T.R. Sullivan mailbag

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 12:01 PM CDT in News Comment 65 comments

T.R. Sullivan has a new mailbag column up, and there was one question and answer that jumped out at me:

I like Michael Young, I really do. He's a consummate pro in every way possible ... but the guy is a defensive liability at shortstop. And, his power is virtually non-existent. At what point do the Rangers look at a position change for him? Where would they even consider moving him, back to 2B? Or maybe the outfield?
-- Paul C., Trenton, Texas

There are 24 shortstops in the Major Leagues who have played in at least 103 games. Young ranks 10th among them in both fielding percentage and range factor, which is putouts and assists per nine innings. He is not Omar Vizquel, but if the Cardinals can win with David Eckstein at short, then the Rangers can win with Young. They have far too many other needs to mess with that right now.

You notice, Sullivan sort of ducks the question...he doesn't come out and say that Young is a good, bad or indifferent shortstop. Instead, he trots out his fielding percentage and range factor as being middle of the pack, and leaves it at that.

However...the problem with range factor is that, like RBIs, it is heavily influenced by opportunity. Teams with pitching staffs that strike out a lot of batters are going to have fewer balls in play, and thus the fielders are going to have lower range factors than they would behind a staff that doesn't strike out a lot of batters.

The Rangers' pitching staff is 25th in the majors in strikeouts, with 920. The average major league staff has struck out 987 batters.

Groundball staffs are going to get more ground balls, and thus give infielders more opportunities to make plays than a flyball staff would. I think the Rangers are fairly heavily a groundball staff, although I can't find the numbers for the team as a whole.

So Young should have a relatively high range factor, even if he's not very good defensively.

That said, as I mentioned above, Sullivan doesn't come out and say that Young is a good defensive shortstop, and at the end, seems to acknowledge that Young's defense is a problem, but sort of punts the issue.

The Rangers have sort of backed themselves into a corner with Young...he doesn't want to move, and the Rangers are committed to him for the next 6 years at a pretty huge number. And his offense would be below average at any position that he'd be able to play other than shortstop.

But the Rangers also have been trying to build a groundball staff, because of the homer-friendly home park they play in. Putting a sub-par defensive shortstop behind a groundball staff ends up defeating the purpose.

I still tend to believe that Young will end up moving to third base, maybe after 2009 (when Hank Blalock becomes a free agent).

Sullivan also suggests that 5 years, $75 million for Torii Hunter wouldn't be unreasonable for the Rangers, since the Rangers gave Young an $85 million, 5 year deal. Still, to me, that seems like saying, "You bought a Honda Accord for $75,000, so this BMW 325i for $70,000 is a bargain in comparison!"

0 recs | Comment 65 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hmmm...

...so is that a dis on the Accord? Or the BMW?

Media Matters: Proving that the media is considerably more conservative than liberal

by RangerMoto on Sep 18, 2007 12:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It isn't a dis on either

They are both good cars. Just not great, top-of-the-line cars, and not for that sort of price.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now that you mention it...

I was looking at getting a used BMW 325i. Does anyone have experience or know the track record with this car?

by slimshadty12 on Sep 18, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes

I bought a 1999 328i in 2004 and loved it so much that 2 years later I sold it and bought a 2004 330i. I've heard horror stories of BMW lemons, and I imagine owning one that is out of warranty is pretty costly, but I haven't had any problems with either of mine.

My best advice: buy a vehicle that still has a year or so left on warranty (probably a 2005 or newer), let it speak to you, and if you feel comfortable, forget the extended warranty. If you feel the need, get the warranty, it'll probably be worth it.

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 18, 2007 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

Did you ever use a lemon busters or anything like that for your 1999 model cause I'm guessing that wouldn't be under warranty when you bought it in 2004?

by slimshadty12 on Sep 18, 2007 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not at all

I just took a long time to find the right car - dropped a few $50-75 inspection fees on cars I didn't end up taking, lost a $300 deposit cause some jackass sold the car while I was on vacation waiting for my check to clear and he kept my deposit, and took 3 months to find the right one the first time...the second time, it fell into my lap - 33,000 miles and a 2004 last summer (so it had plenty of warranty left for me to get a feel), perfect condition, family guy that didn't let his kids ride in the car, and he was moving to Australia so he had to sell quick (I got it at $2,500 less than I even wanted it for)

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 19, 2007 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oooh, ooh, I know!

