Sunday, October 10, 2004
Why People Like Sacrifices and Not Superstars
With the Cubs collapse of late September came the quest among the media and the fans to point the finger of blame to explain why the team didn't make the playoffs. Many people, of course, fingered Sammy Sosa, since he is the guy making $17 million and therefore is the perfect target for such criticism. Of course, his unprofessional behavior on the last day of the season didn't help his protestations contrary to that criticism. (But then, many people in Chicago never embraced Sammy Sosa anyway.)
But another interesting theory came up a month earlier, and then came in handy at the end of the season: that the Cubs rely too much on the home run. I mean, look at the evidence: they led the league in home runs, right? That's bad. The Cubs should be manufacturing runs, sacrificing, executing hit-and-run, playing scrappy, hard-nosed "little ball" instead of relying on brute strength. It's because the Cubs wait around only to hit homers that they lost the opportunity to go to the playoffs.
Both of these excuses, I think, represent a basic insecurity in people that leads them to lash out at superachievers in order to cut them down to size (or at least to their own size). You could call it the "Revenge Of The Common Man" syndrome. People are naturally insecure with those who are much much bigger, stronger, better looking, richer, more accomplished, etc., and it leads them to contemplate their "failings" in themselves, and they don't like the way they look in comparison. So people look to revel in a superstar's failure, because failure would render the superstar no better than the gloating average person. It's this same syndrome that leads people to celebrate those seemingly universal traits that they themselves can reasonably lay claim to, such as hard-work, perseverance, diligence, grittiness, willingness to sacrifice, etc.
And it is exactly because of this syndrome that people like David Eckstein so well. Eckstein is a little guy who appears to embody all these traits, and as a bonus also looks innocent and unassuming, so people identify with him and celebrate his meager triumphs as their own. Never mind that the guy is a millionaire who would absolutely humiliate these people and everyone else in their slo-pitch softball leagues -- because the guy is small by MLB standards, he's easy to identify with. On the other hand, there's no way Joe Whiteguy from the suburbs or the sticks is going to identify with, let alone like or care about, those big, strong, lumbering (or superfast) -- and frequently black or Latino -- superstars.
I'm not saying these average people are wrong or that I think they should change their way of thinking. What I think about them is immaterial, because they're not going to change in any case. After all, we're dealing with a law of human nature here. But it helps for me to understand this, since preferring sacrifices over home runs and scrappy average players over home run-hitting superstars is by all appearances irrational behavior.
But another interesting theory came up a month earlier, and then came in handy at the end of the season: that the Cubs rely too much on the home run. I mean, look at the evidence: they led the league in home runs, right? That's bad. The Cubs should be manufacturing runs, sacrificing, executing hit-and-run, playing scrappy, hard-nosed "little ball" instead of relying on brute strength. It's because the Cubs wait around only to hit homers that they lost the opportunity to go to the playoffs.
Both of these excuses, I think, represent a basic insecurity in people that leads them to lash out at superachievers in order to cut them down to size (or at least to their own size). You could call it the "Revenge Of The Common Man" syndrome. People are naturally insecure with those who are much much bigger, stronger, better looking, richer, more accomplished, etc., and it leads them to contemplate their "failings" in themselves, and they don't like the way they look in comparison. So people look to revel in a superstar's failure, because failure would render the superstar no better than the gloating average person. It's this same syndrome that leads people to celebrate those seemingly universal traits that they themselves can reasonably lay claim to, such as hard-work, perseverance, diligence, grittiness, willingness to sacrifice, etc.
And it is exactly because of this syndrome that people like David Eckstein so well. Eckstein is a little guy who appears to embody all these traits, and as a bonus also looks innocent and unassuming, so people identify with him and celebrate his meager triumphs as their own. Never mind that the guy is a millionaire who would absolutely humiliate these people and everyone else in their slo-pitch softball leagues -- because the guy is small by MLB standards, he's easy to identify with. On the other hand, there's no way Joe Whiteguy from the suburbs or the sticks is going to identify with, let alone like or care about, those big, strong, lumbering (or superfast) -- and frequently black or Latino -- superstars.
