THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Friday, December 09, 2011

Irrational despondency

As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols was 42 years old, and some team offered him a 3 year, 60MM$ deal, and the Cardinals offered him 1 year, 10MM$, then no fan will begrudge him in taking the better deal.  That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.

As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols signed the 10 year, 220MM$ deal with the Cardinals today, and then got injured, and ended up being a shadow of the player he was within two years, the Cardinals fan would lament the albatross of a contract.  That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.

The Cardinals fan is not hurt because Pujols left a huge deal, only to take an even huger deal.  The Cardinals fan is not hurt because of Pujols apparent hypocrisy of being a Cardinals-for-life.

No.  The Cardinals fan is hurt because they know that Pujols still has plenty of joy to give, and as long as he has that joy to give, the Cardinals fan is the one who feels entitled to it, regardless of what Pujols wants.  Pujols has not yet outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.  And when he does, it’s the fan, not Pujols, that has to make the first cut of the umbilical cord.  The fan wants to come to grips with it first.

Pedro Martinez was traded after winning his Cy Young.  Expos fans came to grips with it quickly enough, because, we knew that he was going to go eventually.

It doesn’t matter if Pujols pulled an in-your-face Lebron, or if Pujols was traded for the current day Gretzky-deal of three big-time prospects and a 100MM$.  The fans had banked on their player, claimed an ownership on another human being, and they are going to express that disappointment to another human being, be it directly onto the player, or onto the owner who let him get away.

It’s an irrational despondency.

But, as has been pointed out to me, sports itself is irrational.  Pujols made, and will make, his millions based on people simply watching him do something.  They don’t get any direct value of a product or service.  All they can do is live in the moment, of channeling their energies onto something they see, and hope for an outcome that is what they want.

Sports is not art, that touches you on a deep level.  Sports requires a visceral reaction, that depends on you first making a stake as to what you expect.  You can’t just watch a soccer match for the first time in your life, and start cheering as if something has affected you.  You need context, you need a setup, you need to know the extent of what a person can accomplish.  And then, when that thing happens, when that outcome matches or exceeds your expectation, you cheer.  I was a moderate soccer fan, but watching Zidane against Italy and Brazil provoked an irrational reaction in me.  Had I not been a soccer fan at all, Zidane’s stellar performance would have meant nothing at all.

The sports fan is expressiong irrational despondency when “his” (as if he owns him) star player leaves.  He can feel whatever he wants to feel, because that’s how he has invested his energies, and that’s how the superstar player gets paid, by, if not preying, at least tapping, into those energies.  But, despondency does not have to lead to hate or disgust or long-term depression. 

Just grieve, and, eventually, move on:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

The Cardinals lost one of the best players of all-time, but after getting two World Series out of it.  Edmonton lost an even better player, and got more Stanley Cups.  And both players left their towns with a championship won in their last season.

Montreal lost an entire team.  The Expos gave Montreal a lifetime of memories, as did Pujols give to the Cardinals fans.  That should be enough.

Irrational despondency can lead to rational grief.