Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Andrew Baggarly: A public apology to Melky Cabrera

Melk which cannot be adequately judged organoleptically must be subjected to other more sensitive and objective tests! Thought we all knew that!

I thought I was doing that Friday when I chose to ask Melky Cabrera about rumors that I had heard from several different readers who had contacted me via email and my Twitter account over the past few days. I had no idea where these rumors started, but the questions were starting to mushroom about whether Cabrera flunked a drug test and would face a 50-game suspension.

Let’s be clear: There is no evidence that there is any shred of truth to these rumors. Cabrera knew nothing about it. He contacted the union and his agent. They told him the rumors were unfounded as well. If Cabrera had failed a test, he and the union would’ve been the first to know. The rumor, to my knowledge, is a red herring. Cabrera even suggested to me that Dodgers fans could have made it up as a distraction.

I wasn’t 100 percent sure what to do next. On one hand, it’s my duty to serve readers who look to me to provide accurate information about the team I cover. On the other hand, knocking down the rumors would serve to give greater voice to them.

Ultimately, I decided to serve the truth.

Upon reflection, I did more harm than good.

Repoz Posted: July 28, 2012 at 06:50 AM | 78 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants, steroids, testing

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. bfan Posted: July 28, 2012 at 07:46 AM (#4194385)
There is a new book about by a guy who basically purported to be an expert on a variety of subjects, of which he actually knew nothing. His false expertise got him quoted in a variety of national media sources (NYT and the like). it is amazing how we have moved to an unsourced, unvalidated system of reporting now.

I would bet you 5 people with very active social media networks could get together and get a rumor rolling into quoted fact, in a matter of days, if there was any shred of credibility attached to it, by merely passing on the made up story in a passive way ("I just heard from someone in the know that...").
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM (#4194436)
This is the same author whose Jeopardy appearances aired just this week:

http://www.csnbayarea.com/baseball-san-francisco-giants/giants-talk/Baggarlys-Jeopardy-run-ends-on-Day-4?blockID=746441&feedID=2796

So he's really smart and did something really dumb, all wrapped up into one.
like most people, only more extreme in each case here.


   3. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4194440)
Rumors completely sourced from random people emailing or messaging on Twitter are not rumors to follow up on. Seems pretty simple. But Baggarly has usually seemed like a better than average beat guy so I'll just call it a lesson learned and move on instead of stringing the guy up.
   4. philly Posted: July 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4194448)
But Baggarly has usually seemed like a better than average beat guy so I'll just call it a lesson learned and move on instead of stringing the guy up.


Get the hell off the internet with an attitude like that.
   5. Swoboda is freedom Posted: July 28, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4194467)
Rumors completely sourced from random people emailing or messaging on Twitter are not rumors to follow up on.

Yes you can follow up on them. They should be followed up on. They should not be printed without some very good evidence however.
   6. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: July 28, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4194471)
it is amazing how we have moved to an unsourced, unvalidated system of reporting now.

What makes you think much has changed other than a massive increase in our ability to find out about it?
   7. Bhaakon Posted: July 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4194487)
What makes you think much has changed other than a massive increase in our ability to find out about it?


Unsubstantiated steroid accusations making the rounds on twitter: irresponsible nonsense.

Unsubstantiated steroid accusations making the rounds in real life: I don't know if I can vote Bagwell/Piazza/et al. into the HOF.
   8. shoewizard Posted: July 28, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4194870)
Seems like a pretty heartfelt apology. Stuff happens.
   9. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 28, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4194895)
That's a misuse of "red herring."
   10. radioman Posted: July 28, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4194941)
That's a misuse of "red herring."

That was my first thought as well. Isn't a red herring a purposely false fact or implication meant to distract you from the real outcome. This just seems like a bad game of telephone.
   11. Dan from NM Posted: July 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4194950)
I would bet you 5 people with very active social media networks could get together and get a rumor rolling into quoted fact, in a matter of days, if there was any shred of credibility attached to it, by merely passing on the made up story in a passive way ("I just heard from someone in the know that...").


