Talk:Roger Clemens/Archive 1

Archive 1

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, admitted to use of Vioxx, the possibility of taking a lie detector test and ending his pitching career.

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)

Article Punctuation or Spelling Mistakes

I see a noted typo. In the quoting of "never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone warrants further investigation", it is missing an ending quotation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.235.230 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible involvement with Mindy McCready?

If McCreedy has confirmed that there was a relationship between the two, can we change the title to "Relationship with Mindy McCreedy"? Patken4 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Made the change since no one disagreed. Eevn Hardin says there was a relationship [2]. They just differ on whether or not it was sexual. Patken4 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT

'Angela Merkel made quite a splash with the plunging neckline of the evening dress she wore at the opera in Oslo. Not generally considered a leader who exudes sexiness, the more-than-usual amount of chancellor cleavage on display in the Norwegian capital received considerable media coverage. Some commentators wondered if the dress signalled a general change in style for Merkel. Could somebody please explain to me why this is consider tabloid while these are not?Matt_Leinart#Controversy Segolene_Royal#Policies Carmelo_Anthony#Controversies I read about the Merkel cleavage article in the news (most of the comments were complimentary). This blatant example of double-standard is unacceptable. Please refrain from removing the article's contents again.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is done in other articles doesn't make it right. Tell me exactly what is encyclopedic about this?Asher196 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of trivia from other articles would probably be a good idea and should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles.--Boson (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of this "information" per WP:NOT#NEWS.--Boson (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Removing these info would no doubt destroy every single article in wikipedia. It does not help wikipedia's stated goal to build a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a noted typo. In the quoting of "never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone warrants further investigation", it is missing an ending quotation

Quote from WP:NOT: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Information about Ms. Merkel's cleavage hardly belongs in an encyclopaedia, and its absence is not going to "destroy every single article in Wikipedia".--Boson (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)'

As per the article of Angela Merkel and the discussion on Talk:Angela Merkel, Clemens' involvement is not encyclopedic and therefore should not be part of his biography. McCready's article is also full of trivia, rumors, and even more bizarrely a detailed arrest record. I have removed them as per WP:NOT to establish a consistency in wikipedia. No double-standard should be allowed.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Clemens' involvement with McCready is relevant because it may be used against Clemens in his defamation suit against McNamee [3] - a case which is already (and justifiably) covered in the Controversy section. This may be why the editor who added the McCready information used a subheading under that section rather than creating a new section (which an editor later modified it to). This differentiates it from your Merkel edits. As for your other statements, please see WP:Other stuff exists. I am sorry that you are bitter that other edits of yours have been reverted, but please don't disrupt wikipedia to (try) to prove a point. Reverted. --Sesameball^Talk 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is obvious. A plunging neckline is a lot less noteworthy then adultry. If there were reports about Angela Merkel being involved in a adulterious affair, it would be included in her page as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you couldn't get some line about cleavage into the Angela Merkel article doesn't mean you can remove what is apparently encyclopedic information about Clemens from this article. Since the Mitchell Report, Clemens has been defending his reputation and it has become the defining story of his post-baseball career so far, it could keep him out of the Hall of Fame. The affair is just the latest development in that story, but it could be quite a big one, since it's a centerpiece of the defamation lawsuit. To leave it out of the Wikipedia article is just dumb. --Rividian (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the other have said, the situations are different. One is fashion statement that led to nothing. If Merkel's plunging neckline led to some sort of fashion craze, it might be notable. Adultery, particularly when it could be central to a defamation lawsuit, is a notable matter. Also McCready is notable individual herself. Considering that there are reports of at least two other women in New York and John Daly's ex that Clemens had relationships with during his career (should these reports be added to the article?), there are some important issues here. Patken4 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Timeline

It was agreed upon here in topic #36 Baseball player infoboxes that the list of teams should be in chronological order. Please do not change it. Jackal4 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Former/retired or current?

There seems to be a back and forth here whether he should be considered a former/retired player or not. I presume that those in favor of "current" base their assertion on the fact that he never officially retired. So my question is - how much time has to go by before he can be considered "former"? What if he never officially retires? Should he be "current" until he's ninety-years old?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be former and the infobox should be changed, with all the allegations and stuff going on with him, I dont think any team would even consider signing him, plus he even said in an interview that he is most likely done--Yankees10 00:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I semi-backtracked from my comment. "Former" should never be used. A better intro would be, "was a pitcher....." Articles should be written with long-term considerations, and in 200 years from now, when he's long dead (unless steroids makes one live forever) "a former baseball pitcher" will make far less sense than "was a baseball pitcher". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Was" implies that he is dead. Check out all the retired players who died Willie Stargell Rod Beck Ken Caminiti while retired players still living are referred to as "former". As for Clemens' active/retired status, I say give it until next year Spring training unless he is signed or officially announce his retirement in the next few months. If he is still unsigned by then, then we could safely classify him as retired.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

