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.
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 06:46 AM (#4194385)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...").
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.
Get the hell off the internet with an attitude like that.
Yes you can follow up on them. They should be followed up on. They should not be printed without some very good evidence however.
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.
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.
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.
he's always gangbusters in his first 100 or so PA's for his new team
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.
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.
He'll go from .346 (.346405 rounded down) to .346 (.345652 rounded up).
Sure, but presumably McCutcheon could slot in between.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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, you probably would. Assuming no non-AB PA's, you would have an adjusted batting average of .398.
Yes.
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?
Why? Why is someone who goes 200 for 200 undeserving, but if he then manages to go 0 for 300 he's now OK?
Brett's famous .390 in 80 was in 117 games, 515 PA's
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).
And? That's more than 502, right?
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.
Because you're Brendan Fraser?
They do lower the threshold this way.
The batter is punished for missing the plate appearances.
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.
Right. I'm saying either playing time matters, or it doesn't. Tacking on ghost plate appearances seems ridiculous to me.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
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.
3.1 per scheduled game. Why 3.1 I have no idea.
That explanation is as good as any.
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
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.
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.
Regardess, there was still a leak of Cabrera's confidential test results.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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