Contrarian player of the year voting

If he hit .360 for 100 games, would he win the batting title?

 

If he drove in 135 runs and hit 65 home runs and led the majors in both, quite possibly.

 

3 percent of voters not voting for Tiger (or maybe just not voting at all) is no more egregious than a majority of NBA writers in any year the 1990s voting for anyone other than Michael Jordan for MVP.

 

No.... it's not possible.

Unless each of those 100 games goes at least 13 innings.

 

Is the batting title the only qualification needed for the MVP? If so, you may want to go back and change your vote to Mauer in the AL MVP threads.

 

Just saying... there is hardware handed out based on greatness AND how much you participate.

 

Just wondering, but if someone didn't cast a ballot, or left the first space blank would that count as a "no" vote for Tiger when all the ballots were tallied?
On the other hand, this happens all the time.
What if someone set the record for homeruns in a season and when it came time for the Hall of Fame writers weren't considering him since he didn't break any of baseball's rules at the time he was playing.

 

if it goes to the guy who wins the most, why have a vote?

 

Bad anaolgy. You need minimum at bats for the batting title. You should be asking if he would win the MVP. Players have won rookie of the year in half seasons.

 

That wasn't the question. The question was, with those numbers, would he be player of the year candidate?

 

Yeah... he was only breaking federal ones.

 

Not a bad analogy.

If you hit .360, you are the best hitter.

But MLB does not recognize you as such if you don't play enough.

Damn near perfect analogy.