Help me with possessives

[shockey]

No apostrophe in the first, you need the rest of the sentence to decide on the second.

Agreed. How I interpret the rules:

Justin Bieber met Cardinals pitchers on a plane.

The Cardinals' pitchers have been weary since the All-Star break.

Cardinals pitchers **** McGee and Johnny Rocket signed baseballs after the game.

Seconded. In the first and third cases, the word "Cardinals" is serving as an adjective that modifies "pitchers" (it describes what kind of pitchers they are, if that makes sense).

In the middle example, Cardinals is serving as a possessive noun... you could write "the pitchers of the Cardinals" in its place, and it would make sense (it'd be a awkward sentence, yeah, but technically it's still grammatically correct.)

Not piling on. just wanted to add my .02 that this is correct. and not only correct, but 1,000,000 percent correct. 8) :D :o

 

[flexmaster33]

The Cardinal pitchers.

Only if you're talking about Stanford's baseball team.

The contemporary thinking is to go plural, under the premise that there's more than one of 'em.

Plus, it usually just sounds better to the ear for most people: Mets manager Terry Collins vs. Met manager Terry Collins. Under the same premise, sometimes it helps to add a "the" to the sentence for clarity.

What if the school has a Kool-Ade team?

 

[BB Bobcat]

OK, is all this right....

The Cardinals' Albert Pujols is very good.
Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols is good.
The Brewers' Prince Fielder, the Yankees' Bartolo Colon and the Nationals' Livan Hernandez are the fattest players in baseball.
Cardinals fans rioted when Albert Pujols signed with the Cubs.

But...

Milwaukee's Prince Fielder is fat.
Milwaukee first baseman Prince Fielder is fat.

Are both those right?

This is great. I feel like one of the recurring stress factors of my day has been lifted!

 

[holy bull]

Fielder sentences are wrong. He's big-boned.

 

[Ace]

Since I've been editing, I find that I have trouble with when to use a team name as a possessive. Feels like I see it different ways, and I'm not sure what's right, or if it's a style thing..

Cardinals' first baseman Albert Pujols
Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols

or..

Cardinals pitchers
Cardinals' pitchers

etc.

What say you SportsJournalists.com?

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.

 

[SF_Express]

Yup. I was taught to sub in the city and that's what I go by.

This is my deal.

 

[BB Bobcat]

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

Seems like this could go either way, no?

 

[Ace]

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.

 

[nck228]

OK, is all this right....

The Cardinals' Albert Pujols is very good.
Cardinals slugger Albert Pujols is good.
The Brewers' Prince Fielder, the Yankees' Bartolo Colon and the Nationals' Livan Hernandez are the fattest players in baseball.
Cardinals fans rioted when Albert Pujols signed with the Cubs.

But...

Milwaukee's Prince Fielder is fat.
Milwaukee first baseman Prince Fielder is fat.

Are both those right?

This is great. I feel like one of the recurring stress factors of my day has been lifted!

Bingo. 8)

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

Seems like this could go either way, no?

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

 

[fossywriter8]

Fielder sentences are wrong. He's big-boned.

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

 

[holy bull]

Fielder sentences are wrong. He's big-boned.

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!

 

[Versatile]

No apostrophe in the first, you need the rest of the sentence to decide on the second.

Agreed. How I interpret the rules:

Justin Bieber met Cardinals pitchers on a plane.

The Cardinals' pitchers have been weary since the All-Star break.

Cardinals pitchers **** McGee and Johnny Rocket signed baseballs after the game.

Seconded. In the first and third cases, the word "Cardinals" is serving as an adjective that modifies "pitchers" (it describes what kind of pitchers they are, if that makes sense).

In the middle example, Cardinals is serving as a possessive noun... you could write "the pitchers of the Cardinals" in its place, and it would make sense (it'd be a awkward sentence, yeah, but technically it's still grammatically correct.)

Ding.
Just remember, adjectives aren't possessives - hence it's not girls' basketball, it's girls basketball.

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."

 

[deskslave]

The Cardinal pitchers.

Only if you're talking about Stanford's baseball team.

The contemporary thinking is to go plural, under the premise that there's more than one of 'em.

Plus, it usually just sounds better to the ear for most people: Mets manager Terry Collins vs. Met manager Terry Collins. Under the same premise, sometimes it helps to add a "the" to the sentence for clarity.

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.

 

[reformedhack]

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. :)

 

[Pete D. Camarillo]

How about ...


Oakland Raiders' draft needs
or

Oakland Raiders draft needs

 

[MNgremlin]

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.

 

[jr/shotglass]

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."

First time I came across this, and now I'm really confused because both parties sound right. I just know we've used "girls' basketball" forever.

 

[Rhody31]

It's always girls basketball. Girls don't possess the sport, they describe it.
"Oakland draft needs include" - is also correct.

 

[MNgremlin]

"Oakland draft needs include" - is also correct.

I would argue that the Oakland Raiders possess their draft needs though.

 

[Rhody31]

I would argue that the Oakland Raiders possess their draft needs though.

Correct.
Actually, I think both would be correct in this situation, no? I hate/love this ****.