Evan Grant offered a lengthy explanation and response in the comments section of the MVP post from earlier today, explaining why he put Michael Young first on his ballot. Evan gave me permission to put it up on the front page, and thus, you can read it below:
Folks, I’m sorry that this thread seems to have developed into a referendum on my credibility. It was never my intention.It was never my intention to drive traffic or put myself on the national table. But I do feel it is always important for us as writers to make our votes public. I do this because if people want to disagree, I think they should have the ability to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, on the internet, it seems to always devolve into name-calling, snarky insults and so forth. I wish it was more civil because there are lots of good points that people make and lots of good debate.
I just voted what I thought based on no particular set of criteria, because there is no certain particular criteria for MVP. We are supposed to consider all players, though how do you compare pitchers and position players? How do you factor in the versatility of a player stepping into the void every time another high-profile went down? How do you factor moving about the run-producing spots out of pure need? Is it an out-of-the-box vote? Sure. Is it perhaps influenced by seeing Young every day and therefore feeling I’m seeing something "more?" Perhaps.
When it comes down to it, I thought Michael meant more to this team’s success than any player meant to any other team. That was my personal opinion and my personal vote. If in the future, you’d prefer we not make our votes public or explain our votes, then I’ll bring it up with my bosses.
I just don’t get all the anger that MVP voting tends to roil up. You vote for who you think is most deserving and think that all 10 players are being honored to be named on the ballot. That’s the way I look at it. If you disagree, that’s certainly your prerogative. If you want to take shots at me, hey, that’s fine. If you want to tune me out, that’s your right, too.
All I know is I go to work every day trying to bring you the most in-depth information I can about the Rangers. If you appreciate it, thanks. If you don’t, I’ll continue to work to win that appreciation.
A couple of things. First, I want to say that I appreciate Evan coming in here and posting. It would obviously be a lot easier for him to not read of what is being posted here or disregard it, rather than addressing the issues raised, and it means a lot to me that he'd take the time to do so.
Second, I'm disappointed by the number of people who chose to respond to him in that thread with some variation of "You suck." I'd appreciate it if, when folks out in the "real world" come on here to respond to comments that people are making, everyone could at least show them the courtesy of not acting like a gigantic jackass.
Third, I obviously disagree with Evan's pick. But I've also been interacting with him for close to a decade now, and I appreciate the work he does (although I wish the DMN would actually let me read more than the first couple of paragraphs of his work). I think the accusations that he's just "trolling" or that he's trying to get attention with this vote are entirely unwarranted and off-base, and I'd ask that folks not throw around such silly accusations so freely.