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

What does it matter if one guy votes for Michael Young for whatever reason? Someone's gonna vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but Paul isn't going to win. The consensus will weed out the "wrong". I have no problem with Evan voting for Young. I think he's dead right on his value as well.

I remember back in 1985 when Mattingly won the AL MVP over Brett. There was zero doubt in my mind Brett's value was WAY higher than that of Mattingly, especially when you consider the impact of Brett not being in that Royals lineup. Without Mattingly, the Yanks would have been right where they already were: out of the postseason.

Without Young? I don't think we're talking about the Rangers repeating as AL champs. To each his/her own. At the end of the day, the person who won the MVP was the person most thought should win. The end.

 

So without Verlander or Cabrera, the Tigers make the LCS? Without Granderson or Cano, the Yankees have the top record in the AL? Hell, can the Rangers do it without Wilson, Napoli, Beltre or Kinsler?

If this is the standard, then you're telling me that the Rays had 10 players more valuable than Jose Bautista or Jacoby Ellsbury on the ideology that the Rays made the playoffs by one game, and there had to be at least 10 players on the Rays who were worth an extra win for one reason or another. No matter how good Bautista or Ellsbury were, they weren't good enough to get their teams into the playoffs. PERIOD. Hell, Bautista could have hit 15 more homers and probably not lifted the Blue Jays into the playoffs.

You couldn't have picked a much worse example than Mattingly-Brett. Advanced metrics (and even plenty of not-so-advanced metrics, such as BA, OBP and SLG) say Brett was better than Mattingly. (More advanced metrics would point to Rickey Henderson as better than either.)

Also, again, MVP votes are cast before the postseason begins.

But this is beginning to spiral into a conversation about who deserved the award, not the vote. And that discussions should be saved for the Sports and News board.

 

Yup. But I do think these kind of gut votes get a little more heat than usual because the audience, along with being much bigger than it was, also expects writers to show their work. In this case, the lead argument for supporting Young in the face of a mountain of evidence against him is essentially, "Because I said so."

 

A valid point. Nothing wrong with holding individual voters more accountable for these awards, I think. If you're going to vote for someone like Young, whose case has many, many flaws, you better be prepared to back it up. And if you can't make a compelling case -- which, to his credit, Evan did -- you really shouldn't be voting that way.

 

Baseball is the only sport where you can have the statistical argument. It is basically an individual sport. You absolutely have to watch in hockey and football where so many other things go into a player than simply stats. Ice time, line mates, the way a team plays. You don't have that in baseball.

 

I think it is great that Evan Grant came on to explain his vote - even though he really didn't need to.

If he had changed the word "eyes" to "experience" would people have had the same problem?

When I saw the voting - I had no problem with the votes for Michael Young.

 

I think that Evan Grant made a far more compelling (if IMO erroneous) case than the above, which strikes me as straight out homerism.

 

I take exception to "homerism." Seeing someone more often than someone else doesn't mean you're actively rooting for someone - it's essentially East Coast bias, which does exist, and for a reason: You have a greater appreciation for the players you see the most. (I know, "see" again. The horror.) If you note much of the voting, there are regional trends. So if the AL West writers throw more votes to the AL West players, it's getting evened out - more than evened out. There are only four AL West teams. (For now. I'll try to throw some Astros some votes in 2013. Kidding!)

Thanks for the mention, Evan, but totally unnecessary. I don't think I explained my position or yours very well. You did a much better job.

 

OK, I'll take that back, and refer back to my objection to your original post.

 

So a "West Coast Bias" is OK but an East Coast one isn't?
What you're saying is exactly what homerism is; you're backing your guys because the other guys won't.
In voting for the MVP, Young shouldn't have come close to cracking the top 5.

 

Question Susan, do you not watch baseball games on TV?

What an absolute load of shit that is. Bias is not right either way, what a cop out and completely unfair to the writers who take their vote seriously and have a decent understanding of the game. Some of them post here by the way.