They did not change the statistical rule regarding AB. The stipulation they added was that the AB rule “shall not be applicable for the 2012 season for any player who failed to obtain 502 plate appearances if such player served a drug suspension for violating the Joint Drug Program.”

This is a change regarding whether the player was suspended. The whole point I've been stating repeatedly is that whether a player was suspended or not is not a statistical basis for a change. It is a change being selectively applied based on non-statistical facts.

That is what I am arguing against, apparently badly because I'm not getting through.

Since when is AB "non-statistical"?

As I keep saying: no they did not. They changed the non-statistical qualifications for it.

But thanks for the insult.

No, but 'fatheaded' is.

Ctorg #90: "If [MLB] wants [Melky's] average not to count on a leaderboard, I think they should...have to change the statistical qualifications for it..."

Which is what they did.

I do understand your view and others' - and I realize I'm probably coming across as way more passionately statheaded (is that a word?) about this than I really am - but to me, as long as MLB has determined that the results of a play are official, stats generated from it are official.

In other words, the control MLB should be able to exert over it is determining whether the games in which they occurred are official or not. The stats themselves are descriptors of events in official games. If MLB deems all that Melky did to count toward the outcome of games - which it has - then those stats should be counted like any other stats. MLB has not changed the outcome of his plate appearances in any way. It hasn't taken anything off his record. It has simply declared him invisible, which I think is overstepping their ability to do.

If they want his average not to count on a leaderboard, I think they should either have to change the statistical qualifications for it, or they have to declare all outcomes of his plate appearances to be unofficial, thus depriving the Giants of any runs generated by him (or perhaps making all games in which he appeared unofficial). I don't think either of those is realistic or practical, but I think you can't change what happened, regardless of how it was achieved.

It really stinks that the guy who had the best average in the NL this year got it by cheating, but it doesn't mean he didn't have the best average. Just as Barry Bonds really did hit 73 homers (yes, I know, there's no hard evidence he did that by juicing, but, well, you know...), Melky really did have the best average in games that were allowed to count, using the statistical measures in place.

Suppose Melky had some new-fangled homing device in his bat that assured his bat would travel on a trajectory to always make contact with the incoming pitch. Could we actually view his stats as legitimate? Would we say, 'well, yes - surely he's cheated, but the stats speak for themselves, no reason to judge the human swinging that altered bat"? Perhaps this sounds like an absurd happenstance (perhaps not) - but it's to make a point that you can't always separate the stats from the person.

On another note, it's a shame that Melky is the Cabrera story in a year when Miggy wins the Triple Crown.

They did not change the statistical qualifications. They changed the political qualifications, which I consider to be an invalid way of handling the situation. I have no major issue with retroactivity, really, although I'm not much of a fan in this case because it's reactive.

The way I see it is this: MLB has within its power the ability to determine what happened on the field of play and all the rules related to that, from the scoring of plays to the winners of games. These items are reported by them as statistical facts.

Once MLB has declared games to be official (which makes stats generated within them official), I contend that those stats should be the sole source of determining leaderboards. Two can't be less than one just because MLB says so. Rules for statistical qualification should be applied evenly and should only consider the stats themselves and not the people who generated them as human beings.

Now, I do think it is within MLB's right to declare games in which Melky played to be null, but obviously that would cause a mess.

I understand why they're doing what they're doing. I understand not wanting to reward someone who cheated, and I do think that if there were an actual award for "batting title," the awarder would be allowed to make up the rules for that award. I don't like that the batting average leader was cheating.

However, if we are trying to say which player had the highest batting average based on the statistical rule of 3.1 PA/Game with added AB for PA less than 502, Melky has the highest batting average. I say that if they want to get rid of the part about adding AB (which is not a good idea, I think, but that's another argument), it needs to be applied to everyone, not just Melky.

Striking something from the record because it is undesirable is a way of sugarcoating history. MLB has had a history of making believe things didn't happen the way they did. I think the history needs to be recorded, warts and all.