BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: If teams were comprised of only players they drafted

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, June 05, 2014

If teams were comprised of only players they drafted

fun project by one of the authors at brewcrewball. thought folks might be interested. if you are just going to nitpick how the lists were constructed go (anatomically impossible act).

Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 05, 2014 at 02:38 PM | 79 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: draft, mlb, scouting

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4720239)

May I nitpick the link you inserted?

Intended link

2. villageidiom Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:01 AM (#4720243)

EDIT: deleted, as mrams beat me to it.

3. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:10 AM (#4720248)

This is pretty interesting. One more line for each team that totaled the WAR would have been great but it's still pretty neat. The fun thing is that it includes players who did not sign (like Alvarez or Teixeira with the Red Sox). That's a fun walk down the road not traveled.

4. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4720251)

The proper link.

5. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4720253)

This is a pretty great illustration of my years-long criticism of the Indians' drafts.

Lincecum is #2 in career rWAR among Indians draftees, but he was a draft-and-follow who didn't sign. If you don't give them credit for Timmeh, the leader in career rWAR among Tribe draftees (non-Sabathia division) is Jeremy Guthrie.

To recap: The second-most productive active player the Indians have drafted with the intention to sign is a league-average starting pitcher who has (at various times) led his league in hits allowed, home runs allowed, and losses, and who has a career FIP of 4.77.

6. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4720254)

He lists the team totals in the comments section.

1 ) 276.8 | Los Angeles Dodgers
2 ) 269.2 | St. Louis Cardinals
3 ) 264.4 | Kansas City Royals
4 ) 247.7 | Los Angeles Angels
5 ) 246.4 | Philadelphia Phillies

26 ) 123.8 | San Diego Padres
27 ) 122.6 | Houston Astros
28 ) 119.2 | Seattle Mariners
29 ) 115.4 | Toronto Blue Jays
30 ) 111.3 | Chicago White Sox

The White Sox really aren't that low, as he left off their best, Buehrle (57.6) WAR. I'd comment about the exclusion there rather than nitpick here, but I don't want to go through the hassle of registering (or re-registering, as the case might be) simply to let him know about his mistake.

7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4720256)

Why would you exclude international amateur FAs?

In most of this period, when there was no cap on bonuses, there was a clear trade-off between spending money on the draft, or internationally..

8. Bourbon Samurai is disturbed by bagel developments Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:29 AM (#4720259)

Fun list, althoug I don't love that they count guys who didn't sign

9. Random Transaction Generator Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:30 AM (#4720260)

Holy crap, the Toronto Blue Jays are terrible!

10. Curse of the Graffanino (dfan) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4720263)

To continue to nitpick, that should be "If teams comprised only players they drafted".

11. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4720264)

It'd be fun to work out the WAR/PA & WAR/IP for all of the players, then prorate them to arbitrary "season" totals based on their roles on the various teams. Then work out league standings from that.

The Jays' starting SS, Tyler Pastornicky, has -1.8 WAR (worst of any starting position player), but that's in only 262 career PA. I'd love to see what he could do given a full season!

EDIT: My biggest nitpick is Joe Mauer as the 44.7 WAR first baseman for the Twins. Either he's a 44.7 WAR player, or he's a first baseman (with ~30-35 WAR). No way he's both, unless we want to go with a lot of speculative counterfactuals regarding health and playing time and so on. It might make sense for the Twins in the Pretend Draftee League to play Mauer at 1B, but that goes against the spirit of the thing. If you do that you need to move a bunch of other guys around (starting with the Braves' Jordan Schaefer to the bench, Heyward to CF, and Gattis or Kelly Johnson to starting OF).

12. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:42 AM (#4720266)

better u guys go after me then the author who i thought did some interesting.

as fo rteh link no idea what happened. cut and pasted the url directly. done that plenty for other articles. i presume something got cropped?

as for the spelling typing with one hand bit me. i should have checked more closely.

