DMN's Evan Grant votes for Michael Young as AL MVP

OK, then watched it run away with its division, win 96 games and finish behind only the Yankees in the AL. Whatever.

The thing is, I don't know if this was a good pick -- I don't follow baseball and rarely even watch it -- but I do know you can get into trouble when you try reading people's minds. The guy told us why he made the pick. If you have a solid reason to believe he's lying, that's another story. But I don't know of any reason to believe his reason for picking Young was anything other than the one he posted.

 

A valid reason, by the way. "Games played" is among the specific criteria laid out in the BBWAA voting guidelines.

Here's the letter that MVP voters receive with their ballot:

In my opinion:

1) I wouldn't mind if the MVP criteria was changed to position players only. Despite advanced metrics such as WAR, it doesn't make much sense to directly compare pitchers and position players. Let pitchers have the Cy Young Award and position players have the Hank Aaron Award.

2) I don't have any issue with voters who use the "games played" criteria to leave pitchers off their MVP ballots entirely.

3) As the guidelines are currently written, I think starting pitchers should be seriously considered for the MVP. As was noted elsewhere, Verlander had a direct influence on more plate appearances (900-1,000) this season than Ellsbury/Batista or any other hitter (600-700).

 

Read that sentence again: Is he saying that there were other players on other teams in the American League that meant something to the Rangers? In that regard, does he mean Young meant more to the Rangers than, say, Ellsbury or Verlander? Well, duh, I should hope so, seeing that neither Ellsbury nor Verlander spent a day in a rangers uniform in 2011--at least not in public.

 

Considering King also two years prior voted for David Wells as MVP, I say no way.

 

If "games played" is a category, which I was not aware of, then shouldn't pitchers be completely illegitimate picks? It doesn't say "plate appearances present for," after all. The wording clearly should be changed.

But also, if the hitters have the Hank Aaron Award and the fielders have the Platinum Glove and the pitchers have the Cy Young, shouldn't MVP just represent general value brought to the table?

We're getting off track in discussing Grant here, though.

 

You could certainly make a strong argument for that, yes.

I'm not sure Evan Grant made that argument (or made it well), but I can't say I'd disagree with him if he did.

 

He didn't. He also voted Verlander second. This wasn't a pitchers vs. position players thing, or he would have voted for Ellsbury, Bautista, Granderson, Cabrera or any of a number of other more deserving players.

 

I voted Michael Young second, for pretty much the reasoning Evan used, and based on the fact that, covering the A's, I see the Rangers a ton. I felt Young kept one of the best teams in baseball steaming ahead despite numerous injuries - and this from a guy who has been asked to change positions almost every year and who was nearly traded last season.

I love statistics. I love numbers. But this isn't just a straight numbers decision, or the MVP would go to the guy with the best WAR or OPS or slugging percentage every year and the votes would simply follow those lists. I am in the "player most valuable in getting his team to the postseason" camp, because the goal is to win, not to have the best WAR. I think Michael Young was the key player for the Rangers last year, and of all the major candidates, he's the one I see the most. Evan sees him even more - I have no problem with him voting Young first.

 

He wasn't even the most valuable on his team. Justifying your vote by saying that this is the guy I see the most is why you should not being relying on your eyes for these things. It's ridiculous to have Young that high.

 

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

 

I think sending that letter out does a great disservice to the voters.

If you don't vote for a pitcher all they have to do is point to that letter as the reason. It practically absolves you of any blame.

When I covered baseball, I didn't have a MVP vote, but I would hear discussions by other writers practically dissecting the word "valuable"

I think some almost take that literally as "the best player on the best team or the team that has improved the most"

 

Then you might as well vote for regional MVP's.