Put Drew Meyer at SS! Seriously, though, there are a lot of ways they could go in the next couple of years.

By 2009, Saltalamacchia is a top catcher and Kinsler a top 2B, and you hope that Duran, Davis, and Teagarden are all contributing. By 2010 Ramirez (DH?) and Andrus. And hopefully, by 2009 you've added at least 2 solid outfielders. Put it all together and Young can be carried at 3B if his offense declines like we expect.

And of course a couple of those guys could be traded for other pieces. The team has some options -- providing most of these guys continue to develop.

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 18, 2007 12:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Young

is going to follow the path of Nomar. I bet he will end up playing some 1B/3B/DH. This could also extend his career and keep his production higher as he plays out that long contract.

Mark Connor just shows up to the ballpark to collect a paycheck.

by jshcmp on Sep 18, 2007 12:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

GB%

texas has the #2 GB% in the AL (at 46%) but is only 2% above leage average. teams stats are here http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/teams/

I have to say I agree that MY's SS defense isn't so bad that it can't be lived with. Could it be better? yes. But he isn't the butcher that people make him out to be (anymore at least).

by bushe on Sep 18, 2007 12:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Young

His OBP actually went up this year, and with a drop in SLG. Nobody likes to see a loss of power, but drawings walks in spite of it is almost intriguing.

This trend would keep the contract a decent value.

I like what t ball said in his comment too. If Young is going to have to be moved, it's good to see a lot of middle infield depth almost ready to contribute during days when Young is DHing, or sitting.

by hightowersmith on Sep 18, 2007 12:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Game

seems to be trending more towards the situational hitter, especially with the style that Wash plays. Young should retain value based on that regardless of what position he plays. I know that currently there is not a better SS option, and that is part of the problem with the team and why we shouldn't expect success until 2009. Hopefully trades and/or prospect development will have brought in a better defensive option for the most important postion on the field.

Mark Connor just shows up to the ballpark to collect a paycheck.

by jshcmp on Sep 18, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was real disappointed to read all of this.

It is the same old tired pattern of Ranger fans seemingly turning on their very best players. Every time we get a good player it seems that people want to pick them apart and tear them down. People trashed Kevin Brown, Juan Gonzales, Kenny Rogers, Dean Palmer, Pudge, A-Rod, Helling, Hill, Will Clark, and a whole lot more. I just don't get it. Young is the best player on the team. In reality, he is just about the only guy on the team worth a damned and yet we have to listen to tripe. If you want to complain about anybody how about complaining about the men who put the roster together where Young is far and away the best player on the team. That is the true problem with the Rangers. It must truely suck to be a good player on the Rangers right now. No matter what you do it isn't good enough. No matter how good you are it isn't good enough. Hell, they had the best player in the majors playing on this team and yet, somehow he wasn't good enough. Why should I think that Young wouldn't get the same treatment? If I was a free agent I would think twice, thrice and even more before signing on the dotted line to be a Ranger.

by gp on Sep 18, 2007 1:13 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

No

Young is not far and away the best player on the team. Ian Kinsler is (among the positional players, anyway).

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And, furthermore

We certainly hope that by 2009 or 2010 he isn't even in the top 3 or 4 position players (Kinsler, Salty, Davis, outfield acquisitions).

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 18, 2007 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you are correct in that

Young should never be the best player on your team. If he is then you have no shot at winning. The more I think about the better I think Washington has performed this year. By all rights this should have been a team that lost between 90 and 100 games. Amazing if you ask me.

by gp on Sep 18, 2007 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's just crazy talk, man...

I love Kinsler and enjoy watching him grow as a player, but the guy needs to keep himself healthy for a full season before you (or anyone else) should be calling him the best positional player on the team. Durability and consistency mean a great deal in this game, and Young runs circles around Kinsler in both of those areas right now. Sure, someday Kinsler probably will be better than Young, but overall I don't see how anyone can justify that conclusion right now.

