Ferdinand Cesarano

a very welcome detail on Giants' patch

Recommended Posts

I like the Giants patch, but I LOVE where this thread has gone.

If newly coined terms are kiddy speak, what do you call the electronic media you use to read and post on this forum?

And don't you dare say "Internet," "world wide web," or "cyberspace!" Or email, Facebook, Google (as a verb), blog, or Miami Marlins, since all of those are new words/terms in the past 20-ish years. Haha. Kiddie speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be argued that the at least half the Japanese league could play in the MLB. Japan has won both WBC's, and most of their players do not even play in MLB

The World Baseball Classic is a marketing gimmick. Nowhere near the intensity or importance of when NHL or NBA players go to the Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a good comparison: someone seeing the abbreviation "NY" will pronounce it as "New York" -- never as "en why". Some intialisms are not meant to be read as a sequence of letters.

Bad comparison, since the same people presented with "NYC" may indeed pronounce it as "en why see". And nobody would with a straight face suggest that "NYPD" must be spelled out rather than pronounced as "en why pee dee".

And so? It's true that the initialism "NYC" is often read as a sequence of letters, and that the initialism "NYPD" is always read that way. There are many, many such abbreviations ("UK", "BC", etc.). However, there also exists a class of initialisms that are not read as letters; and "NY", which is always read as "New York", belongs to that class. Similarly, "NJ" is always read as "New Jersey"; "NM" as "New Mexico"; "HR" as "home run"; and "PF"/"PA" as "points for"/"points against". The initialism "MLB" is one of these; up until very recently, "MLB" was always read as "Major League Baseball".

By my count, there have been at least four strawmen constructed so far in this thread:

1. all initialisms are bad

2. the term "Major League Baseball" is illegitimate

3. Japanese players stink

4. there should be no new words, ever

Of course, none of these absurdities has any relationship to the points which I advanced. Nevertheless, these obviously nonsensical arguments have been demolished by means of peoples' statements that:

1. NFL, FM, BMW, NYPD etc. are initialisms read as letters

2. Major League Baseball has subsumed the American and National Leagues

3. there are plenty of Japanese players who could play in the Majors

4. new items need new words

All true. And if I ever encounter anyone making any of those above-listed imaginary arguments implicitly attributed to me, then I will surely employ these useful ripostes to rebut them.

On the other hand, what I have actually argued in this thread is only that the specific recent coinages "World Series Champions" and "em el bee" are unnecessary and unattractive additions to the lexicon, and are inapt replacements for the longstanding terms "World Champions" and "(Major League) Baseball", respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many people may wish it was otherwise, the pure fact of the matter is that the World Series is a league championship. You win the World Series, you are the (sorry) MLB champion. If the World Series is recognized as a world championship (including by MLB itself) then that's news to me.

This sort of reminds me of the old British joke about how Americans like to trumpet their top teams as "World Champions" despite not inviting any other countries to participate (Canada notwithstanding). :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many people may wish it was otherwise, the pure fact of the matter is that the World Series is a league championship. You win the World Series, you are the (sorry) MLB champion. If the World Series is recognized as a world championship (including by MLB itself) then that's news to me.

Major League Baseball and its teams have used the terminology "World Champions" for decades in their banners, public announcements, publications, and rings.

This sort of reminds me of the old British joke about how Americans like to trumpet their top teams as "World Champions" despite not inviting any other countries to participate (Canada notwithstanding). :rolleyes:

Having become an avid follower of English football, I can understand this argument. However, as I mentioned in the original post, this erroneous concept rests on a faulty assumption and on an inaccurate characterisation of Major League Baseball.

Most football fans (indeed, most people not familiar with baseball) assume that Major League Baseball constitutes the U.S. (or U.S. / Canadian) top tier of the sport, by analogy to the Premier League's being English football's top tier, La Liga's being Spanish football's top tier, and so forth. This line of reasoning is a natural consequence of the football-based world view; but it is not correct. In actual fact, Major League Baseball constitutes baseball's global top tier.

While the formation of the National League in the late 1870s almost certainly had a strong influence on founders of the Football League in England, these two sports took different paths, and are organised by differing standards. World football is organised strictly by national boundaries, and has no global top tier (despite the consensus that the English, Italian, and Spanish leagues are currently the best in the world).

