Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

Westmoreland


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

#1 ClutchCarl13

  • 33 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 01:37 PM

I really think he'll light it up next year, I did some study's on cavernous malformations, and they shouldn't affect performance. I think he'll be a top 5 sox prospect by the end of next year.

#2 SMU_Sox


  • loves his fluffykins


  • 4630 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 01:52 PM

I really think he'll light it up next year, I did some study's on cavernous malformations, and they shouldn't affect performance. I think he'll be a top 5 sox prospect by the end of next year.


Everything we have heard up to this point suggests the opposite. Is this sarcasm? Are you a doctor?

#3 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18406 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 02:00 PM

Yeah, we have a couple of neurosurgeons on this board who have stated that this can and likely will have an impact on his ability to play baseball... especially when you consider the location of the malformation that was operated on. If he's a top 5 Sox prospect by the end of next season, he's beaten some incredibly steep odds.

#4 Murby

  • 128 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 02:09 PM

I really think he'll light it up next year, I did some study's on cavernous malformations, and they shouldn't affect performance. I think he'll be a top 5 sox prospect by the end of next year.


Everything we have heard up to this point suggests the opposite. Is this sarcasm? Are you a doctor?


What? His incredibly intelligent spelling of the word "studies" makes you question his astute analysis? This IS sarcasm. FTW.

Edit: Added original post.

Edited by Murby, 22 October 2011 - 02:11 PM.


#5 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5049 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 02:59 PM

3, 2, 1, ....

#6 billy ashley

  • 831 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 03:04 PM

Forgetting the surgery for a moment, as none of us can really speak intelligently to that...


I think we can safely assume that a players development might be severely stifled by missing essentially two seasons.

I'm rooting like hell for Westmoreland, and am excited at the progress he's already shown... but we as fans should probably check our expectations.

#7 The_Powa_of_Seiji_Ozawa

  • 3937 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 03:50 PM

Yes, we should be very guarded in our optimism. This is not TJ surgery recovery. But at the same time, give his unreal natural talent, his unimpeachable work ethic and determination, and the fact that he has recovered enough to at least appear to be functional enough for some baseball activities, I think there is as least some reasonable hope that with more rehab time he can at least recapture some of the promise that got us all excited about him.

#8 someoneanywhere

  • 3056 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 03:57 PM

3, 2, 1, ....


Patience. Cuz will be here to do what he must. He's just in offseason mode.

#9 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5003 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:15 PM

I really think he'll light it up next year, I did some study's on cavernous malformations, and they shouldn't affect performance. I think he'll be a top 5 sox prospect by the end of next year.

Effect not affect. The studies spelling has already been noted. Nothing else here worth commenting on.

#10 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11468 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:34 PM

Effect not affect. The studies spelling has already been noted. Nothing else here worth commenting on.


Actually, I think "affect" is right, but no matter -- the real story here is that Maalox is back!!

(I mean, c'mon -- ClutchCarl13??)

#11 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7032 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 08:56 PM

I really think he'll light it up next year, I did some study's on cavernous malformations, and they shouldn't affect performance. I think he'll be a top 5 sox prospect by the end of next year.


I don't care if this is sarcasm or not. Either way, this is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read.

#12 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 02:26 PM

Effect not affect. The studies spelling has already been noted. Nothing else here worth commenting on.


Actually, both sentences can be correct. Affect means "influence" while effect denotes a concrete impact. Though I will agree with you that he probably meant effect rather than affect.

#13 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6399 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 02:30 PM

Effect not affect. The studies spelling has already been noted. Nothing else here worth commenting on.

"Affect" is correct here.

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/affect
http://dictionary.re...m/browse/effect
http://crofsblogs.ty...t_as_a_ver.html

#14 ji oh

  • 221 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 03:44 PM

Actually, both sentences can be correct. Affect means "influence" while effect denotes a concrete impact. Though I will agree with you that he probably meant effect rather than affect.


Strongly diagree: "they shouldn't effect performance" would be a completely different meaning. Viagra can effect (i.e. bring about) performance. Health problems can only affect performance, or not.

#15 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:21 PM

Strongly diagree: "they shouldn't effect performance" would be a completely different meaning. Viagra can effect (i.e. bring about) performance. Health problems can only affect performance, or not.


No, I think both sentences can be correct. Health problems can have both a concrete impact on baseball skills (for example, vertigo) as well as a mere influence.

#16 PhilPlantier

  • 1537 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 06:43 PM

No, I think both sentences can be correct. Health problems can have both a concrete impact on baseball skills (for example, vertigo) as well as a mere influence.


Super Nomario and ji oh are correct. "Effect" doesn't mean "have a concrete impact" in that context; it literally means "to produce" or "to bring about."

Unless, of course, this effect/affect debate is some kind of meme... in which case, you got me good.

#17 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:36 PM

Literally speaking affect in the non-psychological sense means "to have an effect".

#18 PhilPlantier

  • 1537 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 09:35 PM

Literally speaking affect in the non-psychological sense means "to have an effect".


Sure, but "effect" the noun doesn't mean the same thing as the verb.

#19 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 10:17 PM

Physical problems can both have an indefinite affect and a distinct effect. For example, if the surgery on Westmoreland's brain stem changes his hand to eye coordination then it had an effect. And the noun and verb meanings of effect aren't radically different. One of the verb's meanings (and the one we generally mean when we use it) is change brought on as a consequence of action or another cause, while one of the noun's meanings is result or consequence. Unless you're using the noun to mean "belongings", which would make the definition of affect wrong. But as I indicated earlier I'm fairly certain that he meant to say "it won't have an effect" but simply wrote the sentence wrong. (And it's not unusual for someone to change their thought process mid-sentence and misspeak, in a virtual sense. We all do it.

#20 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6399 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 12:26 AM

Physical problems can both have an indefinite affect and a distinct effect. For example, if the surgery on Westmoreland's brain stem changes his hand to eye coordination then it had an effect. And the noun and verb meanings of effect aren't radically different. One of the verb's meanings (and the one we generally mean when we use it) is change brought on as a consequence of action or another cause, while one of the noun's meanings is result or consequence. Unless you're using the noun to mean "belongings", which would make the definition of affect wrong. But as I indicated earlier I'm fairly certain that he meant to say "it won't have an effect" but simply wrote the sentence wrong. (And it's not unusual for someone to change their thought process mid-sentence and misspeak, in a virtual sense. We all do it.

What clutchcarl wrote ("they shouldn't affect performance") and "it won't have an effect" mean the same thing (and both are fine). It would be incorrect to say that the injury "wouldn't have an affect," and it would be incorrect to say "his performance won't be effected." The noun meaning of "effect" and the verb meaning of "affect" are related, but the verb meaning of "effect" and the noun meaning of "affect" are more specific and largely idiomatic (99% of the time I hear "effect" as a noun it's in the phrase "effect a change").

#21 locknload

  • 691 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 08:20 AM

I see Westmoreland's name on the main page expecting there was that some news and I get a prediction from some guy who wikipedia'd his medical issue followed by a grammar discussion. This wins for worst thread ever.

#22 someoneanywhere

  • 3056 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:27 AM

I see Westmoreland's name on the main page expecting there was that some news and I get a prediction from some guy who wikipedia'd his medical issue followed by a grammar discussion. This wins for worst thread ever.


You new here?


Actually, the grammar discussion was quite illuminating.

#23 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10833 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 01:01 PM

The funniest derailing I can recall was when someone was trying to spill some gossip about who some Red Sox player was sleeping with, and the discussion end up being about mac-and-cheese.

#24 judyb

  • 3080 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 01:06 PM

I think a grammar subforum would probably be fairly popular around here.

#25 EvilEmpire

  • 3703 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 06:07 PM

So which regular is trying to mock EV?This doesn't seem like Maalox. Not clever enough.

#26 JakeRae


  • SoSH Member


  • 5003 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 10:17 PM

Mission accomplished.

#27 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10574 posts

Posted 24 October 2011 - 11:41 PM

You new here?


Actually, the grammar discussion was quite illuminating.



You mispeled awesome.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users