"Hello win column..."

by rangersfan34 on Sep 18, 2007 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinsler Splits

Kinsler at TBIA --

.311/.386/.533

Kinsler on road --

.225/.323/.379

I forgot that splits only matter conveniently when they fit your argument....

by jctrampe on Sep 18, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Additional

M. Young (This year)

Home --

.315/.367/.443

Away --

.310/.362/.394

Also, Kinsler last year:

Home --

.316/.376/.552

Away --

.256/.318/.355

by jctrampe on Sep 18, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Young away

Career: .281/.324/.411

And Alfonso Soriano = Average major league left fielder

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So Adam

Is this guy the new Wufdog?

by Chris Martin on Sep 18, 2007 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think so

He's been mad at me for badmouthing Soriano for a while, though.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to take anything away from Kinsler ...

but if you take April out of the equation, Young has hit much better.

by Athos on Sep 18, 2007 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I count on this roster 2 bonafide

every day major league players in Blalock and Young. Kinsler and Salty are next in line though neither are developed fully. Salty may have been rushed a bit and Kinsler has regressed this year in many ways. Kinsler isn't really a high quality second baseman at this juncture though he is starting to improve. He has had the problem of trying to jack everything to left when he doesn't really have that kind of power. His offense hasn't been consistent at all in his tenure and his defense has been sporadic though recently he has been great. He has the potential to be a terrific player but he isn't right now. Next year, maybe. He still has a lot to learn. To say that he is better than Young is definitely a reach. To say that any position player on this team is even remotely as good as Young is a reach. He is far and away the best player on the team. Not much doubt about it either unless of course you have some sort of agenda against the guy because he got a nice contract which doesn't make any sense.

by gp on Sep 18, 2007 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinsler has regressed?

He's hit better this year than last year, and the work he's done on his defense has really paid off, as he's been awfully good since returning from the d.l.

He's a legit major league regular, and he's been better than Young this season.

by Adam J. Morris on Sep 18, 2007 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, he has definitely been

much better since coming off the injured list. He was absolutely god-awful before though. His defense was atrocious. At one juncture after his initial wave of homers was over he looked and played like the worst second baseman in the game. The question is has he really progressed or is this just a mirage? Is this going to carry over to next season? Personally, I really like Kinsler. He has a tremendous amount of potential. He has a very, very quick bat, he is fast, and he has the ability to be a premiere defensive player. Taking into just how good he can be I can't remember ever being as disappointed in a player as I've been in Kinsler. He is clearly not as good as he should be. Maybe that is falling in love with hitting homers or being completely confused in the field. I just don't see how you can write that Kinsler has been better than Young with a straight face. He certainly has the potential to be, but is clearly not. I really think that Kinsler looked much better last year than this year. Maybe, the numbers say differently but it couldn't be by much. You know there is something to be said for consistency and playing within your ability. Before anyone can say that he has arrived or is "the best player" on the rangers he needs to develop some consistency and some discipline both in the field and at the plate.

by gp on Sep 19, 2007 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Numbers

2B Kinsler 2007: 108 OPS+

SS Young 2007: 103 OPS+

Considering positional weight, Kinsler has been better.

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 19, 2007 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's great.

Bring out the old OPS argument even though it is a completely fraudulent and totally contrived statistic. OPS basically measures slugging %. Why don't you just use slugging % to make your argument? MY has a .420 slugging % while Kinsler has a .449 slugging %. Does that mean that Kinsler is better than Young? No. It means Kinsler sold out early, got in a groove and hit a few homers while Young hit the ball on the screws repeatedly during his horrible start and had a hell of a lot of base hits taken away by good defense or just plain bad luck. Kinsler also went through a stretch where he was terrible and then got to take a break where he received some good coaching that helped turn it around for him. Of course, his stats are inflated due to being kind of streaky as well. Kinsler is someone who will have a couple of weeks where he hits everything well and have a few big homers and then the bottom will fall out for a few weeks.

by gp on Sep 19, 2007 12:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, are you implying that

2nd is the more important position? SS is the traditional position where you have your defensive whiz while 2nd is the position where you play the Jeff Kents of the world. In my opinion though both short and second are about equal depending upon organizational philosophy with double plays, covering pick offs, relays, etc. In any case there is no doubt that Young is a tremendous defensive asset because of his ability to turn the double play, his relay ability and of course he is pretty sure handed and has decent range.

by gp on Sep 19, 2007 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It'd be nice

if we had a defensive whiz at SS.

by DJCahill on Sep 19, 2007 5:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Over the full season, Kinsler has a slight edge.

But that's including an April when Young hit uncharacteristically poor and Kinsler was lights out, which significantly skews their numbers over the entire season.

Since May 1st.

AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB AVG OPS
Young 496 62 167 29 1 6 70 44 82 9 .337 .830
Kinsler 358 68 92 17 2 10 36 44 64 16 .257 .749

So when you take out the statistical anomaly of April, Young has been a significantly better hitter over the course of the rest of the season. Again, I'm pleased with Kinsler overall and not trying to knock on him, but the notion that he's been a better hitter than Young is just flat wrong. He was much, much, much better in April. The rest of the year, he's been significantly worse.

by Athos on Sep 19, 2007 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So

should we neglect April entirely for the sake of your argument?

We're not talking about whose doing better on a month by month basis. Look at the season as a whole. If you go on a tear for a month, that shouldn't be counted against you. Just like you don't count MY's unlucky April against him. It all evens out in the end.

A month is 1/6 of the season, which is a big enough sample to not dismiss. If Kinsler had that production in a different month, say August, would you still discount it?

I think there's this illusion that since it happened in April, the AL pitchers "figured him out" and adjusted to him. Hopefully, Kinsler will go off in June or something next year to disprove this myth.

I suppose that I could take away Mike Young's August (.870 OPS) and distort his stats into looking pretty mediocre as well. Am I off base?

If we have to go month by month, perhaps let's look at their months where OPS > .800? They're pretty even there, each with 3 months over .800 (including September).

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 19, 2007 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're making the errant conclusion ...

that Kinsler has been better than Young this year. My point was that their April numbers were SO skewed that the distort the overall picture. Over the last 4 1/2 months of the season, Young has been a much better hitter.

I understand that you can't refute my numbers. Your implication that I'm cherry-picking months to make Young look better is simply off base. You have to go back to August of '04 to find another month where Young hit as poorly as he did this April, which is a pretty good indication that his April performance was simply an anomaly. Other than April, neither player has had a month that is so out of whack with the other months that it can be considered an anomaly.

Young is a better hitter than Kinsler at this point in their careers. Will that always be the case? Who knows? I certainly hope Kinsler does better next year than he has this year (and I hope Young doesn't have a dreadful month like April).

Now, can you honestly say that since May 1st that Kinsler has been the better hitter? If you can, I'd love to see your reasoning.

by Athos on Sep 19, 2007 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Refutation

Not a big fan of the "since May 1st"

"Now, can you honestly say that since May 1st that Kinsler has been the better hitter? If you can, I'd love to see your reasoning."

Not my point. As a whole, this season, Kinsler has been better. You could argue that Young was "better" because he didn't get hurt, but that's a separate argument.

Kinsler's May: .495 OPS, worst month of his career. That would qualify as "SO skewed" in your book. Therefore, let's discount his worst month, while we're discounting MY's worst month, then reevaluate?

I'll let you, or someone else, crunch the numbers because I'm not aware of a site that allows you to recalculate after subtracting a month. But I'd be interested to see the new totals.

You've yet to address or refute these numbers:

Kinsler 2007 - 106 OPS+

Young 2007 - 104 OPS+

Factor in that 2B is a slightly weaker offensive position than SS, Kinsler has been better relatively, albeit by a small, almost negligible margin. If you want to argue that they've basically been the same, I think that's a lot easier argument to make than to say that Young has been definitively better ...

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 19, 2007 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeesh.

I've shown that the respective April numbers have skewed their numbers for the year to the point that Kinsler appears to have been the slightly better player. But a guy that hits for an .830 OPS over almost 5 months is hitting better, and for a longer period of time, than a guy with a .750 OPS. Young has hit better than Kinsler in far more games than Kinsler has hit better than Young. Young is the better hitter of the two as they stand right now -- and taking a single number which has been proven to be skewed as your only evidence to the contrary is a weak argument.

For Christ's sake, there aren't any macho points involved here. The sky really is blue. You won't be showing yourself an inferior debater by acknowledging the obvious.

by Athos on Sep 19, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lighten up

I kept it cordial, but, of course, you had to take things personally. With the "yeesh" and the "you're making the errant conclusion" along with other subtle insults being lobbed my way, you are exposing an inferiority complex, but whatever, that's not my problem. This had nothing to do with macho points being involved, until YOU made it an issue.

"and taking a single number which has been proven to be skewed as your only evidence to the contrary is a weak argument."

How is OPS+ skewed? I realize that OPS is somewhat skewed, but OPS+ is adjusted for ballpark and league average, so it's a far better metric than the "single number" that you are using throughout your weak argument.

