I'm new to the baseball and I was just wondering.
I hear my brothers talk about it all the time.
Last year Jeter had over 100 more at bats than Joe Mauer did and lost the batting title by .3 of a point ( .344 / .347). That's a lot of at bats.
If Mauer bats 100 more times do you think he still wins the title?
Also should MLB narrow the gap of number of at bats a player can win the title by? Whats a good number?
2007-06-27 07:09:23 · 8 answers · asked by Jennifer 1 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Don't get so caught up in the rules. I was told about how Boggs purposely sat out the last game of the year when Mattinlgy was breathing down his neck for the batting title and barely hung on to it on the last day. Mattingly played in all 162 games that year and Boggs missed a lot.
There has to be some intergrity hear.
That just lame.
If a guy has way more at bats than it should be recognized.
2007-06-27 07:26:45 · update #1
No, the difference in # of at bats shouldn't matter. You can't punish a guy for hitting lower in the order because it helps his team or because he's on a weaker overall offensive team. Both of those factors will contribute to him not getting as many at bats. I believe Jeter was hitting #2 most of last year and Mauer was #3 or #4. Any #2 hitter is always going to have more at bats than a 3 or 4. Batting #2 over #3 will get you 2-3 more plate appearances a week, over the course of the season that 60-90 more than the #3 guy.
2007-06-27 07:59:04 · answer #1 · answered by DoReidos 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frizzer is mostly right, but you do not NEED 502 plate appearances to win the batting title. See here...
"An exception to this qualification rule is that, if a player falls short of the 3.1 plate appearances per game but would still have the highest batting average even if enough hitless at-bats were added to reach the 3.1 mark, the player still wins the batting championship. The latest example of this exception being employed occurred in 1996 when Tony Gwynn had 159 hits in 451 at bats for a .353 batting average but had only 498 plate appearances, 4 short of the 502 necessary. Since 4 hitless at- bats would have lowered his batting average to .349 but .349 was still better than anyone else in the league, Gwynn was named the National League batting champion."
2007-06-27 14:22:30 · answer #2 · answered by Answerman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The batting title is not based on at bats, it is based on plate appearances. You must have 3.1 plate appearances times 162 games (502 appearances) to qualify for a batting title. This rule has been unchanged for many years in MLB. To take it to the extreme, a player like Barry Bonds could have 40 hits in 100 at bats, walk 350 times, have 50 sac fly balls, get hit by the pitch 3 times and win the batting title with a batting average of .400
2007-06-27 14:15:38 · answer #3 · answered by Frizzer 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
As long as they qualify by Major League standards it shouldn't matter how many AB they have.
I believe the rule is that a batter must have 3.1 AB per TEAM game....so 162 times 3.1 or roughly 502 AB on the season.....to qualify for the batting title. Mauer had 521 last year.
I think it is fine the way it is.
2007-06-27 14:15:01 · answer #4 · answered by fuego37 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
MLB already has in place a minimum number of at bats required. It's tough as like you said Jeter was more productive as a whole.
2007-06-27 14:25:06 · answer #5 · answered by Steven H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the batters are qualified by plate appearences. 3.1 per game, which seems fine to me.
2007-06-27 14:17:07 · answer #6 · answered by DaM 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as you get past the minimum, its fair game.
2007-06-27 14:17:14 · answer #7 · answered by Jim Shorts 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No sir
2007-06-27 15:08:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