Announcing/writing pet peeve

This one doesn't bother me all that much. The Angels' Matt Palmer is a rookie. He's 30. I suppose one could give the age and that would work better, but in comparison to some of the other tripe mentioned here, I kinda just shrug at young rookie.

 

So-and-so "capped off" a rally. Yes, and I guess I capped off the toothpaste tube when I was through, or capped off a good night out with a poke when I got home.

The Crapper County Bushwhackers "got untracked" in the second quarter.

 

Could I possibly convince you to consider "goalless draw?"

 

"The Giants have a strong core of players returning."

It's corps, not core. I can see why people would swap those out, but it still bugs me.

 

I hate it when announcers say "the only mistake he made all game" when referring to a pitcher who gave up a home run and nothing else, or something similar.

The pitcher could have made many mistakes, only the other team didn't capitalize on them. Also, the pitch to the batter could have been exactly where he wanted to throw it.

I also hate it when someone says "pivotal game 3" or "pivotal game 5" in a playoff series. All games have the same degree of pivoty (if that's a word).

 

I once attended a basketball game at which "press row" had been moved into the stands so the team could sell the actual press row to rich paying customers. I attended the game as a spectator, and I happened to be sitting right beside Fake Press Row - and one row behind a prominent columnist. In the middle of the first quarter, my non-journalist buddy excitedly whispered to me that said prominent columnist was on thesaurus.com looking up a synonym for "pivotal." We later read his paragraph in Microsoft Word. It referred to a "crucial Game 6."

We still talk about this.

 

I suppose. Like I said, I understand why they get mixed up. Just bugs me that people don't seem to know what a corps is.

 

While the phrase "pivotal game 3" or "pivotal game 5" is kind of cliched, I'm going to disagree on games having different levels of pivoty (or whatever...I just like that word).
If it's a 2-0 series, there's a big difference between a series being 2-1 and 3-0. Or in a 2-2 series, whoever wins Game 5 certainly has an upper hand. Especially if they're heading home for Games 6 and 7. And in a playoff series, a Game 3 is typically more important than a Game 1. Not all playoff games are created equal.

 

I see your point, but I don't know how you could say a game is pivotal before it happens. Sure, a team down 2-0 could win game 3 to make it 2-1 instead of 3-0. But what if the other team wins the next two games. Was that game really pivotal? I'd say that game 1, or even game 2, was more pivotal than game 3.

 

If I follow you right, you're asking if the team goes on to sweep, then was Game 3 pivotal?
If that's the case, I say yes. Even if you lose the first two games, if you win Game 3 you still have some hope. And then Game 4 and Game 5 are also pivotal in their own way (to avoid going down 3-1 or 3-2, which are also tough deficits to overcome).
If you go down 3-0 the series is pretty much over. So it's the most pivotal of all.
Of course, if the series is 1-1 heading into Game 3, then Games 4 and 5 are much more pivotal than Game 3 was. Depending on the situation, I just don't have a big problem labeling any of those middle games in a series "pivotal".
I would have a problem labeling Games 1 and 2, or 6 and 7 that way.