The W
Views: 99404385
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.10.14 0123
The W - Baseball - Milkman? More like the juice man
This thread has 18 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.19
Pages: 1 2 Next
(53 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8275548/san-francisco-giants-general-manager-brian-sabean-shocked-melky-cabrera-suspension

I guess nobody sold PEDs in Atlanta or Kansas City.

Could he still win the batting title?



YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
Promote this thread!
supersalvadoran
Landjager








Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.36
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Could he still win the batting title?


I'm confused by it, but according to Yahoo, the answer is yes (sports.yahoo.com).

I don't know you just 'add' another at-bat though when the player isn't actually playing. What if someone leading the batting title race gets injured several at-bats before the minimum? Are they allowed to pad the at- bats then? Doesn't sound right to me. In any event, this hurts the Giants' chances to get the in the playoffs big time. And since I'm in a David Chappelle kick right now, I'll close with one of my favorite Rick James quotes: "THE MELK'S GONE BAD!!!"













TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran
      Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Could he still win the batting title?


    I'm confused by it, but according to Yahoo, the answer is yes (sports.yahoo.com).

    I don't know you just 'add' another at-bat though when the player isn't actually playing. What if someone leading the batting title race gets injured several at-bats before the minimum? Are they allowed to pad the at- bats then?


It is not "padding" by any definition I'm familiar with. This practice can only hurt the player's average - if an injured player hits for such a high average that he's still in first after adding x-number of hitless at-bats, he probably deserves the title. The forced outrage here comes from the drug test, not from the practice of lowering a player's batting average.
odessasteps
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: MD, USA

Since last post: 106 days
Last activity: 73 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.08

If you don't have enough at-bats, it's too bad for you.

I believe in the past, you've had guys who because of injury or maybe super rookies who were called up mid-season, they were ineligible.

And don't forget, Willie McGee won the NL Batting Title one year after being traded to the AL (Oakland I think) at the trade deadline, but he had already accumulated enough AB to quality.



Mark Coale
Odessa Steps Magazine presents



RUSSIAN FLAG BURIAL - an examination of 1984 mid-south



TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
    Originally posted by odessasteps

    If you don't have enough at-bats, it's too bad for you.

    I believe in the past, you've had guys who because of injury or maybe super rookies who were called up mid-season, they were ineligible.

    And don't forget, Willie McGee won the NL Batting Title one year after being traded to the AL (Oakland I think) at the trade deadline, but he had already accumulated enough AB to quality.


Tony Gwynn won a batting title in 1996 because of this rule. And I know there have been others. This rule is not new, people are only feigning outrage now because a guy who got caught using roids is going to possibly win a batting title because of it. The rule has been in place since the 1960s.
supersalvadoran
Landjager








Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 2 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.36
I'm not outraged by Cabrera winning the title because of the use of steroids. If anything, I have kind of become numb to it; without really going into detail and making this a marathon debate, I'm sure there are plenty of records and title leads in the 80's and 90's that can be called into question because of roids. But it wouldn't be worth it to pursue the removal of those records at this point, IMO. Same with Melky winning the batting title... if he had the at-bats qualified for it.

And that is my real question. I look at it like this: say at your workplace you can receive a reward or a bonus for having the highest average score on customer surveys, but you need a certain amount of those surveys to qualify. What if you get fired, have a situation where you can't work, or get sick/injured and you don't have enough surveys to win the competition despite having the highest average? Do you actually have your bosses make up a survey with no score to fill in the amount needed and win the bonus for you? Because I would like to work for people who would be so generous to do that for me but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

It's not even a real beef because I have a hard time seeing where they get 502, not 500, not say 486 (3 a game for all 162 games), not some other higher or lower number. I just don't see even if it doesn't help his average how Cabrera can be allowed to add at-bats to help win the batting title if he can't play and actually show up for the at-bats. If he had the at-bats needed already and wins it at the end of the year, well then tough luck for the rest of the NL. But otherwise, I'm still confused, not outraged. Like Inigo Montoya says TheBucsFan, " You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "













JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.14
    Originally posted by odessasteps
    If you don't have enough at-bats, it's too bad for you.


