Something like:
*"segregated stat, whites only league induced record, not officially made under full rules of fair competition."
And remove the asterisk for post 1965 stats, when the league was integrated with the truly "best" players regardless of race.
I can just imagine what the record books would look like if blacks and latinos had been allowed to play back then.
2007-08-08 03:46:16 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
I only ask this because everybody is saying Bonds should have one for using steroids, when he's never failed a drug test. Never.
2007-08-08 03:56:58 · update #1
Yes it should. Actually have an asterisk and then also put the ***** League record BESIDE it.
2007-08-08 03:56:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't think he is saying that blacks and Latinos are better I really believe he is saying something else I believe there should be an asterisk next to it based on the fact that there is know way those guys played against the best there was. Simply because Everybody wasn't included. What those records really mean is that they occured amongst the best white men at that time not the best of everybody. White men alone cannot represent the best of every athlete thats impossible.
I think Bonds gets a raw deal because of personality and him breaking one of the most esteemed records ever. I am not a bonds fan but I respect the fact that he broke the record. Just like I wasn't a Mcgwire or Sosa fan but those summer days when they were chasing records I was front and center watching. If Barry goes down for steroid use Big Mark, SOsa, Palmero, Canseco, giambi, Sheffield and any pitcher that has had suspicions had better go down too. And further more any record reached or even close to being broken in this era should have one. Nobody knows who is juicing or not. That means I want an asterisk next to ripkins consecutive games, I want one next to every 500 homerung hitter including Griffey JR. and soon to be Thome. I want Arod to have one also for being so quick to the record. Next to it should say "Occured in the Steroid period of baseball" In all fairness of the game!
2007-08-08 04:07:05 · answer #2 · answered by Terrence W 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry - there is no room for asterisks in the record book. Intelligent fans are educated enough about the game to realize that Babe Ruth never had to hit against Black pitchers. To try to break the record book into sections by defining different eras in the game would make it impossible to read. The spit ball was legal until 1920, and the ball was much less lively then. Do we change the record books for that? Pitching rotations are now 5 men, they used to be 4 and sometimes even 3. Gotta change all the records again. What about changing them for post 1973, when the DH rule came into effect for the AL? Records are just numbers, that's all.
I am curious, however, as to why you chose 1965 as the point when baseball was integrated. Did you just pull that number out of thin air or is there some significance to that date?
2007-08-08 04:35:39 · answer #3 · answered by artistictrophy@sbcglobal.net 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Latino's didn't exist back then, we didn't start importing them until the 80's for baseball. There shouldn't be asterisk on any records, the game is always evolving as you should know. Some claim there should be an asterisk on stats after 1968 because they lowered the pitching mound or when the season went from 148 to 162 games or because there are more teams now. How many of those black players would've actually made in the old MLB is debatable and pointless to think about.
2007-08-08 03:55:37 · answer #4 · answered by beavanjb 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
This is a joke right? hahahehehoho
And when and if all the Communist Cubans ever get to play, we will have another asterisk then. And if all the best Japanese come over here to play, we will have another asterisk then. And.....
Nope - the only one will be for the player that from yesterday forward will be known as, "The Big Asterisk" - Barry Bonds!
2007-08-08 04:00:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
it's hard: sports history sometimes tries to isolate itself but really you can't. Nor can you give those people who could have played the careers they deserved...
I don't think you can clean history up. You just need to put the stats in small letters with the real history up front a lot more...y'know. London has this thing where it's recognising black people's contribution to British history: but it was unequal, they were marginalised and the contributions they made ancilliary and conditional on specific mentorshp of whites for no fault of their own: what they did big or small was against a background of oppression.
And the Psychology of minimal groups suggests that wherever the black man is isolated now, it is happening now.I'm glad black men can achieve in baseball, but God, is it far from being all over...
2007-08-08 03:55:02 · answer #6 · answered by Teal R 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
So you're just assuming that black and latino athletes are far superior? Who's the one with the problem here?
2007-08-08 03:55:32 · answer #7 · answered by kianvis 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why put a constant reminder of this time of racism? Why not simply move forward rather than looking back? Leave it as it is.
2007-08-08 03:55:27 · answer #8 · answered by Marvinator 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Yeah we should put it on your face
2007-08-08 03:50:35 · answer #9 · answered by Jr42 4 · 5⤊ 4⤋