Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a…
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 fa…
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.