It's not at bats that determine batting title eligibility, it is 502 plate appearances. Since Melky is at 501 PA for the year, they would add one hitless AB for his "batting title eligible" average, and then if nobody with 502+ PAs can beat Melky's adjusted average, Melky's the batting champ.



Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.39
    Originally posted by MLB Official Rules: 10.00 The Official Scorer (mlb.mlb.com)
    10.22 Minimum Standards For Individual Championships
    To assure uniformity in establishing the batting, pitching and fielding championships of professional leagues, such champions shall meet the following minimum performance standards:
    (a) The individual batting, slugging or on-base percentage champion shall be the player with the highest batting average, slugging percentage or on-base percentage, as the case may be, provided the player is credited with as many or more total appearances at the plate in league championship games as the number of games scheduled for each club in his club’s league that season, multiplied by 3.1 in the case of a Major League player and by 2.7 in the case of a National Association player. Total appearances at the plate shall include official times at bat, plus bases on balls, times hit by pitcher, sacrifice hits, sacrifice flies and times awarded first base because of interference or obstruction. 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.
    Rule 10.22(a) Comment: For example, if a Major League schedules 162 games for each club, 502 plate appearances qualify (162 times 3.1 equals 502) a player for a batting, slugging or on-base percentage championship. If a National Association league schedules 140 games for each club, 378 plate appearances qualify (140 times 2.7 equals 378) a player for a batting, slugging or on-base percentage championship. Fractions of a plate appearance are to be rounded up or down to the closest whole number. For example, 162 times 3.1 equals 502.2, which is rounded down to a requirement of 502.
    If, for example, Abel has the highest batting average among those with 502 plate appearance in a Major League with a .362 batting average (181 hits in 500 at-bats), and Baker has 490 plate appearances, 440 at-bats and 165 hits for a .375 batting average, Baker shall be the batting champion, because adding 12 more at-bats to Baker's record would still give Baker a higher batting average than Abel: .365 (165 hits in 452 at-bats) to Abel's .362.





jfkfc
Liverwurst








Since: 9.2.02

Since last post: 77 days
Last activity: 7 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.25
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran
    I'm sure there are plenty of records and title leads in the 80's and 90's that can be called into question because of roids. But it wouldn't be worth it to pursue the removal of those records at this point, IMO. Same with Melky winning the batting title... if he had the at-bats qualified for it.
IMO, the inherent difference here is that which "can be called into question" and this instance where there is a proven occurrence. There's little to debate since he has both tested positive and admitted to using something he shouldn't have used.

He'd technically qualify for the batting title if no one else finishes with a higher average (McCutchen is at .359), as noted by CRZ with Rule 10.22(a). However, Bud Selig has the authority to act regarding this, as noted in the MLB Constitution (downloadable pdf) (bizofbaseball.com) in Article II, Sec. 2(b):
    Originally posted by MLB Constitution
    "To investigate, either upon complaint or upon the Commissioner’s own initiative, any act, transaction or practice charged, alleged or suspected to be not in the best interests of the national game of Baseball, with authority to summon persons and to order the production of documents, and, in case of refusal to appear or produce, to impose such penalties as are hereinafter provided."
Personally, I think it would be huge in setting a precedent if he invokes this.
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.28

    in the best interests of the national game of Baseball


This power is cited approximately a million times per 1 time it's ever actually been used. A billion times if you count sports radio.

It'd also be opening a Pandora's box. If you start invaliding one season leader based on finding out he used PEDs, there are obvious previous season leaders which could be invalided under similar (though definitely not exact) situations. MLB would by no means have to do anything about those, but they would be barraged by (even louder) demands to strike those people record books from here to eternity.

If it's painful and doesn't immediately make them money, MLB usually stays away from it. And so they will here.



thecubsfan.com - luchablog
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 430 days
Last activity: 391 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.21
This discussion reminds me of an article in The New Bill James Historical Abstract called "The Death of Common Sense in Baseball". It happens to be included in the searchable section of the book on amazon, and the link to that is at: http://books.google.com/books?id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&lpg=PA148&ots=1lo6j80Dyg&pg=PA154#v=onepage .

