Talk:Roger Maris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV?[edit]

"Although his record was subsequently broken, some believe that those records set by both Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds should be invalid, due to their likely use of performance enhancing substances." Especiall in the intro? Schmidtr1

I agree, that sentence you quoted above needs to go. The opening paragraph is supposed to have some basic biographical information about Maris, not about McGwire and Bonds' records being invalidated. SaxofoneDL

"Although his record was subsequently broken, some believe that those records set by both Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds should be invalid, due to their possible use of performance enhancing substances."

I've removed this as it is not neutral and has tenuous relevance to the first paragraph. If phrased properly it seems ok to be mentioned in the article as a whole. Mglovesfun 14:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Roger Maris Was more than a man he was a Legend, a father, husband and a brother. Every one on the 1959 Yankee team was his brother.

[citation needed] Mglovesfun 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hilariously inappropriate for an encyclopedia. What makes it even funnier is that he wasn't on the Yankees in 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.185.21 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The person above probably meant the 1961 team. Maris still has the American League HR Record, not to mention he has the National Baseball Home Run Record w/o batting gloves (or steroids). Ruth wasn't beaned duirng his 1927 HR record, Maris was beaned 9 times in 1961. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs) 05:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Sean 2006 The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.209.49.19 (talk • contribs) 16:05, March 11, 2006 (UTC)

Birthname[edit]

The claim that Roger Maris was born "Roger Eugene Maras" (with two "a"s rather than an "i") seems dubious. The average reader of this article is going to doubt the spelling and be tempted to change it to "Maris."

If "Maras" is, in fact, correct (which it seems to be, as it gets 70 or so google hits), it needs a citation.

Jwadeg 05:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Awards, honors, and life after baseball[edit]

I wonder if it would appropriate to mention that Roger Maris is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame. The controversy over alleged doping of modern "home-run kings" may also be of note. Bzuk 06:04, 16 September 2006

Unlike the great Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris was not a particularly strong hitter. Check the stats and you will see what I mean. Thegreatjefftaylor 10:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "On September 26,1991, a Committee for Statistical Accuracy removed the asterisk from Maris' record. The record stood separated from Ruth's record for 30 years (1962-1991). With the removal of the asterisk, Maris was the sole owner of the single season home run record with 61." This is inaccurate. See above in the article; there never was an actual asterisk.

Hall of Fame/Mathematics[edit]

Those two sections seem pretty pointless. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallofamer2000 (talkcontribs) 06:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Could someone tell me how in God's name mentioning that Roger was Julio Navarro's 1st strikeout victim is worthy of mentioning, even in a trivia section? I mean my God, who the heck is Julio Navarro & who the heck cares (it would seem that a relative or friend of the Navarros has been here adding stuff given that he has an article on here & it is longer than some real celebrities despite an uneventful & undistinguished career)? If you are going to include stuff like that in the trivia section, you might want to add what he had for lunch on December 13, 1953 too. Frankly, that might be more interesting than the "fact" that some nobody pitcher recorded his first strikeout against him. no. sick of the crap.

Such an event is noteworthy on Julio Navarro's article, but not Roger Maris'. Kingturtle (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In Defense of the Asterisk[edit]

In 1927, the baseball season consisted of 154 games. In 1961, it contained 162 games. It is an undisputed fact that, when 154 games had been played in 1961, Roger Maris had only 59 home runs, which was one fewer than Babe Ruth had obtained in the same number of games. Given enough time, anyone can get any number of home runs. If the season had been expanded to 200 games, and Maris did not get his 61st home run until the 200th game, would people still regard that as exceeding Babe Ruth's accomplishment? John Paul Parks (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A season is a season. Does the NFL make distinctions for its records for things like rushing and passing yardage, based on whether the season is 10,11,12,13,14 or 16 games? I don't think so. And don't blame Maris for the extra 8 games. The Lords of Baseball did that, and then pulled one of the stupidest P.R. gaffes of all time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
And another thing... When Babe Ruth hit 29 homers in 1919, everyone cheered, because he broke the previous record! Ned Williamson had hit 27 in 1884, and Ruth broke it! Yeah! But hold on thar, Baba Looey... Williamson hit his 27 in a mere 112-game season. Yet nobody yelped about that, because "a season is a season"... and because they didn't have idiots like Ford Frick running the game's P.R. machine in those days. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is often overlooked that the National League continued to play a 154-game schedule for the 1961 season. Not to say that Frick was correct in his "seperate records" stance, but it was another factor in his decision.68.60.139.230 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There was only one factor in Frick's decision, and that was to punish anyone who would dare to approach his buddy's record, by raising an artificial and unfair hurdle. Baseball in those days was clueless when it came to P.R. They've learned a little bit over the years since. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that Frick's opinion was ridiculous, just stating that MLB gave this as another reason that there should be seperate record. For the record, I agree that a season is a season. I would also agree that baseball is better at promoting players approaching records today than they were in 1961. But the steroid era, and how our beloved Bud Selig has handled it, shows that they have a long way to go on the PR front68.60.139.230 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
It would not have been a "separate record" if Frick hadn't opened the door to it. It was a non-issue until he brought it up. He made it an issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am of two minds of this. While it is true that Babe Ruth's homerun count is a better technical achievement, the achievement being listed is most homeruns in a season. If the achievement was "most homeruns in the first 154 games", then Babe clearly beat Maris. However, this is not the case. So for all intends and purposes a Season is a Season, end of story. Maris should be given due credit for his achievement. If people care to make distinctions, they can note the number of games played for their personal purposes. This record is a public one of a specific meaning. So lets leave things such that they are. Alyeska (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

