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

[joe king]

My eyes told me Michael Young meant more to the Texas Rangers and their success than any player in the American League.

Even setting aside the gramatical problem with this sentence, doesn't it tell you all you need to know? How can someone that presumably watches the Rangers much more than he watches any other teams expect us to accept his argument on his "eyes"? Judging by his Tweets, he appears to have dropped any hope of making a logical and coherent argument--his rhetoric has slipped to "I-just-thought-each-voter-was-entitled-to-his-own-opinion" levels.

You can't say you're voting off what your eyes told you, then support it with numbers about what Young hit in different spots of the lineup, etc. That's voting off what the numbers tell you (the wrong numbers, in this case). In a broad sense, the difference between a .333 hitter and a .300 hitter over the course of a season is not even one extra hit per week, so even someone watching every game wouldn't know the difference unless they looked up the numbers. My guess is that if the justification were honest, it would basically read, "I've gotten to know Michael Young really well. I respect him and like him personally, so I want him to win this award."

Or it could be he covered the team all season, watched it get to the World Series and decided no player was more instrumental to that run than Michael Young, for the reasons he stated.

Just a thought.

Except the ballots were due before the postseason.

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.

 

[buckweaver]

I'm also reminded of last season's NL ROY, when a writer in LA either left Buster Posey off his ballot or voted him low because he was a mid-season callup.

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:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

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).

 

[clutchcargo]

http://rangersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/11/justin-verlander-wins-mvp-one.html

My eyes told me Michael Young meant more to the Texas Rangers and their success than any player in the American League.

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.

 

[Ice9]

http://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/awards_1999.shtml#AL_MVP_voting::none

Is Grant's vote as bad as George King leaving Pedro off the 1999 AL MVP ballot?

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

 

[Versatile]

I'm also reminded of last season's NL ROY, when a writer in LA either left Buster Posey off his ballot or voted him low because he was a mid-season callup.

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:

Dear Voter:

There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.

The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:

1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.

2. Number of games played.

3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.

4. Former winners are eligible.

5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.

You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.

Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

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).

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.

 

[buckweaver]

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.

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.

 

[Versatile]

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.

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.

 

[Susan Slusser]

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.

 

[JC]

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.

 

[Susan Slusser]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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"

 

[JC]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

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