Should pre-minority MLB stats have an asterik?

Question

Everyone wants to put an asteric around these modern records because of cheating, but should a league that prohibited talent based on color be anymore noteworthy

Answer 1

This will bring some interesting answers. I'll sit back and watch this one...I'll say what's good for the goose...and for those that say that it wasnt the players fault that blacks werent allowed, I say they are wrong because they played for these organizations that supported not having minorities. The players very well could have spoken out against this policy or even went on strike to break up that policy

That being said, I dont think any stat should have an asterik behind it. If it happened, it happened. As soon as we start questioning the validity of one time period, then you open the door to subjectivity - people start picking and choosing what stat they think should be honored base on personal agendas or opinion.

But, if you put an asterik on one, you must put it on all because there has always been questionable practices within the game

Answer 2

The above poster is right, NO stat should have an asterisk next to it. All MLB stats are just that, Major League Baseball stats. In 1901 the Major Leagues probably included about 50% of the best players in the world, in 1961 about 80%, today about 90%. But MLB never did, and still doesn't, claim to have every single great player in the world on an MLB roster. The playing field has never been level as far as offense/defense either. Homeruns and offense dominate today, but in the deadball era an average team might hit .230 with 5 homeruns for the entire team. The spitball and other pitches illegal today were legal back then, just as steroids were legal until a few years ago. Do we put an asterisk next to deadball pitchers' stats too?

The point is, MLB stats are only an accurate recording of what happened on the field of play. If it happened, then it HAPPENED. Fair and square. No stat should have an asterisk next to it.

Answer 3

You can't disregard stats because someone didn't face someone else. I don't think Lance Berkman has ever faced Clemens, so by this logic we should have an asterisk by his name. That doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying the numbers whould have been the same, but they would have been similar with what did happen. Why? I can't find the real statistics right now, but the black population at that time couldn't have been more than 30% (If anyone knows the real percentage then by all means correct me). 30% of the baseball-playing population isn't enough to drastically change numbers...

The idea of merging ***** league numbers is great. I know they abducted a bunch of them into the hall last year; took them long enough. I hear they don't have the real numbers of those players though... and I heard they used to play teams with less talent very often; like a mlb team playing a AA team today... But that was off wikipedia, so who knows. And Gibson is the best catcher ever, even without the real numbers.

Answer 4

Neither should have an asterisk. It is up to fans to study MLB history and determine what they believe is right or wrong. Performance enhancement, game fixing, point shaving, dull balls, juiced balls, corked bats, sand grits, tar etc. these are all part of the game that are invisible in stats.

Part of statistics is to argue that thru number analysis, all the external factors will cancel out each other. Hitters might have allegedly taken steroids, but so were pitchers. Hitters could use corked bats (ahem McGuire) and so could pitchers with sand grit or tar hidden in their gloves. MLB could fix games with umps and juiced balls with variable rubber inserts.

So, in the end, the numbers will cancel each other out. There should be no asterisks next to any statistical category. They are just stats. They never intend to tell the story behind a number.

However, you may introduce a "steroid indicator" or "race/minority indicator" as a numberical multiple to indicate to what degree stats may have been inflated by the use of steroids. Again, those should pertain to both hitting and pitching and likely will cancel each other out nonetheless.

Answer 5

No, that is stupid. They should just merge all the ***** League stats in with MLB. They can't go back and redo old mistakes. In a sense those records are real anyway, they are the best numbers for the league as it stood then. Most of the significant ones are probably broken by now anyway.

Answer 6

No, i think not, because pretty much everyone knows that the leagues were not integrated until Jackie Robinson broke the barrier. No one really knows when the steroids started and stopped, if it ever will. You can look at the years of a player, and know if he was in the segregated leagues or not. You cant just look at stats to see if someone was on steroids.

Answer 7

No. It was what it was. Acknowledge it, consider it for a moment, and move on, remembering when necessary.

People really vest far too much emotion into baseball stats. I'll stand with anyone that they are great stupid fun, but the stats are a by-product of playing the game. The stats are nothing more than an orderly record of what happened on the fields of play. We can sift them and crunch them and massage them and sort them, and they will tell us different things depending on what we might be looking for; but they really are just a big pile of numbers.

Answer 8

Exactly what would that prove? An asterisk isn't going to change anything that happened in the past. We can always look at things and say, "That's not right." but the past can't be changed by a mark on a page. Look to the future.

Answer 9

no, its not the players fault that no minorities were allowed, however it IS the players fault if they cheated with steroids

Answer 10

no