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. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Which is exactly why it is the wrong thing to do.

    Cran says it would be an unfair result if Cabrera wins the batting title? Great. Prove to me that nobody else is cheating and I"ll buy that. Changing the rules in the middle of a contest makes them a farce. It was one of the few things baseball did better than the NFL, but now that goes out the window, too.
     
  2. Versatile

    Versatile Active Member

    It's not an exception, it's a rule. Moreover, Melky Cabrera is the one overruling it. Statistics are pure and irrefutable. They are based on measurable quantities and agreed-upon rules. This undermines that.
     
  3. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    "agreed-upon rules" opens the window in your argument there.
     
  4. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It's a written exception to the rule that you must have 3.1 PA's per team game played to qualify for the batting title. It was, presumably, written to protect players who lose time due to injury. Or get called up from the minors late in the season, like Trout, theoretically. The argument would proceed that it is absurd to think that the writers of the rule intended for it to cover players who lose time due to suspension. Therefore, they are not among those covered by it. This is not necessarily the opinion I would come to. But I like it better than a retroactive, overt midstream amendment of what is written. I'm more comfortable with my reasoning.
     
  5. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Statistics are pure and irrefutable; rules are not.
     
  6. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Except that it is a retroactive, overt midstream amendment of what is written and it opens the door for more, which could make a very big mess of things.

    Even if nobody ever tries to exploit that, MLB got it very wrong this time. Unless the Giants have a game rained out or somebody somehow manages to pass Cabrera, baseball is going to have an "official" batting champion and a real one in the National League this year and that sucks.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Not my way.
     
  8. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    This is really an outgrowth of the Joint Drug Agreement provisions, which have been opened and reopened as necessary in recent years. I see it as an oversight corrected. I'm pretty sure it will be taken up in the off-season and probably permanently adopted going forward.
     
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You know what would be great? If someone got suspended for, say, charging the mound and that's how they lost their PA's. Does the carve-out only apply to drug suspensions? Or all suspensions?
     
  10. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    2012 MLB NL BA

    1) vacated .346

    2) Andrew McCutchen PIT .336
     
  11. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Just drug suspensions, per the press release.
     
  12. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Pretty much. What a farce.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page