At the time (I remember it), the 162 game season was thought to be a temporary aberration, that they'd eventually get back to 154 as God Intended.WHPratt (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

When Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs, he didn't have to deal with night games. Or road trips to California. Or integration. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In barnstorming games played against Negro League stars, Ruth amply demonstrated that he could hit them 500 feet off pitchers of any color. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Which reminds me: Maris didn't have to deal with playing a bunch of extra games, in-season exhibition games, every year as Ruth did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not saying Ruth's 60 were more impressive than Maris' 61 or vice versa. All I'm saying is that the different eras of baseball can't be directly compared. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Every era is different, but there are similarities. Maris and Mantle and the Yanks roared through the 1961 season - much as Ruth and Gehrig and the Yankees did in 1927. Ruth didn't face the expansion-diluted pitching that Maris and Mantle did. Maris got 8 extra games. Ruth was an extrovert who loved the attention, and was generally a larger-than-life figure. Maris was a terrific ballplayer who never craved attention. The pressure was much greater on Maris in certain ways. He could handle game pressure, but not the stress of the "chipmunk" press. Ruth had the press eating out of his hand. Ruth had Gehrig batting behind him, which compelled pitchers to throw more strikes to Ruth, many of which landed well over 400 feet away. Maris generally batted behind Mantle (although they swapped later in the season), but with Berra and Skowron coming up next, the pitchers couldn't afford to pitch around Maris in any case. Yankee Stadium was easier to hit home runs in in 1961 than it was in 1927. Maris hit 30 at home and 31 on the road. Ruth hit 28 at home and 32 on the road. Maris tended to hit line drives. Ruth often hit towering blasts, although number 60 was just down the line and just fair (kind of like with McGwire's number 62). If you're interested in an analysis of Ruth's entire career, see if you can find The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by a guy named Jenkinson. I think it's still around, in paperback. If you're a fan of home runs, you'll be amazed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
All of that is true. I'll give that book a read, I just finished reading Koppett's Concise History of Major League Baseball, it crammed alot of info into one book. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
And in case you wonder, I am a big fan of both Ruth and Maris, even though I've never been a Yankees fan as such. Ruth was perhaps the most fascinating character that ever set foot on a ballfield, and certainly the one guy who changed the game more dramatically than anyone else ever has, in my opinion; and Maris was an outstanding (and much underrated) player for whom 1961 was more like a curse. If he could have played his entire career in St. Louis, he would have been a Hall of Famer, I'm sure - though he likely never would have hit 61 homers. It's important to keep in mind that Maris was the league MVP in 1960 - the year before all this brouhaha. He was a rising star who fell into a trap set by the baseball gods, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Maris also got his 61 homeruns in less at bats than Ruth got his 60. Maybe Ruth would have had more homeruns if he played in a 162 game season. Or maybe he'd have gotten hurt, we can't know this. The asterisk is indefensible. And the thing is, no matter how many of Ruth's records fall, it doesn't diminish his legacy one bit.--RLent (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since Maris didn't hit his first homer until (as I recall) the 11th game of the season, he still beats the 154-game limit, hitting 61 in 151 games. The simple fact is that the "asterisk" issue was raised for one reason, and one reason only - to protect Ruth's home run record. If, for example, we were talking about the record for strikeouts in a season by a pitcher, no one would have suggested any such thing. In '61, I think Rube Waddell's 349 strikeouts in 1904 was the "modern day" record. Would anyone have wanted to protect Waddell's record? No. Maris hit 61 fair and square. All the differences being discussed basically cancel each other out - Maris may have faced weaker pitching, but Ruth didn't have to play night game or travel across the country. (And I don't buy the "weaker pitching" argument anyway. If that was the case, why didn't we see more 40-plus home run seasons? That didn't happen until steroids became an issue.) Elsquared (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

picture[edit]

