Is this beat writer trying too hard?

I don't even like to hear "in goal" ... it's jargon and incorrect grammar. A grating ESPNism is to put "would" in every other sentence, as in "Pence homered but the Giants would lose 3-2." It already happened so it's past tense -- you're not doing highlights. And one that is not jargon but just bad grammar is saying "you've got" or "I've got" instead of you have or I have ...not wild about seeing "dimes" instead of assists either.

 

I'm all for quality control in game stories, but if an occasional "went deep" as a substitute for homered gives you the vapors, maybe it is time to undo the top button on your polo shirt and live a little.

 

Don't get me started on the "would" thing.

 

That seems a bit ... harsh.

 

In the same vein, when TV people say "he's out with a hamstring." The extra word you're looking for there, champ, is "injury."

 

I'm pretty sure I railed against "would" on another thread in here. Fucking hate it, whether spoken or written.

 

It's among baseball expressions on the "banned" list in our stylebook, so we're expected to change it whether it gives us "the vapors" or not. But yeah, if it's a few minutes until deadline and the priorities are accurate display type and getting the story out on time, it's no big deal.

On the other hand, no way in Hades am I letting "bomb" get in as a home run substitute, even if it means going in late. And I'll tell you from experience that our boss agrees.

 

Barnesy! The groans from the regular FSU beat writers of the early 2000s were audible when he'd make his weekly appearance in Tallahassee: at the post-game presser.

 

I nodded knowingly on every one, but donkeys. Is the context as one would expect?

 

where do you stand on tater and big fly?

 

A donkey, in hockey terms, is a guy who might not be the brightest bulb in the room