Melky Cabrera DQ's himself from batting title

The former. I wish that had happened, too. Or that he had been leading in RBI's or home runs instead, although those titles don't seem as mythical as the batting title, which has a unique aura in the sport.

 

There's not a chance in hell we'd be having this discussion if he qualified without the addition of the phantom plate appearances. He'd be the batting champion and we would deal with it.

 

We also wouldn't be having this conversation without the Tony Gwynn rule. He wouldn't qualify, and we'd move on with life because no one would want to amend the rule book to help Cabrera. But it's on the books. That's the problem I have. The rule exists, so we must follow it.

 

If all of the key stakeholders -- player, Players Association, MLB -- agree to amend a rule and by all accounts the amendment helps justly avoid a situation that might otherwise have led to an unfair outcome, why would it be a problem for anyone?

I just view this as an evolution of the rules that suggests that the Tony Gwynn rule doesn't apply to you if you fall short of plate appearances because of suspension. I agree it would have been better if they had considered suspended players when the rule (which I never liked, anyway) first came into effect. Still, it's better to act late than allow something unfair to occur.

 

You can't be convicted of a crime before it becomes a crime. Change the rule in the offseason to avoid it in the future. Or, better still, get rid of the rule in the offseason. Make it a hard cap of 502 plate appearances in a 162-game season. By the rules that define this season, Melky Cabrera is the National League batting champion unless Andrew McCutchen hits .700 or something the rest of the season.

 

There's no rule, or lockdown at the beginning of each season, that says rules can't be amended in mid-season. Common sense prevailed in this case.

 

It can be argued that the rule isn't being amended, but rather that this is the equivalent of an activist judge - or even a pragmatist judge - making a non-literal interpretation of a particular law. Here, a literal application of the words of the by-law to this situation would lead to an absurd result. Therefore, this couldn't have been what the drafters of the by-law intended. At least so would go the argument.

 

The more I look at it, the stronger I fall on this side of it.

I don't like the "rule of law" idea that seems to be prevailing. This is a private business within the entertainment industry that saw a huge PR headache coming and fixed it. People may attach a certain sanctity to it, which I understand, but the slippery slope and precedent stuff gets a little overblown. They have created a whole little world for themselves and there isn't really a Constitution they need to follow for this sort of thing.

 

Oh, that's what happened. They knew the result they wanted, then worked backward to get it. The way they seized upon is a tortured reading of the by-law, but it's still like a 1 percent plausible reading and 99 percent implausible.

 

I don't consider Melky Cabrera winning the batting title to be absurd. If that were the case, would you find it absurd if the Giants get rained out in the final game of the regular season? He led the NL in batting average, therefore he is the batting champion.

 

But at that point, you aren't using the Gwynn exception any more. The absurdity is using the Gwynn exception to crown someone who lost those PA's due to suspension, not to someone suspended winning the batting title at all.

 

Unfortunately the Diamondbacks have a roof, and the average rainfall in San Diego and Los Angeles is a quarter-inch for the entire month of September.

Maybe there will be some rioting. That could cancel a game.