The shortest radio interview in history

[JC]

Why do they owe explanations for their votes? And would you have just preferred the BBWAA waive the voting this year because one pitcher's case was so inarguable?

Why don't they? Is it not something that should be taken seriously? There are financial ramifications that come with these results, you don't think that they should explain why they voted the way they did?

It's the height of arrogance to think you shouldn't be questioned or have to offer an explanation. It's why old sportswriters hate being questioned, they have been so use to people deferring to their "expertise". You see it around here, you see it in this thread.

 

[playthrough]

Why don't they? Is it not something that should be taken seriously? There are financial ramifications that come with these results, you don't think that they should explain why they voted the way they did?

It's the height of arrogance to think you shouldn't be questioned or have to offer an explanation. It's why old sportswriters hate being questioned, they have been so use to people deferring to their "expertise". You see it around here, you see it in this thread.

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.

 

[JC]

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.

A fellow scribe should make a coherent argument for Scherzer, the one he made is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter that you think the financial implications are irrelevant, they are there. Who are you to decide what money is relevant and what is not? It's funny that writers with archaic takes hate transparency, the same transparency they want from the people they cover. Why the secrecy? Why should I assume a preps writers knows what he is talking about?

 

[playthrough]

A fellow scribe should make a coherent argument for Scherzer, the one he made is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter that you think the financial implications are irrelevant, they are there. Who are you to decide what money is relevant and what is not? It's funny that writers with archaic takes hate transparency, the same transparency they want from the people they cover. Why the secrecy? Why should I assume a preps writers knows what he is talking about?

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.

 

[bpoindexter]

Somers really should have asked each Mets hitter, "How do you look at yourselves in the mirror?"

 

[Steak Snabler]

Yelich also got all but one first-place vote for MVP, with Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic voting for deGrom.

I'm sure the fact that there was no outrage had to do with the winner not being from New York.

 

[JC]

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.

It is not generational, there are plenty of writers who have evolved. I'm in my mid 40's, I've thought judging pitchers by wins has been stupid since I was teen. And if you think that's a coherent argument then you should not be voting either.

The arrogance of thinking you shouldn't have to explain your vote is mind boggling. I would love the teams these writers cover to tell them we are not explaining there day to day decisions. Why would you not want to explain your vote?

As far as financial implications that you think are irrelevant, do you think the same in the nba where it can be the difference in a player getting the super max contract? Writers really should not be voting on things like this and if they are, they damn well better be transparent as to their vote

 

[JC]

Yelich also got all but one first-place vote for MVP, with Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic voting for deGrom.

I'm sure the fact that there was no outrage had to do with the winner not being from New York.

The outrage is about his reasoning more than the vote.

 

[playthrough]

It is not generational, there are plenty of writers who have evolved. I'm in my mid 40's, I've thought judging pitchers by wins has been stupid since I was teen. And if you think that's a coherent argument then you should not be voting either.

The arrogance of thinking you shouldn't have to explain your vote is mind boggling. I would love the teams these writers cover to tell them we are not explaining there day to day decisions. Why would you not want to explain your vote?

As far as financial implications that you think are irrelevant, do you think the same in the nba where it can be the difference in a player getting the super max contract? Writers really should not be voting on things like this and if they are, they damn well better be transparent as to their vote

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.

 

[The Big Ragu]

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.

 

[JC]

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.

You're right, there's no conflict at all with writers voting for for people they cover. In the NBA it is not negotiated in their contracts it's part of the CBA.

Since you agree with this writer, why don't you make a case for Scherzer, or is just wins?

Why do you feel writers are above explaining their vote?

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

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