David Brooks writes about baseball.

Mets players must be thrilled to hear that a New York Times columnist is rooting for them.

For the rest of us, it's just yet another topic for David Brooks to mangle incoherently:

"In 2005, I wrote a column saying that maybe it was time to abandon the New York Mets and become a fan of the Washington Nationals. My reasoning was sound. We were raising our kids in Washington. We had Nats season tickets. We were acquiring Nats paraphernalia. It would be so easy to join the fold."

Really?

That is very interesting.

In 2005, I wrote a column about Mike Lupica.


"Since then, the reasons to leave the Mets and follow the Nats have become even more compelling. The Mets have suffered a pair of bone-crushing late-season collapses that have changed the personality of the franchise. The team is mired in financial turmoil. It is expected to be mediocre for the next several seasons, at best."

So you're a fan of a baseball team and you remain a fan of the team even though they are not a good team.

Kind of like every fan of every team.


"The Nats, meanwhile, have a set of astoundingly talented young players and should be thrilling to watch for the next decade."

I doubt that very much.


"There’s a core American debate between 'On the Road' and 'It’s a Wonderful Life.' 'On the Road' suggests that happiness is to be found through freedom, wandering and autonomy. 'It’s a Wonderful Life' suggests that happiness is found in the lifelong attachments that precede choice. It suggests that restraints can actually be blessings because they lead to connections that are deeper than temporary self-interest."

A core American debate in your mind only which really has nothing to do with baseball.

Why don't you try to impress your readers by reference "The Republic" and "Infinite Jest" and explain how they are competing paradigms which can be viewed through the prism of the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Because then the readers might think you are clever even though you are not clever.