Talk:Roger Clemens

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 game's 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)

Conjecture on Piazza incidents, error in shutout number

"Clemens threw at and hit Piazza in the head with a pitched ball." "Clemens threw a piece of a shattered bat at Piazza"

These statements are conjecture. "Throw at" implies intent. I happen to believe Clemens did not "throw at" Piazza, he was probably trying to buzz him high and tight, but wasn't intending to hit him.

I also believe he did not throw the bat at Piazza, he just flung it away in disgust, and it happened to pass in front of Piazza. If he'd truly thrown the bat at him, you'd have seen an even more outrageous spectacle.

But, I don't know this, and neither do you. Only Roger knows whether he tried to throw either object at Piazza, and Wiki is no place for either of our conjectures. State the facts only, please.

"During that time they were shut out eight times."

The actual number is nine. (TNM)

I agree...I have read numerous articles on clemens's point of view of the piazza incident, and for one he says, "Everybody remembers the concussion. But nobody remembers that the ball hit the bat before it hit him in the head". Also, he says, "...So I fielded what I thought was a ball, but then threw the bat away in disgust." NOT TO MENTION the fact that the ball had obviously gone foul, and Piazza was running towards first base. "Why was he running to first?", Clemens questions.

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 • contribs)

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 • contribs)

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 Ramirez, 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 • contribs)

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 • contribs)

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

What and Why for Where

In response to Where, the item about carrying luggage was repeated twice in the article. I deleted one of them, and moved the Korean/Japanese comment to "Controversy," rather than "Personal." I also trimmed the June 2006 comeback info; although Clemens' game last night is of current interest, the article is supposed to take a long view. I'm not even sure the result and opponent matters in the context of Clemens' career, but what the heck.

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

Thank you themetalgod!!!!!!!!

Finally! someone who shares my view! I'll always be your friend even tho you don't know me. :}