The short of it is that baseball (and society in general) cared more about what was correct rather than what was technically the rule (or to put it another way, justice was valued above legality). i.e., if this sort of thing had happened in baseball in the 1930s (with all the modern rules), it's pretty likely that Cabrera would be made exempt for the title, regardless of whether or not he had technically qualified.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.39
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    The short of it is that baseball (and society in general) cared more about what was correct rather than what was technically the rule (or to put it another way, justice was valued above legality).
So you're saying it's OBAMA'S fault.



Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 313 days
Last activity: 306 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.97

    Originally posted by thecubsfan

      in the best interests of the national game of Baseball


    This power is cited approximately a million times per 1 time it's ever actually been used. A billion times if you count sports radio.

    It'd also be opening a Pandora's box. If you start invaliding one season leader based on finding out he used PEDs, there are obvious previous season leaders which could be invalided under similar (though definitely not exact) situations. MLB would by no means have to do anything about those, but they would be barraged by (even louder) demands to strike those people record books from here to eternity.

    If it's painful and doesn't immediately make them money, MLB usually stays away from it. And so they will here.


Plus, when has Selig ever acted in the best interests of the national game of Baseball.



Sports Director Neuhoff Media Danville, IL
WDAN - K-ROCK - D-102

Announcer for Heritage Wrestling Television
Interim CEO Heritage Wrestling Coalition
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    This discussion reminds me of an article in The New Bill James Historical Abstract called "The Death of Common Sense in Baseball". It happens to be included in the searchable section of the book on amazon, and the link to that is at: http://books.google.com/​​​​books?​​​​id=3uSbqUm8hSAC&​​​​lpg=PA148&​​​​ots=1lo6j80Dyg&​​​​pg=PA154#v=onepage .

    The short of it is that baseball (and society in general) cared more about what was correct rather than what was technically the rule (or to put it another way, justice was valued above legality). i.e., if this sort of thing had happened in baseball in the 1930s (with all the modern rules), it's pretty likely that Cabrera would be made exempt for the title, regardless of whether or not he had technically qualified.


I think James has made a pretty flimsy argument here. At the very least, he is overlooking some very obvious factors that are involved.

Regarding his sheriff analogy, isn't it possible that advances in technology and communication in the past 80 years have made the extradition process so much easier that there's no reason to adopt his apparent view that police should be allowed to circumvent the law whenever they feel that they can argue it is in the best interest of justice?

Regarding the actual baseball point, isn't it possible - likely, in fact - that the rules have gotten much better since the 1930s? James lays it out:


    1. The purpose of the rules is the identify the best players.

    2. The recognition should go to the best players.


Unless you want to add the clause, "players who test positive for certain drugs are disqualified," I don't understand how the rule can be said to be lacking here. Cabrera has posted a great batting average, and hypothetically if he were to go on to win the batting title it would be via a rule that I personally think is pretty well designed when it comes to determining the batting champ. The "play 100 games" rule - which, from the sounds of it, was never actually official anyway, which makes the claim that rules were going overlooked kind of dubious - has obvious flaws. I don't see the obvious flaws in the modern rule. Again, that's if you don't want to add the clause about roids. (EDIT: Which, to be fair, I guess you and others are probably arguing is what you want. One person criticizing this rule in this thread has said steroids were not the issue for him, and I guess I kind of stupidly assumed everyone was arguing that. I'm arguing that the "hitless at-bats" part of the rule is perfectly fine, but after thinking about it I realize that's probably not what you are arguing about.)

I don't think there is any arguing against the assertion that Cabrera has been one of the best players in baseball this year. He just happened to get caught on some drug, which in a lot of people's eyes invalidates his performance. But this is not analogous to a guy who batted in 60 games winning a batting title on a technicality.

The point is, the outrage here is clearly about the steroids, and not the rule adding hitless at-bats. It is not a flaw in the rule.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 18.8.12 0254)

(edited by TheBucsFan on 18.8.12 0303)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 7 min.
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran

    And that is my real question. I look at it like this: say at your workplace you can receive a reward or a bonus for having the highest average score on customer surveys, but you need a certain amount of those surveys to qualify. What if you get fired, have a situation where you can't work, or get sick/injured and you don't have enough surveys to win the competition despite having the highest average? Do you actually have your bosses make up a survey with no score to fill in the amount needed and win the bonus for you? Because I would like to work for people who would be so generous to do that for me but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.