You're allowed to take Young's worst month away, but I'm not allowed to take Kinsler's worst month away? Why don't you calculate what Kinsler's 5 months would look like after you subtract the sub .500 OPS month (which is your standard), especially before you claim that Young has been better for longer -- something I'm willing to accept if it is, in fact, true.

What is obvious about this? There is a debate going on in much of this thread, but because others don't blindly accept your viewpoint, then THEY are not recognizing the obvious? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Test for consistency next time, especially before launching unprovoked character assaults. What a joke.

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 19, 2007 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You accused me of cherry picking in order ...

to create a specific conclusion. That's like calling somebody dishonest. And I made it personal?

Your problem, my mentally challenged little man, is that you are scared that if you concede a point that you're obviously wrong on, that you'll look like an idiot. The problem is, by continuing to deny the undeniable, you do yourself a much greater disservice in the "mental strength" department. Kinsler's numbers are skewed higher because of his amazing April, which was an anomaly since he hasn't hit near that well since. Just like Mike Young's track record proves that April was a statistical anomaly for him. The point of removing the April numbers wasn't to take away Young's worst month, but to show that over the majority of the season, Young has been a much better hitter than Kinsler. The problem with your OPS+ argument is that it still takes into account the ridiculously skewed numbers from April for both players.

The question is still simple. Who has been the better hitter over the majority of the season? Kinsler was better in April. Young has been better since. Honestly, I don't know how I can dumb it down any further for you. Maybe I can find a mildly retarded 5th grader who could explain it more on a level you're capable of understanding.

Here endeth the lesson.

by Athos on Sep 19, 2007 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

right and wrong

he's kind of a pain in the ass to argue with, but he's allowed his opinions based on facts...whether he skews them or not.

either way, you both bring up valid points, but the easiest conclusion is that Mike Young is a much better major leaguer right now due to three reasons:

he's done it consistently
he's done it longer
he's remained healthy

I'd much rather see Young and Kinsler both stay healthy and challenge each other both offensively and defensively, and have Young counsel Kinsler in his hitting approach, than see Young deteriorate/fail to improve and see Kinsler blossom. We'll see where it goes from here

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 19, 2007 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually like some of your posts

but I feel that you are off base here. You will have to keep dumbing it down for me, at your leisure.

If you take both statistically anomalous months away from either player (MY's April, Kinsler's May), I would wager that Kinsler has been the better hitter this year. Kinsler has a better OPS+ on the year, and had a MUCH worse "anomalous" month than MY. Kinsler's awful May was almost a full 100 points lower in OPS than Young's April. Will you conceptualize that? I don't think Kinsler will ever have another sub .500 OPS month for the rest of his career. Is that not skewed then? ...

I'm done with the insults, thanks for your time though!

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 19, 2007 10:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could say with equal validity

that May was an anomalous month for Kinsler, and throw that out.

I don't know that you can really do that though, because slumps are as big a part of baseball as hot streaks.

by DJCahill on Sep 20, 2007 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

that's why I said we should take the season as a whole, because they've both had extremely anomalous months, which will even out in the end. I don't think you can ignore 1/6 of the season, but if you choose to, be consistent at least.

Either way you look at it, whether you discount their anomalous months or not, Kinsler has been better this year.

"This is Baseball, it ain't Golf. If you aren't cheating in baseball, you aren't trying nearly hard enough to win." - DJCahill

by Chase Irwin on Sep 20, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Adam, do you just make this stuff up?

I just checked the stats for Kinsler and according to ESPN he played 120 games last year and this year he has played in 119 games. His OPS is .801 for both seasons and last season his batting average was 18 points higher and his slugging percentage was also higher. The only thing he seems to be doing better is that he's hit 5 more home runs. He's got 15 more walks but has struck out 13 more times.

by gp on Sep 19, 2007 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

League OPS

Yes his OPS is .801 both years for the moment. But the league collectively had an OPS of .791 last year, and this year so far it's only .775, meaning Kinsler is indeed having a better 2007 than 2006 relative to the league.

Ditto with his slugging. The league overall had a slg. % of .445 last year, but only .431 this year. Thus, even though Kinsler's number has dropped from .454 to .449 so far, he is .018 better than league average this year, whereas he was only .009 better in '06.

That's why his OPS+ is better this year. Everything is relative, and he is a better player compared to other players in the league than last year.

