Should pre Jackie Robinson era players have an asterisk for not competing with the best players.?
Question:Since there were no Black or Latino players in the first part of the century. Should those players get an asterisk for not having to face the Pedro Martinez's, Vida Blue's and Bob Gibsons of their day?
Answers:
no you can't choose when you where born. Also look at the other leagues in other contries should they get an asteric for not playing with the greatest players in the Mlb.
So Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Christy Mathweson, Silver King, Ed Walsh, Tris Speaker (I can go forever), are not considered best players?
Four of the names mentioned above are the original five inductees into the Hall of Fame.
No. While some of the players, including famous ones, were racist, not all of them were, and it was the owners, not the players (as well as society) who made the rules.
Remember also that the leagues started expanding after integration, meaning though not ALL the best players were in the MLB, the ratio of good players to bad players is about equal to what it is now, meaning the stats compare favorably.
Now, if you CHEAT to get ahead, then there should be an *
Whats alfonso soriano's hit streak at?
In fourty years, you will ask if we should have an asterisk by players in the pre- 1990's should have an asterisk because they didn't have to compete against the elite Japanese players. Then in eighty years, you will ask if pre 2015 players should have an asterisk because they didn't have to compete against elite african players.The game evolves. That doesn't mean that you lessen the accomplishments of the previous generation.
Kyle Farnsworth, does anyone know where I can find good pictures or the video of the fight?
Ummmmmm, hell no. Absolutely not. Those records r records. Stop being a racist, 4 all of us.Barry Bonds, homerun hero? or Giant douche? u be the judge.?
Hell, no. It wasn't their fault that they were born when they were, or competed when they did. There were Latino players, too, as some were white enough to "pass". The fact is, the game was still great because the best athletes in America that were allowed in MLB chose baseball first, unlike today. There were also way fewer jobs, way more minor league teams with way more guys waiting to take your job, no benefits from a player's union (didn't exist), and none of that guaranteed-money, no-cut contract BS that ensures certain guys keep their jobs.Baseball became much better by Robinson breaking the color barrier, sure, and it helped change baseball and even American history. That doesn't mean we can rewrite history because we dislike something, though. Past is past. Let it go.
Actually a good question, but sorry no. If that were the case we may eventually say should we put an asterisk after all records before Ichiro and all of the other Japanese Players that came over. Should we put an asterisk by all Presidents that were elected before women were to vote. And for that matter Roger Maris should have never had and asterisk before his name because they added more games. You can't use societal pressures or wrongs of the the day to place and asterisk.
Who's better Red Sox Or Yankees?
No, they should not have an asterisk. It was not their fault that they played in an era when Blacks and other non-whites were not allowed in the majors. They simply played according to the rules of that era. While it is certainly sad that blacks were not allowed to play before 1947 (and sparingly through the 50s), the white players before them should not have to pay the price for baseball keeping blacks out.We could put asterisks by a lot of things in baseball, such as steroid users, and other cheaters, the pre-1947 players did not cheat.
You mentioned Gibson, who had a record 1.12 E.R.A. in 1968. He played in the 60s when the commissioner Ford Frick, ordered pitchers mounds raised so that no one would again break the home run record (Frick was a huge supporter of Babe Ruth). Many pitchers, including Gibson were helped by this. Should there be an asterisk by their names too?
No... For a bunch of reasons. They can't choose when they were born. They did not decide to lock out the Black players (in fact many played them in "exibition games" to help them make money). Baseball also had many fewer players in total back then because their were many less players. So they may have played close to the same % of TOP talent when measured against the "allowed" player pool.
The last point is where does the line get draw. When Light skinned Hispanic players were let in? When Blacks were allowed to play? When more then 1 or 2 blacks were allowed on a team? When the South American countries players started playing? When the Japanese players started coming over? When Steroid testing started? See where this is going?
Every record has to be looked at in it's own context. For example: I believe the single season homerun record is still 61 in my mind. No one I consider clean has hit more...
More Questions & Answers...