The shortest radio interview in history

[justgladtobehere]

Stupid and ignorant to vote for the guy who finished basically a unanimous second? If anything, Maffei's vote will probably look better over time.

No, he will always be the guy who voted for the pitcher who was objectively worse based on unsupported/refuted logic.

 

[JC]

Stupid and ignorant to vote for the guy who finished basically a unanimous second? If anything, Maffei's vote will probably look better over time.

No, his reasoning was stupid and ignorant.

 

[MTM]

Maffei was also the only writer to leave Yasiel Puig off the Rookie of the Year ballot in 2013.

"Maffei said he realized Puig would finish strongly in the voting. He said his third-place vote was not about rejecting Puig but about rewarding (Jedd) Gyorko."

The voter who snubbed Dodgers' Yasiel Puig explains why

 

[MTM]

And what's it with Maffei and mirrors?

Meet the Clown Who Left Yasiel Puig Off His Rookie of the Year Ballot in Favor of Jedd Gyorko

"Today Maffei will have to look himself in the mirror as anyone and everyone with an Internet connection can scratch their heads over his baffling Gyorko-over-Puig Rookie of the Year vote."

 

[lakefront]

The clip is 2:09, but the interview is actually over before the 40-second mark.

I follow a good number of MLB beat writers on Twitter, but I'd never heard of John Maffei. So I looked up his page at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

John Maffei

Turns out he's mostly a high school writer. How does he have a Cy Young vote?

I Love Steve Somers!!

 

[Joe Williams]

And finally, I don't get the whole outrage about a player winning an award, but one or two voters not giving him the first-place vote. It's just like when Shaquille O'Neal won MVP, but it wasn't unanimous because Fred Hickman voted for Iverson, and people made a big fuss over it. I was a Lakers fan, but, though I disagreed with Hickman's vote, it was defensible, and O'Neal won the award, anyway. I feel the same about Maffei and his vote for Scherzer.

Great times in which we live. If an award, which is all about judgment of voters, isn't unanimous and only one or two voters strayed from the pack, they must be pilloried for daring to hold a different opinion. Same crap goes on with other awards and in other walks of life, the inability to tolerate a view that differs. Speaks to small-mindedness on the part of those so bothered. It's not about considering in full someone else's case. It's allowing that someone else might actually have a case, like it or not.

Let's just have statistical thresholds that candidates must hit. Then, when we have the pool of those who qualified, let's pull the names out of a hat.

 

[JC]

Great times in which we live. If an award, which is all about judgment of voters, isn't unanimous and only one or two voters strayed from the pack, they must be pilloried for daring to hold a different opinion. Same crap goes on with other awards and in other walks of life, the inability to tolerate a view that differs. Speaks to small-mindedness on the part of those so bothered. It's not about considering in full someone else's case. It's allowing that someone else might actually have a case, like it or not.

Let's just have statistical thresholds that candidates must hit. Then, when we have the pool of those who qualified, let's pull the names out of a hat.

This is bull****. Make a good argument for Scherzer, not some relic argument about wins and pitching to score. The vote isn’t being mocked, his reasoning is, as it should be.

 

[Vombatus]

This is bull****. Make a good argument for Scherzer, not some relic argument about wins and pitching to score. The vote isn’t being mocked, his reasoning is, as it should be.

**** you, JC, I’m going to Like one of your posts for the first time in years.

Happy Thanksgiving!
VB

 

[Della9250]

Max Scherzer over Jacob deGrom for NL Cy Young? San Diego's John Maffei explains his vote ... and why he hung up on WFAN's Steve Somers - NY Daily News

Uh ...

Jack Morris nods and nods and nods

 

[Baron Scicluna]

WWE wrestler Glen Jacobs (Kane) once hung up on a couple of radio interviewers when they said hello and immediately brought up his former character, the evil dentist Dr.Issac Yankem.

He just told them that he'd do an interview when they were ready to be mature and hung up. The radio hosts thought he was joking at first, then realized he was serious and felt bad about it.

 

[playthrough]

This is bull****. Make a good argument for Scherzer, not some relic argument about wins and pitching to score. The vote isn’t being mocked, his reasoning is, as it should be.

No, his vote is being mocked because the outcome was 29-1 and he was the one. If the vote was 27-3, I doubt we'd be talking about the three.

And he doesn't owe a "good argument" to anyone. He wasn't asked to show his work on the ballot.

 

[justgladtobehere]

No, his vote is being mocked because the outcome was 29-1 and he was the one. If the vote was 27-3, I doubt we'd be talking about the three.

And he doesn't owe a "good argument" to anyone. He wasn't asked to show his work on the ballot.

But he did show his work and it was incredibly ill informed and illogical. He should be mocked for that.

 

[playthrough]

But he did show his work and it was incredibly ill informed and illogical. He should be mocked for that.

To you. It was incredibly ill informed and illogical to you. I'm not going to carry the torch for Scherzer vs. DeGrom, but the guy's numbers were darned good and he had a great record on a mediocre team. Until wins and losses aren't used as statistics anymore, they're fair game as voting criteria. The voter didn't pull some arcane concept out of his ass to defend his vote, he used mainstream numbers and talked to a former Cy Young winner from his market. I don't see how that is grounds for being mocked. If you don't agree with his vote, that's fine.

 

[JC]

Wr

No, his vote is being mocked because the outcome was 29-1 and he was the one. If the vote was 27-3, I doubt we'd be talking about the three.

And he doesn't owe a "good argument" to anyone. He wasn't asked to show his work on the ballot.

Wrong, he showed his work and that is why he is being mocked. If you believe what he believes you should not be voting. You are the equivalent to a flat earther. Yes, everyone has an opinion, some opinions deserve mocking.

All writers owe explanations for their votes, some just hate being questioned.

 

[JC]

To you. It was incredibly ill informed and illogical to you. I'm not going to carry the torch for Scherzer vs. DeGrom, but the guy's numbers were darned good and he had a great record on a mediocre team. Until wins and losses aren't used as statistics anymore, they're fair game as voting criteria. The voter didn't pull some arcane concept out of his ass to defend his vote, he used mainstream numbers and talked to a former Cy Young winner from his market. I don't see how that is grounds for being mocked. If you don't agree with his vote, that's fine.

To everyone but you and Mike Wilbon.

 

[playthrough]

Wrong, he showed his work and that is why he is being mocked. If you believe what he believes you should not be voting. You are the equivalent to a flat earther. Yes, everyone has an opinion, some opinions deserve mocking.

All writers owe explanations for their votes, some just hate being questioned.

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?

 

[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.