You have to draw the line somewhere, you can't just give it to whoever has the most ABs. Also, what makes you assume that the other guys wouldn't have been able to keep their production at the same pace for another 100 ABs?
Art Vandelay wrote:You have to draw the line somewhere, you can't just give it to whoever has the most ABs. Also, what makes you assume that the other guys wouldn't have been able to keep their production at the same pace for another 100 ABs?
Why should we assume they can do it when Matt shows he can do it
i see your point, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I mean think of bonds, his ABs were suppressed because of his ability to walk. I think that you can't account for every variable in a discussion like this, rather, you have to establish some minimal standard as the baseline for judgment.
Art Vandelay wrote:You have to draw the line somewhere, you can't just give it to whoever has the most ABs. Also, what makes you assume that the other guys wouldn't have been able to keep their production at the same pace for another 100 ABs?
Why should we assume they can do it when Matt shows he can do it
It's no worse than assuming how much lower Holliday's average would be if he didn't play half his games in Coors Field.
Art Vandelay wrote:You have to draw the line somewhere, you can't just give it to whoever has the most ABs. Also, what makes you assume that the other guys wouldn't have been able to keep their production at the same pace for another 100 ABs?
Why should we assume they can do it when Matt shows he can do it
If Matt had played better he would have won. He just wasn't good enough this year.
Didn't the Rockies used to bench Larry Walker when he was going for batting titles so that he wouldn't hurt his average?
The bottom line: instead of complaining about your guy having more ABs than those other guys, perhaps you should look at the other side of the argument, where Braves fans complain about Coors adding ten to fifteen points to Holliday's. It's a much better argument.