A tale of two batting titles

Don't worry, Rockies fans: I'm not going to lecture anyone about the right way to win a batting title€ ... because that seems an awful lot like a moral or ethical judgment, and a batting title that'€™s going to be forgotten in about three days hardly deserves such judging.

Still, we certainly saw the starkest of contrasts, Sunday, between the American League batting titlist and the National League batting titlist.

In the American League, Jose Altuve entered the season's final day with a three-point lead over Victor Martinez, .340 to .337.

Three points is a lot in late September. If Martinez had gone 3-for-4 in the Tigers'€™ big game against the Twins, he would have finished at .340 ... but that's after rounding. Here's without rounding:

0.339858

Meanwhile, this was Altuve'€™s pre-Sunday average without rounding:

0.339939

There'€™s never been an absolute tie for a batting title, but this would not have been the closest batting race ever. In 2003, Albert Pujols edged Todd Helton by .00022 after Helton was intentionally walked in his last at-bat (then-Padres manager Bruce Bochy apologized after finding out how much the plate appearance meant to Helton). There were even closer races in the American League, in 1945 and 1949.

Still, this one would have been incredibly close, and of course Martinez would actually have finished on top with a 4-for-4 game.

Martinez’s Tigers and Altuve’s Astros were scheduled to start their Sunday afternoon games at almost exactly the same time. With that three-point lead, Altuve’s prudent course of action was obvious: Start the game on the bench, and remain there unless Martinez hit safely in his first two or three at-bats.

And in fact, that was clearly the organization’s plan ... for about two-and-a-half hours. When the Astros posted their lineup Sunday morning, Altuve wasn’t in it. Two-and-a-half hours later, he was. By all accounts, he wanted to play all along, but the organization didn’t. Exactly why the change was made, we don’t really know. Evan Drelich suggests it was “perhaps inspired by a tremendous backlash on social media,” but there’s not yet any real evidence of that.

In the event, Altuve’s 2-for-4 game was moot, as Martinez went 0-for-3 against the Twins. Final score: Altuve .341, Martinez .335.

Meanwhile, the National League race went in a completely different direction.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about Josh Harrison’s unlikely run toward a batting title. At the time, the .318-hitting utilityman held a one-point lead over Rockies first baseman Justin Morneau.

Entering Saturday’s slate, Harrison was still batting .318 ... but he’d dropped behind Morneau in the race. Morneau before rounding:

0.319361

and Harrison before rounding:

0.318359

That’s just one point!

Saturday, the Pirates had an afternoon game, the Rockies a night game. Even though it was just one point, this left Morneau with a big advantage and he used it. Harrison went 1-for-4 in his game, keeping him a point behind. With the lead, Morneau’s best move was to not lose any ground ... and the only way to ensure that was by not playing at all. Which he didn’t, even though the Rockies wound up using three pinch-hitters in a 12-inning loss to the Dodgers.

Same situation Sunday, as the Pirates played three hours before the Rockies. This time Harrison went 0-for-4, and again Morneau didn’t start.

In fact, by that time he really couldn’t lose. By the time the Rockies and Dodgers started, the Pirates had lost and this was Harrison’s final figure:

0.315385

Even if Morneau had gone 0-for-6 Sunday against the Dodgers, he still would have finished with a .316 average.

Instead he opened the game on the bench, and appeared only to pinch-hit in the eighth inning of a 10-5 loss. Here's Patrick Saunders in The Denver Post:

Again, maybe I’m missing something. But Morneau’s right: He and management did know where they stood. Anything better than ZERO FOR SIX would have netted the batting title. Was the possibility of that happening so slight, they figured nobody would hold it against them if he didn’t start the game? Was the possibility of that happening large enough that they just didn’t want to take any chances? Maybe the game goes 14 innings or something, and Weiss is faced with the terrible dilemma of pulling Morneau for a pinch-hitter or letting him bat for himself and perhaps losing the title?

I don’t know. The whole thing seems strange to me. But of course the real gamesmanship came Saturday, when Morneau sat with that one-point lead. Against a right-handed starting pitcher. In a game the Rockies lost by one run.

Like I said, I’m not here to moralize. These days, and perhaps forever, players and/or their managers have chosen the safe routes in these matters. Which is why we tend to remember those who didn’t. Let’s say your favorite teams are the Astros and the Pirates, though. Which of these titles will you remember more fondly?

I know what my answer would be. I’ve been here. In 1990, George Brett started just one of the Royals’ last five games in the interest of securing his third batting title. Which he did, if just barely.

I wanted Brett to win that third title. Even more, I wanted the Royals to win those five games. Later, Royals manager John Wathan would say, “We were putting the pencil to the numbers to figure when was best to play George and sure enough, we were able to get it done.”

Well, gee, and here I thought management’s job was putting the pencil to the numbers to figure out how to win more games. The Royals very nearly finished last that season for the first time in franchise history, which would have bothered me a lot more than their superstar finishing behind Rickey Henderson in the stupid batting race.

There aren’t any absolutes here. Once a team has no chance of reaching the postseason (or has already clinched), the manager will make out all sorts of odd-looking, competition-second lineups. So it’s not really that Brett’s or Morneau’s batting titles aren’t legitimate. It’s just that Altuve’s is more legitimate. And will be for as long as we can still remember or care about such trivial things.