Deserved All Stars on your team

[soxfan1468927]

:useful:

I actually thought it was ABs. Thanks for the clarification.
*which now that I think about it is stupid because it would penalize a patient hitter

It used to be 2.6 at bats per team game but was changed in 1957. The best example of a player being penalized for being a patient hitter was Ted Williams in 1954. He had 386 at-bats (20 shy of the required 406 needed that year), but he had 526 plate appearances which would have qualified him under the post-1957 rule. Williams, therefore, is not considered to have won the batting title that year, even though he had a .345 average (highest in the AL).

With the advent of the 162-game schedule, the requirement is always 502 plate appearances (with exceptions to strike-shortened years). However, if a player does not reach that number, he isn't automatically disqualified for the batting title. The difference in his plate appearances, to 502, are counted as 0-fers. And if his batting average is still the highest, he is awarded the crown. This occurred in 1996 when Tony Gwynn hit .353 in 498 plate appearances. Add the 4 plate appearances on to his total, and 0 hits, and he still would be at .349 and 5 points higher than 2nd place Ellis Burks.

 

[StanMarsh51]

1.Ender Inciarte
2.Matt Kemp
3.Matt Adams.

As good a year as Adams is having, he's at best the 4th best 1B (if we consider him a 1B) in the NL. Zimmerman, Goldschmidt, Votto are on another level.

 

[DrewScott]

Mets don't deserve to have any All-stars. For a while it would have been Conforto, but he's trailed off. I guess Jay Bruce would have to be the candidate.

 

[rtfgbfan]

Huh? Joey Votto? Zack Cozart?

True, true. I guess I should have explained that when the Reds are as bad as they are right now the absolute last damn thing I care about is who makes the All-star team.

 

[calsnowskier]

It used to be 2.6 at bats per team game but was changed in 1957. The best example of a player being penalized for being a patient hitter was Ted Williams in 1954. He had 386 at-bats (20 shy of the required 406 needed that year), but he had 526 plate appearances which would have qualified him under the post-1957 rule. Williams, therefore, is not considered to have won the batting title that year, even though he had a .345 average (highest in the AL).

With the advent of the 162-game schedule, the requirement is always 502 plate appearances (with exceptions to strike-shortened years). However, if a player does not reach that number, he isn't automatically disqualified for the batting title. The difference in his plate appearances, to 502, are counted as 0-fers. And if his batting average is still the highest, he is awarded the crown. This occurred in 1996 when Tony Gwynn hit .353 in 498 plate appearances. Add the 4 plate appearances on to his total, and 0 hits, and he still would be at .349 and 5 points higher than 2nd place Ellis Burks.

I think it is pretty stupid the the "batting crown" is looked at as more of a trophy than just a statistical category. The "winner" should be the player who leads the category. Period. If they don't qualify, they don't qualify.

In '12, if Melky had one more AB, he SHOULD have been the "Batting Champ". Saying a player can't lead the league in a statistical category, EVEN IF HE LEADS THE LEAGUE IN THE STATISTICAL CATEGORY is nothing short of historical gymnastics.

 

[Mistaken4193]

As good a year as Adams is having, he's at best the 4th best 1B (if we consider him a 1B) in the NL. Zimmerman, Goldschmidt, Votto are on another level.

Freemans better than all of them.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Might be. 3 catchers will be taken in the NL and it could be Grandal and Realmuto backing up Posey. I was looking more for who you think "deserves" to go instead of who you predict will go. Personally, I think Flowers deserves to be there.

Also the first 2 months of the season he was in a 60/40 type platoon with Kurt Suzuki so he might not have played enough. This lasts month its became more 80/20 for Flowers.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

As good a year as Adams is having, he's at best the 4th best 1B (if we consider him a 1B) in the NL. Zimmerman, Goldschmidt, Votto are on another level.

I wouldnt ignore the season Mark Reynolds has had

 

[StanMarsh51]

Freemans better than all of them.

And Freeman's missed half the year, so it's hard to put him in the discussion for the AS game, no?

 

[Mistaken4193]

And Freeman's missed half the year, so it's hard to put him in the discussion for the AS game, no?

He led the NL in homers when he got hurt and is suppose to be back next Thursday according to him(idk if realistic).... he was hittin .341 with 14 HRs.......but youre right he probably missed too much time.

 

[StanMarsh51]

He led the NL in homers when he got hurt and is suppose to be back next Thursday according to him(idk if realistic).... he was hittin .341 with 14 HRs.......but youre right he probably missed too much time.

He did, but you can never project/expect someone to stay on that pace. I mean, Harper for instance was hitting .388 after 35 games (about the same number that Freeman has), but he's come back down to earth the more he played and is not hitting .320 (still great, but not the video game numbers from his small 35 game sample size).

 

[soxfan1468927]

I think it is pretty stupid the the "batting crown" is looked at as more of a trophy than just a statistical category. The "winner" should be the player who leads the category. Period. If they don't qualify, they don't qualify.

In '12, if Melky had one more AB, he SHOULD have been the "Batting Champ". Saying a player can't lead the league in a statistical category, EVEN IF HE LEADS THE LEAGUE IN THE STATISTICAL CATEGORY is nothing short of historical gymnastics.

I'm confused. Don't the two things you are saying contradict each other? You are saying that if a player doesn't qualify, he doesn't qualify. So it seems you are against the idea of giving Melky an 0-fer for that one plate appearance and giving him the crown. But then you go on to say that he should be the batting champ.

But Melky should have been crowned batting champ, under the rule, but he requested to be removed from consideration after he was suspended for PEDs.

 

[broncosmitty]

JD Martinez shouldn't be excluded from consideration.


Even though he missed so much time.(changed my mind)

 

[calsnowskier]

I'm confused. Don't the two things you are saying contradict each other? You are saying that if a player doesn't qualify, he doesn't qualify. So it seems you are against the idea of giving Melky an 0-fer for that one plate appearance and giving him the crown. But then you go on to say that he should be the batting champ.

But Melky should have been crowned batting champ, under the rule, but he requested to be removed from consideration after he was suspended for PEDs.

I said IF he had the extra AB. But he backed out due to pressure. I believe it has since become a rule, though.

Statistics are statistics.

 

[soxfan1468927]

I said IF he had the extra AB. But he backed out due to pressure. I believe it has since become a rule, though.

Statistics are statistics.

Okay so you're saying that if he did get the at-bat, they should have given him the crown even though he was suspended in the season? If so, I agree.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Does Judge still lead in the Triple Crown?

 

[calsnowskier]

Okay so you're saying that if he did get the at-bat, they should have given him the crown even though he was suspended in the season? If so, I agree.

Yup. That's what I am saying.

The "batting crown" simply goes to the guy who has the highest BA. It is not a subjective "award".

 

[jeffro151]

Jonathan Schoop
Trey Mancini

 

[soxfan1468927]

Does Judge still lead in the Triple Crown?

I believe so. I know Cruz caught him for a bit in RBI, but he's back on top.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I believe so. I know Cruz caught him for a bit in RBI, but he's back on top.

You must be so excited