Baseball Fever - catch it!

by t ball on Sep 19, 2007 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Is everyone infatuated with Young's lack of production? Good Grief. He was the second coming until he signed a big contract....Is he overpaid? Sure, but hey - they are all overpaid. I just don't see why there is a constant bickering about the guy. Who on this team is a better hitter? Blalock? Has not done it in awhile...Kinsler? Maybe down the road but not now. Cruz/Sosa/Botts/Cat....you get the point. Michael Young is the least of our worries.

by JB on Sep 18, 2007 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Young

Was it Jon Voight's Honda Accord?

You say: " And his offense would be below average at any position that he'd be able to play other than shortstop."

I think too much emphasis is placed on stuff like that. If Hank Blalock sucks, then Mike Young should play third. He doesn't have the power but he's productive, and he's better than anyone else they have to put at third. It's all relative to who's on your roster. But with an arm like his, I can definitely live without power from the 3B position.

And as said above, he's no butcher. Ideally you'd want better, and if the team can somehow address it while addressing more pressing concerns, that would be great.

You say: "Putting a sub-par defensive shortstop behind a groundball staff ends up defeating the purpose."

I agree with that, but I don't think he's all that sub-par quite yet. This isn't as bad as when the Dodgers got Kevin Brown and then decided they'd make Eric Freaking Young their everyday second baseman.

Anyway, I'd very much like for the Rangers to continue with the grouddball staff and get themselves stronger up the middle. I don't think that says anything bad about Michael Young. Third base is an underrated defensive position, I think, and he's ideally suited for it.

Blalock needs to comeback from his whiplash and hit like crazy. Then he needs to play in the Winter somewhere and hit like crazy. Then he needs to come to Spring Training and hit like crazy.

Then the Rangers should trade him. I'm still not a believer, but if he can do the above he'll have value.

Ctrl - V

by Dustin on Sep 18, 2007 1:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Special Project

If Young's a butcher at SS, why didn't Wash make him a special project instead of Hank? I know you can't teach range, but you can learn to compensate...

by TexasLouie on Sep 18, 2007 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Butcher

I never said he's a butcher. He may be slightly below average. That's from watching...defensive stats suck. I don't think Young's range is all that bad.

But I'd like for the Rangers to be REALLY strong up the middle. That would require moving Young to another postition, and the ideal place for him would be third base. Now if they stick with Blalock and he hits the way he's capable of, I can learn to live with the infield the way it is now. But I'm not a believer in Blalock. As soon as he starts hitting balls out, he'll probably turn into a hacker.

Ctrl - V

by Dustin on Sep 18, 2007 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does Young have the arm for third base?

I've never heard anyone address that point.

I own a lot of Apple stock,so buy more iPhones!

by Ajax on Sep 18, 2007 2:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes he does

by OKC Ranger Fan on Sep 18, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt

He's got a gun, probably the best part of his game defensively.

But that river of tears has dried for all of us.

by trza on Sep 18, 2007 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

And I addressed in the post directly above yours, ironically.

Ctrl - V

by Dustin on Sep 18, 2007 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you mean

that cannon attached to his right shoulder? Yeah, it should suffice.

You are hearing me talk.

by SteveP on Sep 18, 2007 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Young Hating

I've read it before on this board, but I can't believe there's all this bitching about one of the brightest spots on this team...I don't care if you're talking about the present or the future, Mike Young is the LEAST of concerns on this team. Forget the consistent offense he provides (he's a 200 hit machine so much that he had to spot himself a horrible month and a half of no hitting just to challenge himself) and one of the most clutch hitters in the game

and I don't think his defense is suffocating his pitching staff or detrimental to the rest of the infield defense...maybe I'm wrong?

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 18, 2007 3:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you 110%...

"Hello win column..."

by rangersfan34 on Sep 18, 2007 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

right on

by bushe on Sep 18, 2007 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to worry

The core of the fairly regular Young watching and a little distraction as it occurs: about a half dozen figured in 2001-2002 that Young would top out ever at an EQA at or below .260, and that he wouldn't make a starting lineup in MLB. Further, he was admired for excellent defense at 2B, and many figured he'd never successfully transition to shortstop because of the range question. To be fair, all admired his arm, especially on assists to the plate from OF throws.

You'll hear a symphony of denial, but down deep, nobody likes to be that wrong. Adam, however, was among the first to reverse field and recognize that he could really hit, with the reservation being he didn't walk enough.

