Tao of Stieb: Plato, and angry Blue Jays fans

Fans have become too good at finding the bad in their team (CP)

As much as we all enjoy sports, there are noxious aspects that come with being a fan, not the least of which is the sense that you’re relentlessly in a searing debate at almost any minute of the day. Forget about boxing or MMA: The height of modern combat might just be the bloodsport of engaging in even the most mundane argument about sports.

Consider fans of the Blue Jays. Even when things have gone relatively well for the  Jays in recent years, some of the more vocal fans seem to take more interest in what’s wrong with the team than what’s right. There’s a notion that to be a certifiably passionate fan, you need to be constantly angry and indignant, if not downright resentful towards the players, coaches, management and ownership.

And anyone trying to talk you out of that position can probably just go to hell.

To some extent, I think many sports fans have been lulled into this state of perpetual pique. It’s not so much a conscious choice as it is a matter of people getting caught in self-fulfilling cognitive cycles which inevitably lead them to outrage and exasperation.

This is fundamentally unhealthy, especially given the nature of professional sports in general, and baseball in particular. Baseball is a game in which failure is often the expected outcome, and which requires a level of perspective to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, like when an outfielder loses the ball in the sun. Moments like that are frustrating, but they are just moments in a long game, and in a long season.

To take a step back to gain some perspective, I sometimes to go back to the works of the Ancients. (And I’m not referring to Earl Weaver here.)

My favourite Platonic dialogue—yes, I have a favourite—is the Gorgias, which is essentially about the use of rhetoric in discourse. In this dialogue, there’s discussion of the value and use of doxa, which are essentially axioms or commonly-held beliefs, which “sophists” (paid rhetoricians) could use to help to form or persuade public opinion.

The essence here is that using axioms or logical devices as the foundation of your argument might help you win, but might not get you closer to greater knowledge. And you may just be reinforcing your own gloom.
Here are a few examples of what I think is faulty logic that only serves to make you more anxious or miserable.

Consistent/Inconsistent: Some days, players play well. Some days, they don’t. Or they hit screaming line drives directly at someone for weeks before they squeak a seven-hopper through the infield with the bases loaded.

The point is that the finger-pointing expression of irritation at the lack of consistency in outcomes is probably a veiled or rationalized expression of frustration at a negative outcome. You can’t really expect your team to score between three and six runs every night, and give up between two and five runs every night. There’s a reason why they say you can’t predict baseball.
That’s not to say that these terms have no usefulness in baseball discussions, though I would tend to think of consistency in pitchers’ deliveries as the most pertinent example of the concept.

Single game Runners in Scoring Position stats: You rarely hear about a team that was two-for-six with RISP, because the only time this stat gets trotted out is in the case of a loss. And within the context of a single game, that can come down to bad luck as much as anything else.

Moreover, when people use and 0-for in this stat to demonstrate a lack of “situational hitting”, but you can move players over and drive them in with sacrifices and still post a goose egg when it comes to RISP stats.

A team’s hitting with RISP is going to look bad in more games than it doesn’t. Even strings of bad games in this stat can be written down to bad luck as much as anything else. If it were a month, or a half-season of bad results, that might mean something else. But even then, supposes that there is something extra meaningful about those RISP at bats.

Situational won-loss records: We heard a lot about this in recent weeks, especially as the Blue Jays’ record in games in which they didn’t score many runs looked very poor compared to their record when they scored excessive amounts of runs.

But isn’t that obvious? If I told you the Jays had never won a game in which they scored no runs, would that somehow be an indictment on their inability to find other ways to get on the scoreboard?

The Blue Jays are currently 3-10 in one-run games, which if you were so inclined, you could spin into tales of woe about their lack of bullpen depth, or their lack of clutchiness in the clutch. But the team they just faced in 9-6 in one-run games and only one game better in the standings than Toronto. So does that mean that they are better or worse in close games?

My argument on all these logical devices is that they are trivial: They provide some evidence of what has occurred in tiny samples of peculiar situations, and can help to fill in the blanks of the recent narrative. But they provide nothing close to proof of a problem or issue with the team, and are far too loose and malleable for anyone to come to a meaningful conclusion using these arguments.

So why use them to win the argument with yourself that you deserve to miserable?

 

When submitting content, please abide by our submission guidelines, and avoid posting profanity, personal attacks or harassment. Should you violate our submissions guidelines, we reserve the right to remove your comments and block your account. Sportsnet reserves the right to close a story’s comment section at any time.