Broad Street Believers

Does anyone still believe that Roger Maris did not officially break the home run record in 1961? Anyone? Yet, I would be willing to bet that many people agreed with Ford Frick’s decision to qualify the most prestigious record in sports with that little star—the asterisk. However, with the passing of time, the decision itself has been deemed arbitrary, reactionary, even unfair. So what if Roger Maris played in eight more games than The Babe? He still hit more home runs in one season, and therefore he held the official record for “home runs in a single season.”

I bring this up because of the seemingly growing obsession with “The Asterisk.” Why have we not learned from history? Is it ignorance? Do we, in our own reactionary weaknesses, forget about the retrospective absurdity of Frick’s actions? Or, more likely, is it an arrogance that about our authority to deem a record “asterisk-worthy?” It is as if we categorically say: “Sure, Maris’s asterisk was rendered meaningless, but the asterisk on Derek Jeter’s postseason hit record will definitely stand the test of time because it is obvious that this record is tainted because he played in the era of the division series.” Is it so difficult to just allow the records to speak for themselves, create their own places in history and write their own legacies? I am starting to think that: yes, it is difficult to do so.

Obviously, the most noteworthy “Asterisk Offense” of recent times has been the Barry Bonds fiasco. But, honestly, are future generations really going to need an asterisk on a ball or a record to realize the cloud of controversy that surrounds the new “Home Run King?” Similarly, there is talk of asterisks on all the numbers produced by Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa—do we really need these asterisks to tell the tale?

Baseball, because of its reverence in its own tradition, lends itself perfectly to Asterisk Offenses, but the most recent one actually happened this week in football. Don Shula, coach of the last and only undefeated team in the NFL, is calling for an asterisk on the New England Patriots undefeated season (if it happens) because of the whole Spygate incident. Uh…what? Really? Now, I have the utmost respect for Coach Shula—a legendary coach and steakhouse namesake—but can we please stop complaining about “tainted records” and “tarnished legacies?” Can we please just accept the fact that these records are numbers, not inarguable doctrines about who is better than whom?

Other than the apparent disingenuous motives and basic annoyance, there are two reasons that I really dislike this recent obsession with the asterisk. First of all, I think that using the asterisk or the concept of a record being “qualified” for any reason brings that negative aspect back into the sport and secures its place in history. Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to Spygate or steroids in baseball or that we should just sweep them under the rug, but records are records and they should be completely and totally free of any contemporary social commentary. The proverbial “record book” should continue to be blind to the ugly allegations and accusations that have polluted the actual, day-to-day life of sports almost since its inception.This leads straight into the second reason that these Asterisk Offenses bother me. What records warrant asterisks? Who decides what action is bad enough to qualify the record holder? And, what if the public opinion of these actions changes over time? Okay, I admit that a vast majority of sports fans believe that Barry Bonds has taken performance-enhancing drugs that aided him in his chase of the home run record. But, what if we find out in 10 years that Alex Rodriguez, on the verge of breaking Bonds’s record, took methamphetamines for two years? Or what if he drank coffee before every at bat? The point is we have to draw the line somewhere, but where? And who decides? Further along the Bonds argument, should we be putting asterisks on hit records of this era or slugging percentage records or even walk records because it is safe to say that all of these records are also “tainted” by steroids? Is there going to be an asterisk on steroid abuser Shawn Merriman’s record if he records more sacks than Bruce Smith? Should the Baltimore Ravens Super Bowl victory have an asterisk because Ray Lewis was accused of murder? Should all of Mickey Mantle’s records be “qualified” because he had a drinking problem? Should Peyton Manning’s records have an asterisk because he is the son of a star quarterback?

All of these things may sound crazy, but the point is if we are going to arbitrarily throw around these asterisks, we need to realize that at some point a line needs to be drawn and that line is going to vary by sport, by record, by era, by person and many, many other things. The only way to deal with this is to realize that there is no objective way to “qualify” records other than their given raw numbers. So, please, enough with the asterisk.