I'm not saying these average people are wrong or that I think they should change their way of thinking. What I think about them is immaterial, because they're not going to change in any case. After all, we're dealing with a law of human nature here. But it helps for me to understand this, since preferring sacrifices over home runs and scrappy average players over home run-hitting superstars is by all appearances irrational behavior.
Comments:
<< Home
Hey, I'm not saying I can't see why Eckstein would be more popular with fans than Sosa. I'm saying I *can* see why he's more popular, despite his far lesser production. That's my point.
But it's also my point that Eckstein is more popular, more liked, than Carlos Beltran, or Vladimir Guerrerro, or Bobby Abreu, or Scott Rolen, or Brian Giles, or Lance Berkman, or hundreds of other big-bopping home run-hitting stars. All the guys I've named are fairly anonymous, and have done nothing in the press to earn the enmity of casual fandom. Yet Eckstein is more popular and loved than all of them.
In fact, "The Revenge of the Common Man" is also the reason that Ichiro! is likely the most popular player in the game today. Little guy, scrappy, appears to get all his hits on weak infield choppers (according to the Sportscenter highlights), plays "little ball". What Ichiro! does looks achievable to Joe Average. And Joe likes that because he can identify with those attributes even if he can't replicate them. Joe can't identify with guys who hit 500-foot homers.
But it's also my point that Eckstein is more popular, more liked, than Carlos Beltran, or Vladimir Guerrerro, or Bobby Abreu, or Scott Rolen, or Brian Giles, or Lance Berkman, or hundreds of other big-bopping home run-hitting stars. All the guys I've named are fairly anonymous, and have done nothing in the press to earn the enmity of casual fandom. Yet Eckstein is more popular and loved than all of them.
In fact, "The Revenge of the Common Man" is also the reason that Ichiro! is likely the most popular player in the game today. Little guy, scrappy, appears to get all his hits on weak infield choppers (according to the Sportscenter highlights), plays "little ball". What Ichiro! does looks achievable to Joe Average. And Joe likes that because he can identify with those attributes even if he can't replicate them. Joe can't identify with guys who hit 500-foot homers.
Hey Dynamo -- success does not always result in popularity. Sammy was very successful throughout the late 90s and early 2000s, yet his popularity always lagged behind that of Mark Grace, Kerry Wood and any other number of Cubs in Chicago. Sosa had it going on nationally for awhile there and turned it into an MVP, but there was always a faction in Chicago that wanted to see him fall flat on his face (and not all Sox fans).
But the flip side of my hypothesis, in which obviously scrappy players like David Eckstein are loved despite their meager skills, also holds true. Other examples include Eddie Brinkman, Bud Harrelson, Duane Kuiper, Scott Fletcher, and Mickey Stanley. They were all considered scrappy spitfires and good clubhouse guys, but none of them were very good. But fans, and teammates and managers, loved them, and they all got good careers out of that. Scott Podsednik is well on his way to becoming one of these as well.
It is the rare superstar that experiences widescale adoration. Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are obvious examples. I can't really think of very many examples of this in the past 10 years. McGwire was one only for a short period of time, and he got a big assist from the media (and from Sammy -- remember?) But he wasn't beloved for all or even most of his career. Griffey had it going for awhile but lost it when he got injured all the time and his real personality seemed to ccme out. Jeter and Noamr are more polarizing than universally loved. All the other big producers in the last 10 years are either anonymous or have lots of people both loving and hating them.
Post a Comment
But the flip side of my hypothesis, in which obviously scrappy players like David Eckstein are loved despite their meager skills, also holds true. Other examples include Eddie Brinkman, Bud Harrelson, Duane Kuiper, Scott Fletcher, and Mickey Stanley. They were all considered scrappy spitfires and good clubhouse guys, but none of them were very good. But fans, and teammates and managers, loved them, and they all got good careers out of that. Scott Podsednik is well on his way to becoming one of these as well.
It is the rare superstar that experiences widescale adoration. Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky are obvious examples. I can't really think of very many examples of this in the past 10 years. McGwire was one only for a short period of time, and he got a big assist from the media (and from Sammy -- remember?) But he wasn't beloved for all or even most of his career. Griffey had it going for awhile but lost it when he got injured all the time and his real personality seemed to ccme out. Jeter and Noamr are more polarizing than universally loved. All the other big producers in the last 10 years are either anonymous or have lots of people both loving and hating them.
<< Home
