WSJ puts asterisk by Clark's upcoming record

[sober_teacher]

No he got an asterisk because of 162 games vs 154. I haven't looked, I wonder if anything has sn asterisk because of the steroid era.

Bit more complicated than that - the HR record was THE record, and Babe Ruth was a beloved sports icon. Maris was simply a good player having a career year who didn't have anywhere near the popularity that fellow Yankee icon Mickey Mantle had.

that movie 61 did a good time dramatizing that situation, and I think it was HBO that also had a pretty solid documentary on that debate.

The 162/154 debate would have more points imo had they made that decision in advance of the season - they waited until they saw that the most beloved record in all of american sports might actually fall.

 

[joelbc1]

WNBA playing for a team with with the best young post, and a team loading up on 3 point specialists to spread the court...almost like they are building a team that looks like Iowa fo some reason.

I’m thinking Indy is far from being all negatives…

 

[Franisdaman]

Speaking of baseball, I love how players linked to the steroids era are not coming even close to getting elected to the Hall of Fame.

This is the voters' way of putting an asterisk by those players and their doped up numbers.

 

[nu2u]

Clark’s 4 year record will be broken but- and this is what sets Caitlin above all others - I highly doubt that future players will be able to excel in two or more categories. Clark will set the record and easily exceed 1,000 assists. That is uniquely great.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

No he got an asterisk because of 162 games vs 154. I haven't looked, I wonder if anything has sn asterisk because of the steroid era.

In effect, yes, by virtue of none of them being in the Hall of Fame.

Turns out we were both wrong. Although per this article, Frick created the distinction due to his friendship with Ruth. Read on.

The asterisk myth

 

[wondergrape]

Speaking of baseball, I love how players linked to the steroids era are not coming even close to getting elected to the Hall of Fame.

This is the voters' way of putting an asterisk by those players and their doped up numbers.

I hate it. It's hypocritical and stupid. The writers knew they were juicing at the time and could not have cared less because they made good copy. Not having Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame is a farce.

 

[sober_teacher]

I hate it. It's hypocritical and stupid. The writers knew they were juicing at the time and could not have cared less because they made good copy. Not having Barry Bonds in the Hall of Fame is a farce.

Yeah - they belong in the Hall because it tells the history of the game and the steroid era is part of that.

My solution is to put at the bottom of every plaque for guys who played during that period (which I consider ~'95 - post-baseball strike thru ~2010, or whatever the year was that they started testing players for steroids) "Played during the steroid era."

 

[3ZSDAD]

Bit more complicated than that - the HR record was THE record, and Babe Ruth was a beloved sports icon. Maris was simply a good player having a career year who didn't have anywhere near the popularity that fellow Yankee icon Mickey Mantle had.

that movie 61 did a good time dramatizing that situation, and I think it was HBO that also had a pretty solid documentary on that debate.

The 162/154 debate would have more points imo had they made that decision in advance of the season - they waited until they saw that the most beloved record in all of american sports might actually fall.

No they waited because they couldn't envision someone breaking the record, especially not named Mantle.

 

[Hawksbyamillion]

Yeah - they belong in the Hall because it tells the history of the game and the steroid era is part of that.

My solution is to put at the bottom of every plaque for guys who played during that period (which I consider ~'95 - post-baseball strike thru ~2010, or whatever the year was that they started testing players for steroids) "Played during the steroid era."

I understand your reasoning for this and will be the first to admit that I don’t know as much about mlb records. But if you’re a record setting player who played during “the steroid era” who didn’t use steroids I don’t think it’s fair to tarnish that player’s reputation with this statement next to their record. Maybe I’m being naive though and pretty much every player from that era in the record books did use steroids…

 

[sober_teacher]

I understand your reasoning for this and will be the first to admit that I don’t know as much about mlb records. But if you’re a record setting player who played during “the steroid era” who didn’t use steroids I don’t think it’s fair to tarnish that player’s reputation with this statement next to their record. Maybe I’m being naive though and pretty much every player from that era in the record books did use steroids…

It may not be fair, but given how many players evidently used steroids during that period, i think it’s also fair they be penalized for not saying anything.