OK, but you're aware that's not what happened in this case, right? Baggarly only reported the rumor in the course of saying it was false.
   12. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 29, 2012 at 09:21 AM (#4195049)
A "red herring" doesn't necessarily have to be intentionally misleading, it just has to be beside the point. Clearly wrong here either way, since the unfounded rumor is the point.
   13. bfan Posted: July 29, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4195061)
OK, but you're aware that's not what happened in this case, right? Baggarly only reported the rumor in the course of saying it was false.


I had seen the Cabrera rumor on another site, reported as a "I know what is going to happen." I am not sure what you mean, but the buzz about this "event" (buzz meaning, like this site, anonymous people who may be making everything up) was around for the last week.
   14. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4208896)
   15. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4208900)
Andrew Baggarly: Never mind
   16. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4208901)
D'oh. At least he didn't claim it was something in a milkshake he didn't know about.
   17. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4208902)
Yeah, I just saw it as well as truth. Apparently, the stuff works.
   18. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4208903)
Has Jeff Francœur cleared waivers? The Giants could use a guy like that all of a sudden. The Royals need starting pitching. Make it happen!
   19. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4208908)
Damn. This pains me.
   20. JJ1986 Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4208913)
Alfonso Soriano is available.
   21. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4208915)
Has Jeff Francœur cleared waivers? The Giants could use a guy like that all of a sudden

he's always gangbusters in his first 100 or so PA's for his new team
   22. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4208919)
He's got 501 plate appearances, so his batting average isn't going to change for the end of the season. If McCutchen slumps in September, then Melky could win the NL batting title while suspended.
   23. ColonelTom Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:16 PM (#4208921)
The minimum is 502, isn't it?
   24. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4208922)
Giants just pulled him from the lineup today
   25. SG Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4208924)
They can add a hitless AB to get him to 502 if they had to. If he were to go hitless in however many AB he needed to reach the minimum threshold and his average was still the best in the league he'd get the batting title anyway. At least that's what I recall.

I thought they did that with Willie McGee in 1990 but he had more than enough PA to win the NL batting title even though he got traded to Oakland.
   26. ColonelTom Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4208928)
Ah, that's right. I'd forgotten about that.
   27. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4208930)
Those damn Dodger fans. Spreading vicious unfounded rumors..oops.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4208931)
The minimum is 502, isn't it?


As SG notes, he'd only need one hitless at bat (a Giants' rainout might mean he didn't need any) added to his total to qualify. And Gwynn and Madlock both used this method to win batting titles in the past.

I'm curious if baseball will throw in some sort of retroactive ban that would prevent it should it appear likely that Melky's going to win the batting title. Wouldn't surprise me.


   29. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4208935)
so basically the apology has no reason for existence at this point?
   30. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4208952)
The hitless AB won't affect his (rounded) batting average.
He'll go from .346 (.346405 rounded down) to .346 (.345652 rounded up).
   31. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4208955)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4208958)
The hitless AB won't affect his (rounded) batting average.
He'll go from .346 (.346405 rounded down) to .346 (.345652 rounded up).


Sure, but presumably McCutcheon could slot in between.

I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?


Instead of Melky's current line of 159 hits in 501 at bats, he will be credited with 159 hits in 502 at bats, and his BA adjusted accordingly. If he still has the highest BA, then he wins the batting title (though at his original average). The hitless at bat adjustment is just done for comparative purposes.
   33. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4208963)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?

When they calculate his batting average, they assume all the at-bats/plate appearances you need to reach the minimum (502 PA) are hitless.
In 1996, Tony Gwynn won the batting title with only 496 PA.

His batting average is listed at .353, but for the purposes of the batting title, he was credited with .349 (after you add in the 4 hitless plate appearances).

   34. Dan Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4208966)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?


