The Sporticourse Principle

Can we talk? Honestly? Thanks, you’re such a good listener, even though you probably don’t know me very well. I just have to get this out, I’ve had a kind of revelation and I need to explore it. I’ve spent most of my life under the assumption that I was a creative, artistic, big picture person, best suited to a lifestyle full of ideas and expression. This assumption allowed me to shrug off late-high school struggles with math, physics and chemistry and instead embrace the more forgiving, subjective nature of social sciences and humanities. Choosing that path years ago provides now provides me with a built-in excuse for lower professional expectations while still maintaining a sense of arrogant altruism, since money “just doesn’t mean that much to me.” It also lets me tell anonymous lies on the internet.

I have a book that, every time I read it, changes me a little bit. Most of us have a book like that, or a movie, maybe something counter-culture, like Fight Club (either the book or movie), something uplifting and reassuring like the Shawshank Redemption or, speaking of altruism, the Bible. For me it’s the Dilbert Principle. Scott Adams’ 1995 book is my Lord of the Rings, something that needs to be re-read every few years for its central message to remain. I’m reading it right now during my breaks from work and realized that I’ve miscast myself throughout my entire life. Adams, in his chapter on office personalities (the book’s at work so no exact quotes for you), describes engineers as having a singular goal in human interaction: proving their mental superiority over others by explaining complex ideas. That, and finding their true happiness in electronic toys and gadgets. I already knew that I valued electronics way too much, my home theatre system is worth more than my car or university degree (in dollars, the arrogance you get with a political science degree is priceless), but reading the description of engineers and their social goals seemed surprisingly familiar.

But this is a sports blog, you say! There’s no room for self-centered epistemological meditations! Just tell us whether or not Souray’s contract will cripple the Oilers in the last few years so we can call you a Nazi in the comments section! Well, this DOES relate to sports because I’m realizing that it’s only in this area where my engineering tendencies take over. I started this blog because I hoped that, after a few years of practice, I’d be able to write something as insightful and educational as Joe Posnanski, something as funny as the guys at FireJoeMorgan, or contribute something as unique as Loxy's Hot Oil or MBK (it pays off to comment). In other words, I knew where the ceiling was, knew how far I had to go to analyze sports as well as the best. I was humble, I knew that people are out there who know more, a LOT more, about sports than I do. My problem is that I can’t recognize them when I see them.

Baseball is a great sport to talk about because statistics are so well measure and maintained. The complexity is measuring player value is staggering at first, but if you take a little time to understand what VORP, WHIP and OPS+ are all about you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find that a lot of people who talk about baseball are idiots. Now you’re smarter than they are, and happier as a result. But hockey’s harder, you can’t quantify performance the same way because the sport doesn’t break down into short, measurable increments. Now, you’ll find yourself listening to the same stupid arguments about “leadership” and “great teammate” and “clutch performer” in any sport. In baseball though, you can refute this nonsense pretty easily but in hockey you have to grit your teeth knowing your counter-argument won’t be much better. But this is summertime, which means baseball, which means baseball on the TVs every night at work (home theatre sales, for disclosure’s sake), which means LOTS of arguments over player performance. Now I’m in sales, I have to be nice to people, listen to what they have to say, make them feel welcome but I will be DAMNED if I’m going to let them say that Alex Rodriguez sucks in the post-season (39 games, .279/.361/.483, 7 home runs, 17 RBI’s). That’s the engineering side right there, no matter what the social situation the primal need is there to say NO YOU’RE WRONG HERE’S IMPENETRABLE LOGIC SHOWING YOU WHY. I DON’T CARE IF WE’RE NOT FRIENDS ANYMORE I DON’T EVEN KNOW YOU. I’M NOW ADDING VOLUME TO MY EXCELLENT ARGUMENT. I WIN. Totally disregarding the nuances and subtleties of the social context, my only goal is to explain in great detail how WHIP and ERA+ show how Pedro Martinez was more dominant in 2000 than Bob Gibson was in his famous 1968 Cy Young/MVP season.

Of course, the temptation is just to sit back, rationalize oneself, and assume that all sports fans are like this, none of them just “let it go,” never pass up a chance to one-up someone else with greater knowledge or “better” stories, even if that person is in the middle of interviewing you for a job. Yeah, that’s probably true, fans are by nature deranged and dangerously volatile, they can’t be held responsible for their suddenly crippled social skills when someone says Bernie Williams should be in the Hall of Fame (correct answer: No). It’s not just me, we’re all arrogant and belligerent. Right! Right? Right.