Melky Cabrera DQ's himself from batting title

[Versatile]

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?

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.

 

[cranberry]

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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

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.

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.

 

[Versatile]

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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.

 

[outofplace]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[Versatile]

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.

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.

 

[LongTimeListener]

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

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

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.

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.

 

[cranberry]

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.

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.

Statistics are pure and irrefutable; rules are not.

 

[outofplace]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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.

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.

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.

Except that it is a retroactive, overt midstream amendment of what is written.

Not my way.

 

[cranberry]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dick Whitman]

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?

 

[Azrael]

2012 MLB NL BA

1) vacated .346

2) Andrew McCutchen PIT .336

 

[cranberry]

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?

Just drug suspensions, per the press release.

 

[outofplace]

2012 MLB NL BA

1) vacated .346

2) Andrew McCutchen PIT .336

Pretty much. What a farce.