If you're under 502 PA, then they add 0-fers until you get to 502 PA to determine where you finish in the race for the batting title. In this case, #30 has the numbers for Melky at 501 PA and 502, which both round to .346.
   35. SG Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4208968)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?


You re-calculate the players batting average adding however many AB to the denominator that would get him to the minimum number of PA. If after doing that his average would have still led the league, he gets credit for the batting title with his actual batting average. The hitless AB are not officially added to his total.

So if he had 492 PA, you'd re-calculate his average as H / AB + 10. In Melky's case it's only 1 AB.

edit: Carbonated beverages all around.
   36. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4208976)
Why the hell do they do that? That is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

So just hypothetically, if I started the year 200 for 200, then sat the rest of the year, I could win the batting title? Or is this a judgment call by the Commish?
   37. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4208977)
Barry Bonds had .619 SLG in 1999, but only 434 PA.
His raw number would have had him 4th in the league.

But when you add in the 68 empty plate appearances/at-bats, his SLG drops to .517, and off the list.

They do this so that injured players aren't punished for falling just a bit short of the qualifying PA, and they don't reward players that play too few games.
   38. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4208978)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, but how do you "add a hitless at-bat" and who does that? What does that mean?


It means his batting average is re-calculated using his actual hits divided by his actual AB's plus whatever number is required to bring him up to the minimum qualifying PAs. In this case, one. If his re-calculated batting average is higher than any other qualifying batting average (or any other re-calculated batting average), he still wins the title with his un adjusted batting average.

Sometimes you'll see in the BBREF leader boards something like this:

Batting Average:

1 - Player A .340
2 - Player B .330
3 - Player C .344**
4 - Player D .322

What this means is that player C had a .344 batting average, but in fewer than 502 PA. His re-calculated batting average was somewhere between .330 and .322, so he gets 3rd place with his .344



   39. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4208980)
So just hypothetically, if I started the year 200 for 200then sat the rest of the yearI could win the batting title


Yes, you probably would. Assuming no non-AB PA's, you would have an adjusted batting average of .398.
   40. SoSH U at work Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4208984)
So just hypothetically, if I started the year 200 for 200, then sat the rest of the year, I could win the batting title?


Yes.

Or is this a judgment call by the Commish?


No.

If you go 200 for 200, why shouldn't you win the batting title? Are you less deserving than the guy who has only 159 hits but in 502 plate appearances?
   41. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4208988)
Seems like you should have to play most of the season to win the batting title. But that's just me I guess.
   42. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4208993)
Seems like you should have to play most of the season to win the batting title. But that's just me I guess.


Why? Why is someone who goes 200 for 200 undeserving, but if he then manages to go 0 for 300 he's now OK?
   43. SM Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4208995)
Would you feel the same about a player with 60 homers in 200 ABs winning the home-run title?
   44. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4208996)
Seems like you should have to play most of the season to win the batting title. But that's just me I guess

Brett's famous .390 in 80 was in 117 games, 515 PA's
   45. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4209004)
Seems like you should have to play most of the season to win the batting title. But that's just me I guess.

It used to be "games played" early on (100), but then Ty Cobb fell short one year (only 98) but they gave him the title anyways because he had such a huge lead.

Then it was a total number of AB, but players like Ted Williams were "punished" for walking too much.

They switched it to PA, and they've done the "add hitless PA" thing since 1967.

Obviously ridiculous extremes (like 200-for-200 and no more PA after that) make the rule seem unfair, but I don't think they've come anywhere close to having something like that happen.

Since 1967, the least amount of games played by a batting title winner (non-strike season) was Tony Gwynn's 116 games in 1996 (and 498 PA).

   46. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4209005)

Brett's famous .390 in 80 was in 117 games, 515 PA's


And? That's more than 502, right?


Would you feel the same about a player with 60 homers in 200 ABs winning the home-run title?


