[Article] THERE ARE NO ASTERISKS IN SPORTS

The history of the asterisk in sports teaches us why we should really stop using the phrase or at least be careful with it.

Hi, welcome to our first article on Ball Through The Ages. We hope to do more of these going forward in addition to our podcasts. Due to technical difficulties, BTTA will not be releasing a podcast until early next week so we hope this dive into the history of the asterisk will hold you over until then. Please subscribe to our newsletter, to our podcast on your favorite platform, and follow @ballthroughages on twitter if you haven’t yet! Thanks

As the sports world endeavors to play during a global pandemic, many pundits/fans/whoever have discussed the possibility of “asterisks” being attached to 2020 seasons because they have been shortened or restarted. There are many useless talking points in sports, in fact some wet blankets argue that sports themselves are a useless talking point. 

However, few talking points are more nonsensical or hurtful than the “asterisk” discussion in relation to a sports accomplishment. Asking if an accomplishment needs an asterisk merely serves to de-legitimize it and hurt the legacy of it. You probably just shouldn’t discuss the mythical asterisk. But if you insist on trying to attach an asterisk to something, here are some things you should know and think about.

1. There’s never been an official asterisk in sports

I’m going to say this in all caps to make it clear: THERE ARE NO ASTERISKS IN SPORTS. The answer to the question about whether a sports thing will get an asterisk is always the same: No, there is no asterisk next to the thing, there never has been and there never will be. 

The whole idea of an “asterisk” next to a sports record first appeared when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in 1961. Maris cranked 61 homers in 162 games to break Ruth’s record of 60 home runs in the 154-game 1927 season. 

As Maris and others seemed on pace to break the record, Ford Frick, MLB’s Commissioner and a worshipper of Ruth, felt the need to take action. He announced that any player who broke the record in 154 games would rightfully have the record, but a distinctive mark would accompany a record set after the 154th game. Dick Young, an NY Post journalist doing his best to live up to his name, suggested the mark be an asterisk. Hence, the asterisk accompanying a supposedly tarnished athletic record was born. 

Here’s the thing: that’s all bullshit. For starters, MLB had no official record book at the time. Frick and Young had nowhere to put their asterisk, even though several record books kept by outside companies noted the difference in games played. 

More importantly, Maris’s record was clearly equal to or even more impressive than Ruth’s. Maris did have 8 more games than Ruth, but he only had 7 more plate appearances than the Great Bambino did. Maris actually hit more home runs per plate appearance (homered every 11.44 PAs) than Ruth did (homered every 11.52 PAs). Ruth did walk more and, in turn, hit more home runs per at bat. If you don’t understand that because you don’t watch baseball, fair enough and just know that it’s a strong counter to my argument.

However, Ruth did not play against Black players who were segregated in the Negro Leagues. Maris played in a more competitive, integrated (to a certain extent) league. Frick completely ignored the facts that Maris did not have many more opportunities than Ruth and that Ruth played against a much more limited pool of talent than Maris.

Therefore, the entire premise of an asterisk noting an illegitimate/disputed record or title is false. It was not used in regards to Maris, the suggestion of using it was asinine and it has never been seriously proposed officially since. 

2. Why you should be careful with asterisks

Ultimately, this is an argument about semantics. I realize that I am probably more sensitive to these things than most as a nerd and lawyer. But I believe the semantics matter because of what is implied when we ask about asterisks in sports. 

Asterisks are used to de-legitimize an accomplishment. It’s a serious accusation that typically has a lasting impact on the accomplishment. For example, the Maris asterisk completely dominates the conversation around the record. Most fans skirt by the interesting arguments that I brought up and the fact that Maris’s record stood for longer than Ruth’s despite baseball. We don’t even discuss who the better hitter is, only the asterisk.

It also hurt Maris and his family greatly, as his son explained after Maris passed away. 

When Maris died of Hodgkin lymphoma in 1985 at the age of 51, the record still was separated by eight games. “I know he wasn’t happy that there [was] an asterisk,’’ Roger Jr. said. “A season is a season. All of a sudden he’s the first guy that gets tagged with a so-called asterisk. He thought what he did was a special thing and he never really received proper due for accomplishing such a great feat.’’

That’s heartbreaking to me. How dare we take away Maris’s accomplishment merely because the sport changed rules. Of course it would haunt him throughout his life! The 1999 San Antonio Spurs felt the same way when pundits tried attaching an asterisk to their championship in the lockout-shortened season. 

Asterisks serve to say “this *sports thing* is not legitimate.” Putting it next to accomplishments not only tarnishes the accomplishment but also robs it of proper context. When you talk about asterisks, you’re talking about harming a player’s and/or team’s reputation. Nothing more, nothing less. 

3. When you can discuss asterisks

My first piece of advice is don’t talk about asterisks. It’s silly, useless and is merely used as a guise to hide an intent to de-legitimize a record or championship. If you still insist that “asterisk” talk is necessary, I suggest a simple rule of thumb to avoid besmirching a perfectly valid accomplishment: You can fairly discuss asterisks when the issue that tarnishes the accomplishment is within a player’s/team’s control, but DO NOT talk about asterisks when the thing that affects an accomplishment is outside of their control. 

For example, the asterisk conversation could apply to Mark McGwire’s and Barry Bonds’s home run records due to their decision to use steroids in pursuit of the record. I’m not sure that’s fair for a number of reasons, but the discussion is valid in that situation.

Same with the 2018 World Series-winning Houston Astros (advanced sign-stealing), or the 2014 Superbowl Champion New England Patriots (deflategate). Those teams/players decided to do something illegal and it helped them achieve the accomplishment. Notice that I did not include Lance Armstrong or others who have had their championships stripped because an asterisk is unnecessary at this point. 

In contrast, the 1998 Spurs played the games on their schedule on equal footing with their opponents just like Roger Maris merely played the games he had on the schedule. They had no unfair advantage and their accomplishments hold the same weight as any other. It’s fair to ponder whether another team would have won the 98 NBA title in a full season or whether Roger Maris’s record is more impressive than Babe Ruth’s. It’s completely unfair and damaging to suggest that their accomplishment needs an asterisk to denote it as lesser-than others.  

When you add an asterisk for things outside of the team’s or player’s control, you equate a set of circumstances to intentional cheating. How could the Astros operating an elaborate cheating scheme be marked in the same way as a team playing more or less games than normal? It makes absolutely no sense. 

So please, I am begging you, stop talking about asterisks in sports. Especially in 2020. Teams and players will play the games in front of them. A champion will emerge from the same circumstances that everyone faces. It’s unfair to the work and effort that will go into winning that championship to try to slap an asterisk on the title.