For those of you who love the sport, we are about to see a new spring training, a new season, oh God, I'm so anxious.
Here's my firt question related to the ball game, what's the meaning of this statement in quatations marks?
The 10-minute bullpen session drew a small crowd of reporters and photographers, but was not nearly the event " it might have been had Martinez not already been in camp for more than a week". He threw off the mound last week under the supervision of bullpen coach Guy Conti, but this was his first under the watchful eye of Rick Peterson.
I dont understand the structure "might have been had" in this case.
pls. forgive my ignorance....
Not many sports guys around I see. !bummer ยก
At least anybody could answer my question? regardless of their taste for sports.
It looks to me Present Perfect in Passive Voice of "to have".
I like skiing, not baseball :)
"it might have been had Martinez not already been in camp for more than a week"
It can also be said: "it might have been if Martinez not already been in camp for more than a week"
the "had" in an alternative word for "if" here. "might have been" is the verb. As Chamonix noted, it is in present perfect.
Sorry,
It can also be said: "it might have been if Martinez had not already been in camp for more than a week"
left out the had when I replaced it with "if".
It's a very long sentence but we can cut a bit out without affecting the question.
The session was not nearly the event it might have been had Martinez not been in camp.
It's a counterfactual. Martinez has already been in camp for more than a week. If he hadn't been, then the session would have been a much greater event.
Hard to understand, but let me read it over and over to get it.
Thanks....
Ok then Jim what you mean here is: the session would have been better without Pedro. Why? maybe too much commotion too many reporters around?
A comma is lacking, I would say:
It might have been, had Martinez not already been in camp for more than a week.
I don't know whether a comma is required, but it certainly makes the sentence easier to read, so for that reason I would use it.
Rich,
What I actually mean is more along the lines of "The session might have been better without Pedro's having been in camp for more than a week." So actually "The session was not nearly the event it might have been had Martinez not been in camp." would be cutting too much out. It's best to leave the "for more than a week" bit in. I suppose my post wasn't clear enough.
Y'see Rich, this is where my baseball knowledge fails me. What is this camp and what connexion does it have with the session? Answer this question and I'd be better able to explain. However let me just assume and answer and play with that.
I assume the following:
1) Players attend sessions if and only if they are in camp (unless they are injured).
2) Every day there is a session at the camp (except maybe on Saturdays and/or Sundays).
3) There'd been nothing (like an injury) stopping Martinez from attending sessions.
Hence we could conclude that Martinez had already been at a few sessions before the one in question. Perhaps if this session had been Pedro's first, then it would have been a bigger event. This is my guess.
...................................................................
Let me try to explain what you asked, camp: it is related to beeing in spring training, which is the previous 2 or 3 months before the season opening where players prepare physically and mentally (kind of a warmup). As for the seesions, it is just any time a player does a specific drill.
Is it clear now, let me know, because I gotta understand and finnaly get it right. Does my explanation here change what you assumed?