Ernie Shore threw a quasi-perfect game in 1917 for the Red Sox. Babe Ruth started the game, walked the first batter and promptly got ejected. Shore came on in relief, retired that base runner and the next 26 batters. Should have counted for a perfect game in my opinion.
I find it astounding that there is still an asterisk next to Maris’ record, but no asterisk next to the home run record of Chemical Man Barry Bonds. By the way, I still and always will recognize Henry Aaron as the home run king because he is the greatest home run hitter of all time who wasn’t a chemically enhanced human being.
Wait until the OP finds out that playoff/World Series game stats don’t count either.
You mean other than the amphetamines he juiced up on? Barry Bonds has the most homeruns hit in MLB history. Get over it.
Well, you need not be astounded about there being an asterisk next to Maris’s record, because there isn’t and there never was.
The asterisk thing is a myth. At no point, ever, from 1961 to 1998 was Maris’s home run record ever conditional in any way. Until Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run in 1998, the record for home runs in a season was recognized as 61, by Roger Maris in 1961. No asterisk or anything else.
In fact, in 1961, MLB didn’t exactly have official records at all, and there was really no official way of stating such things. If you had published a book in 1970 called “The Big Book of Baseball Records” it’d have been as official as anything else. Ford Frick mused the record should be distinguished, but he was Ruth’s friend and was just talking.
Cite for Aaron using amphetamines? He admitted that he tried them once and they made him feel ill. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
And even if there was, it’s not there anymore, because that record has since been broken.
That’s all the evidence that I need to know that Aaron used amphetamines, even if it was just once. Yes, it’s a bullshit “one drop” test, but it’s just as bullshit as all the nonsensical hate tossed Bonds’ way. I honestly don’t believe Aaron when he says he just tried it once - it’s as believable as “I didn’t inhale”. I don’t blame anyone in that era for making use of an enhancement that was widely available, widely used, and universally ignored by the league. Descriptions that perfectly fit was Bonds was doing as well, I might add.
What Aaron did was a monumental feat. He sustained a level of power hitting in an age of power pitching, in the midst of a racially-charged hostile environment, and broke the biggest record in sports. I offer my thoughts and prayers to anyone that can’t deal with the fact that Barry Bonds came along and beat it.
Obligatory xkcd reference.
Okay, but I’m TRULY astounded by the fact that I have been astounded my entire life for no real reason at all. 
The thing about baseball records is they’re all contextual. If you want to argue Aaron’s 755 home runs is more impressive in context than Bonds’s 762, maybe there is an argument there; people didn’t hit quite as many homers when Aaron played.
I think almost anyone would agree that Doc White’s 27-win season in 1907 was not actually nearly as remarkable as Steve Carlton’s 27-win season in 1972, because what White did with a good team in the dead ball era isn’t the same as what Carlton did with a bad team in the live ball era. I would further guess that most people would agree that when Carl Yastrzemski hit .301 in 1968, that was a remarkable thing (no one else in the league hit .300) whereas when Taylor Douthit hit .304 in 1930 that was a far less impressive feat (the LEAGUE hit .303.)
But surely no one is going to question the fact that Doc White really did win 27 games and Taylor Douthit hit .304, right? Those are records. A record is just a fact, nothing more. Of course, in sports we must define what it is we are going to count and how we will count them, and you can argue about some of those distinctions; if a player hits a ball with no men on base and is he thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double that is counted as a hit though it is indistinguishable from striking out in terms of the effect on the game; if the same player later hits a ball that a fielder bobbles and he safely reaches base that is counted as an out even though there wasn’t actually an out. You can argue those don’t make a lot of sense (I strenuously believe they don’t) but in terms of comparing players what does matter is the rules apply the same to everyone.