1st .400 Hitter Determined by CEI

[Vezna31]

I just noticed that a guy hitting .406 sustained a CEI on July 31 and will have enough AB's to be considered the first .400 hitter for a season. I would have liked to have seen a full season, considering the closest has been .393 before.

[CRTsports.com]

Ouch that's a bummer.

[Déjà Bru]

Ironic in that .406 was Ted Williams' average in 1941, the last man to hit over .400 in the major leagues. I noted that he did not have too many more at bats that year (456) than your fellow.

[satchel]

In my online Jamaica League, the player who captured our first season's batting title won under similar circumstances. He only hit .379 but it left some people dissatisfied.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Ironic in that .406 was Ted Williams' average in 1941, the last man to hit over .400 in the major leagues. I noted that he did not have too many more at bats that year (456) than your fellow.

Well, Williams walked an incredibly large amount of the time. Which, looking at this guy's stats i wonder how does he qualify? 421 ABs plus 50 BBs? Unless he got hit by a lot of pitches, had a lot of sac flies. How does he reach it?

Edit: My bad, I just realized this might be a 154-game schedule, which I believe means 476 PA instead 502. Probably not too hard to get enough HBPs and SFs to hit that. My bad.

[Vezna31]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

Well, Williams walked an incredibly large amount of the time. Which, looking at this guy's stats i wonder how does he qualify? 421 ABs plus 50 BBs? Unless he got hit by a lot of pitches, had a lot of sac flies. How does he reach it?

Edit: My bad, I just realized this might be a 154-game schedule, which I believe means 476 PA instead 502. Probably not too hard to get enough HBPs and SFs to hit that. My bad.

Actually, I was unaware of the exact rule. It is a 154 game schedule and his total plate appearances is 474. My season isn't over yet, so maybe I was premature in making my statement.

[Left-handed Badger]

Well, it is 3.1 PAs per game in real life. For 162 games it rounds out to 502 PAs. For 154 it comes out to.......477 (my bad i was close). He'll likely come out just short (just one more game likely)

Now that would adding insult to injury

[rem]

If the game functions correctly, he can win the batting title if he is still ahead when each at-bat he needs to get to be ahead of the next guy is figured as a hitless at-bat.

[Vezna31]

Season just ended and he is no listed as the batting champ. Makes me happy. Next time, I'll actually wait until the end to make sure before posting.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by remangiii

If the game functions correctly, he can win the batting title if he is still ahead when each at-bat he needs to get to be ahead of the next guy is figured as a hitless at-bat.

Forgot about that. Though I have to admit I hate that rule as much as others hate the 3 inning save rule.

I did remember earlier today I had a guy win the AL batting title that way. 23-year old OF for Cleveland was .380ish on August 29. CEI. (though as with most CEIs, I alter him so that he came back in one years time, well slightly more than a year, I had sit out the next year since one year would have made it so late in the season). What was funny he was a little slap hitter. He had either 0 or 1 HR at that point. I think he was also 2nd in SBs at that time, too. SO, he might have had a chance to win that title.


I hated that despite Cleveland being a division rival (KC) but he was becoming one of my favorite players.

[Kelric]

I like the three inning save rule. I like that more than one inning with a three run lead being a save.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Kelric

I like the three inning save rule. I like that more than one inning with a three run lead being a save.

Yeah. What are called saves these days, well most are cheap saves.

A pitcher can come in the 9th with a 3 run lead, allow 2 runs, and earn a save with that 18.00 ERA.

Way back in the 60's and 70's, another factor in determining a save was the quality of the appearance by that pitcher, as determined by the official scorer, and most of the relievers back then weren't just saved for the last inning. That's why so many of the pitchers back then who earned most of the saves also would pitch 1, 2, 3 and sometimes 4 innings. They were called firemen back then because that was their role, come in when the fire needed to be put out regardless of the inning. The idea of saving your "best" reliever for the last inning is something I just don't understand. If you use him earlier to end a rally then perhaps a closer wouldn't even be needed in the 9th. But the logic now is to bring in a lesser pitcher in those situations.

I also have seen some weird box scores where a starter would pitch 8 innings and have a 3-0 lead and have a line like...8 IP, 3 hits, 0 runs, 0 walks, 5 K's....and yet would be automatically pulled so the closer could finish off the game.

My personal preference is to try to get complete games out of my starter, and I know that IRL these days that would be a pipe dream, but with that pitcher I would let him start the 9th and see if he can finish the game himself, not just automatically pull him so the closer can pad his save stats.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Vezna31

Season just ended and he is no listed as the batting champ. Makes me happy. Next time, I'll actually wait until the end to make sure before posting.

You're happy, I assume, because you did not want the first guy in your league over .400 to back into the record.

Edit: Re-reading OP: "I would have liked to have seen a full season . . ." So I assume my assuming was correct.

[Vezna31]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

You're happy, I assume, because you did not want the first guy in your league over .400 to back into the record.

Edit: Re-reading OP: "I would have liked to have seen a full season . . ." So I assume my assuming was correct.

It also might help that my second sentence of that post was "Makes me happy." But that's just minor details...lol

[Vezna31]

Originally Posted by Kelric

I like the three inning save rule. I like that more than one inning with a three run lead being a save.

I actually like that rule too, although it's flawed where if the lead is huge and the guy going 3 gives up a bunch and they still win by 1 run and he still gets a save for a sh!tty performance.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by Kelric

I like the three inning save rule. I like that more than one inning with a three run lead being a save.

Well, I didnt mean to get that conversation started. But, since the box has been opened. One reason (at least those not mentioned) I do have to admit I like the little quirk is given this era of needing 7 man bullpens and needing about 5 of them to get through the final 3 innings. You should get a save as much for "saving" your bullpen and pitching those 3 innings. And generally a team only gets one or 2 saves that way max. during the season. Makes as much sense to me as the sac fly anyway. (oops. )

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Yeah. What are called saves these days, well most are cheap saves.

A pitcher can come in the 9th with a 3 run lead, allow 2 runs, and earn a save with that 18.00 ERA.

Way back in the 60's and 70's, another factor in determining a save was the quality of the appearance by that pitcher, as determined by the official scorer, and most of the relievers back then weren't just saved for the last inning. That's why so many of the pitchers back then who earned most of the saves also would pitch 1, 2, 3 and sometimes 4 innings. They were called firemen back then because that was their role, come in when the fire needed to be put out regardless of the inning. The idea of saving your "best" reliever for the last inning is something I just don't understand. If you use him earlier to end a rally then perhaps a closer wouldn't even be needed in the 9th. But the logic now is to bring in a lesser pitcher in those situations.

I also have seen some weird box scores where a starter would pitch 8 innings and have a 3-0 lead and have a line like...8 IP, 3 hits, 0 runs, 0 walks, 5 K's....and yet would be automatically pulled so the closer could finish off the game.

My personal preference is to try to get complete games out of my starter, and I know that IRL these days that would be a pipe dream, but with that pitcher I would let him start the 9th and see if he can finish the game himself, not just automatically pull him so the closer can pad his save stats.

Well, I did hear some person ranting about today's closer. And saying that you should have your 2nd best reliever as your closer. And have your bullpen ace used more in situation where the game needs to be saved. I have to admit that makes sense to me. (though you'd need an understanding GM come contract time, though if I were to be the manager, I'd stick up for my guy in negotiations if that is what it took. But we all know how the markets work in today's game so fat chance)

I really hate today's 12-man pitching staffs, in general. It's getting to be so many pitchers you dont have a bench. (Which at the very least is needed in the NL, unless you want those pitiful relievers actually hitting). 11 man staff just seemed the right balance to me. (or 10, even, but we'll never see that again)

Course, if I was a closer I'd want to pitch multiple innings. And be somewhat insulted if they did use me as a 1-inning closer (come on, at least put me in in the 8th if a jam comes up). But, then I am lefthanded, and we dont think normally anyway.

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Vezna31

It also might help that my second sentence of that post was "Makes me happy." But that's just minor details...lol

It would have been a delicious controversy, though. Baseball is full of controversy and this would have been a great one. Imagine the sports writers arguing over whether Steve Long's season "counts", the endless bar debates around the fictional universe, the furor when someone "else" bats .400. As it is, though, you still have something for the Cliff Clavin's of your universe. "It's a little-known fact that Steve Long..."

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Left-handed Badger

(though you'd need an understanding GM come contract time, though if I were to be the manager, I'd stick up for my guy in negotiations if that is what it took. But we all know how the markets work in today's game so fat chance)

In a circumstance like that, I'd argue that the guy with the best inherited runner scored percentage should get paid the most, and probably the reliever with the most innings pitched (if he did well) second.