{"id":34806,"date":"2017-10-03T11:16:13","date_gmt":"2017-10-03T16:16:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu\/nll\/?p=34806"},"modified":"2017-10-03T16:59:59","modified_gmt":"2017-10-03T21:59:59","slug":"the-new-yorker-baubles-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu\/nll\/?p=34806","title":{"rendered":"The New Yorker baubles it"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday, The New Yorker posted an article on its website: \"The Error in Baseball and the Moral Dimension to American Life<\/a>,\" by Stephen Marche. As originally published, the article contained this paragraph (emphasis mine):<\/p>\n

In practice, \u201cordinary effort\u201d describes, as Bill James wrote, what should have happened. What should have happened in a piece of fielding can have nothing to do with the play of the fielder. Utter offered me a case: The runner hits the ball into the outfield, the fielder baubles<\/strong>\u00a0the ball, and the runner advances to second. Is that an error? It depends. \u201cWhat we would have to look at is\u2014is it a single or is it a double? Or is it a single and advance on an error or on the throw?\u201d The way that the scorer determines whether that bauble<\/strong> is an error or not has less to do with the action of the fielder than with the action of the runner. \u201cWas the runner going all the time? Did he never think about stopping at first? Or was he running and looking at the play and then slowed down a little bit and then took off when he saw the little bauble<\/strong>?\u201d If he paused, noticed the misplay, and ran to second, \u201cThat becomes the error.\u201d<\/p>\n

Obligatory screenshot (also preserved for posterity by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The use of\u00a0bauble<\/em> instead of\u00a0bobble<\/em> did not go unnoticed on social media.<\/p>\n

\n

Really?? \u201cBauble\u201d instead of \u201cbobble\u201d?!<\/p>\n

— rolian (@rolian) October 3, 2017<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n