13. kthejoker Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4720269)

I wish he'd modify it to include international signings and such, a lot of good players not on this list at all (and the Astros would rocket up with Bobby Abreu and Johan Santana) . Still, fascinating.

14. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:48 AM (#4720271)

Why would you exclude international amateur FAs?

It's just a look at the draft. It doesn't seem to be meant as anything more than "this is how they drafted." It's more fun than analytical. We can pick and choose all sorts of issues but I find it fun to kind of look at who teams drafted. As I noted above that's why I also like the inclusion of unsigned guys.

15. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: June 06, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4720288)

They left my namesake off the Twins in favor of Danny Valencia. Boo!!!

16. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4720296)

I like the piece, thanks for posting it Harvey. I don't know why, but I often forget about brewcrewball when scanning brewers news.

17. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4720302)

mrams

that site is churning out a lot of good content. and the really negative tone of the comments section has abated not just because the team is more successful but some of the prolific/very negative posters have moved on to other things.

it;s one of the rare sb nation success stories by my view. most of those team blog sites are rubbish coupled with drivel with a side of coddwollop

18. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4720310)

EDIT: Nevermind.

19. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: June 06, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4720317)

#16--seconded. I've often wondered this myself--great to see someone actually took the time!

20. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4720330)

The Jays' starting SS, Tyler Pastornicky, has -1.8 WAR (worst of any starting position player), but that's in only 262 career PA. I'd love to see what he could do given a full season!

If you buy into the thinking behind the replacement-level concept, don't you have to keep Pastornicky off the team? Because the Jays would have to have drafted a theoretical replacement shortstop at some point along the line.

21. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4720337)

Dear Everybody in the English-Speaking World,

Please look up the definition of "comprise." That is all.

22. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4720339)

billy

not a fan of folks being cryptic. what's your point?

if you are trying to be funny please help me understand the humor

23. Man o' Schwar Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4720341)

The White Sox really aren't that low, as he left off their best, Buehrle (57.6) WAR.

The Cubs aren't really that high - 133.2 total WAR, but 23 comes from Lincecum (whom they never signed). I guess the article gives teams credit for identifying good players, even if they were subsequently unable to ink them to deals.

24. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4720354)

I'd be hesitant to include non-signed guys as I would think it would be a pretty diverse group. Guys who were taken in the 45th round because they were almost certainly going to college and you had a 0.005% chance of signing them, but why not take a shot? I'm not sure teams should get credit for that. Then there are guys taken in the first round who you presumably thought you had a chance at, and were willing to spend your first pick on, but didn't come to terms. I can see maybe including them, but ideally I'd go with signed players only.

25. kthejoker Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:56 AM (#4720358)

The Astros SB Nation blog is excellent during these hard times, but as they've kind of hit on a bit of a run here towards relevancy, the poster quality has already dipped substantially.

I imagine for popular ballclubs those sites are full of nightmare userbases.

26. Dale Sams Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4720361)

What does Brandon Moss have to do to get some respect????

27. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4720362)

22: If you look up the definition of "comprise" you find that it means the opposite of what most people think it means. The headline should be "If teams were composed of only players they drafted". To use "comprise" properly, it would be: "If teams only comprised players they drafted".

However, I think this is a lost cause now. The word "comprise" is now an exact synonym for a similar-sounding word, like "reticent".

28. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4720368)

Harvey,

Sorry, wasn't meaning to frustrate you. Yes, as Crispix indicates, "comprise" is a constantly misused word. I've even seen it misused in Supreme Court opinions. Drives me up a wall, as a former journalism major. We're also losing the battle for "literally," which is even worse.

29. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4720375)

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=comprise

to be made up of (something) : to include or consist of

ok, willing to be educated. what's your point again?

not defending anything. somewhat confused

30. base ball chick Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:13 PM (#4720376)

am not understanding the complaining about the word "comprised"

- it means "consist of, be made up of" - according to the dictionary. a team is comprised of 25 players. a team is comprised of drafted players.

