to see why this one ejection should even be MENTIONED in the article (it's not the only time he was ejected in his career), let alone have an entire pargraph devoted to it. IN the Boston section, there is ironically NO mention of the ejection in the 1990(?) ALCS, which was much more noteworthy at the time. It looks like the author just wants to do a play-by-play account of Clemens' 2007 season. 162.136.192.1 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Steriods Use

In a book released in late 2007, native Houstonian and author Joseph Janczak in his nationally released book The Rocket: The Legend of Roger Clemens (Potomac Books ISBN 978 159 797 0884 )claims that Clemens never did use steroids and his rise to fame was due to hard work that has been observable by many people during the past 25 years of Clemens' career. Additionally, each and every allegation or claim about Clemens and steroids has been through hear-say and gossip, which is not admissible in any reasonable debate and should not have been admissible into the Mitchell Report. Sportscreamer (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be updated. Allegations state that he started using while with the Yankees. Someone with authority please update. Also, please add * to his stats after the 2000 season.


On January 6,2008 Clemens appeared on 60 Minutes to adress allegations of steroid use,[1] admitted to use of Vioxx, the possibility of taking a lie detector test and ending his pitching career.[2]

Vandalism

I removed some vandalism in the main heading regarding steroids - there were crude remarks about Clemens being homosexual and A CHEATER!! Andrewdoane (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

more still needs to be removed, this defacement of the greatest pitcher of all time cannot be tolerated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.24.126 (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Greatest pitcher of all-time?? Nolan Ryan is in this article??? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.247.46 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Bonds is vilified and is the villain, while Clemens is baseball's hero... gee, I wonder why.... Well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.79.127 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Did the user who left the comment say anything about Bonds? Maybe he loves Bonds also.--E tac (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up archiving on this talk page due to some outdated comments.   jj137 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Debra's statement

In the personal section it states "Debra once left a Red Sox game, when Clemens pitched for another team, in tears from the heckling she received. She claimed that the bad attitude of Boston fans was the reason they never won the World Series."

Should we qualify this with some statement saying that the Red Sox have won the World Series numerous times (unless Debra said this before 1903, when BRS won their first WS)? Nutmegger (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New Picture Request

I would like someone to add a different picture of Clemens on the top right of the article. In that picture, he is pitching for the Astros, it would look better with a more updated one like when he was pitching for the Yankees in 2007. Please visit my talk page and user page. I would like a comment on my user page. I'm new here in wikipedia, joined feb 19,08.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


José Canseco

I think we should add to the article that Clemens's lawyer says there is a photo that exists that shows Clemens at a party hosted by fellow steroid user José Canseco. This would be a very big clue in to finding out who is lying in this case.(Gordon24fan (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Accusations of steroid use

What does the last paragraph in that section - detailing Clemens' media appearances/spokesmanship deals/early autobiography - have to do with the accusations of steroid use? Th 2005 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

I remember around the time of his first retirement, Clemens made a statement that he would like to be inducted into the HOF as a Yankee, which created a lot of controversy, especially among Red Sox fans, because he spent most of his career with the Red Sox. I am surprised that this is absent from the article. Eventhough Wikipedia is known for recentism *cough*Steroid allegations*cough* I expected this to be in that short section, but it isn't. So could someone please add this with a citation? --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article?

Should this article be nominated for Good Article status? If so, I will nominate it. I would like others opinions.--RyRy5 Talk & comment to RyRy? 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Who's Jewish?

This articles appears to state that Koby Clemens is Jewish. According to whom? Is Debbie Clemens of Jewish descent? -- Gerkinstock (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's Jewish in his family. Its just vandalism that managed to stick around for longer then it should have. It has been removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)