Should this pitcher get into the Hall of Fame?

Question

Let's say a certain MLB pitcher finishes his career with these stats: 14 seasons, 3040 IP, 213 wins,118 losses, 2882 K, 2.97 ERA.

Please give me your thoughts, then I'll tell you who it is...

The stats are Roger Clemens' before 1998 (the year he allegedly started using PED). Many people say Bonds was already a HOF material before he ever started. I just wanted to know if you feel the same way about Clemens.

Answer 1

That looks like Clemens through 1997.

This is a very tiny set of data and I prefer looking at seasons before career summary stats -- but yeah, I'd probably be in favor of this pitcher.

Answer 2

Based on those stats, there are several pitchers in the Hall of Fame with less. So, depends on who it is and what the reasons are he isn't already.
Doc Gooden comes to mind. But I don't think he pitched 3000-innings. There are several reasons why he isn't there now and probably won't be in the 'near' future.
The 'Black Sox' pitchers are out.
Other posters mentioned Roger Clemens prior to his steroids use. If that's correct, it doesn't carry any weight as far as I'm concerned. I am not nor have I ever been a fan of Clemens, but if Bonds is allowed in, then in all fairness Clemens should be, too.
Will be watching for your answer.

Answer 3

14 years is pretty good, but the winning percentage, ERA, and strikeout ratio are all outstanding. Very few pitchers have a strikeout per inning average, and this guy (Clemens) is just under that, at 8.5 per 9. I would want to know more, but I'd say yes based on these numbers. These numbers are just short of where Pedro Martinez is now --16 seasons, 2673.2 IP, 209 wins, 93 losses, 3030 K, 2.80 ERA.

Answer 4

What makes you think Clemens was not juicing till after 14 years? Put Carl Mays in the HOF before Clemens.

Answer 5

Well, it's obvious that you're putting up Clemens's numbers prior to the time he used steroids.

With just those numbers, though, I'd say the hypothetical pitcher would get into the Hall - probably not on the first ballot, but he'd make it in eventually.

Answer 6

It isnt Roger Clemens for one. It's John Smoltz-esque. If this is a MLB player however, the stats are completely off.

Answer 7

With a nearly 1:1 innings to strike out ratio, plus a sub-3.00 era I'd say he's a candidate.
It's clearly not Clemens with only 213 wins (I think Clemens has 350+).
Those stats are comparable to Randy Johnson & John Smoltz and I'd say they're getting in.
Good question.

Answer 8

Yes, those numbers are good enough for Cooperstown
(they're Clemens' from 1984 to 1998)

Answer 9

IT depends...it is not only about career stats...

How dominant was he...was he a perennial all star...did he win Cy Youngs...all these things matter at least as much, if not more..

If this guy pitched prior to 1920...NO WAY
From 1920-1945...........................Very Likely
1945-1960.....................................Almost a Lock
1960-1985.....................................NO WAY
1985-Now.......................................Borderline

This appears to be a 'made up 'guy.

The only guys who came into 2007 with less than 213 wins are

Schilling
Rogers
Pedro Martinez
John Smoltz

And they all have at least 140 losses..except Pedro who has 92

So in todays game, given that Pedro and Smoltz are likely in, and the other 2 are likely out....Borderline...

Answer 10

Because of Roger Clemens used steroids, and those #'s he put up at his age, I tend to wonder if it was because of raw, and pure talent. I don't think so; just like Barry Bonds, given his age, he is not likely to break the home run record with no help what so ever.