Oh, so it couldn't POSSIBLY be a "crapshoot" then...

Internet time frames require writers to come up with a lot of content quickly. So you end up with a lot of dreck, words taking up space while making no sense or adding nothing to the stories. (I'm guilty, too.)

The dumbest piece of commentary I've seen so far comes from SI's Jon Heyman, who obviously does not understand the meaning of the terms "disproved," "crapshoot," or "fluke."

The Red Sox disproved the old "crapshoot" theory espoused by a lot of folks who keep losing in the playoffs. The best team won in 2007, and that is no fluke.

If I flip a coin and it comes up "heads," that doesn't "disprove" the theory that a coin flip produces random results. Likewise, the "crapshoot" theory doesn't say that the best team can't win, only that they won't necessarily win. So the best team winning doesn't "disprove" anything...


(Of course, his SI colleague John Donovan thinks that Boston Red Sox Chairman Tom Werner's name is Tom Lerner. It wasn't a typo - it was in the article twice. The last time I looked, someone had fixed one of them, but the other was still there...)