The few cases of a team playing in another country's league (including Toronto FC, the Montreal Impact, and the Vancouver Whitecaps in MLS) had to be approved by the sport's national, continental, and world governing bodies, subject to certain conditions. In some cases, the condition is that the home country of the club in question lacks a top-tier league. This applies to Canadian clubs in MLS, as well as to the New Zealand club in the Australian league and to the Monaco club in the French league. In some cases, the condition is that the foreign-league affiliation predates the formation of a domestic top tier in the club's country. This applies to the Welsh clubs in the English league system. It's fair to say that soccer's governing bodies fetishise national borders; it is only these massive institutional obstacles relating to national borders that have thus far prevented Rangers and Celtic from moving from the Scottish league to the English Premier League.

Whereas Major League Baseball, being global in scope, could theoretically place teams in any country it wishes, without the approval of any governing body. The only potential obstacles to Major League Baseball's putting a team in any given country would be diplomatic, not legalistic. Meaning that Baseball wouldn't put a team in Japan only in deference to their peaceful relationship with the Japanese leagues, and not because of any rule imposed by any governing body.

Major League Baseball's act of placing teams in Canada involved nothing analogous to the approval process that MLS needed in order to place teams there. This is because MLS is soccer's U.S. top tier; while Major League Baseball is baseball's global top tier.

So, it's worth repeating that, because Major League Baseball is the world's top tier, its champions are correctly called the World Champions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't you just say Major League Champions ... at least that would be accurate and would avoid the whole World Series Champs issue.

The patch itself is a welcomed change from the last two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, what I have actually argued in this thread is only that..."em el bee" are unnecessary and unattractive additions to the lexicon, and are inapt replacements for the longstanding term..."(Major League) Baseball."

No one is claiming "em el bee" is a replacement for Major League Baseball. It's simply an initialism like "NFL" or "NBA." A shorthand way of saying the league's name. "Baseball" used to fill that role, yes. It no longer seemed appropriate, however, as the joint association between the AL and NL gave way to a full fledged unified league. No one says "Hockey" when they're referring to the National Hockey League after all. They used "NHL." So "Baseball" gave way to "MLB."

At the end of the day I find your argument to be flimsy. The lexicon has changed. This isn't the first time it's done that, and it won't be the last. "Baseball" has fallen out of use, "MLB" (or "em el bee") has taken its place. You haven't offered a single reason why this change constitutes "kiddie-speak" beyond "I'm not used to it, it's not what I grew up with."

On the whole that's fine. Say and write whatever you're comfortable with. No one's going think less of you for using terminology you're most familiar with. What you have failed to realize, however, is that change to the lexicon and the replacement of some terms with others is not indicative of "kiddie-speak," laziness, a lack of intelligence, or anything like that. It's simply a change in terminology. The big point you've missed in all of this is that the generation that started using the intialism "MLB" en masse can no longer be referred to as "kids." We've grown and the terminology we use has become the new standard, evident by the fact that the generation after us will likely use the initalism "MLB" too.

If you still don't want to say "em el bee" then don't. No one's making you. Again, it's not a problem if you only want to use phrases that you're comfortable with. That's fine. The problem is when you start attacking new terminology on the grounds that you're not used to it, and talking down to those who do use it. Then you cross a line and start sounding like a bitter old man who can't admit that things have changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
up until very recently, "MLB" was always read as "Major League Baseball".

You keep saying that, but it doesn't get any less bizarre.

"Very recently" really ought not be stretched to cover decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's not "the MLB" there's ZERO wrong with it. It's also "the NL" and "the AL".

Also, when another team from anywhere else on the planet beats the World Series champion, we can put it up for debate. Until then, World Champions is fine with me.

What about in the early 1900's when teams used to do this:

3369612217_6b81a5ed80.jpg?w=555

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back on topic, im willing to bet the actual patch the Giants will be wearing will be this51ic5KPCoiL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is it safe to say that earth is home to the highest level of competition? If so, "world" champions should obviously be universe/galaxy/solar system/what-have-you, champions.

You're welcome. :)

No but really, I like "World Champions" because it was the practical term used in the early days of baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A .GIF to describe how I'm envisioning the OP reading every one of these responses:

clint-eastwood-disgusted-gif.gif

Er, sorry. Graphics interchange format image. Sorry for the confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other is not factually incorrect either, unless you can find a higher level of competition.

Well technically it is. While it may be someone's opinion that the leagues in America are the best in the world, until TESTED against it is just hypothesis. None of the leagues involve teams from the rest of the world (sure Canada is involved in some) but that still only takes in the Continent of North America.

