Melky Cabrera DQ's himself from batting title

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8407726/san-francisco-giants-melky-cabrera-disqualifies-nl-batting-title

But here's what I don't get:

As the agreement is worded, the only way Cabrera would qualify for the batting title is if the Giants had a rainout and played only 161 games, in which case 499 plate appearances would be sufficient. Such a situation is unlikely this late in the season.

Wouldn't such a situation be more likely this late in the season, not less, as teams typically do not make up rainouts if they don't play a team again this season?

 

You can add hitless plate appearances under 10.22 (a) that could have brought him to the necessary 501. That rule was changed on a one-time basis to exclude players who are suspended.

 

California gets zero rain in September. Not sure exactly where all they're going, but with the short time frame I'd be shocked if they face any rain at all the rest of the way.

I haven't clicks the link, but the Graf you posted is incorrect if it doesn't include the "adding an 0-for-1 to get him to the minimum" exception.

 

I hate this. Hate it. Players shouldn't get to determine what records they hold. The record books should be free from politicking and singular circumstance.

 

Dusty Feldbaumer should have disqualified him.

 

Andrew McCutcheon should have disqualified him.

 

You'd have to assume he has a pretty big bonus clause in his contract if he "wins" the "batting title." Might have something to do with that.

Might also be a trial balloon by the league to see what's expungable and what isn't.

 

I cannot believe MLB and the Player's Association would agree on anything.

 

I do agree with Vers though -- what if Miguel Cabrera finds himself in a Braun situation in the offseason but the FedEx office was open, do they take the Triple Crown away?

 

The Tony Gwynn Rule at least gave them a plausible ground here. They lucked out. Not sure what would have happened had he had just one more plate appearance. They dodged a huge bullet.

 

How does the Gwynn Rule give them a plausible ground? It isn't a choice whether they apply it. It's the rule.

 

Because he doesn't have the plate appearances to normally qualify. So they can "lift" that rule for one year, then change it back. But what if he had 503 plate appearances, then what do you do? There's not some arcane exception to manipulate. I suppose they could have said, "For this year only, the rule is 3.2 plate appearances per game."