"composed of" is listed as a synonym, and the sentence given as an example is a duplicate.

what, exactly, is the problem? how is it that people think that comprised is the opposite of ?consist of, be made up of"?

31. base ball chick Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4720378)

harvey as usual beat me to it

also

i notice i do not see any of the usual posters who are always complaining about the endless number of jeter/MSM posts, and want good baseball stuff. WELL, HERE IT IS!!!

and this was a great article. i swear i remember schilling talking like this the first time i ever heard him on tv, but, sigh, i guess then he went too far

32. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4720381)

According to Webster's, "comprised" has been used as synonymous with "composed" "since the late 18th century [but] is still attacked as wrong". Webster's states further: "Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres".

33. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4720384)

non youk

and folks think i am outdated. ha, ha

34. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4720389)

Brandon Belt ends up starting in left field for both the Braves and the Red Sox while simultaneously playing 1B for the Giants. Does anyone else manage to crack more starting lineups?

35. PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4720390)

Personally I'd prefer "composed" in the headline but "comprised" is fine. As a semiprofessional editor, I really wish people would quit listening to their English teachers quite so much.

36. base ball chick Posted: June 06, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4720396)

zeth

why prefer "composed"?

please explain, and give some kind of backup from dictionaries. I have been looking and am not able to find any evidence that "comprised" was used incorecctly in that sentence

37. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4720435)

OK, I guess I stand grudgingly corrected. Merriam-Webster now includes both the definition that was beaten into us journalism students (late 1990s) as correct (#1 - to be made up of (something) : to include) or consist of (something)) and the one that was similarly beaten into us as incorrect (#2 - to make up or form (something)). Fair enough. But I'll fight to the death for "literally." Figuratively speaking, of course.

38. base ball chick Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4720440)

literally means exactly or actually or precisely, as a fact

how is it used to mean something else?

am not understanding the literal meaning of your complaint

39. Nasty Nate Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4720445)

literally means exactly or actually or precisely, as a fact

how is it used to mean something else?

People use it to mean "figuratively."

40. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4720446)

People use it to mean "figuratively."

That literally made my head explode.

Irregardless, I could care less about the matter. :-)

41. Nasty Nate Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4720449)

Incorrect: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally screwed the pooch by getting caught up in that tax evasion scandal"

Correct: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally screwed the pooch by getting caught up in that bestiality scandal."

42. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4720450)

Jose, your comment makes me nauseous.

(Checks Merriam-Webster)

Dammit! We lost that one too. Apparently Merriam-Webster's new philosophy is "if people misuse it, the definition must have been wrong." This reminds me of this girl I used to know who, for reasons unknown, always used "subsequently" in the same way people now misuse "literally."* It was pretty funny at the time, but now I'm thinking it'll probably be accepted usage in 2024. Subsequently.

*Yes, of course she was attractive enough to get away with it.

43. Manny Coon Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4720455)

If you think usage defines meaning literally literally means both literally and not literally, and generally it's obvious and common enough in how it's being used, it shouldn't be a problem.

44. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4720458)

OK, I'm convinced that "comprised of" has actually been a useless synonym of "composed of" for decades and decades instead of this happening recently. The question is now why people use "comprised of" instead of "composed of", since it means the exact same thing while using a less common word.

But it IS annoying that people now use "reticent" to mean "reluctant". THAT happened recently.

45. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: June 06, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4720465)

Correct: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally screwed the pooch by getting caught up in that bestiality scandal."

Correcter: "Senatorial candidate Truby literally proves how much he loves animals on a regular basis" (according to members of his party).

46. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4720483)

If you think usage defines meaning literally literally means both literally and not literally, and generally it's obvious and common enough in how it's being used, it shouldn't be a problem.

The one I like is "scan"

1. to glance at or over or read hastily: to scan a page.
2. to examine the particulars or points of minutely; scrutinize.

