Saturday, November 17, 2007
Asterisk, Expunge, or Something Else?
With the indictment of Barry Bonds, the status of his records has again come into question. Some people already put an asterisk next to it, but some want to toss the record out entirely. I’m not really in favor of either, though.
An asterisk is better than expunging the record, I’ll say that for it.
You can’t take away the record without doing exactly the opposite of what you were intending to do; you’d taint the record books. I mean, he did hit those home runs, and they did count. The only way you could be both reasonable and expunge the record would be to invalidate the home runs. But that would go outside of the established rules of baseball (once the game is over, unless it was played under protest, the record of it is set in stone), and necessarily have an impact on past seasons that would be impossible to reconcile. I suppose you could change the home runs to four-base fielder’s choices or something, which would at least balance things out, but the statistics would no longer represent anything. They’d be useless.
An asterisk at least has the virtue of being intellectually honest. If you asterisk the records of every player proven to have used steroids, then you’re not really changing anything, but notifying the person reading the list that there’s a good reason they might want to severely discount the significance of that number, even though it is the record.
The negative side-effect of this is that you’re drawing a line between what you feel is necessary to notify list-readers about and what to leave up to them to find out, and that you’re passively implying that all other records are beyond reproach, even if that’s not your intention. It also implies only the records of players proven to have used steroids should have their records more critically considered than players who have not been proven to have used steroids but almost certainly did (A category that Bonds might still fall into, if not necessarily for much longer).
The 1919 Reds won the World Series, but it’s a tainted title, because the other team handed it to them. Now, they may have won it on their own anyway (and Bonds might have broken Aaron’s record on his own, too!), but it’s still tainted. There’s no asterisk, there’s no demand for one, and there’s no need for one. Tainted or not, the Reds are still the champions of baseball for 1919, and you can’t take that away from them. Yes, it’s different in a way, but it’s the same in a way. It counts, but it’s not as meaningful as a measure of what they actually did.
Ultimately, I think history would be best served for the beginning of all official record books to have a statement to this effect:
“Herein is recorded the official record of Major League Baseball. It is a collection of the events that occurred in Major League Baseball games since 1876, organized into lists of how many times players accomplished a certain event, such as a hit, a home run, a walk.
It is a notable achievement to surpass a past player’s total in a category, or reach a rare milestone. However, the context is different for every event in the history of the game. At certain times it was more difficult to accomplish something than at other times, and sometimes it was easier. Perhaps more importantly, there have been, and will continue to be in the future, periods when the circumstances surrounding an event are effected by undesirable, immoral, and even illegal factors. Players have cheated, used performance-enhancing drugs, have thrown games, and before 1947, Major League Baseball excluded countless players from a chance to participate in their games based on the color of their skin.
Because of all of these factors, and undoubtedly others not mentioned, a record should not be viewed necessarily as a definitive statement of the quality of a player relative to another, or should the total of one player be considered more impressive than the total of another just because it is larger.
In summary, data without context is not very useful. We here provide you with the data, but we cannot possibly provide you with all the context. We leave it to you, and we hope that you do, examine the context for yourself, and judge these players based on your conclusions.”
But that’s just my opinion.
Comments
I don’t think that an asterisk is a good idea.
I think if there is an interest in preserving baseball records, perhaps the record book should be divided into eras.
Of course, then you run into different problems- how do you divide the eras?
An easy one would be pre-Jackie Robinson and post-Jackie Robinson, but I don’t think that would have the desired effect (though it is certainly a change in eras). Another may be the end of the season when Hank Aaron retired, though that certainly seems like a cop-out.
As far as the “modern era/steroid era”... I guess you can use 1987 (the year of both Jose Canseco’s and Barry Bonds’ Topps rookie cards). Or maybe 1996 (the year Brady Anderson hit 50 homeruns).
Baseball has always been a dirty sport…it didn’t start with Bonds or with steroids.
Babe Ruth used trick bats. Aaron and Mays used amphetamines (greenies). Plenty of players used steroids along with Bonds.
Bonds may have broken records “illegitimately,” but those records are illegitimate to begin with. Aaron and Mays seeked ways to gain competitive advantage just as Bonds did. To hold Bonds to a separate standard than Aaron is hypocritical.
The records should stand. Baseball has never been squeaky-clean. To hold Bonds to a separate standard than everyone else is ridiculous..whether you like him or not.
Who the hell cares whether or not there is an asterisk? Honestly, given what is happening now, how many people will EVER look at that record book (if there is even actually an official printed book with all the records in it—is there?) and say, “wow, this guy Bonds must have been one hell of a natural athlete to have hit all those home runs. I’m sure he was a fine upstanding gentleman.” Sure, if the human race is extermintaed by a meteor and all records of periodicals from the early 21st century are destroyed except for one paper parcel of records in Cooperstown, New York, then yes, aliens will someday get a distorted impression of the context in which these home runs were hit. Otherwise, anyone who takes the time to look at the all time records will be fully aware that the guy who held the home run record from 2007-2013 was a cheater and a lying criminal, because they probably would have taken the time to listen to one baseball broadcast in there entire friggin lives, and so they probably would have overheard something about that lying bastard named Bonds. What difference does it make what the “record book” says?
