Perception v. reality

Two (non-sports) writers for the New York Times recently discussed the public persona professional athletes acquire because they are public figures, a persona, it's worth noting, that differs according to the eye of the beholder. What makes this issue interesting is the fact that these personas can follow the players who have them throughout their carriers. The Times authors wrote about tennis. But they could have written this about baseball players. One notable passage:

It was striking at Wimbledon this year to talk passingly with a few of the players and coaches and writers about Andre Agassi's book, for example. Like many outsiders, I loved it as a literary memoir. Many insiders I spoke with reacted totally differently. Disappointed, they said, "Andre is his father's son." Meaning, he's an angry man.

For me, it was a perfect example of the disconnect between public and private. Agassi and his ghostwriter presented a personality to match his public image as someone clever, reflective, who has matured and developed a humane and charitable view toward the world, who has achieved happiness in marriage and through family, albeit I sensed there was perhaps another Agassi too, who revealed himself in some of the meaner comments in the book. But insiders just saw the angry, petty parts, which confirmed feelings they had formed about him over decades.

This is not to suggest that they know the "truth." Who's to say, about him or anyone, unless you know the man yourself? I'm just talking about the disconnect - how players, like any celebrities, develop public identities that may or may not reflect behind-the-scenes behavior.

In fact, Agassi himself writes with frustration and bewilderment about public affection for Jimmy Connors, whom he describes as widely loathed among the players. On the other hand, I have been struck by how both Federer and Nadal are respected and admired by nearly everyone inside the game, how their public and private images correlate.

The same author went on to point out that "...we also assign players personalities based on their behavior on court, which may or may not be fair." By "fair" I take him to mean "accurate," as in "The player was fairly or accurately depicted."

Indeed! A personal example: I always despised Pete Rose, and will admit to experiencing much Schadenfreude when his reckless behavior did him in. But that was just my luck in this instance. Rose might have been a far better person than I believed him to be. How could I have known? Lastings Milledge and Nyjer Morgan are two recent and Pirates-relevant instances of players acting contrary to their public personas.

My conclusion: Armchair clinical psychology provides a short road that ends with error and, in some cases, shame.