Talk:Roger Maris

message: "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)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Birthname 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Awards, honors, and life after baseball 

message: Those two sections seem pretty pointless. Delete?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallofamer2000 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall of Fame/Mathematics 

message: 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)
thread_title: Trivia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In Defense of the Asterisk

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re: 1961 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 3x World Series Champion?

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Half a Century  

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: MLB's recap of the 1961 All-Star Games, for example. 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 4-time All-Star

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Info Box

message: The article has been tagged for missing sources since 2010. I have added some sources, removed some unsourced material, and tagged some unsourced material. SunCrow (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more sources 

message: The controversy requires the explanation that Ruth's homeruns could have included balls that bounced over the fence, as that was the rule when Ruth hit his 60, but not when Maris hit his 61. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but only if it's a major viewpoint presented in multiple reliable sources on the subject. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a simple matter of fact; you can probably get 1000 sources if you want. It also can be considered common knowledge among baseball fans.  But it is more complicated that the above; so if you really want to get into the controversy, go and read about 2 other home run rules, which may have robbed Babe Ruth of homeruns as compared with modern standards. How many sources do you want before you stop reverting a well know fact?  (PeacePeace (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But there are lots of matters of fact that don't belong in an encyclopedia because they simply aren’t relevant to the matter at hand. If Ruth didn’t even hit any bouncing home runs (and we have no verification that he hit any as the article stands), what’s the significance? WP is grounded in verifiability; this should be easy to grasp. The BR Bullpen source would be great if it mentioned Ruth and Maris specifically and if it were not user-generated content. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article should mention that when Ruth hit homeruns, bouncers were homeruns 

message: Article needs serious work, and parts of it are straight ripe from the movie without citation at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjgionz (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a retelling of Billy Crustal’s “61*” 

message: Guys, stop removing the context in the introduction. Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire using steroids isn’t conjecture. It’s a proven fact that was admitted to under oath 2600:1700:1305:40:B516:19AE:24D1:AF04 (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So add reliable sources. Greyjoy talk 00:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you could have just as easily done that. Instead of deleting stuff without being 100% positive first. Source has been added. I suggest next time you want to just start deleting stuff that you are unsure of, maybe google it first, and then feel free to add the citation. Joeblacko (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring on the intro