So the Red Sox went ahead and signed Josh Beckett to a four-year extension.
Meanwhile, the New York papers all cover the relationship between AJ Burnett and Jorge Posada this morning. Here’s Ben Shpigel’s take in the Times:
“For me, I think it took on a bigger picture because we’re in New York,” Girardi said of the bumpy ride Burnett and Posada experienced as battery mates. “It was an emotional time, and we’re fighting for the division and we’re nearing the playoffs. It seemed to take on — it became a big story. As far as them having a problem, I wasn’t concerned about that.”
Every chance they could, Posada and Burnett worked together this spring. After his March 11 start was rained out, Burnett was particularly grateful that Posada stayed late, past 9:30 p.m., to catch his simulated game. Burnett is polishing a changeup, and Posada guided him through his March 27 start against Detroit when he did not have a good curveball.
“I noticed he’s been a lot more confident and comfortable back there,” Burnett said of Posada. “Obviously, that makes me confident.”
Burnett goes against the formidable Jon Lester tonight in Boston.
[0] It seemed to take on — it became a big story.
Ahh, yes, the passive voice-impersonal verb use to obscure agency. So, it *became* a big story in some vague, impersonal way. Not because, say, the manager started benching his all star pitcher every time AJ pitched...including in the play offs.
[0] It was an emotional time, and we’re fighting for the division and we’re nearing the playoffs..
And here we have a somewhat creative misuse of chronology. Molina did not start catching AJ regularly until August 22 (by my reading of the game logs from last year), at which time the Yankees were 6 or 7 games ahead of the Sox, ahead that would baloon to as many as 10 games and no fewer than 5 the rest of the way. They weren't really fighting for anything. If anything, Girardi was taking the opportunity, with a safe lead, to experiment with the AJ-Molina combo. Whether that was the right move or not is another issue, but his statements in this piece seem more than a little disingenuous. Girardi himself was at the center of this little media drama. It wasn't a case of "it happened."
[2] Just what was going to say. Well done and well stated.
I love DOOM!
4) Yeah, he's an original. Loved him from the Zev Love X days.
In one corner you have Burnett, gifted if fragile arm, seemingly not that deep a thinker (at least from interview answers). Sort of, "just give me the damn ball and let me throw what I want to throw"....
In the other corner Posada .... fiery, competitive up the wazoo ... "I'll catch til I die" attitude ... mediocre defensively (especially in his upper 30s) ... less than stellar game-calling perhaps.
Yup, its a match made in WWE!
Oh, monkeypants, monkeypants... There is no passive voice there! What would your Latin teacher say?
(I don't think "became" is an impersonal verb, but I'm not so confident about that because I had never heard of an impersonal verb until just now.)
[7]
comments like these make this site special ....
[7] Impersonal verbs in English, strictly speaking, are those of the sort "it snowed," but verbs of being and existence are also considered impersonal depending on usage and context (e.g. "There is", "there are", there exists" ...).
In this context, "it became", where the pronoun "it" has no clear antecedent and the verb is either an intransitive verb or verb of being, is an impersonal construction---or at least very close to it.
Both formal passive voice verbs (as you know) and impersonal constructions are used to obscure agency. I see it all the time in my students' writing when they try to fudge some or other historical development.
Whether the line I quoted strictly conforms to the rules for impersonal verbs is not the issue, but rather Girardi's use of agency-obscuring rhetoric. Just look at the whole sentence: It seemed to take on — it became a big story; look at the verbs: it seemed, it became. Impersonal it + a weak intransitive (seem) + a verb of being/existence (became). His overall thrust slightly hints that "it became" because of the media, but in no way implicates himself as perhaps the primary agent.
And we all remember how he distorted chronology and causation with the decision to keep Phil Hughes in the BP last year.
Girardi is a spin-master, at least for a pro-athlete/coach, whatever one thinks of his managerial decisions.