That's a counting stat. Rate stats should have a min. amount of playing time to prevent players that got hot for a month from being compared to players that played the entire grind of the season. If you're going to have a minimum threshhold, you should meet that threshhold. You shouldn't get credit for hypothetical plate appearances that never happened. Otherwise, just lower the threshhold.
   47. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4209006)
If you go 200 for 200, why shouldn't you win the batting title?

Because you're Brendan Fraser?
   48. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4209013)
Otherwise, just lower the threshhold.

They do lower the threshold this way.

The batter is punished for missing the plate appearances.
   49. SoSH U at work Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4209017)
That's a counting stat. Rate stats should have a min. amount of playing time to prevent players that got hot for a month from being compared to players that played the entire grind of the season. If you're going to have a minimum threshhold, you should meet that threshhold. You shouldn't get credit for hypothetical plate appearances that never happened. Otherwise, just lower the threshhold..


Lowering the threshold would make it easier for that hot one-month player to win a rate stat title. This way, there is a significant punishment for failing to meet the required PA, but it's not an outright disqualification. Among MLB rules decisions, this seems like one of the more unexpectedly sensible ones.

   50. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4209020)

Lowering the threshold would make it easier for that hot one-month player to win a rate stat title.


Right. I'm saying either playing time matters, or it doesn't. Tacking on ghost plate appearances seems ridiculous to me.
   51. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4209023)
And before you ask, you can't do the same for pitchers and qualifying innings for ERA titles.
The worst you can do as a batter is nothing. So adding empty PA is fine.

The worst you can do as a pitcher is give up an infinite number of runs without getting a batter out.
So you can't "add" the missing innings to a pitcher to have them qualify for the ERA title, as the worst they can do is raise their ERA to "infinite" and therefore they wouldn't win the ERA title anyways.
   52. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4209025)
Right. I'm saying either playing time matters, or it doesn't. Tacking on ghost plate appearances seems ridiculous to me.

By setting a minimum you remove the cup-of-coffee player who goes 1-for-1 and is sent back down.
By calculating the empty PA (remember, the number isn't actually added to their final stats...Gwynn still only has 498 PA for 1996), you don't immediately disqualify someone for missing a couple of at bats.

The batting title is based on how they hit, not on how often they get up to bat.

   53. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4209031)
Right. I'm saying either playing time matters, or it doesn't. Tacking on ghost plate appearances seems ridiculous to me.


Well, what can I say? It makes sense to me, most of the others posting on this thread, and MLB. To make a more realistic hypothetical, say you have 2 guys, one of who gets 170 hits in 525 AB (600 PA total). His batting average is .324. Take another guy with 175 hits in 450 AB, 490 PA total. .388 BA. Why does it make sense to give the batting title to the guy with a lower batting average and fewer hits? Aside from the tautological "because the second guy didn't get enough PAs."
   54. Greg K Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4209033)
I think it's a fine solution to a real dilemma.

1) You don't want the batting title going to a guy who played in 2 games
2) You don't want a guy to not win the batting title because he missed some arbitrary cut-off by one at bat.
   55. DA Baracus Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4209039)
To make a more realistic hypothetical, say you have 2 guys, one of who gets 170 hits in 525 AB (600 PA total). His batting average is .324. Take another guy with 175 hits in 450 AB, 490 PA total. .388 BA. Why does it make sense to give the batting title to the guy with a lower batting average and fewer hits?


Huh? The guy with 450 ABs would have a .349 BA after you added 52 ABs, so he would win the batting title.
   56. SoSH U at work Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4209050)
Huh? The guy with 450 ABs would have a .349 BA after you added 52 ABs, so he would win the batting title.


