Why I Consider Most Sportswriters and Sports Announcers to Be Relatively Lame

A lot of people love to tell me why they believe something that I've said or written is wrong (despite their sad lack of comprehension), but oddly enough, I have yet to have anyone argue with the title above.

Exhibit 1 in said position of advocacy:

I suppose technically this buffoon is right. Well, actually, no he isn't. If he states that the Giants had home field advantage for the World Series, he can't then pile on with "it didn't matter, they beat the Tigers 4–zip." "It didn't matter" is an implied "but." They were expected to win if they had home field advantage, and whether they won 4–0 or 4–3 doesn't matter. His argument makes sense only if the Giants didn't have home field advantage. Winning 4–0 is an expansion of the point that the Giants won the that World Series, not the yes–no of whether they won, so it needs an expansionary argument like "they had home field advantage, but went beyond the expected outcome and won the Series decisively, on the road and at home, 4–0."

See how that works? Probably not. Whatever.

Cheers.