Lupica rewrites his book.

Maris is number one in Lupica's book? Good thing I didn't read this book, because it might confuse me.


The sentiment expressed in Lupica's article is certainly not unique. I'd say that most baseball fans still think Maris has the "real" single-season HR record. Which is precisely why it's unnecessary to officially rewrite the record books.

The beauty of the record book is that it's not negotiable, it's not judgemental. Hank Aaron has the most homeruns in a career, but most baseball fans and historians still consider Babe Ruth the "greatest" homerun hitter in baseball history.

Some might consider the "unfair" right field porch at Yankee Stadium and make a case for Jimmie Foxx. Or prorate for time lost to the military and make a case for Willie Mays and Ted Williams. Or maybe you think it's all about the ballpark and you think Willie McCovey was actually a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron. You're nuts, but at least you're thinking out of the box.

A record book is not the final word by any means. It's just fodder for a never-ending discussion. It has always been that way, especially in the wacky world of Baseball Nostalgia.


"You know how it can send a message? Convene an emergency session of the Veterans Committee and put Roger Maris into the Hall of Fame this week. Make this the message: The last magic number in baseball is still 61, and it still belongs to him."

Bunning was less precise, but he said he wants to remove all the steroids-enhanced records. Of course, he doesn't mean that. Bunning really means just two records: The single-season HR record and the career HR record.

Nobody seems to care about the integrity of pitching records or stolen base records, do they? Nobody cares about low-profile records, do they?

I wonder if Jim Bunning wants to call a special Congressional hearing to determine if Kevin Elster was taking steroids in 1996 and, if so, should we go back and give the AL West title to Seattle?

Was Darin Erstad juiced up when he led the league in hits in 2000? It's suspicious in my book. While Congress convenes to defend the legacy of Aaron and Ruth, can't they form a li'l ol' Blue Ribbon Committee to help restore Johnny Damon's small claim to fame in the baseball record book?

Oh, now I'm just being silly. That would be silly to get Congress involved in something so unimportant, wouldn't it? They're Congress. They must have better things to do!

The other obvious problem here is that Lupica et al are ready to officially declare Bonds & McGwire & Sosa guilty, when their guilt has not been proven. The Court of Public Opinion is an entirely different thing. In the Court of Public Opinion, the burden of proof is less, ummm, burdensome. But if you're going to officially remove records, you'd better have better proof. Because if Lupica's going after Bonds & McGwire & Sosa based on his own personal opinion, then nobody is safe.

If you want to have integrity, you can't have halfway integrity. That's not what integrity is. If Lupica insists on condemning the big-name suspicious sluggers based on his own personal observations, then I hope he has the time and energy to go after Chuck Carr's 58 stolen bases in 1993 and Mike Hampton's 22 wins in 1999.

If Bunning is so offended by cheating, he'd better get Gaylord Perry out of the HOF right now and also go after every player who corked a bat or stole a sign. You know how much of the baseball record book you're left with? The entire MLB record book wouldn't vanish, but it would have more cross-outs than your NCAA bracket.

One more question: Is it only good records that are stricken? That is to say, if Anthony Young took steroids, does he get to wipe out his 1-16 season? Just wonderin'. I'm sure Senator Bunning isn't losing too much sleep over it. He's got a country to run!


I wasn't alive when Maris hit 61, but I know enough to know Lupica's representation of the occasion are misleading at best:

"He hit 61 in 1961, and passed Ruth and now he was the all-time single-season home run king in baseball, even though a dim-bulb baseball commissioner named Ford Frick tried to put an asterisk next to that number, as though Ruth were still the king."

In Frick's defense, nobody gave Maris credit in 1961, least of all Lupica's predecessors in the world of Vulture Sportswriting.

1961 was the first season where the schedule expanded to 162 games and most people felt the HR record would only be legit if Maris broke the record in 154 games. It wasn't just Frick, it was just about everybody. Even Maris' teammates and even Maris himself.

While pursuing Ruth, Maris was treated like crud by the press, and Maris was run out of town on a rail a few years later.

I don't hold Lupica responsible for the mistreatment of Maris. I just find the newfound Maris worship quite ironic. Too bad the writers wouldn't give him credit in '61.


In Lupica's book, Maris is still the single-season HR record-holder. That's fine. It's not completely unreasonable.

In my book, it's Bonds. In someones else's book, it's Ruth. Maybe for somebody else, it's really George Foster's 1977 or Ken Griffey's 1997.

Everybody has a different book, and their book can change all the time. Lupica knows this better than anybody. Lupica's mind is not exactly tormented by the hobgoblins of consistency.

But that's precisely why the record book should be left alone. The official record book is the one book that should not have any asterisks.