"Ronald Acuña Jr. becomes the FIFTH player in MLB history to record 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases in a season 💫
(via @Braves)
https://t.co/RhB060umsE" via Bleacher Report on Twitter
MLB counts them. And the asterisk was done by some weird guy with too much money and the Hall of Fame explicitly said the asterisk doesn’t reflect their views.
He made that decision based on people voting what he should do with it. That was the popular choice. I know that they officially count, but that whole era is a pretty big stain on the MLB to a lot of fans. What I’m saying is that Acuna’s accomplishment is remarkable if he did it without juicing.
I definitely agree with you there. And I must say I always struggle with this debate. On the one hand I question whether it is fair that we keep putting so much blame on a couple of guys during a period where a lot of players used PED’s. But on the other hand, if you look at the historical context, it’s not fair for the players that came close to those records whilst not using PED’s.
Right. Canseco, Bonds, and A-Rod still stood out from their peers, who were probably also juicing. They responded very well to the drugs, but they were also exceptional talents. There’s no denying their talent. But in the historical context of other clean players, I think an asterisk is fair. I was crazy about Canseco as a kid, I think most people were. But looking back at that era doesn’t give me fond memories, knowing what we know now.
3 of those people don’t count. One doesn’t count so much that his final HR ball is branded with an asterisk.
MLB counts them. And the asterisk was done by some weird guy with too much money and the Hall of Fame explicitly said the asterisk doesn’t reflect their views.
He made that decision based on people voting what he should do with it. That was the popular choice. I know that they officially count, but that whole era is a pretty big stain on the MLB to a lot of fans. What I’m saying is that Acuna’s accomplishment is remarkable if he did it without juicing.
I definitely agree with you there. And I must say I always struggle with this debate. On the one hand I question whether it is fair that we keep putting so much blame on a couple of guys during a period where a lot of players used PED’s. But on the other hand, if you look at the historical context, it’s not fair for the players that came close to those records whilst not using PED’s.
Right. Canseco, Bonds, and A-Rod still stood out from their peers, who were probably also juicing. They responded very well to the drugs, but they were also exceptional talents. There’s no denying their talent. But in the historical context of other clean players, I think an asterisk is fair. I was crazy about Canseco as a kid, I think most people were. But looking back at that era doesn’t give me fond memories, knowing what we know now.