So you're saying...you're running a workplace, and you've set a goal that someone gets the best return on the surveys, minimum 100 surveys. One guy gets 99 surveys returned with 78 positive responses. The other guy gets 101 surveys returned with 53 positive responses. You're giving the award to the second guy? Even if you have the chance to set up this exception ahead of time so there's no "letter of the law" issue? Why?

Now, granted, if the guy tests positive for steroids in the meantime, that might be a different issue.
supersalvadoran
Landjager








Since: 10.1.08
From: westbury, new york

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 2 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.75
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon


    So you're saying...you're running a workplace, and you've set a goal that someone gets the best return on the surveys, minimum 100 surveys. One guy gets 99 surveys returned with 78 positive responses. The other guy gets 101 surveys returned with 53 positive responses. You're giving the award to the second guy? Even if you have the chance to set up this exception ahead of time so there's no "letter of the law" issue? Why?

    Now, granted, if the guy tests positive for steroids in the meantime, that might be a different issue.


I know, it doesn't seem to be a situation that's ideal but yes, the guy with 101 surveys would in fact receive the reward /bonus for having the highest average while reaching the minimum amount required. This is close to something that is actually done at my workplace: the wait staff are graded by guests/customers for their service and if certain averages are made or surpassed for themselves and/or the restaurant/hotel, they are rewarded bonuses at the end of the year or other prizes during certain periods of work (during the hockey season, when we have a certain stretch of concerts, etc.). A lot of the time, they are required to have shown that they have serviced a certain amount of guests to be eligible.

Now is it fair? Yes and no. I totally see your argument that if person A had a perfect average on 5 surveys and person B has 8 of 10 good surveys that person A is more deserving. But our workplace wants both quantity and quality: in their minds, it's not enough to really please a small amount of guests. In their opinion, to have business grow, they need to get more people to be more satisfied. Otherwise, if the same five people are happy but you're not getting anyone else, it doesn't really help their bottom line at all. There are also those who work full time that would be displeased if someone who only works part-time or seasonally is given the reward they have worked for all year long. They're producing more but are seeing the person with less results get rewarded for a better but smaller size sample.

So to wrap this (really long, I know, I'm sorry) analogy, I just see Cabrera falling one appearance short of the required amount to qualify for the batting title. It seems a bit unfair to those who do play the amount required throughout the season to see him get the title thanks to the MLB 'adding' and empty at-bat or two. Whether he got suspended like he did or if he were to have gotten injured or something else, what is the MLB's point and/or benefit of 'adding' another appearance to qualify him? What if someone else is hitting well above him but with far fewer at-bats (say .390 with 475 at-bats or .410 with 450 at-bats)? How far do we go to 'add' appearances to allow them to qualify? Though I understand it a bit more thanks to you guys explaining it to me on this thread, it still just feels like a little gray area in the minimum requirements department. But then this is something that always gets me confused as a baseball fan at some point almost every season: there seems to be an obscure rule, written or 'unwritten', that needs explanation when it pops up during the season.

















Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 430 days
Last activity: 391 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.21
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran

    So to wrap this (really long, I know, I'm sorry) analogy, I just see Cabrera falling one appearance short of the required amount to qualify for the batting title. It seems a bit unfair to those who do play the amount required throughout the season to see him get the title thanks to the MLB 'adding' and empty at-bat or two. Whether he got suspended like he did or if he were to have gotten injured or something else, what is the MLB's point and/or benefit of 'adding' another appearance to qualify him? What if someone else is hitting well above him but with far fewer at-bats (say .390 with 475 at-bats or .410 with 450 at-bats)? How far do we go to 'add' appearances to allow them to qualify?

This is not a slippery slope. When they give the batting title to someone who falls short of 502 PA (which they did in 1996, giving Tony Gwynn the NL batting champ with a .353 BA over 498 PA in 1996 [ahead of the .344 hit by Ellis Burks over 685 PA]) they are saying that your average is so much better than the next guy, that even if they assume you were to strike out at every PA until you made it up to 502, you'd still have a better batting average than him.

