Okay, so Ichiro is making a run at Gorgeous George Sisler's 85-year-old single-season record of 257 hits for the 1920 [Corrected - ed.] St. Louis Browns. And while Sisler played every single game for the Brownies ... there were only 154 of 'em.
You know this argument well, of course, from the title of the Billy Crystal movie 61* ... back in 1961, because the baseball season was eight games longer for the first time, then-commissioner Ford Frick decided to place an asterisk beside Roger Maris' name in the record books unless he passed Ruth by Game #154 of the Yankees season.. Beacuse the Tracy Stallard "fastball" that ended up #61 didn't come until the season's final day, in Game #162, Ruth's record was semi-preserved.
Do we have any recourse but to acknowledge historical precedent if Ichiro doesn't pass Sisler before the end of the Mariners' 154th game, Sept. 25 against the Rangers in Arlington? And you know, he just might --but what if he doesn't?
Another interesing historical anomaly -- Sisler, like Ruth (and McGwire at USC, for that matter), started his career as a pitcher. In fact, he had a career ERA of 2.35, which in the dead ball era translated to a career ERA+ of "just" 124. Does anyone who's seen an Ichiro BB from RF to 3B doubt he could carve a career on the mound if necessary?
Back to the question at hand ... do we asterisk the hit record? Please, spare the arguments about "Sisler didn't have to face specialty relievers" and "Sisler didn't have to face minorities" and "Sisler didn't have to travel thousands of miles to play every single road game like Seattle does." (Frankly, I'd rather fly SEA-TAC to BOS than take a train from St. Louis to New York.) Apples and oranges. It seems that "number of games played" is a straight-up comparison.
As a compromise, let's point out that Sisler had 631 AB (I don't know how many plate appearances), another number Ichiro is going to blow past. He'd have to get 34 hits in his next 38 at-bats (that is, hit .895) to match Sisler at that level; FYI, though it never seems to be brought up, Maris had precisely 50 more AB in 1961 than Ruth did in 1927.
Much ado about nothing? Or protecting the historical integrity of the game?
You know this argument well, of course, from the title of the Billy Crystal movie 61* ... back in 1961, because the baseball season was eight games longer for the first time, then-commissioner Ford Frick decided to place an asterisk beside Roger Maris' name in the record books unless he passed Ruth by Game #154 of the Yankees season.. Beacuse the Tracy Stallard "fastball" that ended up #61 didn't come until the season's final day, in Game #162, Ruth's record was semi-preserved.
Do we have any recourse but to acknowledge historical precedent if Ichiro doesn't pass Sisler before the end of the Mariners' 154th game, Sept. 25 against the Rangers in Arlington? And you know, he just might --but what if he doesn't?
Another interesing historical anomaly -- Sisler, like Ruth (and McGwire at USC, for that matter), started his career as a pitcher. In fact, he had a career ERA of 2.35, which in the dead ball era translated to a career ERA+ of "just" 124. Does anyone who's seen an Ichiro BB from RF to 3B doubt he could carve a career on the mound if necessary?
Back to the question at hand ... do we asterisk the hit record? Please, spare the arguments about "Sisler didn't have to face specialty relievers" and "Sisler didn't have to face minorities" and "Sisler didn't have to travel thousands of miles to play every single road game like Seattle does." (Frankly, I'd rather fly SEA-TAC to BOS than take a train from St. Louis to New York.) Apples and oranges. It seems that "number of games played" is a straight-up comparison.
As a compromise, let's point out that Sisler had 631 AB (I don't know how many plate appearances), another number Ichiro is going to blow past. He'd have to get 34 hits in his next 38 at-bats (that is, hit .895) to match Sisler at that level; FYI, though it never seems to be brought up, Maris had precisely 50 more AB in 1961 than Ruth did in 1927.
Much ado about nothing? Or protecting the historical integrity of the game?
