Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

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. Kiko Sakata Posted: April 18, 2006 at 04:49 AM (#1970500)
I totally agree. As I said in the Game Chatter, this was just a beautiful game.

So, I have a question. How good is Ryan Dempster? Has he really found his niche, where he's capable of being an elite closer, or has he been as lucky as he has been good? I can't get a good feel for how good he really is.
   2. Hendry's Wad of Cash (UCCF) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:08 AM (#1970523)
We debated this some last year. I think Dempster could have a real knack for being a reliever, as it might well minimize some of the problems that bedeviled him as a starter.

He can focus on being a two-pitch pitcher if he wants, with no worries about saving something for a guy's next at bat. By eliminating the need to use his weakest pitches, that probably helps his control problems. And he seems to enjoy it - apparently he's got the right kind of mental makeup for the job. All last year we waited for him to implode like so many Cub closers have before, and he never did. And now we're a couple of weeks into this year and he looks as strong as ever.
   3. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:52 AM (#1970582)
Todd Walker . . . homered in the first and is literally on fire

I strongly doubt this. Actually, the use of "literally" under these circumstances is a huge pet peeve of mine.
   4. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 06:33 AM (#1970632)
Dude, what'd you do with the shitty pants?


Man, I didn't ACTUALLY #### my pants, I said I literally #### my pants!
   5. Luke Jasenosky Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:11 PM (#1970751)
Fair point dJf. As a lover of the written word, I have many pet peeves myself. It appears that the abuse of the word "literally" has a long pedigree, however - well over two centuries. For an interesting discussion (and some good rebuttals) check out this recent article.

Meanwhile, let me clarify: Todd Walker is literally raking.
   6. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 01:40 PM (#1970770)
Meanwhile, let me clarify: Todd Walker is literally raking.

This is true -- I just saw him in his yard with a big pile of leaves.
   7. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: April 18, 2006 at 04:18 PM (#1971017)
Thanks for the link, Ross. Very interesting article, even though it essentially says that the misuse of the word has been around for generations. :-)

I do believe that English is an evolving language and perhaps using "literally" in this sense will become accepted (if it hasn't already). OTOH, it might also be something like splitting infinitives, which most stylists today don't have a problem with -- but instruct not to do it anyway, just because of the traditionalists.
   8. H. Vaughn Posted: April 18, 2006 at 04:47 PM (#1971080)
Todd Walker is literally striking a sizable minority of the baseballs thrown near him in such a manner that they fly great distances, thwarting fielders attempts to catch them.
   9. Spahn Insane Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:25 PM (#1971147)
Actually, the use of "literally" under these circumstances is a huge pet peeve of mine.

Get outta my head, dJf. :)

I was just gonna ask if Maddux has managed to resolve the conflicts of interest inherent in his literally owning the Milwaukee Brewers.
   10. Spahn Insane Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:27 PM (#1971150)
I do believe that English is an evolving language and perhaps using "literally" in this sense will become accepted (if it hasn't already).

I believe English is an evolving language, but I can't believe it would evolve enough to make use of "literally" appropriate here. I mean, "literally" is the opposite of what is meant in that circumstance, which is "figuratively."
   11. diehard4life Posted: April 18, 2006 at 05:45 PM (#1971181)
Hey all, Been enjoying the positive energy as of late.

Maddux, newly 40, looks as good early in 2006 as he has at any time since rejoining the Cubs.


So far (no jinx!!!) I'd say he's pitched his best three games since coming back to da Chi. Not shutouts, but not walks, and his ball has been moving. He did give credit to Pierre, Murton, and Jones last night for reeling in warning track fly balls. My gut says/hopes that Greg has a little bile in him from having a down year last year. Notice the weight loss and general composure on the mound. He went from two years of "I'm Greg Maddux" to "I'm Greg Muddux and I'm going to lead by example." Muddux is Yoda.

This all helps when Rusch has been tossing BP and "Z" gets angry so easily. Like "I pitched in the WBC, the strike zone should shrink!"

Walker: Dusty's Doormat has been hitting really well. Thank goodness. Neifi got a couple hits and I was afraid he was going to get "slipped in" all the time. Oh, I thought I saw walker making plays on everything coming to him too. Must have been the beer, cause MVP is a better fielder...

Cedeno: Doing very well. Needs coaching on double plays, needs analysts to STFU. He is supposed to be doing well. We would have gotten a veteran otherwise.

Jones: uhhh he's as bad as the posters on here have made him out to be. At least he keeps that smile up like Rodney Pete used to do after he threw a pick when he QB'd for the loins...

On the subject of adding literally where it is not needed:

It's like saying: I'm not gonna lie to you. -Oh starting now? Have you been?

It's also Maddenism Double Talk. Like: These are the types of things a team can do if they are able to do these types of things.

GO CUBBIES!!!
   12. covelli chris p Posted: April 18, 2006 at 06:14 PM (#1971244)
Oh, I thought I saw walker making plays on everything coming to him too.

that's never been his problem. he just doesn't get to much.
   13. Spahn Insane Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:02 PM (#1971366)
Walker's so angry at his lack of playing time, he's burning up. He's literally on fire.
   14. Luke Jasenosky Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:08 PM (#1971386)
Although I cherish just about every line of "The Great Gatsby", I must agree that Fitzgerald's use of the phrase "[Gatsby] literally glowed", as Jesse Sheidlower mentions in the article I referenced above, is a little cheesy. If Fitzgerald can't pull it off I certainly can't, so I hereby renounce the use of "literally" in place of "figuratively" on this blog. In other words, I raise my gonfalon in surrender.

