Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Heavenly hitting


Matt Foley

Recommended Posts

Has a team ever had nine .300 hitters before? My Angels have a shot.

OF Bobby Abreu .322

OF Juan Rivera .316

3B Chone Figgins .313

SS Erick Aybar .309

OF Torii Hunter .305

2B M. Izturis .302

1B K. Morales .299

DH V. Guerrero (has had like 10 straight .300 seasons but needs to finish strong)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Vlad hitting??

He's hitting like .270 this year, I think, but I could plug in Mike Napoli at C, too. He's hitting .300 now. I could put Izturis at DH and Kendrick at 2B. Kendrick is hitting lights out since getting demoted and Vlad doesn't have that many at bats this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

They should obviously send Napoli to to the minors to work on some things.

He might be the best hitter on the team. He hits for power (two HRs in one game vs. Boston in the playoffs last year), but gets platooned because Scioscia likes the way another catcher, Jeff Mathis, handles the pitchers, and Guerrero can't play OF any more so he gets all of the DH at bats when he's "healthy."

But...we'll probably lose to Boston in the playoffs again. We're doing everything we can to get Texas in ahead of Boston, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current averages...

Abreu .313

Rivera .307

Aybar .307

Hunter .305

Guerrero .303

Morales .301

Izturis .301

Figgins .300

Napoli .294

Nine starters, only one under .300

While that is impressive, and the angels are a very good hitting team. I must point out that Hunter, Guerrero, Izturis, and Napoli don't have enough AB's to qualify for a batting title. Guerrero is close, the others not so much (they all have less than 300 ABs). So I'll give you the nine players almost hitting .300 for an instance. But definitely not for a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While that is impressive, and the angels are a very good hitting team. I must point out that Hunter, Guerrero, Izturis, and Napoli don't have enough AB's to qualify for a batting title. Guerrero is close, the others not so much (they all have less than 300 ABs). So I'll give you the nine players almost hitting .300 for an instance. But definitely not for a season.

I think only three or four of those guys will have enough ABs to compete for a batting title. And let's face it, none of them are a threat. But they'll go into the playoffs possibly with nine .300 hitters in the lineup. I don't think the Yankees or Red Sox, with their gargantuan payrolls, have ever even come close to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...