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

[JC]

Is it really THAT crazy to vote for a guy who was third in the chase for the batting title and fifth in RBIs?

The field this year for AL MVP is seriously flawed, which in my opinion is why Verlander won. Everyone that had a big year has one problem or another; For Tiexiera and Granderson, its average. I think if either guy hit .285-.300 they win. For Gonzalez and Ellsbury, its the Red Sox collapse. Cabrera's power numbers were a tick off their usual pace; If he drives in 10 more runs or hits a couple more homers, he probably wins. Fact that no one was completely dominant opens the door a crack for others, and ultimately, Verlander.

Big 3 cattegories: Average, Homers, RBI. No one was in the top 5 of all 3 in the AL, and only Young, Gonzalez, Granderson and Teixeira were among the top 5 in two of the three.

I wouldn't have voted for Young but making it out like he Evan Grant voted for Josh Reddick or something is offbase. There have been far greater injustices; this is not crusade worthy.

Yes, it is that crazy. 3rd in average and 5th in RBI, this is your criteria? Look at his OPS and tell how this isn't a crazy vote

 

[DennisReynolds]

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."

 

[pressboxer]

It's a good thing the Rangers won their division and reached the Series. If this had been for a guy on a middle-of-the-pack team, they might have torched Evan's house by now.

 

[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.

 

[Van Lingle Mungo]

Isn't it worse that a writer completely left Verlander off his ballot?

If you want an even more confusing line of reasoning...

But once I decided I didn't think it was fair to compare pitchers with position players for this award, meaning I wasn't going to give Verlander a first-place vote, it would have been hypocritical of me to have him anywhere else on my ballot.

He was either going to be first on my ballot or not on it at all.

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2011/11/21/sports/nh4772249.txt

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Isn't it worse that a writer completely left Verlander off his ballot?

Yes.

There is still sentiment among many baseball writers that the MVP award is for everyday players, because the pitchers have the Cy Young.

Yep:

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2011/11/21/sports/nh4772249.txt

 

[wicked]

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?

 

[Versatile]

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.

As far as the anti-Verlander/anti-Martinez arguments, at least those arguments are simply a product of thinking the wrong way about baseball, not being a biased booster.

 

[wicked]

Well, that's debatable in King's case -- he said pitchers weren't worthy of MVP votes but he had Wells on his ballot in '98.

 

[Appgrad05]

Isn't it worse that a writer completely left Verlander off his ballot?

If you want an even more confusing line of reasoning...

But once I decided I didn't think it was fair to compare pitchers with position players for this award, meaning I wasn't going to give Verlander a first-place vote, it would have been hypocritical of me to have him anywhere else on my ballot.

He was either going to be first on my ballot or not on it at all.

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2011/11/21/sports/nh4772249.txt

I understand the reasoning for leaving him completely off the ballot once you decide you're not going to vote for him No. 1. All-in or all-out argument. Now, saying a pitcher can't win MVP when the actual rules in no way say that ... whole different story.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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?

I don't follow baseball as much as I did in 1999, but I would have bet any amount of money that Pedro was going to win the MVP that year.

Grant's vote may have been stupid, but at least it didn't cost someone the award.

 

[HanSenSE]

Isn't it worse that a writer completely left Verlander off his ballot?

If you want an even more confusing line of reasoning...

But once I decided I didn't think it was fair to compare pitchers with position players for this award, meaning I wasn't going to give Verlander a first-place vote, it would have been hypocritical of me to have him anywhere else on my ballot.

He was either going to be first on my ballot or not on it at all.

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2011/11/21/sports/nh4772249.txt

I understand the reasoning for leaving him completely off the ballot once you decide you're not going to vote for him No. 1. All-in or all-out argument. Now, saying a pitcher can't win MVP when the actual rules in no way say that ... whole different story.

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.