That era happened because everyone turned a blind eye to what players were doing. Baseball was making a comeback and no one thought to question how or why so many records were being broken.

 

[EagleHawk]

For the naysayers, she will likely end up with more points than her, too. So, someone will find fault with Caitlin topping Woodard's point total, too. No three point line, fewer minutes played, something. And this will come from people who 4 months ago didn't no Caitlin Clark from a Clark bar.

Not Woodard’s fault, because you play the teams on your schedule, but is anyone going to comment on the overall depth and quality of the women's college game in her day, and her playing many games against what was probably the equivalent of intramural teams. So, scoring a lot of points in games against far inferior talent did happen.

For Example: 1978-1979 Schedule

Point being, you can go round and round on this crap.

I found this in the Iowa Women's Media Guide when looking for attendance numbers for another thread, but it highlights what the 70's were like for women's college basketball. Iowa's worst losses were to Iowa NAIA/DIII schools in the 70's:

LOSING MARGIN (MORE THAN 30 POINTS)
Margin (Score) Opponent, Year
59 _____ (112-53) Grandview, 1975-76
58 _____ (91-33) William Penn, 1975-75
57 _____ (96-39) William Penn, 1975-76
51 _____ (73-22) William Penn, 1975-75
49 _____ (94-45) Luther, 1975-76
47 _____ (90-43) Minnesota, 1981-82
45 _____ (74-29) William Penn, 1974-75
43 _____ (60-103) Kansas State, 2002-03
42 _____ (90-48) Illinois State, 1975-76
40 _____ (87-47) Penn State, 1984-85

 

[StanzByMe]

I mean, JuJu Watkins can easily break the record in just three seasons. Records come, records go. Just enjoy the basketball.

You really think she can easily break the record in 3 seasons? At 32 games per year she would need to score 37 per game. Only scoring 27.5 per game this year, so her last 2 years she would have to average 41 per game. She could certainly break Clark's record but basically 0 chance it's happing in 3 seasons, just because she had a 51 point game one time.

 

[creslin_hawk]

What are the odds Caitlin comes back for the Covid year. NIL money would be good. WNBA playing for a team that won third of their games last year, not the best situation.

Most of her NIL money is endorsements rather than collectives. If she comes back it's either for a title, marketing, or records. The money won't change that much at least in the first year or two. After that it's tied to exposure and star power. Many college stars risk losing both large amounts of collective money or going from center of college bb to not featured in wnba.

 

[ichawk24]

Clark is gone after this year, for multiple reasons. She is simply not staying.

The Maris asterisk never existed, it was a suggestion from commissioner Ford Frick but never happened.

 

[sober_teacher]

Clark is gone after this year, for multiple reasons. She is simply not staying.

The Maris asterisk never existed, it was a suggestion from commissioner Ford Frick but never happened.

Didn’t know that about the asterisk never actually happening.

Barring Clark wanting to return to try to win it all (unfinished business) I just don’t see the arguments for her returning.

I expect I’ll have to figure out how to watch WNBA games next year.

 

[Rifler]

I expect I’ll have to figure out how to watch WNBA games next year.

Yeah,.. that's not on my list of things to do.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

Clark is gone after this year, for multiple reasons. She is simply not staying.

I believe that. Her close friends on the team will be gone, for one. She may say she doesn't mind it all, but it has to wear on her. I think next year the national press and the internet trolls would be particularly harsh on her, just because that's what they do - you came back to set more records - those will never be valid, you're afraid to be challenged in the WNBA, you're just in it for the money, and if Iowa wasn't as successful it would be because she's not a team player, she really wasn't that good, etc., etc., etc., all that BS.

 

[kceasthawk]

She is going to break that record as well so it doesn't need an asterisk.

Exactly. Can't understand why all these uninformed clowns keep putting this crap out there. She'll break that record as well, probably the last regular season game against OSU.......

 

[kceasthawk]

Hope Iowa makes a deep run in the tourney so she takes this record as well!

She should break it pretty easily before the NCAA tourney. Do the math.......

 

[kceasthawk]

Maybe when talking about career records, people should let the careers play out.

