Angry Guy
The Mark McGwire Hall of Fame vote brought the steroids controversy to a head this month. While it is truly a sad state of affairs, but is it worth the anger that some fans are broadcasting over it?
Case in point: I got into a brief discussion of the topic with a casual acquaintance the other day. His take: all MLB players are steroid-taking cheaters, except for the handful that I deem clean.
I replied that I could understand his position, but couldn't agree with it. And then I went into my bit (which I have posted about here) that no one gave a rat's ass about steroids in real time, and now it's a big deal. All of us (fans, media, MLBPA, MLB) are complicit in creating the climate that made it OK to juice, yadda yadda yadda.
That's when Angry Guy came out. AG came back and said that steroids weren't a big deal back then because no one knew how much of an effect they would have. At the time, we all thought steroids let a 20 HR guy hit 25 HR. Now we know that steroids lets undeserving 30 HR hitters destroy our hallowed home run records!
And on the grand scale of cheating, that's just unacceptable.
I let his bit about cheating go (I mean, if we're all so bloody concerned about the sanctity of the home run records, it should be just as big a deal to gain an extra five dingers by cheating as thirty, right?) and asked how do we "know" that steroids lets these undeserving bums hit 70 homers a year. And then I rattled off a list of guys like Alex Sanchez and Calvin Murray who doped and didn't come close.
Irrelevant trivia, thundered Angry Guy. I'm not sure why -- after all, he was the one who brought up stats in the first place. But I foolishly soldiered on and said that there's no we way can "know" with any certainty what effect steroids has on players, at least not without some sort of study.
Wrong! screamed Angry Guy. You can't know -- but I can!
That should have been my cue to leave, but I hung about for a few more minutes while he ranted about how I was a "steroid apologist" and my irrelevant observations and basically just really, really stupid for having the audacity to not agree with him completely.
I let Angry Guy have his angry say. Then I wished him well and went on my merry way. I imagine he's off somewhere, confident that he's somehow won this "argument" (I was rather hoping for a conversation, actually...). Alas, he is mistaken. To paraphrase the great Jane Austen, I did not think he "deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
I can understand Angry Guy's (and many other fans') anger over the situation. What I can't fathom is why he got so bent at me for asking a few questions. I willingly admit my thinking on the subject isn't water-tight. That's why I'm asking questions.
And by answering questions we can have a meaningful dialogue and promote greater understanding of the issues. Conversely, we can put our hands over our ears and holler "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" and neither gain nor impart knowledge.
Perhaps that's the crux of the matter. When you're emotionally invested in a particular point of view, it's difficult to hear the other side. I know, 'cause I've been there (as anyone who's heard Jim and me go off on our Twain v. Fitzgerald debate knows...).
The sad thing is that I don't really disagree with his take that steroids are a problem in MLB. But I don't believe that steroids magically turns lousy players into megastars. And by asking uncomfortable questions about why we never noticed what was going on under our noses back in 1998, I was threatening his status quo that players are evil cheating bastards.
Oh, well. I haven't a clue if my half-baked ideas are near being right. But being angry won't make me any more (or less) right...
Case in point: I got into a brief discussion of the topic with a casual acquaintance the other day. His take: all MLB players are steroid-taking cheaters, except for the handful that I deem clean.
I replied that I could understand his position, but couldn't agree with it. And then I went into my bit (which I have posted about here) that no one gave a rat's ass about steroids in real time, and now it's a big deal. All of us (fans, media, MLBPA, MLB) are complicit in creating the climate that made it OK to juice, yadda yadda yadda.
That's when Angry Guy came out. AG came back and said that steroids weren't a big deal back then because no one knew how much of an effect they would have. At the time, we all thought steroids let a 20 HR guy hit 25 HR. Now we know that steroids lets undeserving 30 HR hitters destroy our hallowed home run records!
And on the grand scale of cheating, that's just unacceptable.
I let his bit about cheating go (I mean, if we're all so bloody concerned about the sanctity of the home run records, it should be just as big a deal to gain an extra five dingers by cheating as thirty, right?) and asked how do we "know" that steroids lets these undeserving bums hit 70 homers a year. And then I rattled off a list of guys like Alex Sanchez and Calvin Murray who doped and didn't come close.
Irrelevant trivia, thundered Angry Guy. I'm not sure why -- after all, he was the one who brought up stats in the first place. But I foolishly soldiered on and said that there's no we way can "know" with any certainty what effect steroids has on players, at least not without some sort of study.
Wrong! screamed Angry Guy. You can't know -- but I can!
That should have been my cue to leave, but I hung about for a few more minutes while he ranted about how I was a "steroid apologist" and my irrelevant observations and basically just really, really stupid for having the audacity to not agree with him completely.
I let Angry Guy have his angry say. Then I wished him well and went on my merry way. I imagine he's off somewhere, confident that he's somehow won this "argument" (I was rather hoping for a conversation, actually...). Alas, he is mistaken. To paraphrase the great Jane Austen, I did not think he "deserved the compliment of rational opposition."
I can understand Angry Guy's (and many other fans') anger over the situation. What I can't fathom is why he got so bent at me for asking a few questions. I willingly admit my thinking on the subject isn't water-tight. That's why I'm asking questions.
And by answering questions we can have a meaningful dialogue and promote greater understanding of the issues. Conversely, we can put our hands over our ears and holler "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!" and neither gain nor impart knowledge.
Perhaps that's the crux of the matter. When you're emotionally invested in a particular point of view, it's difficult to hear the other side. I know, 'cause I've been there (as anyone who's heard Jim and me go off on our Twain v. Fitzgerald debate knows...).
The sad thing is that I don't really disagree with his take that steroids are a problem in MLB. But I don't believe that steroids magically turns lousy players into megastars. And by asking uncomfortable questions about why we never noticed what was going on under our noses back in 1998, I was threatening his status quo that players are evil cheating bastards.
Oh, well. I haven't a clue if my half-baked ideas are near being right. But being angry won't make me any more (or less) right...
posted by Bob at
7:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home