WilmaRudolphFOEAward.jpg

Re: 1961[edit]

"One famous photograph lined up six 1961 Yankee players, including Mantle, Maris, Yogi Berra, and Bill Skowron, under the nickname "Murderers Row," because they hit a combined 165 home runs that year."

This is confusing. If the six were Maris (61), Mantle(54), Skowron(28), Berra(22), Howard(21) and Blanchard(21), they indeed totalled 207 home runs in 1961. Someone changed it to 165, and if, oh say, Whitey Ford and Bobby Richardson were the others in the picture, that might have been almost true. Either name all six or let this go.WHPratt (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

True. It would be nice if someone provided a link to that "famous" photograph. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

3x World Series Champion?[edit]

You have Maris listed as a 3x World Series champion in 1961, 1962 and 1967. What? The St. Louis Cardinals beat the Boston Red Sox in the '67 World Series. However, the first two years cited are correct. 1967 should be deleted from your list for Maris in 1967. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.153.127 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Maris was on the Yankees World Series champs in 1961 and 1962, and on the Cardinals World Series champs in 1967. That's 3 altogether. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

World Series champion team (1961, 1962, 1967) is correct. Or WS champion team (1961, 1962, 1967). Its a team recognition. His career highlight is being a WS champion team member for those years, not being the WS "champion" for those years.

Half a Century[edit]

I find it impressive that, after 49 years, Maris still holds the American League season HR record. Unless somebody rises to the occasion, it'll be half a century come October. Perhaps that should make it into the initial paragraph. Major League Baseball of late has been downplaying the individuality of the Leagues. Still, if the steroid ban is effective, this record may stand through 2061. WHPratt (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

50 years and still (A.L.) champion. WHPratt (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Its more than impressive, Maris, Amer. League Home Run Champion should be in Hall of "Fame"; All Star player, 2 MVP's, extraordinary fielding average, what else they want/need? How many years did Maris play with a bad hand? Wonder if those sport writers would smile like they wanted Maris to smile (for them) if their brother was in a wheelchair like Maris's brother was in 61. Sport writers said Clemente was faking his neck thing. Clemente was in a car accident with his brother (killed) before Clemente became a Pro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs) 06:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All Star player, 2 MVP's, extraordinary fielding average, what else they want/need? He was only an all-star in four years. (Seven total games; they played two yearly.) This supports the argument of those who say he didn't have a long enough peak. In one of those years he missed 32 games. (He only had three seasons with more than 141 games.) He did consistently have a high fielding average, and also a top-notch range factor. But only one gold glove. Hitting is more important (especially for a right fielder), and partly due to the number of games he missed, he didn't do enough outside those two impressive MVP awards seasons. Saros136 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

4-time All-Star[edit]

Info Box / Biography, Maris is a 4-time All-Star (7 All-Star games) not "7x All-Star". Why hasn't anyone corrected this? MLB authorities such as hall of fame give correct "times" in regard to All-Star times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs) 07:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

During the 4 years when there were 2 games played instead of 1, the squads were chosen separately. So he was chosen to All-Star squads 7 times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What are your sources? Maris was "named" (HOF site source) to the All-Star squad 4 times. Are you saying Maris is not a "4-time All-Star, according to appropriate baseball sources? If so, then you and whoever else (Yankees 10) is controlling the Info Boxes and then changing the Articles for times All-Star haven't checked and or are ignoring what appropriate baseball sources say. The sources go by times selected an All-Star for a season not amount of AS games played a season. See Nellie Fox at Hall of Fame site, "12-time All-Star" not 16xtimes All-Star.

Source for what? That the squads were chosen separately for the 2 games? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
MLB's recap of the 1961 All-Star Games, for example.[1][2] As you can see, the rosters are different. So how do you report Aparicio for 1961? 1/2? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing how many times Maris was an All-Star, 4 or 7? You haven't shown sources that actually says he's a "7-time All-Star". Aparicio is a 10-time All-Star not "13" (Yankees 10). Aparicio Hall of Fame biography has, "was named to the All-Star squad 10 times".[3]. The main thing is these players were All-Stars and how many years (times) they were All-Stars not how many games they played.

