Comments on: Evan Grant on his first-place MVP vote for Michael Young

By: Alex K

Alex K — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:31:19 +0000

For the record, Michael Young’s mother is Mexican. So if you’re going to count Kinsler as a minority for being Jewish you have to count Young as a minority.

Maybe we should just stick to baseball….

By: atworkident

atworkident — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:50:58 +0000

Then you need to have the name of the award changed. MVP designates it could be anyone on the team. You should name your award “the most valuable player to play a position that does not require throwing the ball from the mound”.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:25:05 +0000

Yes, leading the league in public trade requests = great team player, class act

By: baseballisboring

baseballisboring — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:55:37 +0000

djpostl – You’re definitely right about his value to the Tigers, but that’s the whole problem with this process, is that the writers focus too much on that and don’t look at the individual years regardless of who’s around him. To pay any attention to a guy’s teammates for an individual award is missing the point entirely, right?

By: baseballisboring

baseballisboring — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:52:01 +0000

He also faced over 900 batters. Ellsbury led the league in PA, I think 732 or something. So Verlander impacted 900 at bats, and kept the opposing team to a pathetic slash line in those 900 at bats…pretty valuable. I will say I wouldn’t have voted for him for MVP, I’d have put him probably third behind Ellsbury and Bautista, but you have to leave the door open for noteworthy pitching performances.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:17:56 +0000

Lads, that’s exactly Mike Young; a very good line drive hitter & defensive liability. In no way is a he an MVP worthy vote. A very compelling argument could be made for his role as the one player who did the most to lose the WS for the Rangers. While the post season is not part of the MVP process, it does go to reinforce the point that he is not worthy.

By: bigmikemdz

bigmikemdz — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 05:33:34 +0000

but you know, Michael Young is a hell of a teammate. great team player. class act.

By: grandy24

grandy24 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:53:50 +0000

LOL @ Napoli receiving 0 votes.

By: grandy24

grandy24 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:49:50 +0000

“Granderson had more production”
Grandy: .262/.364/.552, 138 OPS+
Ellsbury: .321/.376/.552, 146 OPS+

Ellsbury also beat him in both WAR stats, FWIW. but hey, feel free to keep trolling.

By: obpedmypants

obpedmypants — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:47:15 +0000

Ian Kinsler was the best player on the Rangers. Adrian Beltre was the second best.

I’m not going to be puss and beat around the bush here. Why does your gut lean so heavily in favor of the all-American white guy, yet shy away from the minorities?

By: titknocker

titknocker — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:19:37 +0000

Evan Grant is a moron. This is the same idiot that didn’t even have Dustin Pedroia (when he won) on his ballot “because he overlooked him”. Writers like this are a joke. I can only pray he doesn’t have a HOF vote. Mark Fiensand is another one of these “homer fan” writers that should not be allowed to vote.

By: Richard In Big D

Richard In Big D — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:54:32 +0000

Lions- Never experienced the Texas education system myself. Two of my son’s team mates that graduated ahead of him last year are going to Stanford and Annapolis, respectively, though. Don’t think they make special allowances for Southern Dummies at THOSE places… BTW, I went to school in New Jersey and Ohio.

By: thefalcon123

thefalcon123 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:39:27 +0000

Exactly. I can fully appreciate the career of Ray Lankford and what an excellent player he was without making claims that he belongs in the hall of fame. Michael Young is a good hitter. He’s just nowhere close to the best hitter in baseball, and given the fact he doesn’t even play defense, should in no way be given any serious consideration for the MVP.

By: thefalcon123

thefalcon123 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:16:08 +0000

Evan’s logic is sound. A DH who ranks fourth on his own team in OPS is usually the most valuable player in the league. How much more valuable can you get? I mean, Jacoby Ellsbury was great and all, played defense and hit better…but wouldn’t it have been an improvement is he hit worse and didn’t play defense at all? Same with Miguel Cabrera. And Justin Verlander…please! Justin was only the best pitcher once every five days, while Young was the team’s 4th best hitter every single day!

Great choice Evan. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to smash my face repeatedly into this table in the hopes the killing of my brain cells helps me better understand how your mind works.

By: bozosforall

bozosforall — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:57:59 +0000

Because he just isn’t all that. A whole bunch of stats that don’t amount to a whole bunch of wins for his team. Granderson had more production, Bautista more power, Cabrera more hits…basically Ellsbury just isn’t all that special. Verlander IS.

Now is the time for all whiny Boston fans to cry.