Nobody respects JBo’s “records” because of the extra season. And if Clark comes back next year, her records will be diminished because everyone outside of Iowa will point to the extra year even though she’s going to break them this season.

I just don’t understand why people are up in arms about this until it happens. It will be really easy to point to total points scored and total games played. Divide one by the other to get scoring average, and her numbers will pop out at you compared to the others. The Joens girl is in the top 10 of scoring, but her average is massively lower because of the extra games from the extra season. Everyone sees that and nobody outside of central Iowa talks about her being one of the all time greats because of it.

She's not coming back........

 

[kceasthawk]

Yeah. Unfortunately, that's not true. There is a lot of hype growing about her being the leading scorer in all of college basketball, men's and women's. The press will celebrate it without a mention of the stats you state. Nobody will care that Pete Maravich scored 3667 points in just 83 games and averaged a whopping 44.2 points per game without a three-point line.

FYI. The DII record is over 4000 and the NAIA record is over 4200

Be serious for a change hater of the womens game. D11 and NAIA vs D1 you may as well compare apples to tractor tires for God sake. I had one son play NAIA and one play D2 ball in college. Neither would have been good players at the D1 level and NEITHER would any of those players. As for Pistol Pete, do some math. Dude was a firehose. He AVERAGED 38 shots a game! Do the math. Take Petes 38 shots a game X 83 games. Thats 2674 attempts. Clark at 130 X 20 shots/game is 2600. She may end up with a handful more shots but it won't be by much. The whole 83 games for Pete is a stupid argument. He put up nearly 2 times as many shots /game as Clark.

 

[coorsoriginal02]

She should break it pretty easily before the NCAA tourney. Do the math.......

Excellent.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

Be serious for a change hater of the womens game. D11 and NAIA vs D1 you may as well compare apples to tractor tires for God sake. I had one son play NAIA and one play D2 ball in college. Neither would have been good players at the D1 level and NEITHER would any of those players. As for Pistol Pete, do some math. Dude was a firehose. He AVERAGED 38 shots a game! Do the math. Take Petes 38 shots a game X 83 games. Thats 2674 attempts. Clark at 130 X 20 shots/game is 2600. She may end up with a handful more shots but it won't be by much. The whole 83 games for Pete is a stupid argument. He put up nearly 2 times as many shots /game as Clark.

Hence his nickname.

 

[kceasthawk]

Hence his nickname.

Sure, but as usual some context is needed, and people just ignore the facts. He may have only played 3 years, BUT he put up enough shot attempts for someone playing 5 seasons. When it comes to points scored records thats much more relevant then the 83 games.......

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

Clark is gone after this year, for multiple reasons. She is simply not staying.

The Maris asterisk never existed, it was a suggestion from commissioner Ford Frick but never happened.

I remember seeing a notation in the "official" MLB record book years ago. Once upon a time it was published annually and available in paperback. While not an asterisk for Maris, the season length appeared next to both Maris (162 game schedule) and Ruth (154 game schedule). Both men held the record.

 

[Hawkeye Marching Band]

For the naysayers, she will likely end up with more points than her, too. So, someone will find fault with Caitlin topping Woodard's point total, too. No three point line, fewer minutes played, something. And this will come from people who 4 months ago didn't no Caitlin Clark from a Clark bar.

Not Woodard’s fault, because you play the teams on your schedule, but is anyone going to comment on the overall depth and quality of the women's college game in her day, and her playing many games against what was probably the equivalent of intramural teams. So, scoring a lot of points in games against far inferior talent did happen.

For Example: 1978-1979 Schedule

Point being, you can go round and round on this crap.

Fun fact, KU lost that season to Division II Cheney State 70-58. Cheney was led, of course, by C. Vivian Stringer.

 

[BrotherHawkeye]

Sure, but as usual some context is needed, and people just ignore the facts. He may have only played 3 years, BUT he put up enough shot attempts for someone playing 5 seasons. When it comes to points scored records thats much more relevant then the 83 games.......

I meant mine to be in agreement with you, short-handed as it was. He shot an amazing number of shots, Pistol was a well-earned moniker.