Help me with possessives

Best way to check this is to replace the nickname with the city name ...

St. Louis first baseman Albert Pujols
and
St. Louis pitchers

It's easier to figure out this way.

 

This is my deal.

 

how about "inside the Giants' clubhouse..."

Seems like this could go either way, no?

 

Then go with ...

Inside the clubhouse, the Giants were sweaty and naked.

 

Bingo. 8)

Yeah, it technically could go either way. In that case, just go with what you think is least awkward-looking.

 

What about:
Fielder's sentences are wrong. He's big-boned.

 

THE Fielder sentences are wrong.

Your example suggests that his mandible and perhaps his maxilla are grossly out of proportion so as to affect his speech, or that his cranium is malformed and somehow suppressing or encroaching upon the speech center in his brain.

Fun with anatomy!

 

Regarding team names, I agree with everything in this thread.

Regarding girls basketball, I couldn't disagree more. I might be more inclined to agree if you said "girl basketball," but here the basketball (used to define the sport, not the physical object) is the girls' to play. There would be no reason to make it possessive if you were defining the sport as "girl basketball" or "boy basketball," but you'd be establishing that those are different sports. The proper thing to do is to say "boys' basketball," basketball played by boys. Girls cannot play boys' basketball. They could theoretically play boy basketball, if that were a thing.

Look at it this way: The 100-meter backstroke is the same for any competitor. It's the same stroke over the same distance. So, the boys' 100-meter backstroke is the 100-meter backstroke for boys. The girls' 100-meter backstroke is the 100-meter backstroke for girls. That's the best I can offer in explaining why it needs to be girls' basketball.

Back to our original point: With all that said, it follows that a player on the Milwaukee Brewers cannot be a "Cardinals slugger," which is why there is no apostrophe necessary. It also follows that a player on the Milwaukee Brewers can be a "slugger," which is why you need one if "slugger" is the noun and the phrase is "the Cardinals' slugger."

 

I agree with the idea that it sounds better. But grammatically, I'm holding to my point. And pretending that it's not true that sometimes you can set aside the rules of grammar to enhance the stylistic presentation. Because if I admit that, then all is lost.

I also think that Met/Mets is a particularly striking example of what you're describing.

 

Sometimes it requires an extreme example to completely illustrate the point.

 

How about ...


Oakland Raiders' draft needs
or

Oakland Raiders draft needs

 

Whose draft needs? The Oakland Raiders' draft needs.

You would say Oakland's draft needs include..., not Oakland draft needs include.