Add new comment

One of the difficulties in judging other humans is that we can ONLY judge on what is manifested in the real world -- sight, sound, touch, etc.  But, we ASCRIBE intent to others based on a combination of the observable AND our own internal perspective.  Every person has a history, which influences every perception.
In the case of Bradley, yes - you can say factually "He said X and Y".  But, what gets lost in the static is that some people, (especially athletes), are often phenomenally poor COMMUNICATORS.  I consider myself a decent communicator -- a pretty fair writer at times.  Yet, I know for myself that there are a myriad number of occasions when there is something I want to communicate, but unable to find the precisely nuanced word I know is out there, (but cannot find at the moment), I settle for a word that gets the general meaning across, without the nuance.  And on many occasions, that word choice ends up being a bone of contention.
A more direct example - I know a guy who routinely would tell me, "I got a job today."  In point of fact, he had gotten an interview for a job scheduled for the next day.  At some point, he told me that IN HIS MIND, he wanted to treat every potential interview as a success, so he would speak in absolute terms about things that would be viewed by an outside observer as tenuous or non-existent.  BUT - prior to this revelation - the perception from the outside was simply:  "This guy is a liar.  He's incapable of telling the truth.  He just says what he thinks people want to hear."  Additionally - he was completely unaware that his language was being interpreted as a steady stream of lies.
Add in to this the reality that people can lie about their own internal thinking - and it should become obvious that it is completely impossible to ascribe "intent" with any level of certainty.  People rarely do anything for one, simple, clear reason.  Yet, when we discuss our sports stars, writers (and fans) boil everything down to nice, easy-to-understand chunks of certainty. 
I don't know if MB is really a self-centered after-my-stats guy.  But plenty of incredibly good players have been accused of the same thing.  Tony Gwynn and Ricky Henderson are both members in good standing in THAT particular club.  Unfortunately, in the modern world, we tend to put EXTREME value on motivation, (which we cannot possibly know) -- which I believe is simply because it allows us to rationalize away cognitive dissonance. 
"Team players are great!" -- "MB isn't a team player." -- "MB cannot be great."  (But, anyone posting .900 OPS figures is great).
In the real world, I've seen many people wield "intent" as their justification for derision.  "Well, Joe may sell a lot more units -- but that's just because Joe is all about money. Blah, Blah, Blah." 
Undoubtedly, MB has some mental issues -- serious anger management problems.  But, the very existence of those problems indicates a HIGH likelihood of communication problems.  In a case like that - it is best to take anything coming directly from the player with a HUGE grain of salt. 
Maybe he is completely self-centered.  In the end, I think it IMPOSSIBLE for a 1000 OPS DH to not be helping his team - regardless of what his intent may be.  I know given the choice between a 1000 OPS "I'm in it for me" guy -- versus a .700 OPS "I'm in it for the team" guy, if I am ON THE TEAM -- I want the 1000 OPS guy -- because that 1000 OPS is going to win a TON more games than a pleasant clubhouse.  Go ask the ChiSox WS winners - with A.J., Everett and Thomas all on the roster. 
Rodman was all about rebouding stats.  But, the press seemed to complain a WHOLE lot more than Jordan.