Record Asterisks

Yesterday Cam Newton threw for an NFL debut record 422 yards. It was a truly impressive debut, and it is no small feat to throw for 400+ yards against any NFL team. That said, it brought up an interesting reflection on records in sports. How much credit is due to the level of competition in any given record.

I'm not by any means arguing that Newton does not deserve credit for his record, nor am I arguing that Newton is the exception rather than the rule. I know that there are other records out there that are present because of fortunate circumstances like weak opponents.

It is just interesting that most records are never told with the context surrounding them. I'm pretty sure that many people made a big deal in 2007 when the Patriots went undefeated during the regular season that they had a favorable schedule, but that is the last instance of people discrediting a record for mitigating circumstances that I can think of. It just seems that after the fact, no one bothers to preserve the context. I don't mean for this to only include mitigating circumstances; I suppose there are several records that could be more impressive than others given the circumstances (this seems more likely in baseball where we have "clubs" like the 40-40, 500, 300, etc).

Maybe that is something essential about records though: that their contexts are forgotten. Part of the appeal of records is the sense of immortality in an accomplishment, even if that record may be broken eventually. When someone joins a mile-marking club in baseball, they have still reached an elite, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. When a team achieves a historic season, it probably doesn't matter whether their schedule might have been easier than the average team. And perhaps it is not our place to try and find mitigating circumstances to these records, because it robs us of the true essence of the accomplishment.