Back to the whole Arod business.
Gotta say, Yatt, I admire your sticking to your guns these last few days, but I sure don’t want you as my GM. Unless maybe I’m a Brewers fan or stuck in some other mid-market purgatory where penny-pinching is considered a virtue or they have no choice but to accept mediocrity or something.
My sentiment is similar to MC in VA’s: “WHO THE FUCK CARES” if they gave A-Rod 3 more years than might’ve been prudent?
Well actually, I think what Yatt’s saying is that it might hinder the team’s competitiveness in 2014 or something. Let me ask this: what would make you feel better about that possibility? Would 2 rings between now and then – not at all unrealistic—be worth whatever slings and arrows we’ll be forced to endure in the middle of the next decade? Follow yup’s advice:
we have all said we’d have been thrilled if it were a 7 year deal.
so you know what? PRETEND it’s a 7 year deal.
be happy.
and then worry about it in 2014.
think about that. 2014. that is a REALLY long time from now.
It is. By then, Yatt, you may finally have the quiet in your house that you crave as your three little ‘uns will be going on dates or hanging out at the mall or something.
Seriously, we’re not throwing 7 years at Mike Cameron or Kyle Lohse here. As someone pointed out earlier in the week, it’s overpaying for mediocrity that kills a franchise, not overpaying for stars, in this case its own stars. I thought you guys were gonna lose your mind when the BS Lowell rumors bubbled to the surface. I just never believed the Lowell flirtation was anything but letting Arod know that they were prepared to go in another direction if necessary.
And of course Arod could’ve gotten 7 years from someone else, especially given last year’s Zito and Soriano contracts as yup noted. I’m sure the Angels’ Moreno was doing the usual posturing and playing hard-to-get. In today’s LA Times, Colletti said they would’ve been interested in Arod if he had shown an interest in playing somewhere other than New York.
Besides, as MC in VA noted a few days ago, because of the leverage held by top-notch free agents, you have to overpay in years and dollars in order to get them. So it goes when players aren’t even FA-eligible until after they’ve passed the 27-year-old sweet spot of their prime.
Sorry for such a long post. In the final analysis, Yatt, I think you’re stuck on an argument that held a lot more currency circa 2004-2005 when the Yankees really were throwing money around without a sound strategic plan. (FWIW, I liked the Unit trade, but it galled me that they had to give him an extension). This moment in Yankees history—with the development of Cano, Wang, Joba, etc., a genuine commitment to restocking the farm, a philosophy of mixing cost-effective young players with high-salaried proven veterans – seems like an odd one to start showing off your knowledge of 80s fashion and pop culture.
please, won’t somebody think of the aliens?!?!
I got more.
Mariano’s pout does not become him at all. I’m pretty confident this will end happily, but it’s a little infuriating nonetheless. Pretty clear he’s looking for love and respect more than he is a few extra dollars. I simply can’t imagine him going to Detroit or Chicago over pride. He’s hoping for another team to say it’ll give him 4 years, so that he can come back to the Yankees with it. Of course, other teams neither want to be used in that fashion, nor do they particularly want to commit to $15m for a 41 year-old pitcher.
Now I see in tomorrow’s Post that all signs point to Mariano blinking. Good.
That same Post article says—sort of casually in passing—that the price for Santana would be Wang and Hughes PLUS Melky or Cano. Puhleeze. Now Yatt, there would be something worth a little high dudgeon. No team will give up a package approaching that. My guess is that if Pettitte chooses to return the Yanks don’t even make a serious play for Johan.
B-man, when this thing’s over, we should get an apartment together.
eelz, I spend a lot of time thinking about the aliens.
a lot
my apologies for being off topic, but it looks like mo is going to sign the 3 year deal:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7460538
The politians and talking heads have their cosmetic surgeries, botox, and hair weaves. Parents are giving their daughters beast implants for their sweet sixteen presents. Half of the adult population is on Prozac, the other half is on Ambien, and all of the children are on ritalin. School nurses are giving birth control pills to 12 year olds. Baseball players taking peds? Now that’s something we can all agree to get shocked about. What a country!
CT Yankee, i enjoyed this rant. but i have to say, the thought of beast implants seems terrifying. what kind of beasts? where do they implant them?
B-Man - as Mike K. said on the other thread, I simply don’t like long-term contracts, especially when you give them to players who have nowhere to go but down, in terms of production.
And while Yup has a point in that we can always enjoy it now and worry later, that’s exactly the type of thinking that makes one bankrupt in real life, and can bankrupt the franchise - as it did in the 1980s.
Yanks enjoyed 1996-2000 simply because King George wasn’t in control during his exile and baseball people were allowed to rebuild. Once they started winning, he didn’t tinker. The tinkering started up again when the team stopped winning WS.