A scientific theroy or hypothesis doesn't gain credibility until it's tested, in order to claim the title of World Champion you should have to have PLAYED teams from AROUND THE WORLD. It stands to reason.

Winners should go by the title of the Championship they have won, or in the case of Baseball bought from the actual winners if you're talking about the Yankees... sheesh!

9erssteve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you still don't want to say "em el bee" then don't. No one's making you. Again, it's not a problem if you only want to use phrases that you're comfortable with. That's fine. The problem is when you start attacking new terminology on the grounds that you're not used to it, and talking down to those who do use it.

Actually, I'm attacking this particular terminology on the grounds that it's not necessary, and is not an improvement over what it replaced. There have been plenty of linguistic changes since I was a kid that have been for the better. The two that are being discussed in this thread are not amongst them.

Then you cross a line and start sounding like a bitter old man who can't admit that things have changed.

I am perfectly aware that things have changed; and I have stated a few times my understanding that they're not going to change back. I praised the Giants' patch precisely because it stands out in the new linguistic environment, whereas, just a few years ago, it would have been unremarkable.

Anyway, there is nothing worthy of attack in my comments here. Every uniform issue gets commented upon on this board; and the Giants' patch is just another one of these. However, I will say that the act of depicting me as that fool Clint Eastwood is offensive. I take exception to that, as I am the furthest thing from a conservative that you can imagine; indeed, I am in favour of the kind of sweeping fundmamental change that would send pigs like him into shock.

But, just like everyone else who wastes time on this board, I like some things (and praise them), and don't like other things (and criticise them). In fact, I like most of the current trends; we are generally living in a period of good sense uniform-wise, wherein the Orioles, Blue Jays, Mets, Buffalo Bills, Washington Wizards, Tampa Bay Lightning, and now Houston Astros have made positive changes, acts which reinforce why I like sports uniforms so much.

(Now, if only those basebal lplayers would learn how to wear their pants, we'd really have something.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players from other countries from around the world come to play here so therefore it can be appropriate to call MLB the highest level of play and therefore World Champions should also be appropriate. No major leaguer strives to be good enough to go play in Japan. Instead it's the other way around. For the WBC, players disperse to go play for their countries for a once every 3-4 year tournament, so you have the best players spread out aswear MLB has all the best in one condensed league. Again, theoretically making MLB the highest level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm attacking this particular terminology on the grounds that it's not necessary, and is not an improvement over what it replaced...

However, I will say that the act of depicting me as that fool Clint Eastwood is offensive. I take exception to that, as I am the furthest thing from a conservative that you can imagine; indeed, I am in favour of the kind of sweeping fundmamental change that would send pigs like him into shock.

Improvement is kind of subjective. To me, MLB is an improvement because it brings specificity. "Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter in Baseball," by your metric is the best way to say that Bonds is the Home Run leader.

To that I would say: What about Sadaharu Oh? He played baseball in Japan and hit more dingers than Bonds. So now "Barry Bonds is MLB's greatest home run hitter," is actually more accurate and less confusing. Sure you could say "Major League Baseball" but why would you when "MLB" would say the same thing in less time?

Lots of other stuff comes from using MLB, it's easier to type for example. (Even with autocorrect, my phone doesn't suggest "baseball" until I get to the second "a".) It also provides international audiences that do have theur own baseball leagues context, since "Baseball" to them could mean MLB, or their domestic leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but the MLB champion claiming they are World Champions is like the European Champions League soccer champion claiming they are World Champions. They are probably the best and are always a favorite to win the world championship, but they still have to play and win that championship.

I would love to see a true World Baseball Championship tournament that included the champions from various parts of the world (al la the Club World Cup Championship in soccer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but the MLB champion claiming they are World Champions is like the European Champions League soccer champion claiming they are World Champions. They are probably the best and are always a favorite to win the world championship, but they still have to play and win that championship.

I would love to see a true World Baseball Championship tournament that included the champions from various parts of the world (al la the Club World Cup Championship in soccer).

It would be great, however probably anticlimactic. I think a club vs club tournament would be an MLB slaughter-fest, no team in the world could win a series against a full pro roster from the Majors. The NPB champ might be able to compete, but I don't think they could win.

I think the WBC has some real potential to become a great amateur tournament, maybe with a set number of big leaguers allowed per team. Right now it is definitely a publicity stunt, but I think it could become something great over time. Especially with baseball out of the Olympics and no other national level competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.