[9] i agree mp. people use language like that when they want to hide something or when they don't know what they are talking about. i have a dipshitted co-worker who uses passive voice verbs all the time because she doesn' know enough to make a declarative statement.
girardi is very good at obscuring things. that is what that statement was meant to do with the whole aj/po melodrama.
olney tried to stir the pot on po yesterday in his blog. the whole po is a disaster behind the plate is going to get a lot of ink this year. i hope girardi handles it well.
I yawn in the general direction of the New York papers when they write about these kinds of "controversies" that aren't so much problems as they are "stuff to fill up a newspaper column the day after there was no game".
"The overall numbers for 2009 show that Burnett did pitch better when someone else was catching. In 16 regular-season starts pitching to Posada, Burnett had a 4.96 E.R.A. and batters hit .270 off him. In 17 starts pitching to Kevin Cash, Francisco Cervelli or, most often, Molina, Burnett had a 3.22 E.R.A. and limited hitters to a .225 average."
Not only is that a crazy small sample, it does not take into account where Burnett was pitching or against whom. If, just as an example, Posada only caught Burnett when the Yanks were playing a top offensive team - when the Yanks might need Posada's bat to win - and the others caught him when the Yanks were playing crappy offenses - teams the Yanks could easily beat without Posada's bat in the lineup - then of course you'd expect AJ's ERA to be higher with Posada behind the plate. Correlation is not causation.
[9] Your point about agency stands very well, monkeypants.
[10] Given the wild pitches/passed balls in game 1, I'm not surprised Buster made a big deal out of it. I know its hard for guys who have to cover the games every day to not focus on stuff like that, but it bothers me. If the biggest chink in the Yanks' armor is Posada's defense behind the plate, I'll take my "2010 World Series Champion Yankees" t-shirt in size XL, please.
Impersonal: I get it. The verb has a subject only because in English, verbs have to have subjects.
But the "it" has does have a referent, namely, the story. (If asked, "What became a big story?", Girardi would obviously answer, "The story about Burnett and Posada not getting along." Cf., "It rained yesterday." What did?)
Girardi doesn't think he is the agent of the story's embiggening. He might be right about that. In any case, there's plenty to blame him for, but passive voice and impersonal verbs are not among his weapons of obfuscation... this time.
(To check for passive voice in English, look for a participle: "The story was exaggerated by the press." No participle, no passive voice. Good test.)
[13] Thanks, but I am pretty well versed on identifying passive voice verbs. From a rhetorical or stylistic standpoint (rather than a strictly grammatical one), there is little difference between using passive voice verbs, impersonal verbs, and verbs of being, and even weak intransitive verbs ("then feudalism happened", "history developed," etc...a few of my student faves).
[13] In fact, let us grant that the antecedent of "it" is the story. Then Girardi's quote reads:
"The story seemed to take on...the story became a big story."
You don't see this as obscuring agency?
In any case monkeypants, you have to give RI credit for using the word "embiggening". Its a perfectly cromulent word.
I think agency can be obscured(!) with or without the passive voice, so the issues (obscuring agency and passive voice) are orthogonal. Impersonal verbs seem to me to be a completely different issue (we shouldn't worry that people almost always avoid specifying the agent of the rain, for instance). Sure, passive voice can be used that way, but I'm a big fan of "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." Passive voice, but not exactly a paradigm of shirking responsibility!
It seems pretty clear to me that Girardi means to be saying that the media was responsible for the brouhaha over Burnett and Posada last year, by the way. He doesn't say so explicitly, but it's not exactly obscure what he's getting at.
[16] I know, I love "embiggen". It's a much better word than "enlarge". Not sure why.
[6] Ha, yeah ... How things have changed.
[19] Oops I mean [5]. Oh edit function
[16][18] Yes indeed, props (as the kids say) for using embiggen!
"Mistakes were made, but not by me."
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
--Jebediah Springfield
I have to admit (this is only slightly embarrassing) that I didn't know until now that "embiggen" was a Simpsons word. I thought it came from the action of making some picture or text on a web page look bigger in your browser (as in, "click here to embiggen").
Well, now I like it even more.
[24]
http://blogzarro.com/2007/07/100-greatest-simpsons-quotes/