Announcing/writing pet peeve

I go crazy when I read things like "Smith was 3 for 4 on the day, and he would've been perfect if not for a sensational diving catch by Tigers shortstop Jim Johnson in the second inning."

If Jim Johnson did not make that catch, the entire game would've been different. Every subsequent pitch and at-bat and strategic decision would have been different. For all we know, Smith may well have struck out in his subsequent three at-bats.

I don't understand why this concept seems so difficult for journalists and broadcasters - especially broadcasters, don't get me wrong - to figure out.

That is all! Thank you.

 

"If the season ended today..." Who gives a fuck? The season is not ending today. Why even speculate?

 

When I ask my son how he pitched if I didn't make it to his game, he'll usually say something like, "I had a no-hitter in the second inning."

 

I thought your pet peeve was going to be use of the phrase "on the day."

I don't really have a problem with the other thing you mentioned. I think you're being unneccesarily literal there.

 

I agree with Some Guy.

 

The shift in voice to......would. You're describing something that has already occurred. To then piece it out as......'he would go on to'.....'they would score four more'... man, that drives me batty.

 

I'm sure they "would" score more than four runs if they could, but they fact is they scored four more runs.

 

What if there are two outs in the ninth, team down a run, the dude smacks one to deep left and the OF jumps over the fence to rob the dude and makes him 3-for-4 instead of a perfect 4-for-4??

 

Fair enough, fair enough. Maybe I can convince you with some other representative examples?

"Clemens would have had a strikeout in every inning if he had received the benefit of a disputed call on a 3-2 pitch in the fifth."

"Remember when Steve Nash missed that technical free throw in the second quarter, something that almost never happens? Well, look at the score right now. The Suns are down one point."

"If the Celtics hadn't suffered a shocking loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder in December, they would be enjoying a 16-game winning streak."

You hear it all the time. None of it makes any sense - as any 13-year-old reader of fantasy novels could tell you. If you go back in time and change something, the future changes! The future is not independent of the past. All such announcer and writer statements assume independence.

 

Speaking of pet peeves, a perfect 4-for-4? As opposed to an imperfect 4-for-4? Or a perfect 1-for-3? Your readers know that four out of four is perfect.

 

That one's okay. Excellent exception-finding.