--- In SABR_Records@yahoogroups.com, "dsreyn" <dreynolds@...> wrote:
>
> As many probably know, Barry Bonds fell nine plate appearances short
> of qualifying for the on-base title last year. Scoring rule 10.23
(a),
> which allows for exceptions for players who don't meet the 3.1
PA/game
> requirement, did not include the on-base title, though the rule has
> been amended for the 2007 season.
....
> Does anyone know of a reliable source for a statement from Elias or
> MLB on this?

Copied below is what was forwarded to me about this, right after
elias had been informed that Bonds had fallen just short of
qualifying:

""""""
FROM STEVE HIRDT ELIAS SPORTS BUREAU:

This email will summarize conversations that I have had with my
colleagues at Elias and with you throughout today and this evening.

Although the Baseball Rules define how to compute on-base percentage,
the rules do not specify minimum criteria to be met to be considered
as the league leader in that category (as they do for batting
average, slugging average, ERAs and fielding percentages). However,
in the past, Elias has always applied the criteria that apply to the
leaders in the other offensive "percentage" categories – namely,
batting average and slugging average – to determine the annual leader
in on-base percentage.

Accordingly, we will recognize Barry Bonds as the 2006 National
League leader in on-base percentage, even though he failed to
accumulate the 502 plate appearances normally needed to qualify for
league leadership. The reason is that, in the absence of any rule
outlining criteria for on-base percentage leadership, Elias models
its consideration of who should qualify for OBP leadership on Rule
10.23(a) ("Minimum Standards For Individual Championships"), which
governs, among other things, which players qualify for the lead in
batting average and slugging average. That rule is repeated here,
with the key sentence italicized (by me):

MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL CHAMPIONSHIPS
10.23
To assure uniformity in establishing the batting, pitching and
fielding championships of professional leagues, such champions shall
meet the following minimum performance standards:
(a) The individual batting champion or slugging champion shall be the
player with the highest batting average or slugging percentage,
provided he is credited with as many or more total appearances at the
plate in League Championship games as the number of games scheduled
for each club in his league that season, multiplied by 3.1 in the
case of a major league player. EXCEPTION: However, if there is any
player with fewer than the required number of plate appearances whose
average would be the highest, if he were charged with the required
number of plate appearances or official at bats, then that player
shall be awarded the batting championship or slugging championship.
EXAMPLE: If a major league schedules 162 games for each club, 502
plate appearances qualify (162 times 3.1 equals 502). If a National
Association league schedules 140 games for each club, 378 plate
appearances qualify (140 times 2.7 equals 378).
Total appearances at the plate shall include official times at bat,
plus bases on balls, times hit by pitcher, sacrifice hits, sacrifice
flies and times awarded first base because of interference or
obstruction.

Bonds accumulated only 493 plate appearances this season – nine short
of 502 – but his on-base percentage was so high (.454) that even were
he to fail to reach base in any of nine additional plate appearances,
his average would still be higher (it would be .446) than the next-
highest qualifier, Albert Pujols (.431). Accordingly, Bonds should
be recognized as the leader.

This is the same procedure by which Tony Gwynn became the National
League batting champion in 1996. He had only 498 plate appearances
that season, but his average was high enough so that even if he were
to be hitless in four additional at-bats, his average still would
have been the highest in the National League. This is actually a
good rule, meant to reward regular players who are truly superior in
a particular category, and there is no sleight-of-hand here. Rule
10.23(a) has been on the books for more than 30 years.

No qualifier for on-base percentage is mentioned in 10.23(a) because
at the time it was written, on-base percentage was not as common a
part of baseball's lexicon as it is today. But while the on-base
qualifier is not mentioned explicitly, this clearly would be the
intent of the rule, and both common sense and fairness demand that
Bonds be regarded as the league leader.

In our on-going discussions about amending and re-codifying the
scoring rules, we should likely include on-base percentage in the
list of categories governed by 10.23(a).
"""""



Trent McCotter