Got would?

"on the season." As in "Podunk moved to 2-0 on the season."

Nails on a chalkboard.

 

99 times out of 100, a team's record can be done with parentheses, followed by other information. "Podunk (13-2) won its eighth consecutive game . . ."

 

I despise "has got ... "

 

I gave up trying to get rid of "would." It's not "would happen." It "did happen." Even the veteran writers used it. We miss deadline if I changed them all.

 

My shop is full of reporters who use "different" in that context and assigning editors who contend it's necessary. I've argued that it's wordy, substandard writing, but I'm always either ignored or told to mind my own business.

 

Mind your own business?

You're an editor. It IS your business.

 

Only if there are five receivers with the same name.

 

Then you could write "five similar receivers. "

 

Yes, active voice is great. But the "would" issue isn't a matter of active or passive. It's a matter of an unnecessary conditional.

 

WOULD you stop ...

 

If we're naming redundancies (words you can nearly always omit):

-- New. Smith named as new coach = Smith named as coach. Of course she's a new coach. Everyone understands that teams don't hire the old coach.

-- Local. A local hospital = a hospital. If they were flown to Paris for surgery, we'd say that.

-- -based. A Nashville-based freelancer = a Nashville freelancer. Everyone understands that people travel for work. They're not the Chicago-based Cubs.

 

We always joked about it -- he was slowly taken to a faraway hospital.

One of my peeves was "in the game." Smith got three hits in the game. No shit. If he did it during batting practice, we wouldn't care.