How many times have you read this same article in the past ten seasons? The Yankees are really, really, really worried this time because they have such-and-such record against such-and-such teams and so-and-so is old or so-and-so is unproven in the playoffs.
He forgot to mention that Scott Brosius and Tino Martinez are gone, so they're obviously missing that certain something.
Of course the Yankees might not win the World Series. Winning eleven games in October isn't always easy. Ain't a sure thing in 2004, wasn't a sure thing in 1998. They might not get past the first round, the Cardinals might not get past the first round. The Red Sox and "creaky" Schilling might not even make the playoffs, making the theoretical Nitkowski-Ortiz matchup kind of irrelevant.
The best team doesn't always win. Heck, if you look at recent World Series history, you'd be forced to conclude that the best team usually does not win the World Series.
Torre could literally take the AL All Star team into the playoffs and claim many of the same concerns (they're old, they don't have a dominant lefty out of the bullpen, they don't have Randy Johnson, they might get swept by the A's if Mulder/Zito/Hudson are on their games ... I suppose in this particular scenario, AL All Star Mulder would be facing Oakland A's Mulder in game one, so that's pretty much a wash right there ... ).
It's very weak to merely claim the Yankees might not ... or even will not ... win the World Series. Because I'll say that about every team and I'll be correct 29 times out of 30.
Tell me who is going to win. That's a real prediction. But if you do make a real prediction, you'll probably be wrong. Not "Yankees vs. the Field," because it's just common sense to take the Field.
I feel compelled to vent about something else. Slow day, alright?
Please read the following sentence:
"... the way they could always package an Eric Milton and a Cristian Guzman for a Chuck Knoblauch, or trade a Brandon Claussen for an Aaron Boone, or deal Nick Johnson in a swap for a Vazquez."
Why is he using "a" and "an" to describe people? How did this become so popular in sports journalism?
The Yankees didn't pacakage "an" Eric Milton and "a" Cristian Guzman for "a" Chuck Knoblauch. The Yankees packaged Eric Milton and Cristian Guzman for Chuck Knoblauch!
Remove all the "as" and "ans" and re-read the sentence. There, wasn't that easier?
Eric Milton is not one example of several Eric Miltons. He's not "an" Eric Milton, he's just Eric Milton, God bless his unique little overrated heart. Stop treating these ballplayers like they're objects! They're people .... they're people!
There are exactly two indefinite articles in the English language. One is "a" and the other is "an."
If you say "an Eric Milton," you're saying that there are lots of Eric Miltons, but you can't identify which Eric Milton you are referring to. It could be any Eric Milton. Except there is only one precise Eric Milton to which you are referring, you big dummy. Mrs. Baker would have given me a frowny-face sticker in second grade for that kind of amateur nonsense.
Come on, folks. Let's at least try to put basic middle-school-level journalism into our sports journalism.
Also, yes, I completely understand how this evolved. It starts with a "a player like Nick Johnson," and the shorthand becomes "a Nick Johnson." But that still doesn't make any sense when you're talking about specific players.
3 comments:
Technically, the use is allowed. The New Oxford American Dictionary, for example, says that the indefinite article can be used to mean "someone like (the name specified): you're no better than a Hitler."
You're right that the paragraph you quote is pretty bad writing because if you're going to bother to list a bunch of examples, you're not being indefinite at all.
So yeah, the writer's a moron. I just wanted to point out that the indefinite article can correctly be used with a specific name.
Wow, thanks for your insightful comment. I could talk about this junk all day.
1) I think Hitler is so closely associated with his traits, that it is understood. "You're like Hitler" means you're evil. "You're like Mike Piazza" could mean lots of things.
2) "You're no better than Hitler" still sounds better than, and has the same meaning as, "You're no better than a Hitler."
3) As you pointed out, it makes no sense when referring specifically to Hitler. Then, you're just saying "Hitler is like Hitler." The Yankees traded a player like Eric Milton. That player was Eric Milton. That's the most Eric Milton-like player there is!
4) I still don't know why this practice has specifically siezed sports journalists, as suddenly popular as using the phrase, "walk off homerun."
5) Disclaimer: While I cast arrows at the journalistic shortcomings of others, please note that this blog certainly contains grammatical errors somewhere. But I meant to do it that way.
Gosh, I have a lot of time on my hands ...
mad props for mentioning Mrs. Baker, my 2nd grade teacher for approximately 3 weeks (I moved to NJ on June 1 of that year).
Post a Comment