What Jim Said

Just to follow up on Jim’s A-Rod comments…

Why do we [the collective “we,” of course – Jim and I have no problem with A-Rod] hate A-Rod? ESPN.com’s Eric Neel offers this theory:

We prefer the simple, familiar mechanics of winners and losers, heroes and villains, guys who have it and guys who don't. We say it's all about the rings. We say, as if we have no weaknesses ourselves, as if we've never shrunk from anything in our personal or professional lives, "suck it up" and "be a man." We demonize, then exile the "weak" guy. We treat him as if his sensitivities were contagious, as if he had cooties.

Once that die is cast and he's outside the realm of empathy, we can have our way with him, even if the way we do him seems wildly out of whack with his performance.

"He's held to an impossibly high standard," Kay says. "I really believe they expect him to get a hit every time up. The guy gets his temperature taken every single at-bat."

And he's found wanting. Every single time. Every single time he collects a check. Every single time Jeter makes a play or Papi goes deep…It's all fair game…

As he makes his way toward some of the all-time records, will we soften our A-Rod stance and expand the register of what we can connect with, express empathy for? Or will we hold to the old tough-guy standards and keep doing him the way we do? It's on us, not him, from here on out.

If it’s really on us [the collective “us,” of course], then A-Rod is doomed. It’s just easier to look at life as a collection of celluloid villains and heroes. There’s no need to bother with any of that “thinking” stuff, no need to ask yourself why you hate somebody with such venom. It’s Occam’s Razor taken to its most disheartening extreme…