Interestingly, one of the original drafts of "Gatsby" included a baseball scene at the Polo Grounds, and the Cubs were the visiting team. Unfortunately, the odious Tom Buchanan roots for the Cubs, so I am pleased Fitzgerald removed the scene from the final manuscript.
   15. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:35 PM (#1971455)
And a new name is born.
   16. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#1971463)
Or maybe now.
   17. Catfish326 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 07:51 PM (#1971505)
My peeves are two critical English laws:

"a lot" is TWO WORDS PEOPLE!

The only time you don't add 's to a name ending in "s" is when you are using ancient biblical names . . . so, when you are talking about Bernie Williams's hot bat, or David Wells's fat head, get it right, for Jesus' sake!
   18. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:03 PM (#1971534)
Walker fell into a burning house. He is literally on fire.
   19. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:05 PM (#1971541)
Catfish:

You always use just the apostrophe after all possessive plurals ending in s, x or z.

So Marx' manifesto or Ramses' palace.

My pet peeve: using less instead of fewer.

"less" refers to a non discrete item, like water or money.

"fewer" refers to any discrete item, like pennies or baseballs.

So, it's: "I'd like to see Zambrono give up fewer walks" not "I want to see Zambrano give up less walks."
   20. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:30 PM (#1971647)
I believe English is an evolving language, but I can't believe it would evolve enough to make use of "literally" appropriate here. I mean, "literally" is the opposite of what is meant in that circumstance, which is "figuratively."

Read ross's link.
   21. Spahn Insane Posted: April 18, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#1971654)
Read ross's link.

Don't you mean "Don't read it"? ;)
   22. Meatwad Posted: April 18, 2006 at 09:32 PM (#1971794)
i like to say litterally alot
   23. DCW3 Posted: April 18, 2006 at 09:49 PM (#1971838)
Catfish:

You always use just the apostrophe after all possessive plurals ending in s, x or z.


Accepted practice varies on this point. Although I tend to prefer Catfish's usage.
   24. CFiJ Posted: April 18, 2006 at 11:36 PM (#1972150)
I'm typically a hard-line descriptivist. As in, if you have a problem with the way people use "begging the question", you better be using "thou" and "thee" as your 2nd person terms of address. But "literally [metaphor]" remains a pet peeve.

I must say, I am truly blown away by Maddux's performance this year. I expected him to be a valuable pitcher, but I fully expected his April to suck hard, as it has the past few years. I can only solemnly say, "Go Greg, it's your berfday".
   25. SouthSideRyan Posted: April 19, 2006 at 05:20 AM (#1973281)
Accepted practice varies on this point. Although I tend to prefer Catfish's usage.

I grew up with Catfish's usage, I think it's only changed in the past 5-10 years or so.
   26. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: April 19, 2006 at 12:03 PM (#1973414)
I grew up with Catfish's usage, I think it's only changed in the past 5-10 years or so.

I was taught the system Catfish loathes.

I raise my gonfalon in surrender

Since we're on the subject, what exactly does "gonfalon" mean?
   27. paytonrules Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:34 PM (#1973455)
You know you don't get debates about the English language on Mike North's radio program. He's literally the stupids man in the universe.
   28. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: April 19, 2006 at 01:52 PM (#1973479)
I grew up with Catfish's usage, I think it's only changed in the past 5-10 years or so.

This is actually another of my pet peeves (I have a few -- "alot" is yet another one, but I don't get as riled up about it). Catfish is exactly right, but 90% of the time I see a singular possessive ending in "s," the apostrophe is placed at the end -- i.e., "Barry Bonds' homers," rather than the proper "Barry Bonds's homers."

It's wrong, but I fear this is another thing that is evolving in the English language as well.
   29. DCA Posted: April 19, 2006 at 02:14 PM (#1973526)
Accepted practice varies on this point. Although I tend to prefer Catfish's usage.

I don't, I think xxxs's just looks awful, I try to avoid it wherever possible, and will welcome the day when it's considered correct to write xxxs' in all instances. FWIW, I don't have a Chicago style manual handy, but I've got a couple editions of the Business Writers Handbook in my office and this is what they say, and the examples they use:

One syllable singular words ending in an s always take 's: boss --> boss's

Multi-syllable singular words ending in an s, you have a choice: actress --> actress' or actress's

Words ending in two consecutive s sounds always take only the apostrophe: Jesus --> Jesus'

I don't see anything that talks about proper nouns being different, and one example in the latest edition indicating that they are not: Ms. Corrales --> Ms. Corrales'
   30. CFiJ Posted: April 21, 2006 at 06:20 PM (#1979495)
Since we're on the subject, what exactly does "gonfalon" mean?

Pennant, flag. Remember, "Baseball's Sad Lexicon" was written by a Giants fan:

These are the saddest of possible words:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double-
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
   31. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: April 23, 2006 at 10:57 PM (#1984383)
Pennant, flag. Remember, "Baseball's Sad Lexicon" was written by a Giants fan:

Well, I knew *that* but did the word exist before?

The OED only lists one definition:

"A banner or ensign, frequently composed of or ending in several tails or streamers, suspended from a cross-bar instead of being directly fastened to the pole, esp. as used by various Italian republics or in ecclesiastical processions."
   32. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: April 24, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#1984656)
Pennant, flag. Remember

So... yeah

I'm an idiot. Go on about your day.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.2514 seconds
35 querie(s) executed