Well, Mikey has been able to improve. One thing at a time. Power, for a couple of years. Range, for the last two. OBP, not amazing but better than it was. Taking walks as a part of that, comes and goes but a little better. Obviously he can't put together the total package, at least from now on out during his remaining contract. He's four to six years past the 'fix it by tweaking it and working harder' point.

Nevertheless, if you look at his total length of service and total salary dollars (say a ten year sample), he receives but he also has given. And iMHO will continue to hit well, and maybe get on base better still. Yeah, I see him moving to third at some point. But no crystal ball. What you see is what you will get. Silly to project now, what may occur in three years.

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Sep 18, 2007 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

After all these years

He has not improved significantly.

He is hitting about exactly the same as he has every year but 2005 when he careered, and his defense still has limited range, and with him at SS, we basicly need better 3B, 2B, and RF and CF. His OBP-AVG has been the same 40-50 points it has always been. The facts simply do not bear out any of your observations, Ed.

The real reason you hear more people complaining about Young this year, is he is getting judged based on player making comparable salaries. Its amazing what happens when you have expectations based on being a $3 million players and you suddenly have the expectations of being a $16 million player.

by DJCahill on Sep 19, 2007 5:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Granted

And he hasn't made $16 million quite yet. Geez, one presumption leads to another and another, which spawns a third. And your refutation of facts is aggregate, and citations of his badness are on the contrary based on incidents. Which causes the term incidental to be applied. The "down" month and a half has put a pall on how he's seen, IMO.

Disclaimer: yes the contract is too much money over too long a period of time. It is no reason to rip the player (if anything, ownership approving the deal).

Proclaimer: if you calculate long enough and use enough selective criteria, you can prove "anything".

'At Georgia Southern, we don't cheat. That costs money and we don't have any.' Erk Russell / Georgia Southern

by Ed Coffin on Sep 19, 2007 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where's Cahill?

No thread critical of Young's defense is complete until Cahill's chimed in.

by Athos on Sep 18, 2007 4:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

He will just blame it on Wilkerson

by Chris Martin on Sep 18, 2007 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've come around

$16 million a year is a tremendous bargain for an 800 OPS SS with a mediocre glove. We were lucky to make such a great signing.

Hopefully we will make an equally great signing with Torii Hunter.

by DJCahill on Sep 19, 2007 5:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Finally.

I was beginning to think the world was coming crashing down around my ears. Up was down and down was up.

I like consistency in my world.

by Athos on Sep 19, 2007 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, according to Dan

There are only 5 plus defenders in all of MLB.

Everyone else is of the "bad glove, no range" variety.

Dan once saw Mike race a statue. I'll leave it up to the board to guess the winner...

I will not get my comeuppance!

by Brian Thomas on Sep 19, 2007 10:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aww what the hell

I agree with your anti-Torri Hunter rants AJM, but, shit, if the Rangers are just going to waste all their money anyway, which they are..I guess getting at least some talent back in the form of Hunter is better than nothing.

by Sharky on Sep 18, 2007 6:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

MY

he is probably my favorite player on this team. I understand the critics point of view with his defense, but lets not forget why he moved to short....because Sori wouldn't . He stepped up and took a leadership role on this team. This will be yet another year with 200 H and he is still one of the most clutch players in the league at the plate. I also get that he may be over-paid but at least he wanted to be here with the Rangers, some other players have not.....

He will never be a great defensive shortstop but as long as the hits keep coming I can live with that. I understand the frustration with that part of his game but lets not be to critical.

Oh by the way, I think someone made 3 errors in the game today...nice timing for this topic!

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on Sep 18, 2007 10:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

with all that said...

how many games do you think we lose a year because Mike Young's defense isn't top-notch? how many games could we improve to if we ONLY replaced Mike Young's defense on this team?

my guess, with no empirical data to back this up at all (not sure there really is any), is 3 - and at most 5. And if you find a better defender at SS, do we then sacrifice his hitting? Has his hitting contributed solely to any wins this year? Probably...I just don't see the point of trying to find a better SS when he's not the main problem. Why not focus our energy on pitching (talent and improvement with what we already have: throwing first-pitch strikes and keeping the ball low in the zone), situational hitting (getting on base, moving to scoring position and bringing a runner home no matter how you are asked to) and coaching before we start trying to fix what really isn't broken in the first place?

"No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."

by Walter Sobchak on Sep 19, 2007 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs