Talk:Shawn Green
From Academic Kids
I don't view qualifiers like "quick", "powerful", etc., as bias or overstatements when they are readily accepted by anyone who knows anything about the player in question. Shawn Green does have a very strong and very accurate arm in the outfield. There is a statistical and critical consensus on that. He regularly leads the league in outfield assists. Runners think twice about stretching singles into doubles and going first to third when the ball's hit in his field. Saying "he is noted for his strong, accurate arm in the outfield" conveys this general meaning far better than "he is noted for his arm in the outfield". What does that even mean without the qualifier?
Similarly with swing. There are many ways in which a player could be noted for their swing. Shawn is noted for his short, quick swing, as opposed to his long swing, or his accurate swing. I think it's fair to put this in.
-- Matty j 03:49, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Are they accepted by everyone for real? Isnt there one single person who says that Green doesnt have a quick swing? People used to ask me that when I made my pages about boxers and I, by the way, really used to give my heroes their accolades on their pages..LOL
Then why say he was noted for anything at all? Somebody might dispute it.
I'm going to work out some alternative wordings, but I really don't like it the way it stands. Saying he is noted for his "arm in the outfield" seems ambiguous and uninspiring, like we were just justifying saying something about him. I could say "Some consider his arm the best in the league" (which is true), but is that more or less of an overstatement?
-- Matty j 15:16, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