Hey, English language, way to be unambiguous!

47. Gaelan Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4720485)

Dammit! We lost that one too. Apparently Merriam-Webster's new philosophy is "if people misuse it, the definition must have been wrong."

This has always been their philosophy. They are the bible of the linguistic descriptivists and should be treated with the scorn they deserve.

48. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4720490)

This has always been their philosophy. They are the bible of the linguistic descriptivists and should be treated with the scorn they deserve.

In that case, I break wind in their general direction.

49. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4720495)

The only one I ever really nit-pick about is uninterested/disinterested.

And that's only because I once got into the stupidest fight of all time with a girlfriend because I had described myself as a "disinterested party" in the issue she was discussing, and she took that to mean I was not interested in it as a topic of conversation. I spent the first half of the argument trying to figure out what the point of contention was. Since that day I've been inclined to think it would be nice if we established a clear different between the two. Either that or treat them as synonyms 100% of the time. #### or get off the pot, I say.

50. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4720503)

Actually another language question. I see the word "disconnect" all the time in North America, in academic writing, in a BTF thread just a few seconds ago, and elsewhere. I'm not a huge fan of it, but I'll throw it in on occasion when I can't immediately find a better phrase. I noticed while in grad school in the UK my use of the word was met with befuddlement. Not disapproval, as in "that's a lame word, we don't use it here", but genuine confusion as if they had never seen it before. Is it a North American creation? Or is it just so disapproved of that its existence is subconsciously deleted from the mind upon reading.

51. bookbook Posted: June 06, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4720510)

How hard would it be to run diamond mind monte carlo simulations on these rosters?

Because, after all, lifetime WAR isn't really what teams are hoping to see in 2014.

52. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4720519)

OK, fine, Greg - we admit it. The words we make up over here aren't as cool as the ones on your side of the pond. You guys come up with "chuffed" and "flummoxed" and "gobsmacked," and we give you "disconnect," "spend" as a noun and "Kardashian." You don't have to rub it in. You guys put all sourts of unnecessary U's all ovour the place. So there.

53. esseff Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4720521)

Another one getting away from us: "officially," which is now used to mean something akin to "emphatically" and not to describe official or authorative action. I've seen this so much that I'm officially concerned.

54. esseff Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4720526)

And, for the record, here is CMS on comprise/compose:

"Use these with care. To comprise is 'to be made up of, to include' {the whole comprises the parts}. To compose is 'to make up, to form the substance of something' {the parts compose the whole}. The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage. Instead, use composed of or consisting of.

55. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4720532)

OK, fine, Greg - we admit it. The words we make up over here aren't as cool as the ones on your side of the pond. You guys come up with "chuffed" and "flummoxed" and "gobsmacked," and we give you "disconnect," "spend" as a noun and "Kardashian." You don't have to rub it in. You guys put all sourts of unnecessary U's all ovour the place. So there.

Hey, I'm on your side of the pond!

Though on any side of any pond, honour's got a U in it. That's just commoun sense.

56. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4720537)

"Use these with care. To comprise is 'to be made up of, to include' {the whole comprises the parts}. To compose is 'to make up, to form the substance of something' {the parts compose the whole}. The phrase comprised of, though increasingly common, is poor usage. Instead, use composed of or consisting of.

Bingo.

Re "officially," I don't necessarily think people mean it literally (there's that word again) when they use it in that context - as in, they're using it in an exaggerated fashion to suggest that they're so emphatic as to want to convey the weight of official or authoritative action. But they don't actually think that's the definition. I could be wrong about that though.

57. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4720543)

Hey, I'm on your side of the pond!

My mistake. There's a Greg(U)K around here, though, right?

I'm trying to come up with words made up by Canadians that aren't "eh" or just overly literal pronunciations ("been," "against"). I got nothin'. Canadians probably consider it presumptuous and ostentatious to try to make up words of their own.

58. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: June 06, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4720562)

My mistake. There's a Greg(U)K around here, though, right?

My understanding is that Greg K is the repatriated version of Greg (U)K, now home from graduate school.

59. Randy Jones

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4720566)

I'm trying to come up with words made up by Canadians that aren't "eh" or just overly literal pronunciations ("been," "against"). I got nothin'. Canadians probably consider it presumptuous and ostentatious to try to make up words of their own.

hoser

60. Man o' Schwar Posted: June 06, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4720567)

Well, this article generated some discussion. Not necessarily baseball discussion, but it's something.

61. villageidiom Posted: June 06, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4720589)

- it means "consist of, be made up of" - according to the dictionary. a team is comprised of 25 players.

It's correct enough but not concise enough.

comprises = is made up of

A team is comprised of 25 players = A team is is made up of of 25 players

A team comprises 25 players = A team is made up of 25 players.

In a way, it's like saying "ATM machine", given that the M in ATM already stands for machine. It conveys the same meaning, but with needless words.

62. cardsfanboy

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4720651)

As far as the article go, nice seeing it all, I'm not sure I agree with the take of including players who didn't sign, but that is a nitpick, and agree that each chart needed one more line totaling the team totals.

I'm surprised to see the White Sox ranking so poorly overall. Nearly every time I've looked into it, the White Sox generally do very well in regards to developing pitchers. (mind you my standard was first team to play for at the major league level, so maybe they just do a good job of trading for pitchers) (Exact same thing can be said about the Blue Jays)

63. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4720652)

My understanding is that Greg K is the repatriated version of Greg (U)K, now home from graduate school.

Yeah that about sums it up. I temporarily added the (U) while I was living in the UK. This is unrelated to the added "U"s in words which I still use as a Canadian.

Though annoyingly I just submitted an article to a historical journal, which is based in Canada, that made me change all my "honours" and "favours" to the American spelling. Go figure.

64. Greg K Posted: June 06, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4720656)

I'm trying to come up with words made up by Canadians that aren't "eh" or just overly literal pronunciations ("been," "against"). I got nothin'. Canadians probably consider it presumptuous and ostentatious to try to make up words of their own.

I don't actually know if they are Canadian words or not. I've only ever spent time in America a week at a time at most, so I've never been able to soak up American culture to the extent that I'd know if a word is used there or not. Actually I did spend two weeks in Florida this winter, but it was at my parent's condo where 85% of the population is Canadian.

So are any of these words in standard American parlance?

Toque
Chesterfield
Garburator
Double Double

Consulting a list on wiki it appears serviette, two-four (as in a case of 24 beer), pencil crayon, washroom (really?), and eaves trough are also Canadian words.

EDIT: There are also distinct western Canadian words that are pretty foreign to my eastern ears, not sure how they sound to Americans...for instance, gitch, bunnyhug, and for some reason they call date squares "matrimonial cake".

Also in Saskatchewan they call parties, especially something organized through school or a club, "cabarets" or "socials".

65. jayjay Posted: June 06, 2014 at 07:50 PM (#4720726)

I really dislike that non-signees are included. Why is Yonder Alonso the Twins' catcher and Joe Mauer their first baseman, with Justin Morneau not on the team? That doesn't make any sense.

66. Gaelan Posted: June 06, 2014 at 08:34 PM (#4720741)

"Pop" is a good Canadian word. Though the distinction there actually crosses borders. When I lived in Northern Virginia, I was at the cash register and said to my wife "should we get some pop?" The cashier turned to me and asked, "are you from Pennsylvania?"

67. Harveys Wallbangers

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 08:55 PM (#4720751)

All the faux word smiths are welcome to sit with my ex son in law, drink his kale juice and correct one another every third word

Glad I dislocated his arm and reading this thread wish I could relive that moment several times over

68. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4720767)

You dislocated your son-in-law's arm because he was unhappy that someone used a word wrong?

