If a player doesn't have enough plate appearances to qualify for a batting title (3.1 per game or 502 for a 162 game season), he can still theoretically lead the league in batting average, or other rate statistics, if the number of plate appearances needed to qualify are added to his totals as hitless at-bats, he and still leads the league after recalculation.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
|
From 1967 to the present, if the player with the highest average in a league fails to meet the minimum plate-appearance requirement, the remaining at-bats until qualification (e.g., 5 ABs, if the player finished the season with 497 plate appearances) are hypothetically considered hitless at-bats; if his recalculated batting average still tops the league, he is awarded the title. (This policy was invoked in 1981, securing Bill Madlock his third NL batting crown, and in 1996, when NL titlist Tony Gwynn finished the year with only 498 PAs.)
|
It bums me out in OOTP when I see a player who would lead the league in Batting Average by a wide margin, if only he had 5 more plate appearances, not even show up on the leaderboard.
This is the biggest thing I still miss about Catobase (which got it right).