By: Detroit Michael

Detroit Michael — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:58:05 +0000

Michael Young performed better in 2011 than expected. His versatility is a hidden asset that gave the Rangers some roster flexibility. He is durable. He performed well in the clutch. He hits a ton of line drives.

Add it all up and he’s still comfortably outside of the top ten most valuable AL players in 2011. There ought to be a way for a good sportswriter to pen a column appreciating Michael Young without casting an uninformed MVP ballot.

By: brewcrewfan54

brewcrewfan54 — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:53:11 +0000

I don’t think pitchers should be able to get the MVP either, although if one should get it it certainly should be Verlander after this season. Fact is though Michael Fricken Young doesn’t deserve it at all.

By: mgflolox

mgflolox — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:58:02 +0000

Maybe Michael Young is the MVP because if he wasn’t such an awful 3rd baseman, the Rangers never would have gone out and signed Adrian Beltre.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:48:56 +0000

No, it doesn’t, because a decent defensive utility infielder covering second and third base would have probably saved as many runs over Young’s bad defense as he lost against Mitch Moreland’s 92 OPS+ (assuming, of course, that Ron Washington was sane and MY playing 1B/DH resulted in Moreland riding the pine and not Napoli). Besides, where was Evan Grant when Ben Zobrist was actually providing quality positional flexibility and being one of the most valuable players on the team? Oh, that’s right, he didn’t watch him with his homer glasses on. Got it.

By: spudchukar

spudchukar — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:37:01 +0000

Thanks for the info/correction Matt. It certainly puts a dent into my argument vs other AL contenders, but still the primary thrust of the argument was that Young was the MVP of the 2011 Rangers. Without a doubt there are better, more productive players on the Arlington squad year in and year out, but that said, it is patently unfair to exclude Young from the team MVP. This year he was more than the “glue”, to their success.

One could argue Napoli or Andrus, and surely posit a legitimate case. But the injuries to Hamilton, Cruz, and Beltran diminish their collective contributions. Even the most ardent Young haters, and Lord only knows there are plenty of them should in all fairness admit, that the interchangeable Young rates, if not at the top of, of the Rangers’ participation in the Post Season, at least in the predominate status in the discussion.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:34:20 +0000

This is awkward. So…was it 1/4 sarcasm then? or 3/4? It was 3/4 right? Naaaaaawwwww, you aren’t getting me to bite on that one…it was sarcasm….and then BOOM a sarcastic response claiming it wasn’t sarcasm….damn….metasarcasm…dude, you rule. I take back everything I’ve ever said about the Texas education system. [/sarcasm]

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:28:14 +0000

I love Michael Young, without his .286 OBP during the WS, and him repeatedly botching routine plays at 1B that led to a bunch of Cardinal runs, the Cardinals don’t win the WS. Thanks Mike, much appreciated.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:25:35 +0000

He finished second because the David Wright effect prevented him from winning the thing.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:19:11 +0000

Is 2nd too high or too low?

By: alexandercartwright

alexandercartwright — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:17:27 +0000

Can someone please show me the light as to why Jacoby Ellsbury finished second?

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:15:22 +0000

And yet, you assume that Young meant more to the Rangers than anybody else meant to their team despite the fact that you could not possibly have followed the other teams as closely as you followed the Rangers.

By: JBerardi

JBerardi — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:07:20 +0000

“I know this from seeing his contributions on a daily basis since the season began, as did Evan Grant.”

So I assume you also watched every single game that Jacoby Ellsbury played, and every game Jose Bautista played, etc… because otherwise you’re kind of just talking out of your ass.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:06:26 +0000

Rich, it’s funny you said “know in my heart,” because that’s the same thing Tim McClellan said on Nick Swisher tagging up properly in the 2009 World Series. He was just as wrong as you are about Michael Young being more important to the Rangers making the playoffs than Adrian Beltre, Mike Napoli, Ian Kinsler or CJ Wilson.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:02:18 +0000

First of all, Verlander didn’t go 20 games over .500 by himself. A quality offense and bullpen contributed as well. An average pitcher likely would have found himself winning roughly four out of every seven games (back of the envelope math, not rigorous), which works out to 16-12 over twenty-eight decisions. The Tigers won their division by fifteen games. Let’s drop this tripe that they miss the playoffs without him.

That being said, Verlander (or almost anybody, really) was more valuable than Michael Young this year. We’ve beaten to death the fact that he’s not a great player, but playing a bunch of positions poorly while posting an empty batting average in a hitter’s haven isn’t something that’s incredibly difficult to replace.

By: Richard In Big D

Richard In Big D — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0000

cur- 1/4 Canuck here, too. Yes, you’re right. The most trustworthy people I know…