I understand it is overpaying mediocrity that hurts a franchise, not paying for the best. But look at A-Rod’s contract this way: it’s quite possible during the last three to five years, the Yanks will be overpaying for mediocrity. We have no idea if A-Rod will be able to maintain his offensive output and be worth 27.5/season.
Rivera: if Rivera caves and signs the three year deal, it will show you that when you are the big fish (in terms of money), you don’t have to outbid yourself. Yanks gave Rivera 3/45 proposal. I’m sure he’s shopping. He ain’t getting anything. Even is someone offered him a little more, they’d come back to the Yanks to see if they’d match or better. No matter what, Yanks are in the drivers seat.
If Yanks had done same with A-Rod, I’m sure they could have signed a more reasonable contract in terms of years and money.
I’m not cheap, I just think the money should be spent wisely.
It’s my fear of returning to the 1980s that drives my ranting. Yanks in the 1980s gave out bad contracts like they were going out of style, especially to older guys. Don’t look now, but we are riddled with older guys - our catcher will be 40 by the time his contract is up. Our closer - 41. Our 3B/DH - 41.
Sorry, you don’t win championships with a bunch of 40 year olds. Or even guys close to 40.
I hate to remind people, but the core of the Yanks, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Petitte - they were eight years younger last time they won. Chances are much less that they can drive a team to a championship now.
As for Bonds - I could honestly care less. The only reason people talk about this is because the media talks about it. Why? The media hates Bonds because Bonds hates them. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
When the media gives equal play time and scorn to guys like McGuire and Sosa, then we can talk about how to treat baseball records.
At the most, put some asterisks in there.
The only reason the Yankees are taking this stance with Rivera is because they know no one will beat 3/$45.
They specifically did NOT know that no one would beat 10/$275. In fact, it appears pretty clear that they believe that another team WOULD beat it.
CT Yankee, i enjoyed this rant. but i have to say, the thought of beast implants seems terrifying. what kind of beasts? where do they implant them?
Their calves?
Being the wurst speller on RLYW I noticed CT Yank misfire on politicians, I flew right past beast.
Thanks Yup for crackin me up.That really was funny.
Are all the children in this nation really on Ritalin?
The only person I know on Ambien is my dear friend Eeellz, and i suspect he procures his through illicit trading of early 20th century banjo strings.
As for Bonds, I’m basically with dannux.
The asterisk pisses the heck out of me. I hate the idea of some other guy telling me what to think about Barry Bonds.
We’re all given the same information - we all can decide for ourselves what we think of Bonds, and if it is so obvious that we should think poorly of him, then we will do so - but it will be OUR decision, not because some rich attention-whore stamped an asterisk on a ball to get more people to go to his website.
AJGDRUMS…. How do you know that Hank and Willie used speed? I know a lotta players of that era, and subsequent eras did, but why single them out. I thought Frank Robby was a deadlier hitter than either.
Whats this about the Bam’s bat? I’ve seen his spring training bat in Cooperstown But I don’t think he was able to use it in AL games, nor would he want to , I believe it was 65 oz’s.
And could you pick an easier name to type? Whaddaya Welsh or something? Buy a frikkin vowel.
Dykstra was the first guy that lit up my Roidar. It was so obvious.Boy got huge.
I heard some things about Canseco back then but he was so dammnn big to begin with.
Does anyone that has read his book know when Jose started on the juice?
Half of the adult population is on Prozac, the other half is on Ambien, and all of the children are on ritalin.
I say we should just put all three of these drugs in the public water supply. And Claritin, too. Definitely Claritin. I really like breathing through my nose.
Don’t the Foo Fighters have a song about Ritalin? Old one. Mid 90’s.
ambien is my sweet sweet master.
next thread for good news you old coot
OLD THURMAN FAN…
I singled out Hank and Willie because they both admitted to having used amphetamines. As you said, many players from that era did as well, just as many people from this era used steroids, not just Bonds.
I’m not familiar with the 65oz Ruth bat that you’re talking about, but Ruth used several “trick” bats. He was the reason why trick bats were made against the rules in baseball. Gluing 4 pieces of wood together, corking, etc. Ruth was the reason these things were discovered and made illegal.
The bottom line is, players have always looked for competitive advantage. The record books were never “fair” or “clean.” How legitimate can Ruth’s numbers be when minorities weren’t even allowed to play against him? He was playing against a watered-down pool of opponents.
You can persecute Bonds for breaking US law, and you can hate him for being a prick, but to touch his baseball numbers his hypocrisy. You can’t hold Bonds to a separate standard than everyone else just because you don’t like him.
The asterisk might be more compelling if there were a policy in place at the time, but how can anyone get upset about “cheating” when baseball not only didn’t have a policy, but seemed to look the other way? Barry gets an asterisk for doing something that wasn’t against the rules? I am tired of the whole thing.
Next entry: CAIRO vs. CHONE - 2008 Yankees edition
Previous entry: The Worst Contract In History - And I'm Thrilled
There are currently 66 visitors who are not logged in.
There was a record 241 simultaneous visitors on May 2, 2011 at 11:54:25 pm.