Where's your source for an exact definition of what an "[x]-time All-Star" actually means? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, this suggests the situation that would prevail had the major leagues reverted to a 154-game schedule, say in 1969. The 162-game era would have been an abberant bump in the time line, and the asterisk would shine brightly in the skies. Instead, 162 has been the standard for half a cemtury, and no longer requires qualification. The double-All Star Game is now an historical anomaly, and for that reason, I think we need to clarify claims like this for players who took advantage of it. E.g., we should state that he was selected to seven All-Star squads over four years just to play fair.WHPratt (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Maris was chosen for the American League All-Star team/squad four times (four time All-Star) not seven. There were 2 games sometimes with 2 separate All-Star team lineups. Playing two AS games doesn't make you a two-time All-Star nor does playing a double header make you a two-time major leaguer.

In 1969 he was chosen twice, while Aparacio, for example was only chosen once. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

1961: Maris and Aparicio were each chosen once to become 1961 MLB All-Stars (1-time AL Roster).
Aparicio HOF bio that I referenced above says "he was named to the All-Star squad 10 times" which means he was a MLB All-Star 10 years (10-times) (played in 13/14 games).
Fox's HOF bio I referenced too [4]? "12-time All-Star" which means he was a MLB All-Star 12 years (12-times) (played in 15 games).
Maris MLB All-Star, 4 years (4 All-Star selections) (4 AL Rosters) (played 7/8 games) --YahwehSaves (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2012

Info Box[edit]

Boxes should be simple and in order and not having All-Star placed first in the Box. All these x's aren't necessary - some boxes for example have:
* 2x All-Star
* 2x World Series champion
* 2x AL MVP
* 2x Gold Glove Award winner:

Maris

  • 2 AL MVP Awards
  • 3 World Series Championships (not champion, the "team" is the champion)
  • 4-time All-Star
  • Gold Glove Award
  • New York Yankees #9 retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The × format is used in all infoboxes in every sport. No reason for Maris' page to be different.--Yankees10 22:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

2xAL MVP (1960, 1961) is different (7xAll-Star, no AL), repetitive, and inconsistant.
MVP (1960, 1961)
Gold Glove (1960)
All-Star (1959,...)
World Series champion team (1961, 1962, 1967)

Roger's brother[edit]

The article mentions that Rudy Maris died in the 1990s, but here is an article that suggests that Rudy was still alive in 2005. That section of the article has been the subject of some back-and-forth editing and I didn't want to just jump in and make it worse. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 23:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruddy Maris Sr died on Sept 12, 1992. Rudy Jr got polio in 1951, and maybe was in a wheelchair in 1961 (and 1992). YahwehSaves (talk)
I appreciate your willingness to fix that. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 00:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"For crine out loud"[edit]

Earlier I added a bit about a sportswriter's perception of Maris's Hall of Fame candidacy. It contained a direct quotation including the words "for crying out loud." User:YahwehSaves added the word "crine" to the paragraph. I took it out, since it misquoted the author. The phrase "for crine out loud", which isn't reflected in the cited source, was added to the article just now. In an effort not to edit war, I am bringing this here. What in the heck is going on? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 05:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing going on. I made a mistake placing "crine" in there, sorry.
The newspaper evidently misquoted or mis-edited him when he said "crine out loud" for "crying out loud". After you deleted that I thought (crine out out) could (?) or should (?) be added to show what he way more than likely said; "Crine out loud" was common speech back then. First time I ever heard of "Crying out loud" instead of "crine out loud". Most older people it seems think Maris has been in the Hall of Fame for years and are surprised to find out he isn't. YahwehSaves (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply. Would you mind taking crine out? EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. In regard to the edit summary (whether we can add language to reflect what the writer may have said), this was a written quote, not a spoken one. Even when transcribing spoken quotes, we usually write the words and not the phonetic sounds that the speaker makes. That's irrelevant here because, as indicated in the article, we're just describing what the author wrote. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether the writer wanted to make a point with that phrasing, or just made a typo, I think it has to be a direct quote if you want to include the colorful phrase. However, in that case it should be rendered "for crine [sic] out loud", to indicate its colloquial nature. Otherwise, make it an indrect quote and lose the local color. WHPratt (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No typo. The article said "crying". I think YS's point is that "crying" is wrong and "crine" is right. I couldn't disagree more. A person can enter "crying out loud" into the WP search box, then do the same for "crine out loud" and there's your answer. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)