The Foolishness of Winners

Here are two blog posts from different sports, but about the same thing - "fundamental attribution error." So I learned from Don Nikkel's post about the 1965-66 season -

In social psychology there is a concept called the “fundamental attribution error” that I’m tempted to apply to the Generals’ 65-66 season. That concept points out that when we explain other people’s shortcomings we attribute it to their personal qualities; while when we explain our own shortcomings we attribute it to our circumstances. When my neighbor doesn’t mow his lawn it’s because he’s lazy; when I don’t mow mine it’s because I’m busy.

Joe Posnaski notes that Yankees talk about how their character and teamwork won the World Series, when it is clear to everyone else that they won because they can buy the best players. "And then, if you are a not a Yankees fan, you will want to throw up."

Matthew Yglesias thinks Bill Simmons is fooling himself by believing that growing up a Celtics fan in the era of Larry Legend gives him special insights on the game. Simmons reasons that great players understand the game best, so watching them should give their fans superior understanding. At this point Yglesias could have simply pointed to Yankee fans and moved on, but he gives us a bit more:

You sentimentalize teams you root for, and if you root for a team that’s really good—the Celtics or the Lakers or the Yankees—you wind up sentimentalizing success. And since the point of a sports competition is to win the games, sentimentalizing success gets people extremely confused. Thus we wind up hearing an awful lot in the book about “character” and how you need good character guys to win. If you’re a Celtics fan, this probably makes a lot of emotional (sense). The Spurs succeeded in the 2000s because of their great character guys. They were good people. Which means that the Celtics won all those championships because they were such good people.

Truly learning the game, Ygelsias says, requires being able to watch great teams without the distortion of identifying with them too closely.

Otherwise, you get too hung up on the idea that the ‘86 Celtics were better than the ‘96 Bulls (something that all and only people from Boston seem to think) and start twisting your whole worldview around to accommodate that conclusion.

True Bivouac junkies will know that I would like nothing more than to insert a comment about BCHS and the Sindex here, but I just can't bring myself to do it. They have been losing in football lately so I guess there's not as much sport in it.

A less sympathetic, smart-alecky reader might claim that I am guilty of the fundamental attribution error myself, especially with respect to Wasco. "Was it not you, General Shafter, who said in this space not one month ago that 'the deep flaws in the collective character of Wasco' threatened to undermine their football program? You regularly treat Wasco's losses as an expression of deficient moral character, but you don't apply the same standard to Shafter."

Based on the rudeness of this comment, I must assume that such a reader would be from Wasco and, being from Wasco, in no position to question the moral consistency of anyone.