halle@hou2b.UUCP (J.HALLE) (10/21/85)
See if you can solve this hypothetical problem Top of the ninth in the last game of the season. The Yankees are at Fenway Park, in a meaningless game, both teams several games behind Cleveland. (Remember, I said hypothetical :-) ) At this point, everyone is just playing for statistics. New York is up a run when Mattingly comes to bat. Mattingly is batting .389 (210 hits in 540 ABs), exactly tied with Boggs (2l7/558) who is due to lead off the bottom of the inning. Question: who wins the batting title, and why? Answer in a few days.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (10/22/85)
There is more to this than meets the eye. If Mattingly gets an at bat
and no hit, Boggs wins. However, if Mattingly does get a hit, he is
not assured of the title. What if the Yankees bat around, and Mattingly
is 1-2 (or worse) in the inning?
If neither gets an at bat, I would assume then that they'd have tied.
I would have no objection to that, and would object to one or the
other winning the batting title for other reasons.
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
I'll keep an eye on the old man, he seems to have a knack for getting
himself into trouble!
-who said it, what story?ryan@fremen.DEC (Mike Ryan DTN 264-8280 MKO1-2/E25) (10/24/85)
I think I know what you're getting at here - if I'm not mistaken, a tie
would go to the hitter with the most hits, so the Red Sox can guarantee
Boggs the title by walking Mattingly and pinch-hitting for Boggs. However, I
think Boggs is too good a competitor to go along with it...
Mike Ryan
ARPA: ryan%fremen.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
UUCP: {decvax,allegra,ihnp4,ucbvax,...}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-fremen!ryanpumphrey@ttidcb.UUCP (Larry Pumphrey) (10/24/85)
No conclusion can be drawn without some basic assumptions; i.e., neither team bats around, no extra innings. However, if one assumes that Mattingly has an official at bat in the top of the ninth inning (no walk, sacrifice, etc.) then he controls his own destiny and it doesn't matter what Boggs does in the bottom of the ninth if one also assumes that Boggs can have at most one more official at bat.
kaufman@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (10/29/85)
> Boggs wins the batting title. As the first pitch is thrown, > Gedman reaches out to catch it, bumping Mattingly's bat. > Mattingly takes first on the catcher's interference. As that > is scored an error on the catcher, Mattingly gets charged with > an at bat and no hit. I know it's an error, but in this case, I don't think the batter is charged with an at bat.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <12900042@uiucdcs> kaufman@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> Boggs wins the batting title. As the first pitch is thrown, >> Gedman reaches out to catch it, bumping Mattingly's bat. >> Mattingly takes first on the catcher's interference. As that >> is scored an error on the catcher, Mattingly gets charged with >> an at bat and no hit. > >I know it's an error, but in this case, I don't think the batter is charged >with an at bat. Even if he is, I don't think this would actually happen. Who wants to be remembered as the man who won a batting title by such a cheap trick? Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
dday@gymble.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) (11/04/85)
In article <1396@ihlpg.UUCP> tischler@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark D. Tischler) writes: >> > Boggs wins the batting title. As the first pitch is thrown, >> > Gedman reaches out to catch it, bumping Mattingly's bat. >> I know it's an error, but in this case, I don't think the batter is charged >> with an at bat. > >Am I missing something here? Not even on an error >does the batter get charged with a time at bat!! I think you'd better check the rule book again, Mark. -- UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@umcp-cs University of Maryland ARPA: dday@gymble.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-4247