No, this is like a literary critic finding a baseball score, let's say 3-0, mentioned casually in dialog in a Hemmingway short story that does not have a date or mention of teams, and, then talking about what the team must have been (okay, let's say we can guess). And the season. Let's say they can guess. Okay, and then talking about the lineup, tactics, what the innings must have looked like, and whetehr there was any bad luck or refereeing or questionable ump calls involved. You know, based on the fact that score was 3-0, and, you know, it seemed important enough for the character to mention. Maybe due to some bad ump calls. Probably. I mean, it's pure rank speculation but why else would the character mention it??
You see the difference? The only true answer is because, f--, hemmingway liked baseball and he needed some dialogue. there's no play by play action behind it, absolutely nothing for us to guess about because it just didn't happen. :)
The author isn't the point. Maybe he thought more about the game than he put in the story. Maybe not. But in the universe of that story, the game existed! And that's what matters.
In fiction, especially fantasy and science fiction, the universe is as much important as the main narrative. And we like exploring the "how do they"'s and "how can it"'s of these universes.
I understand your position. I have people in my family that don't read/watch fantasy or science fiction because "it doesn't have real stuff" and some only read historical novels or "based in real events" books because "if it isn't true, it's not worth it".
I, on the other hand, can't read historical novels, because I don't know what is "real" and what is "not real". If I want a story, I get fiction. If I want to know stuff, I buy a technical book about it.
And if I'm reading for a great story, I might as well read one set in a fictional universe. Two for the price of one! I mostly read fantasy and sci-fi nowadays.
To end it all, you have to see that fantasy/sci-fi/comic book/etc fans love exploring these worlds. And in a corner of our minds, they're almost as real as our world.
There is a third route between made-up and technical: real stories without any 'novel' or fictive aspects. You are making a serious conflation when you say " Is this any different from the sports fan who talk about old team lineups, why such and such tactic was wrong in a game, why they lost a game because of bad luck/refereeing[?]"
I am saying: yes, it's very different! It's like the difference between discussing Napoleon and discussing Darth Vader. One is not a discussion about a made-up world, but the real world. Instead of speculation about the made-up world, we can examine real facts. Likewise, for real games that actually happened, we can look at real facts.
I also consider lots of made-up stories to be very interesting. On the other hand, I am also interested to an extent in real stories as well, without any creative aspects other than the author's (and scoiety's) interpretation, the order in which events are told, what events are told, etc.
Imaginative realities are certainly interesting - but don't for a minute confuse them for being similar to real events.
You see the difference? The only true answer is because, f--, hemmingway liked baseball and he needed some dialogue. there's no play by play action behind it, absolutely nothing for us to guess about because it just didn't happen. :)