First, you'd only add 12 ABs, not 52 (you need 502 PA, not AB) to qualify for the batting title (so as not to penalize a guy for his ABs that end with a free pass/HBP/sac)

Second, your "huh" is confusing because misirlou's point is that a guy who has more hits in fewer ABs is more deserving of a batting title than the guy with fewer hits in more ABs.
   57. flournoy Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4209051)
You add 12 hitless ABs, not 52.
   58. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4209054)
Another example is the Taffy Wright/Jimmie Foxx batting race of 1938. Today's make-believe 0-fers are a sensible way of addressing that kind of circumstance.

It's more ridiculous that a player on a hitting streak can keep it going by having an 0-0 game with 4 walks and a sac bunt. Or that Hideki Matsui could break his wrist in a game that didn't count towards his consecutive games played streak, because the injury occurred before his first at-bat.
   59. DA Baracus Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4209057)
you'd only add 12 ABs, not 52 (you need 502 PA, not AB)


I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
   60. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4209058)
How did they come up with 502 as the number for plate appearances?
   61. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4209059)
Second, your "huh" is confusing because misirlou's point is that a guy who has more hits in fewer ABs is more deserving of a batting title than the guy with fewer hits in more ABs.


Right.

It makes sense that a guy could win a batting title with more hits and more AB's, say 200 for 600 (.333) vs 170 for 520 (.327)

It makes sense that a guy could win a batting title with fewer hits and fewer AB's, say 180 for 520 (.346) vs 200 for 600 (.333)

It makes sense that a guy could win a batting title with more hits in fewer ABs. Obviously

But it makes no sense that a guy could win a batting title with fewer hits and more AB's.
   62. flournoy Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4209060)
3.1 times the number of games played per team. So it's not always 502, if a team doesn't play 162 games. I think they wanted to get a number very close to 500, without having to do something like 3.08641975 x Team Games.
   63. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4209061)
How did they come up with 502 as the number for plate appearances?


3.1 per scheduled game. Why 3.1 I have no idea.
   64. Brian White Posted: August 15, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4209063)
So, if the Giants play only 161 games because of a rainout of a game that ended up being inconsequential, and that wasn't made up, then we don't add an 0 for 1 to Melky for batting title purposes? That'd be funny if McCutchen ended up hitting .3458, and all the playoff races are decided before the last day of the season, and the batting title hinged on the weather in Los Angeles on the last day of the season.
   65. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4209069)
I think they wanted to get a number very close to 500, without having to do something like 3.08641975 x Team Games.


That explanation is as good as any.

Then it was a total number of AB, but players like Ted Williams were "punished" for walking too much.

They switched it to PA, and they've done the "add hitless PA" thing since 1967.


In 1954, the standard was 400 AB. Williams had 386 (.345 BA) and 136 Walks. When adding in his 14 hitless AB's, his average "fell" to .332, below Bobby Avila at .341. But .332 was higher than 3rd place Minnie Minoso, so the 1954 leader board reads:

Avila .341
Williams .345**
Minoso .320

   66. Gary Truth Serum Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4209070)
How did they come up with 502 as the number for plate appearances?

3.1 per scheduled game. Why 3.1 I have no idea.

I'm going from memory on something I read a long time ago, but the idea was to stay faithful to the standard of 400 at-bats while incorporating PAs that weren't at-bats (BB+HBP+SF). The person who made the change took 400/154 = 2.60 and apparently decided that adding a 0.5 non-AB PA/game to the total was appropriate. It struck me as pretty sensible at the time.
   67. Gary Truth Serum Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4209072)
I think they wanted to get a number very close to 500, without having to do something like 3.08641975 x Team Games.

That explanation is as good as any.

This can't be it. The change was made before the schedules expanded to 162 games. You wouldn't be close to 500, you'd be close to 154*3.1 = 477.
   68. A triple short of the cycle Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4209079)
So, another confidential test result is leaked. Cabrera found out he tested positive from a reporter who had been reading internet rumors. Can't wait for an investigation by MLB to find who is behind all of these leaked medical records...
   69. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4209088)
I seriously doubt Cabrera found out about his failed test through a reporter.
   70. A triple short of the cycle Posted: August 15, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4209123)
McCoy - I didn't realize that Baggarly thinks Cabrera lied to him until I read his tweet in the new thread. I assumed Cabrera honestly didn't know yet when the Baggarly asked him.

