I'm going to go ahead and assume that the reviewer is not so interested in The Show or in the 2K series (or baseball, for that matter), which is fine in life, but becomes a bit of an issue when having to review the two games. The basic idea of doing a comparison exclusively centered on core gameplay is, frankly, near-useless to everyone who has played a baseball game in the last half-decade or so. Almost every single person who picks up either of the games will have a basic understanding of what a baseball game is and how it works. That in mind, any buyer's guide has to include an in-depth discussion of the modes of play and changes from previous years, and in general, things aside from the basic fact that you do stuff with the analog sticks.
Beyond just the basic structural component, statements like "The Show has been creeping up the standings..." fulfill the obligatory sports review cliche requirement, but are at best a misrepresentation of things, and at worst, objectively inaccurate. The Show has been superior to 2K for quite a while now, according to essentially everyone.
I don't mean to be too critical. It's entirely possible that the writer actually knows his stuff and is writing down to an audience he presumes has never seen a baseball before. I'm not sure which reality would be a better one, to be honest, but I do believe it's worth pointing out that large portions of the review are either nonsensical or inaccurate.