Tonight, to quote AP Sports:

“KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) – Michael Young’s is able to handle his lower-than-usual stats this season because the numbers he cares most about are wins.

Ian Kinsler hit a leadoff triple in the 10th inning and scored on Young’s single to lift the Texas Rangers over the Kansas City Royals 5-4 on Thursday night.”

Homer or single, a win’s a win in my book.

(…and the contracted “Young’s” followed by the redundant “is?” Cut and pasted directly from http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48936618/ns/sports-baseball/)

Not that I think Young is talentless, either. He may be near the end of the line, or he may be having a bad year, but his track record is a darned good one.

American League average OBP as of right now: 320

So by “ain’t too shabby” you mean “only somewhat below average”?

And just for greater completeness:

Michael Young SLG: 350
American League average SLG: 412

Michael Young OPS: 649
American League average OPS: 732

Those averages are for all hitters; DH’s would average significantly higher.

Since you admire Washington’s faith in his veteran, please tell me: how badly would Young have to play, for how long, before you’d sit him, given who else is on the roster? Do all Young’s years of service entitle him to start forever, no matter how badly he hits?

For instance, I don’t recall the Reggie Jackson/Billy Martin-era Yankees having good “chemistry”, and they won the World Series.

I guess I just think there’s more of a distinction between “the way baseball go” and the way baseball could or should go. Yes, when Washington doesn’t think Young can contribute anymore, he’ll bench him–but that’s not really the question. The question is what Washington *should* do, not what he *does* do. You can’t just completely shut down questions about how guys *should* do their jobs by describing how they actually do their jobs. Managers aren’t infallible. And it’s not as if there’s only one way to manage a team. Joe Maddon, for instance, has trusted very inexperienced players in key roles in Sept. and Oct. (David Price, Matt Moore…), not just penciled in veterans because they’re veterans.

You say that trust has to be earned. I agree. But don’t veterans have to keep earning it? Isn’t it possible that a manager might make a mistake by trusting veterans for longer than he should? For instance, everybody seems to have forgotten that the Angels didn’t start playing Mike Trout regularly until almost a month into the season; I think we can all agree that that was a mistake.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, and if so, my bad. It just seems like you’re kind of taking for granted that Washington is doing the right thing here, and more broadly that the “old school” thing to do is always the right thing to do.

That’s EXACTLY what the plan was for this season! But, guys get hurt, guys need days off, and other guys experience declines, permanent or temporary, in production. There’s a role on the team for the player who is the second best at every infield position.

Baseball’s version of tribal knowledge says you don’t play your first string shortstop at second when your starting second baseman needs a rest – and vice versa. The starters are always left to start or rest – they don’t fill in. That’s what the bench players are for – and those guys are always the second best at some position.

(The outfield has a different, but no less questionable rotation.)

“Better players available?” Really? “Better” is easy, “available” not so much.

Beltre won’t stay healthy all season, and certainly won’t be healthy when you really need him if he plays every day. Kinsler seems to respond with better play after he’s benched for an error or two or for a growing predilection for pop-up outs. Elvis – not nearly as much as when he first came over – seems to get lazy once in a while and needs a reminder to play hard and smart by grabbing some pine for a day or two. Did Moreland look like the same first baseman at the beginning of the season that we saw late in yesterday’s game? In May we thought we’d need another first baseman now and again. With Napoli out, who covers the “second best” spot?

How do you bench the guy who fills in pretty damned well at all of these spots? Folks really ought to be recognizing how hard it is to be “good enough” at every position in the infield instead of condemning the player. Most guys are lucky if they’re good enough to have ONE other place to play. Is there another player on this team or any other, with the possible exception of Jeter (who only plays shortstop,) who’s come through with a clutch hit, even on 1-fer nights for so long?

What other name would you write down if YOUR job depended on how you fill out the Lineup Card?

Baseball tribal knowledge also says the youngsters have to earn their way onto the field, then be used sparingly until they both deserve and can handle more time. Only then can they be trusted in the everyday lineup. Doesn’t apply every time, but it’s still baseball’s way. Profar and Olt may be fueled by adrenaline and expectation or by the real thing. We don’t yet know, and only time will tell. You really want those guys in the lineup every day in a pennant race?

Washington believes that the game tells him what the game needs. Old school, to be sure, but neither unprecedented, nor unreasonable. He thinks Young can still contribute. And when he doesn’t think so anymore, he’ll bench him. When Michael gets tired of sitting down, he’ll retire.

That really is “the way baseball go.”

The reason I like baseball is the same reason I like trilogy novels, full-length movies, and long-running serials on TV. I like to see the long story develop.

Baseball’s season is long, and the stories take a long time to develop. The players each bring their own long-developing stories to this season, and to all the seasons before and after. Kirk Gibson, George Brett, Ken Caminiti, and Nolan Ryan (with or without Robin Ventura) all have parts of their stories still playing out in this season. Isn’t that why we ALL like baseball?

But sportswriters these days seem to think it’s their job – much like movie critics – to shutter our view and control the camera angles to predetermine which parts of the story or stage or ball field readers or viewers will see. It seems writers and critics often want to reveal or influence the ending before the real story has played out.