69. cardsfanboy

Posted: June 06, 2014 at 09:40 PM (#4720770)

You dislocated your son-in-law's arm because he was unhappy that someone used a word wrong?

Sounds like a good plan. Pedantic dillweeds need to be put in their place.

(but I'm under the impression that his son-in-law is a pedantic dillweed, and that in a different situation he dislocated his shoulder, based upon other stories told)

70. PreservedFish Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:38 PM (#4720821)

I did not know that I had been misusing "comprise." I thank the pedants of this thread!

71. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 06, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4720822)

I did not know that I had been misusing "comprise." I thank the pedants of this thread!

for all intensive purposes, there's not a chinchilla of evidence that you've been misusing it.

72. Cooper Nielson Posted: June 07, 2014 at 01:39 AM (#4720840)

This has always been their philosophy. They are the bible of the linguistic descriptivists and should be treated with the scorn they deserve.

I sympathize with both sides of this issue. On one hand, I get annoyed when people [whom I think are] stupider than me misuse a word like "nonplussed" or mispronounce "short-lived" or write "dominate" as an adjective, and then Webster comes along years later and says, "This usage has become an acceptable alternative."

But on the other hand, English has been constantly changing over the past 1000 years, probably even more than most languages. One might even say that's what makes English great. Today, we use words differently than Mark Twain did. Twain was different from James Fenimore Cooper, Cooper was different from William Shakespeare, Shakespeare was different from Geoffrey Chaucer, and Chaucer was different from Murray Chass.

So if you want the dictionary to be strictly prescriptivist, then where do you want English frozen in time? When was English perfect and correct? In 1616, upon Shakespeare's death? 1828, with Webster's first American dictionary? 1900, the conventional dividing line between old-time baseball and modern baseball? 19XX, the year you had a particularly impactful English teacher?

73. Gaelan Posted: June 07, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4720880)

There is no such thing as a person that thinks that language doesn't change. What they think is that words have meaning, that words point to something beyond their conventional use, that our ability to reason is linked to our ability to use words, and that some changes diminish our ability to make the world intelligible, and the world of human beings is diminished as a result.

Linguistic descriptivists, on the other hand, do not think that have words have meaning beyond their conventional use, which is tantamount to not thinking that words have any meaning at all. They, and their wicked brothers in analytical philosophy, are the nominalist barbarians at the gate. They actively and willingly dim the colour of the world with their anti-intellectual, indeed, anti-human and vicious, dogma.

Finally, impactful is a ####### abomination.

74. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: June 07, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4720882)

Chaucer was different from Murray Chass

no he wasn't

75. RMc and the Respective Punishments Posted: June 07, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4720893)

In a way, it's like saying "ATM machine", given that the M in ATM already stands for machine. It conveys the same meaning, but with needless words.

I went to the ATM machine today, but I forgot my PIN number.

76. PreservedFish Posted: June 07, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4720899)

I went to the ATM machine today, but I forgot my PIN number.

Why do you hate humans???

77. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: June 07, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4720910)

Though annoyingly I just submitted an article to a historical journal, which is based in Canada, that made me change all my "honours" and "favours" to the American spelling. Go figure.

That's because it wasn't a histourical journal.

Edit: And props for not saying "an historical."

78. Greg K Posted: June 07, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4720914)

That's because it wasn't a histourical journal.

At least it's not a historical jornal.

79. bobm Posted: June 07, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4721020)

If you think usage defines meaning literally literally means both literally and not literally, and generally it's obvious and common enough in how it's being used, it shouldn't be a problem.

Why sanction such usage?

1.
give official permission or approval for (an action).
"only two treatments have been sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration"
synonyms: authorize, permit, allow, warrant, accredit, license, endorse, approve, accept, back, support; More
antonyms: prohibit

2.
impose a sanction or penalty on.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, June 05, 2014

If teams were comprised of only players they drafted

Reader Comments and Retorts

News

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics