As was the case this season, we had an extra game played:
San Diego at Colorado. Both teams played 163 games.
My question is this:
Would it be fair if a player won the batting title because they played an extra game like this? Think about it.......What if the batting leader had a .360 average after game # 162, and the person chasing him was .359 going into his extra game....and came out of it going 5 for 5 and ends up winning the title?
Do you think that would be fair?
2007-10-03 07:59:37 · 10 answers · asked by primoa1970 7 in Sports ➔ Baseball
But if it counts as a playoff game, why is the team given a win or a loss in the standings?
2007-10-03 08:08:00 · update #1
I *think* by MLB rules, that is how it would go down.
Theoretically, the top two batting leaders in either league wouldn't necessarily play the exact same amount of games (due to injury, etc.). If a player's team happened to be part of a play-in game, then it seems unfair, but that's likely what would take place. There are a lot of knowledgeable people in this section, and someone might have a better answer than me.
Interesting question. I'd never thought of that.
2007-10-03 08:08:28 · answer #1 · answered by Deke 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. I don't think it is fair. Think or the prestigious home run record that has recently been tainted by Bonds. This record was originally set by Ruth hitting 60. I believe he hit that amount in 155 games, which was the season length at the time. In 1961 when Roger Maris hit his 61st home run, the commissioner of baseball declared that Maris's accomplishment must be noted with an asterisk because he had 162 games to do it in. I believe that asterisk outlived Maris. Anyway, I agree with your point. Lets say Pujols hits 72 home runs and Howard hits 74 in a regular season (162), and then the Cardinals enter a one game playoff (163) and Pujols hits three bombs to win the mark, does that sound fair. I don't think baseball has really thought about it all that much because it rarely ever happens. They should keep separate books for one game playoffs, as they do for regular season games and the post season. And for anyone who feels like being a smart a@#, it isn't part of the regular season schedule. The schedule is in stone from opening day, games are never added to a season. The stats may count towards the season, but there is nothing regular about it. It is still referred to as a one game playoff.
Add on: Reading from below. I think some of you knuckleheads forgot to pay the brain bill. No, all he is saying is that it isn't fair. His point was: THE SEASON IS TECHNICALLY OVER, nothing there on should count towards the regular season....Matt Holliday remains where he was before he played his 163rd game.
2007-10-03 08:22:11 · answer #2 · answered by Personal Insult 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Maybe not 100% fair. But that's just the way it goes. The chances of it making a difference are so unbelievably small as it is. There have only been 7 one games playoffs in MLB history. Then in those it has to be two batting leaders, playing for two teams going for wildcard spot. Just too rare to worry about.
2007-10-03 08:08:39 · answer #3 · answered by JJ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would it be fair if the guy leading hitting was the one playing the extra game and went 0 for 5 and lost the batting title?
2007-10-03 08:22:25 · answer #4 · answered by Miggy Mango 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The extra game, as in previous instances, is played to render a decisive outcome to the season. Individual statistics are only a by-product of the contest.
Playing an additional game is no different, regards individual statistical titles, from playing a make-up game for a rained out tie in May or sitting after a September 28th clinch to protect a potential crown-winning average. (Note that Holliday passed Howard in RBI for the NL lead.)
These are the conditions, everyone understands them from the start, and that's how it is.
2007-10-03 08:19:48 · answer #5 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just put an asterix next to the record.
Often players leading the BA list do not play the last game or two, to cement their win. THAT is more like cheating, than batting in a game you had to play!!!
2007-10-03 09:39:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, because someone with only 400 at-bats could be leading it while someone with 500 at-bats could be chasing them. But that extra game should be counted as a post-season playoff.
2007-10-03 08:10:52 · answer #7 · answered by spike5310 1 · 1⤊ 3⤋
what if it was the other way around say matt holliday went 0 for 6 and lost his batting title in the 163rd game its fair either way
2007-10-03 08:34:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I also don't think the stats would be counted at least accordng to the last time this question was posted.
Does anyone remember what it said for their battign averages? Did they start over that might be a clue if they count them or not, if they were still .345 for example you know they have to be regular season stats. I only watched a bit so I didn't check that out, but it might help figure it out.
2007-10-03 08:18:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I wouldn't think that it counted because, technically the game between the Rockies and Padres was considered a playoff.
Post season stats don't count towards regular season records.
Good question though, and totally plausible too.
2007-10-03 08:07:07 · answer #10 · answered by haley_cb 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