Your NL batting champion - Omar Infante?

[chuckywang]

Omar Infante is currently batting .336 in 447 plate appearances, and is 5 percentage points behind Gonzalez right now. He needs 502 to qualify for the batting title, and the Braves have 13 games left. It's almost a certainty he'll qualify since he bats leadoff and is now the starting 2B.

 

What do you think of his chances? He'll need to get hot these last 13 games cause I don't think Gonzalez will let him off the hook easily, but he's been pretty hot all season.

[Post Count Padder]

He's done a good job of trying to prove he was a worthy All-Star pick. But I don't think he does it.

[AllStarMe]

I'm pretty sure I heard Don Sutton on Braves radio saying that if he falls short of qualifying PAs, that MLB could add an "0 for x" for his season avg, where x = the number he needs to get to 502. Of course this would cause his avg to be lower, but if he's still ranked first after that then he would win. This was news to me, has anyone ever heard of this happening?

[Clem Fandango]

I'm pretty sure I heard Don Sutton on Braves radio saying that if he falls short of qualifying PAs, that MLB could add an "0 for x" for his season avg, where x = the number he needs to get to 502. Of course this would cause his avg to be lower, but if he's still ranked first after that then he would win. This was news to me, has anyone ever heard of this happening?

 

Are you saying that he said MLB could add AB's and PA's to his season as long as they don't award him hits?

 

I'm not a guru by any means, but that sounds like the banter of a ridiculous old man

[NCCubFan]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

[Clem Fandango]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

Wow. Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Still seems like kind of a ridiculous rule, just giving PA's to players who never actually got them just to make them qualify for an award. I get why, but it seems wrong in a game ruled by numbers to give them away for technicalities

[chuckywang]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

Wow. Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Still seems like kind of a ridiculous rule, just giving PA's to players who never actually got them just to make them qualify for an award. I get why, but it seems wrong in a game ruled by numbers to give them away for technicalities

 

It's not a technicality. It actually makes sense. Say a player bats .400 in 501 plate appearances. Why shouldn't he be batting champion?

 

BTW, you're not "giving" a player PA's. His batting average will still be his batting average. You're just factoring in theoretical PA's just for the purpose of batting champion calculations.

[Clem Fandango]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

Wow. Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Still seems like kind of a ridiculous rule, just giving PA's to players who never actually got them just to make them qualify for an award. I get why, but it seems wrong in a game ruled by numbers to give them away for technicalities

 

It's not a technicality. It actually makes sense. Say a player bats .400 in 501 plate appearances. Why shouldn't he be batting champion?

 

BTW, you're not "giving" a player PA's. His batting average will still be his batting average. You're just factoring in theoretical PA's just for the purpose of batting champion calculations.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I got it now. So they're not actually adding AB's to it, just determining if his BA would be higher than the qualified leader if he reached a qualified status. Got it. I wasn't reading between the lines

 

What if it's an extremely odd situation though... say a guy is batting .410 in 400AB (164H) and he needs 520AB to qualify. Theoretically his BA would be .315... if that's still higher than the league leader will they still award it to him even though he's 120AB behind qualifying, or do they cut it off at a certain point? Like do they only do this for guys who are within 30AB of qualifying?

[NCCubFan]

I don't know that detail, but it seems likely to me that player would still be champion. If they're going to determine a batting average based on hypothetical outs I don't know why there would be a cutoff point. If a batter is so far ahead of the next that he could bear that many outs and still be ahead he probably deserves it.

[ConstableRabbit]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

Wow. Never knew that. Learn something new every day. Still seems like kind of a ridiculous rule, just giving PA's to players who never actually got them just to make them qualify for an award. I get why, but it seems wrong in a game ruled by numbers to give them away for technicalities

 

It's not a technicality. It actually makes sense. Say a player bats .400 in 501 plate appearances. Why shouldn't he be batting champion?

 

BTW, you're not "giving" a player PA's. His batting average will still be his batting average. You're just factoring in theoretical PA's just for the purpose of batting champion calculations.

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, I got it now. So they're not actually adding AB's to it, just determining if his BA would be higher than the qualified leader if he reached a qualified status. Got it. I wasn't reading between the lines

 

What if it's an extremely odd situation though... say a guy is batting .410 in 400AB (164H) and he needs 520AB to qualify. Theoretically his BA would be .315... if that's still higher than the league leader will they still award it to him even though he's 120AB behind qualifying, or do they cut it off at a certain point? Like do they only do this for guys who are within 30AB of qualifying?

I don't see why that would be a problem. If you can go 0 for your last 120 and still be batting champion, the league is probably weak or your were incredibly hot over your first ~380 PAs.

[Guest]

What if it's an extremely odd situation though... say a guy is batting .410 in 400AB (164H) and he needs 520AB to qualify. Theoretically his BA would be .315... if that's still higher than the league leader will they still award it to him even though he's 120AB behind qualifying, or do they cut it off at a certain point? Like do they only do this for guys who are within 30AB of qualifying?

 

Yes, they give you an out for as many ABs as you are short of qualifying, and if you're still on top after that, then you win. Doesn't matter how many ABs short you are, cause that's just that many more outs you have to weather.

[cl smooth]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

happened to tony gwynn in 1996.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1996-batting-leaders.shtml

 

i'll always remember the sportscenter episode where olbermann said "gwynn goes for the record books...and a calculator!," due to the explanation on how he won the batting title.

[ConstableRabbit]

That actually is the rule, and has been for as long as I can remember. I don't know if it's ever happened, but for example if a player is 5 plate appearances short, and his recalculated batting average based on an assumed 0 for 5 would still lead the league, he is the batting champion.

 

happened to tony gwynn in 1996.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/1996-batting-leaders.shtml

 

i'll always remember the sportscenter episode where olbermann said "gwynn goes for the record books...and a calculator!," due to the explanation on how he won the batting title.

Wow, Sammy #1 in Defensive WAR

[Gmoney23]

Thats interesting the Tony Gwynn year in 1996 where he ended up a few ABs short and still won it.

 

But, how about 1980 was their a different qualifier for AB's? George Brett won it with a .390 average, in only 449 AB's. There isnt an asterisk listed under Bretts batting championship?

[NonProfitCow]

Thats interesting the Tony Gwynn year in 1996 where he ended up a few ABs short and still won it.

 

But, how about 1980 was their a different qualifier for AB's? George Brett won it with a .390 average, in only 449 AB's. There isnt an asterisk listed under Bretts batting championship?

It goes by plate appearances, not AB's.