Regardess, there was still a leak of Cabrera's confidential test results.
   71.     Hey Gurl Posted: August 15, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4209216)
It still doesn't make much sense to me.

If McCutchen is hitting .370 after 502 PA's, but then gets 100 more PA's and goes hitless, how is it fair that Melky wins because he only gets one hit-less AB added to his total? Should he get as many hitless AB's added as his opponent had?

It is sort of like pro-actively sitting out the last game of the season to preserve your batting average.
   72. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 15, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4209231)
If McCutchen is hitting .370 after 502 PA's, but then gets 100 more PA's and goes hitless, how is it fair that Melky wins because he only gets one hit-less AB added to his total? Should he get as many hitless AB's added as his opponent had?

So, in 2007, based on those rules, everyone would have to add on hitless plate appearances/at-bats to equal Jimmy Rollins (778 PA).
In doing so:

Holliday goes from .340 to .308
Chipper goes from .337 to .250
Utley goes from .332 to .253
Renteria goes from .332 to .225
H.Ramirez goes from .332 to .298
Pujols goes from .327 to .279
Wright goes from .325 to .292
Cabrera goes from .320 to .274
Helton goes from .320 to .273
D.Young goes from .320 to .201

After that's all said and done, Rollins slides into the #3 spot with a .296 average.

Historically, Ted Williams' average in 1941 goes from .406 to .295. Otherwise, he has too big of an advantage over Rollins who had to have all those extra plate appearances.

   73.     Hey Gurl Posted: August 15, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4209258)
I like it.
   74. PreservedFish Posted: August 15, 2012 at 08:51 PM (#4209276)
I agree with Greg in #54.
   75. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4209288)
It still doesn't make much sense to me.

If McCutchen is hitting .370 after 502 PA's, but then gets 100 more PA's and goes hitless, how is it fair that Melky wins because he only gets one hit-less AB added to his total? Should he get as many hitless AB's added as his opponent had?

It is sort of like pro-actively sitting out the last game of the season to preserve your batting average.


Look at #53 again. Does it make sense for a guy with fewer hits and more AB to win a batting title? I understand the "unfairness" posed in the quote above, but so what? The 502 PA is just arbitrary anyway. Why is the hypothetical you pose an injustice, but suddenly it's OK if Melky has 502 right now instead of 501? McCutchen still blows him away at the magical 502 PA point. If you go with "because it's the rules" I counter with "well, it's also the rules to add hitless AB".
   76. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: August 15, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4209297)
As an aside, I can't believe that people on this board have never heard of the rule. I've known about it well before Al Gore invented the internet.
   77.     Hey Gurl Posted: August 15, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4209300)
No, you're right.

It does seem unfair that if you and I are tied through 502 PA but then I sit out while you hit .290 the rest of the way, you lose it to me sitting on my ass. But that's true no matter what we do and the hitless AB has nothing to do with it.

Maybe I'd feel more comfortable adding hitless games rather than AB. Or maybe it's good enough and doesn't ####### matter and who cares anyway.
   78. McCoy Posted: August 15, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4209309)
As an aside, I can't believe that people on this board have never heard of the rule. I've known about it well before Al Gore invented the internet.

The silent majority stays silent. I think most people on this board are aware of the rule. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(482 - 1:31am, Oct 26)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(864 - 1:20am, Oct 26)
Last: DFA

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(90 - 1:16am, Oct 26)
Last: DFA

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3811 - 12:24am, Oct 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(521 - 10:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(14 - 9:05pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(396 - 8:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(14 - 7:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(16 - 7:30pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(5 - 6:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(8 - 6:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

Page rendered in 0.6319 seconds
52 querie(s) executed