The answers to your hypothetical questions change depending on how big the gap in batting average between player A (who didn't reach 502 PA) and Player B (the highest player who did) is, how many PA player A falls short of 502, and how many AB Player A finishes the year with (in other words, is he a player who walks a lot, or not much at all).

But let's imagine that Player B finishes the year with a .350 average (210 hits in 600 at bats) and that Player A never walks or hits sacrifice flies (his PA = his AB. This is a best case scenario for Player A. It's no wonder that Tony Gwynn was the one who qualified under this exemption, as he was a player who hit for high average but took few walks). Given a certain number of PA for Player A, here's what his batting average would have to be to finish ahead of Player B.

500 PA - .352 average
480 PA - .367 average
460 PA - .383 average
440 PA - .400 average
420 PA - .419 average
400 PA - .440 average
380 PA - .463 average

There's no subjective quality to this. Given the scenario I listed above, this is how the math works out.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
So, to be ELIGIBLE for something, you need XXX. So if you fall short, you should be INELIGIBLE. Its a stupid rule.




YOUR 2012 NCCA Tournament Bracket Challenge Winner
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 51 days
Last activity: 51 days
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran
    What if someone else is hitting well above him but with far fewer at-bats (say .390 with 475 at-bats or .410 with 450 at-bats)? How far do we go to 'add' appearances to allow them to qualify?



What? Are you serious? Obviously the answer is something greater than zero and less than 502. Adding hitless at-bats to a player's total can only hurt his average, so obviously a guy who only has 100 at bats is never going to win the batting title via this rule because even if he went 100 for 100, his average is going to be less than .200. You seem desperate to believe that this rule opens the possibility for someone with like half the required plate appearances to win the title or something, but it's just not so. So the answer to your question is, "not very far, and not much farther than is being done in this case."

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    So, to be ELIGIBLE for something, you need XXX.



Eligibility is determined by the rule and nothing else. The rule says all players are eligible, but those who bat fewer than 502 times have hitless at-bats added to their total to get to that number. That is the only definition of eligibility for the batting title in Major League Baseball.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 18.8.12 1836)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 7 min.
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by supersalvadoran
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon


      So you're saying...you're running a workplace, and you've set a goal that someone gets the best return on the surveys, minimum 100 surveys. One guy gets 99 surveys returned with 78 positive responses. The other guy gets 101 surveys returned with 53 positive responses. You're giving the award to the second guy? Even if you have the chance to set up this exception ahead of time so there's no "letter of the law" issue? Why?


      I know, it doesn't seem to be a situation that's ideal but yes, the guy with 101 surveys would in fact receive the reward /bonus for having the highest average while reaching the minimum amount required. This is close to something that is actually done at my workplace: the wait staff are graded by guests/customers for their service and if certain averages are made or surpassed for themselves and/or the restaurant/hotel, they are rewarded bonuses at the end of the year or other prizes during certain periods of work (during the hockey season, when we have a certain stretch of concerts, etc.). A lot of the time, they are required to have shown that they have serviced a certain amount of guests to be eligible.

      Now is it fair? Yes and no. I totally see your argument that if person A had a perfect average on 5 surveys and person B has 8 of 10 good surveys that person A is more deserving.


    No, no, no--that's NOT my argument. I'm saying that if person A has a perfect average on 5 surveys, and person B has *4* of 10 good surveys, then person A is more deserving. I totally agree that quantity is important, and that a perfect average isn't enough if the person hasn't satisfied enough people. If someone hits 1.000 but only has 100 plate appearances, he shouldn't be eligible for the batting title even though that's actually pretty impressive. I'm talking about a situation where the person actually satisifed enough people to win. Do you see the difference?



Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 6.19
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: 2012 MLB Playoff Standings with 5 weeks left
Next thread: Red Sox to Clean House?
Previous thread: 2012 MLB Playoff Standings with 6 weeks left
(53 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
First-place Indians. WAHOO!
Related threads: Cain throws perfect game - Giants About To Get Carlos Beltran - Oddities during Giants/Tigers game - More...
The W - Baseball - Milkman? More like the juice manRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.183 seconds.