I got a question for all the baseball buffs out there. Let's say a player is batting well over .400 for most of hte season. He gets traded during the year for 4 other great players. His BA resets to zero, doesn't it? So if he bats over .400 in the other league, does he get credit for his average?
Yes to both questions, that is if he has the required at-bats to win the batting title.
In 1990, Willie McGee won the National League batting title.
As a member of the Oakland Athletics. (Of the American League, for the uninitated. The rest of you may let out a loud, scorching "DUH.")
He was traded from the Cardinals in late August (for FELIX JOSE~!) and had already batted enough times to qualify. Obviously, if you're traded at the All-Star Break or just after you might not have enough plate appearances, but by mid-August most batters have qualified.
Willie also had a batting average with the Athletics, though not one large enough to compete for the AL batting crown.
I was under the impression that, with all the changes to MLB over the last four or five years, stats were merged together from both leagues. (This goes along with one set of umpires and the elimination of the AL/NL presidents.)
Incdientally, even if you don't have enough at-bats to qualify in the one league. You could still qualify. Exmaple: If Player A is leading the leauge and only has 475 PA, they will add 27 more PA to his total and recalcucalte the average. If the recalcualted average still leads the league, then the player wins the batting title with his real average.
"If this cruel, loudmouth extremist is the cream of the Democratic crop, next November's going to make the 1984 election look like a squeaker." --House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on Howard Dean
I think, though, that if Player X hit .410 from April - August, then hit .200 in September on his new team, he wouldn't (and shouldn't) get the love for hitting .400. A few guys like Brett and Gwynn have been at or near .400 on September 1 and fallen short, and I think this guy would fall under the same category as those guys.
Washington Huskies, 1-1. USC didn't look THAT great after the first quarter, so I'm more optimistic that they'll be the 2003 Pac-10 champs.