Okay, maybe it’s not just “these days.” Writers have always had the bully pulpit, but the advent of the Internet forum – even with balky software and no spell-check – allows an immediacy of interchange not possible in the old days of “Letters to the Editor.” And an immediacy of effect.

By narrowing the focus to one player or manager at one moment or even one season in his career, writers in the public forum can alter the story and shape the perceived value of the player and his contribution.

Will Hardball Talk help Bobby Valentine get fired? Why doesn’t the same online community trust Ron Washington’s gut?

Does the story lose something when the view is restricted? The television cameras last week showed Ron Gardenhire throw his hat in the dugout and run down to speak to his pitcher immediately after Mauer got hit. At the top of the next inning, why were the commentators surprised when the ump threw him and Diamond out of the game without warning? Maybe the ump saw what the cameras saw?

Your “recap” doesn’t tell the story of yesterday’s game any better than Sportscenter’s highlights told the story last night by omitting mention of Soto’s homer. The story is bigger than that.

You began this piece by questioning Michael Young’s value beyond the obvious – as you have several others. You said you asked his teammates and his manager. The fact that you post in an open forum seems to support the idea that you might be open to an objective answer to your question. But, you refute responses that don’t fit your stated hypothesis.

Did Michael Young hit that homer on purpose? Don’t know. Maybe he was just mad, or really charged up, or just lucky. Absent evidence, I am as free to believe that he hit it on purpose as you are to believe it was an accident.

But, the bigger story – the REAL story – contains the fact that he DID hit the homer, in that place in the lineup, and in that moment of the game. Sportscenter didn’t acknowledge the fact that Soto’s homer started the scoring – even before this team’s Ken Caminiti hit his. (With any luck, Hamilton’s career – and life – will not end so tragically.) The bigger story features Geo’s homer, too.

My issue with you and the other haters is that you apparently watch the games with an eye for the highlights or stats alone. By selecting which moments you will acknowledge in your posts and which you’ll bury or fail to analyze or mention at all, you alter the view for your readers. And, you alter the lasting images of the men who play the games.

Your post, as it appears here on HBT the day after Young’s purposeful or lucky contribution to this game, is biased, both in content and timing. And it elicits biased responses – mine included.

Yes, I get it, you’re paid to elicit responses and your job description includes necessary bias. Your response to me, suggesting that in order to properly condemn your bias I must first recognize the fuller body of your work, your “recaps,” seems to assert your claim to the bigger picture of your value while denying Michael Young the same wide-frame view.

In fact, I can point to things that demonstrate Michael’s value to the Rangers. But I choose NOT to discount the beliefs of his teammates, or his manager or his fans. The beauty of the game, or so it seems to me, is that in the sport in which there are statistics to measure everything, the stats still can’t tell the whole story.

“That’ll look like a line drive in tomorrow’s box score” cracks me up every time! That there’s no standard way of delineating a blooper that falls in short left, just behind the third baseman, from a hard-hit line drive past a diving Michael Young is still one of the great mysteries of the Great Game.

To the faithful, there’s wonder and mystery in the bigger story – and in the intangibles (see also Kirk Gibson or Willis Reed long before Michael Jordan and his flu shot!) For haters, there are only statistics.

Let’s see how the longer story of this season plays out before we throw the youngsters into the fray full-time and chase Michael Young to the bench or the golf course.

If the Rangers were perpetually stuck in third place like they were for the better part of a decade, then yeah, it would probably piss me off that they keep running MY out there. Maybe that’s why it doesn’t piss Rangers fans off as much as the rest of you… we are still getting used to the Rangers being a force in the league. This is all new to us, and there was no prolonged buildup to this success. It came out of nowhere, and it’s been sustained, and we’re enjoying the ride.

In other words: right now, there is no “things could be even better, if…” for us.

I’m not saying it’d be easy for Ron Washington to bench the guy; far from it. And maybe you don’t even flat out bench him, at least to start, maybe you ease into it by giving some other guy a couple of starts/week. But it’s Ron Washington’s job to get the most out of the team, and I just don’t get how you do that by playing a guy who’s a near-automatic out and a poor fielder when you have better players available.

Ok, why can’t he contribute to “chemistry” (a word you did use) while sitting on the bench?

So I guess your teammates will be fine with you if you’re at least one of (a) good and (b) a nice guy, and only hate you if you’re neither?

But why should they have to pick up the slack? Yes, the Rangers are good with Young in the lineup–and they’d be *even better* without him in the lineup.

Or are you claiming that benching him would cause that good group of guys around him to hit less well?

“They hit five homers. One of them led to Nelson Cruz being plunked on the hiney, after which Michael Young hit another homer. That’s the best way to deal with that garbage, really.”

That aside, you’re not actually citing that HR as evidence of Young’s leadership, are you? Are you honestly suggesting that he chose to homer there? And, by extension, he just chooses not to homer all the times he’s made outs this year?

And even that aside, what in this post is wrong? Is Michael Young playing well this year? Nope. Is Ron Washington making decisions based on intangibles as opposed to production? Yep. Did I ignore the fact that his teammates love him and think that stuff is important? Nope. Can you point to anything actually demonstrable about Michael Young that, the beliefs of his teammates aside that help the Rangers win games? Nope.

Nice, tight, logical argument there.