True. I backtracked from my backtrack :-). It's hard to fashion an opening sentence using the word "was" without leading to an ambiguity that he's not alive. However, I'm having a hard time understanding your overall thought process. There are two editors that agree that he should be listed as retired, but you come along and just revert. But if you would have some sort deadline based on some sort of rationle, I would understand. However, you formulate your own seemingly arbitrary deadline and decide that all of Wikipedia has to abide by the deadline that you pulled out of your hat. Very perplexing. By the way, the reason he isn't officially retiring, I suspect, is becuse he does not want to get embarrassed by the Hall of Fame voting. Every player that retires is eligible for the Hall of Fame after five years. But if you never officially retire and are still alive you will not be voted on. Clemens won't officially retire because he is afraid that he'll get embarressed by the voting. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken. A good example is Rickey Henderson's refusal to officially retire. Rickey_Henderson#Retirement see Contrary to speculation,[44][45][46] Henderson's refusal to officially retire was not delaying his eligibility for Hall of Fame induction; the five-year waiting period is based on major league service only. Henderson will become eligible for the 2009 induction vote, provided he does not return to major league play--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that "sad". If I wouldn't had publicized my mistake I wouldn't have learned what you just pointed out. Thanks!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I say consider him a free agent until he announced his retirement. If he never "officially" makes the announcement, then consider him retired when he's on the HOF ballot (unless you're concerned about another Jose Rijo situation). No need to rush things, even though he's most likely done.Averyisland (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Visit To The Worcester Tornadoes

Yesterday, Roger Clemens Was Visiting Rich Gedman and his Can-AM team in Worcester,MA, He Was in the dug out here's the link: http://www.telegram.com/article/20080824/NEWS/808240611/1009/SPORTS Dmanskater11 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Free Agent

I don't understand what "per agreement with the infoboxes" means. This is the reason given to remove the fact that he is a free agent along with a source from the prose and the infobox. Is there some policy, guide or essay somewhere that says if someone is a free agent it isn't listed in their article? A new name 2008 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge issue at WP:MLB regarding this. The thing is MLB.com doesnt update its players bios, if you notice here it still says Craig Biggio is a free agent and he retired last year. [4]--Yankees10 00:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example John Olerud retired after 05 and he is still listed as a free agent, they clearly dont update there site after the player is a free agent for a while or retires.[5]--Yankees10 00:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Toronto Contract

According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/12/03/1998-12-03_clemens_demands_trade__yanke.html Clemens signed a 3/$24.75M deal with Toronto. I also remember the same number from watching the press conference at the time. I think the 4/$40M is off. Philname1 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Chin Music" and "Dirty Pitching"

It should be mentioned, in any article on MLB pitching, the "tightening" of the strike zone- throwing close pitches to keep a batter off the plate was part of the game for decades. Any pitcher who entered before the 2001 season had to alter, sometimes radically alter, their pitching to account for the new "tighter" strike zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.45.97 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The first line of the article: "William Roger Clemens, nicknamed "Rockette" because he is a girl", this is vandalism or there are a twist of words I don't understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kro3n3n (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Have been corrected!

Yes, it was vandalism. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (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.

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.

Mike Piazza incident

There is no mention of the infamous Mike Piazza incident during the World Series except for a passing reference that calls it an "infamous" incident. If it's so infamous, surely it should be included in this article. I find it hard to believe that with such trivialities chronicled during his seasons, that something like this would be left off. Anyone agree that this needs to be talked about in the article? Wikipediarules2221 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC) >>>>In general I have a huge problem with the way wiki glosses over sports rivalries.Tending to only emphasize the fact that they existed manages to forego the emotion of said incident.For example more player quotes and more quotes from the press could really help spice up the sports articles across the board.I agree we need an article about clemens rivalries{ many muscians have articles on wiki about rivalries with other muscians but not athletes???why?}. We also need to see the exsisting sports rivalries spiced up with good quotes and alot more work.For example how does wiki have the only boring article about the mark mcguwire and sammy sosa home run race? Of course we need facts but sports also need more quotation to capture the emphasis and nature of what happened.Wikimakesmart (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A quote is a fact. TCO (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Plunking-his-own-kid incident

Did this happen? I have heard it any number of times - he allegedly beaned one of his sons, maybe in training camp, after said offspring had the audacity to go deep against him. Can't find an actual source, but the rumor is so persistent it warrants a mention either way, no? ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠ 18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• No. Without a source nothing warrants mention. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No Mention of Felony Arrest for Assaulting Houston Police Officer

On January 20, 1991, Roger and his brother Gary were arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a Houston nightclub. Clemens said he was coming to the defense of his brother Gary but Houston Police said Clemens jumped on the officer's back and put a choke-hold on him. They were held overnight and released on bond the next day.TL36 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

retirement?

Article does not discuss his retirement. That's why I came to look at it. but missing. TCO (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

bikini photo of his wife

Shouldn't the ref for a SI photo be that issue of SI? Also, please write and get her to donate it to wikipedia.TCO (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

"Also has been known to Blow the occasional Goat." - source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.87.61 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)