The shortest radio interview in history

They don't owe me an explanation, I trust that 30 writers take that gig seriously. (I don't necessarily think AP college football poll and Heisman voters take that gig seriously, but that's another thread.) And the financial ramifications -- I assume you're talking about millionaires adding a few bucks thanks to incentive clauses for awards -- are irrelevant.

I do find it unfortunate that "around here" a fellow scribe is called a Flat Earther for voting for Scherzer. Good heavens, grab some fresh air.

 

I found it to be a coherent argument. But it's also a generational baseball argument, which drives people nuts on both sides.

I disagree that he has to explain his vote because of financial implications. That, to me, infers that he's supposed to care about those implications when voting, and that's not a can of worms that should be opened.

 

If a player agrees to a contract with incentives that include bonuses for awards that are voted on by media, then tough sh*t if the vote doesn't go their way. Voting does that sometimes. Negotiate different incentives.

But again, since you have set the criteria, should they just do away with votes altogether? Should it be the best ERA/WHIP award? Actually, wait, it can't be that -- Scherzer had a better WHIP.

 

These awards come down to opinions about performance, as you have pointed out. Which is why there are voters in the first place. Sometimes opinions are really split, and the vote is close. In this case, voters overwhelmingly thought deGrom deserved it, and he won.

There are always going to be people who disagree with a particular vote. Most people chalk it up to difference of opinion. I never get the people who have such a need to have the "right" opinion about these things, that they insult, call the guy stupid, even misrepresent the guy's reasoning, etc. It's like in their mind, clearly anyone who doesn't value something about a baseball player the way they do, it's not enough to just say something rationally about why you disagree, you have to prove to the world that he's the biggest moron who ever lived.

In this case, this writer did explain his vote. Which belies some of the stuff posted on here. Many people might disagree with his reasoning, but he did give his reasoning. Agree or disagree.

In the case of the Somers interview, I thought it was pretty unfortunate. I realize that sports talk radio, and in particular WFAN, can be about the host's personality and about the shtick. But this writer isn't even in this market every day so he may have had no clue, and he was actually being nice enough to call into the show. He's not getting paid for it. I don't care what your shtick is, the sarcastic NY radio guy, etc. Before the writer could even say anything, the host he was doing a favor by calling, was lobbing insults at him. He was perfectly justified in hanging up. I think most people on here agree with that.

 

Im with JC in the sense that, while I don't have a problem with anyone voting for Scherzer, I disagree with the logic for this particular vote.

I generally hate the trend of "let's mock someone for voting differently!" People disagree, you don't have to be assholes about it