Leading Batsman

[bhss89]

Good night nurse, I had no idea that I would offend anyone with my cricket reference.

If you guys say batsman is correct, they I'm good with that; as I said, I was just having some fun. I could care less what is correct as far as the Dodgers are concerned though, as I feel we have hitters, not batsmen, in our line-up.

C'mon baby, light my fire.

I give up, mojorisin71 is the ultimate BF authority on semantics.

[The Commissioner]

"Batsman" is the correct term.

I'm actually going to go way out on a limb and say Nomar here. The main question is whether he'll actually obtain enough at-bats to qualify in this category. If so, does he still have enough gas in the tank?

[bhss89]

Lizard King: Ride the snake!

I was only giving you a hard time about semantics. Batsman, batter, hitter, whatever, as long as the Dodgers win between 90 and 95 games you can call them whatever you want.

Oh, and I love cricket, so the aforementioned reference was not a slam on the game that may one day send a star or two to baseball (Gilchrist almost received a tryout with BoSox)

[mojorisin71]

When a player gets HBP, is he considered a "hit hitter" or a "hit batsman"? I've heard "leading batsman" in a baseball context. So the wording is appropriate.

[bhss89]

I thought batsmen played cricket?
At any rate, other teams may field line-ups with batters in them.
The Dodgers line-up is full of hitters.

[mojorisin71]

Who will be the highest batting average on the Dodgers in 2006?