1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Melky Cabrera DQ's himself from batting title

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Buck, doesn't this indicate that the award does actually exist:

    The last sentence of 10.22(a) says: "Notwithstanding the foregoing requirement of minimum appearances at the plate, any player with fewer than the required number of plate appearances whose average would be the highest, if he were charged with the required number of plate appearances shall be awarded the batting, slugging or on-base percentage championship, as the case may be."

    Also: I understand the cynicism. I'm cynical, too. But I also hold out at least a little faith, just from my own experiences, that when someone gets caught, genuine contrition may follow. It forces you to face what you did head-on. It exposes you to others' reactions. There's no denying. There's no rationalizing.
     
  2. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    I don't care about the reasoning behind Cabrera's decision. He shouldn't be allowed to make it. Math is math. Laws cannot be written or altered to punish a crime already committed. This would not be an issue at all if the category were a counting number. We are operating in seriously slippery-slope conditions.
     
  3. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    In a case where someone's cheated, is the math still the math?

    If I run a contest and promise to award a trophy to whichever kid earns the most money over the summer, and one of you comes in with $250 you earned mowing lawns; and one of you comes in with $300 you earned delivering papers; and one of you comes in with $500 you stole - who should get the prize?
     
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Another example is a Ben Johnson situation.

    I guess the difference is that it's easier to just excise a discrete participant from the records when others are not dependent on his presence. You can't pretend a baseball player did not play baseball.
     
  5. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    Rules are rules. And the rules say they are allowed to change the rules.
     
  6. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I hope Cabrera is contrite. And not knowing him, I have no reason to believe he's not.

    But it's not his decision to make. He can make the request, MLB doesn't have to accept it.

    If Cabrera does have a bonus clause, then he could have easily forfeited the money or donated it to a team charity.

    But neither he nor MLB has any jurisdiction over basic math.

    Cabrera hit .346. That's a fact.
     
  7. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Math CAN'T change; however, a rule that allows players to add phantom hitless plate appearances to meet a subjective "batting title" qualifier can be changed to carve out those who have been suspended for cheating.

    I suspect (without any inside knowledge) that the rule will be permanently changed as soon as this off-season.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Well, sure, but Logan Schafer is batting .417 as of this morning. Now, he only has 12 at-bats. But the reason he isn't qualified for the batting title in the National League is that he doesn't have enough plate appearances. And neither, now, does Cabrera.

    You said there's no title. But there is a title. It's not mythical. Baseball has parameters for qualification in its official rules.

    To me, the argument boils down to the ethics of retroactively changing rules in midstream to get the result you want. It is, arguably, bad precedent. But I don't feel like MLB is exercising jurisdiction over something it doesn't have jurisdiction over. Because my reading is that it certainly does possess it.
     
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The MLB At-Bat app and MLB.com still list Cabrera as the leading hitter at .346. I suspect Baseball-Reference and others will keep his stats there forever too.
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    It's not as clear as you are making it out to be. Making a one-time exception for the situation is an issue. Changing the rules during the season is also an issue. For a sport that holds its statistical accomplishments in such high regard, this is not something MLB should be messing with. Bud Selig was right when he emphatically stated that going back and messing with records because the players who set them were on steroids is not going to happen because. This is close enough that I think he should remember why he did that.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Because for now he still has enough PA's to qualify, at this point of the season. He still has 3.1 PA's for every game his team has played. He won't drop under that pace until after 162.
     
  12. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Ah, good point.

    In that case I am rooting against all odds for a cancellation somewhere along the way and they end at 161. (I know you wondered that earlier and I said the no-rain in California would take care of that.)

    This does bring up a point though: What if he gets suspended one day later? I mean, are they changing the rule on the fly to say nobody can be eligible if they lack the PAs due to suspension, or nobody is eligible, period, if they are suspended at any point?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page