[email protected]

HOW ABOUT SENSIBLE REQUIREMENTS for INDIVIDUAL CHAMPIONS?

by

Bill Deane 

                 In 1996, Tony Gwynn (.353) was awarded his seventh NL batting title thanks in part to an obscure scoring rule.  The qualifications for a batting champ state that he must accumulate at least 502 plate appearances (in a 162-game season).  Gwynn had only 498:  451 official at bats, 39 walks, six sacrifice flies, a sacrifice bunt, and a hit batsman.  But, an exception to the rule states that, if the required number of hitless at bats are added and a player still has a higher batting average than any other qualifier, he is credited with the batting title.  If Gwynn had gotten up four more times and gone hitless, he would have batted .349, still higher than runner-up Ellis Burks’s .344.  So, Gwynn was given the title, with his average listed as .353.

                Got all that?

                 Why is this so complicated and nonsensical?  Because baseball’s rules-makers and record-keepers award batting, pitching, and fielding championships, using minimum guidelines which have little or nothing to do with what is being measured.  For example, it is possible (and it happened as recently as 1987) that a pitcher may have as many wins as the “win percentage” leader -- yet, not win the championship because he didn’t have enough losses to qualify for the title!  It is also possible (and happened in 1983) for a fielder to have more total chances and a higher fielding percentage than the recognized leader in that category.  I propose systems which eliminate such nonsense.  The key is that the numerator of the equation, not the denominator, should determine the qualifiers for any percentage-oriented statistic.

                 For example, batting average measures how many hits a player gets per at bat.  The qualifiers in this category should logically meet minimum requirements not in total games, at bats, or plate appearances, but in total hits.

                 The section of current official scoring rule, #10.23(a), covering the major league batting championship requirements, reads as follows:

                 “The individual batting champion ... shall be the player with the highest batting average ..., provided he 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 league that season, multiplied by 3.1 in the case of a major league player.  EXCEPTION:  However, if there is 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 or official at bats, then that player shall be awarded the batting championship.

                 “EXAMPLE:  If a major league schedules 162 games for each club, 502 plate appearances qualify (162 times 3.1 equals 502).

                 “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.”

                 In earlier years, incidentally, the title was based on a minimum number of games or at bats. 

                 My proposed rule reads as follows:

                 “The individual batting champion shall be the player with the highest batting average, provided he is credited with as many or more hits in League Championship games as the number of games scheduled for each club in his league that season.”  In other words, if you get at least 162 hits, you qualify for the batting title.

                 My proposition reduces the number of words in the rule from 157 to 41, and eliminates the need for long-winded exceptions or examples.  Not only does it simplify the rule, making it easier for Joe Fan to follow the batting races, but it makes more sense.  What do “times awarded first base because of interference” have to do with batting skill?  If 3’7” Eddie Gaedel had played a full season, drawn 500 walks, and gone 1-for-2, should he be regarded as the batting champion with a .500 average?

                I proposed this change to the Official Playing Rules Committee as far back as 1989.  AL President Bobby Brown was kind enough to respond, saying “I anticipate your suggestions will be discussed at our next meeting.”  I wrote again in 1991, this time to committee chairman William A. Murray.  I received no response.

                 For the record, Gwynn had only 159 hits in 1996, and would have fallen short of qualification under my system.  Burks, with his 211 hits and .344 average, would have won the title (perhaps deserving an asterisk for the Coors Field effect).  Twentieth-century players who were awarded batting titles without averaging at least one hit per game (along with those who would have won it under my system) are as follow:

                         RECOGNIZED BATTING CHAMPION                         DEANE’s CHAMPION

YR.     LG    Player, CLUB               AB      H   AVG                Player, CLUB                     AB      H  AVG

1914    AL   T. Cobb, DET                   345   127   .368                E. Collins, PHI                           526   181   .344

1926    NL   B. Hargrave, CIN              326   115   .353                P. Waner, PIT                            536   180   .336

1932    AL   D. Alexander, DET-BOS   392   144   .367         J. Foxx, PHI                         585   213   .364

1940    NL   D. Garms, PIT                    358   127   .355                S. Hack, CHI                         603   191   .317

1942    NL   E. Lombardi, CIN             309   102   .330                E. Slaughter, SL                        591   188   .318

1950    AL   B. Goodman, BOS           424   150   .354                G. Kell, DET                        641   218   .340

1951    AL   F. Fain, PHI                                       425   146   .344                M. Minoso, CHI-CLE                530   173   .326

1958    AL   T. Williams, BOS              411   135   .328                P. Runnels, BOS                       568   183   .322

1969    AL   R. Carew, MIN                  458   152   .332                R. Smith, BOS                        543   168   .309

1981    NL   B. Madlock, PIT               279     95   .341                P. Rose, PHI                         431   140   .325

1983    NL   B. Madlock, PIT               473   153   .323                J. Cruz, HOU                       594   189   .318

1996    NL   T. Gwynn, SD                   451   159   .353                E. Burks, COL                        613   211   .344

                Although I do not advocate the retroactive stripping of batting titles, my system would have produced some interesting results.  Foxx would have won two consecutive Triple Crowns; Smith would have edged Tony Oliva in the second-closest batting race ever, .3094 to .3093; and Rose, at 40, would have become the oldest batting champ of all time.  Also, it would have taken some of the luster off the achievements of Bill Madlock, a man who had a curious habit of sitting out most of September whenever he was in contention for the title.

                 I have similar suggestions for other championships as well.  For on-base average, I would suggest a minimum of 1.25 times reached base (hits plus walks plus hit by pitch) per scheduled game.  For slugging percentage, 1.5 total bases per game.  And for winning percentage (which, like OBP, isn’t covered by the rules, but ought to be), 0.1 wins per game (or one victory per ten scheduled games). 

                 Finally, fielding percentage titles should be based on a set number of total chances accepted per scheduled game, varying at each position.  Suggestions:  P (.25), C (3.0), 1B (6.0), 2B (3.25), 3B (1.75), SS (3.0), and OF (1.25).

by