Here's one thing I know about Michael Young: if he sticks around long enough to draw 12 more walks then he'll be half way to Ozzie Smith's career total.

If you didn't look at my bank account, you wouldn't know that I'm not a millionaire.

If you didn't look at the scale, you wouldn't know my weight.

Sure, you could look at my waistline and have a pretty good guess at it but I bet you wouldn't guess it on the button. e sae And even if you did, I'd lie and say you were wrong and you still wouldn't _know_.

Most importantly, I carry myself with the same tempo, the same attitude and I'm just as irascible if I'm 10 pounds lighter or 10 pounds heavier. That's how I roll.

As to Wash ... y'know, when you get right down to it, "busting their tail" is not really in the DH job description. Or at least it's way down on the competencies list. That list:

1. Hits the crap out of the ball
2. Often
3. Repeatedly
4. And in a manner such that the ball's not caught too often
5. Preferably over the wall
6. In fair territory
7. Makes as few outs as possible
8. Doesn't whine about not playing the field
9. Doesn't embarrass themselves too badly on the basepaths -- a medium jog on pop-ups is strongly recommended
10. Conveniently goes on the 15-day DL with a busted tail when games in NL parks are approaching

Holy crap! I knew he was having a bad season but the man is carrying a 70 OPS+. 267/299/350. The man is hitting worse than Darwin Barney. As a DH.

That said, it's a pretty putrid bench and they don't have an obviously better choice. Well, except for pretty much any AAA 1B or corner OF but you can't expect miracles.

Seriously, this is criminally negligent to run that bat out to DH every day.

I had no idea how Young was doing this year, so when I saw the headline, I assumed it was another one of those "Michael Young is the REAL MVP" crap articles recycled from last year.

#4. I know you know this, but it's only a serious error to run Young out there as the DH every day if you believe that he's truly a 70 OPS+ hitter. I don't see it as likely (of course it is possible he just got old overnight and is done). Nor do I see it as likely that he's the 125 OPS+ hitter that he was just last year.

If Young's intangibles are so great, they should offer him a job as a coach and get a real player in there. That way, he'd be able to inspire his teammates without putting nine million outs on the scoreboard.

Young, of course, has value beyond the DH role, as his glove plays at any infield position. And he's also the unquestioned veteran leader of a clubhouse praised for its chemistry.

Is there an implication that the vaunted clubhouse chemistry will suffer if Young sits?

This is a sneak peek at Derek Jeter's future.

Young, of course, has value beyond the DH role, as his glove plays at any infield position. And he's also the unquestioned veteran leader of a clubhouse praised for its chemistry.

It is not the glove that plays at any position; it is the man wearing it and Young was not a good fielder even when he was younger. Young, the unquestioned veteran leadership, as opposed to Beltre or Hamilton? There,a question about the leadership of the club.

Isn't Young's history that of a malcontent who griped and moaned about having to first change positions and then become a DH for the good of the team? If he is not whining now, perhaps it is because he is playing almost every day despite having such a weak season at the bat.

Weak article.

Young has been healthy this year, at least nominally, while several other Rangers (including Moreland and Napoli, who do some 1B/DHing) have been in and out of the lineup with injuries. Mike Olt has not hit since coming up; bringing up Profar any earlier would have been a misuse of his talents (he needed to play every day in the minors, not occasionally do utility or DH work in Arlington). So one conclusion would be, yes, Young has been terrible, but was there a better option sitting around to fill his role? For a while Brandon Snyder was getting some playing time, but then he too stopped hitting, and was switched out for Olt.

Young's glove is terrible anywhere except 1B, where it's merely adequate. He's a pretty awful super-sub utility man at this point, defensively, and hasn't hit well enough this year to have any role. But I think Ron J2 makes a good point in assuming that Young isn't the hitter he's shown himself to be either of the last two years. He might be shrugging off minor but accumulating injuries this year. For months I've still been pretty confident he could deliver a key single or double in an RBI situation, and he does so very occasionally; but lately when he comes to the plate I take the opportunity to assess the line at the men's room. (Sad but true. Neither Young nor I is getting Younger :)

Isn't Young's history that of a malcontent who griped and moaned

In the off-season, yes. During the year he shuts up and plays his ### off. I don't sense any negative fallout from his frustration. Most players identify with that kind of pride, even when it seems to fans like whining.

The unrelenting love for Young is unfathomable to those of us outside the state of Texas. Respect the man if you want, but don't deify him. And call the player out if he is not hitting, even if he is looking like an unflappable leader while busily making outs at a Herculean pace. The pretzel logic used to wave away his on-field performance is breathtaking.

Young, of course, has value beyond the DH role, as his glove plays at any infield position. And he's also the unquestioned veteran leader of a clubhouse praised for its chemistry.

Is there an implication that the vaunted clubhouse chemistry will suffer if Young sits?

Well, Young was one of Wash's earliest and most vocal supporters when the whole cocaine thing broke a couple of years ago, so it's entirely possible that Wash feels a sense of loyalty towards Young that goes way beyond baseball or clubhouse reasons.

On the other hand, Young and Kinsler are, I think, the only Rangers on the roster whose tenure precedes Wash, and for all we know, Wash's reputation as a guy who knows how to keep a clubhouse happy and motivated comes from whatever leadership Young has exercised. Take away Young (or piss him off enough), and it's possible that Wash loses the clubhouse.

As far as I'm concerned, Young has been pretty much the worst starting player in MLB (-2.4 bWAR as of today), who has managed the difficult feat of full spectrum sucking in 2012; he's been terrible with the bat, on the bases, with the glove, and has hit into a ton of double plays. Even if you think he's not really as bad as his numbers, he's still plenty bad. Wash's loyalty towards the guy is hurting his team and could really wind up costing them in the playoffs. Sit him and rotate the DH among your players who don't stink on ice.

So one conclusion would be, yes, Young has been terrible, but was there a better option sitting around to fill his role? For a while Brandon Snyder was getting some playing time, but then he too stopped hitting, and was switched out for Olt.


How about Gentry? For the last couple months Moreland, Murphy, Gentry, Cruz, and Hamilton have all been healthy. All 5 of them are better offensive players and defensive players than Young. Gentry, and to a lesser extent Moreland, have gotten a lot less playing time than they've deserved due to Washington's over-reliance of Michael Young. Also, Olt probably would be hitting better than Young if he was allowed to play more than once every two weeks.

How about Gentry?

Good point. Gentry seems to have done a disappearing act, particularly since Murphy started hitting .800 against LHP or whatever his insane split is lately. Any time Hamilton is in CF, Young at DH, and Gentry is on the bench weakens the lineup all around.

Young, of course, has value beyond the DH role, as his glove plays at any infield position.

Which, of course, does the Rangers #### all when he's put in the DH spot, as he can't (easily) slide in to cover other defensive positions in the middle of a game without screwing them even more by losing the DH in the batting lineup.

So not only is his bat a sinkhole at the DH position, it costs the Rangers defensive flexibility at the same time.

This is a sneak peek at Derek Jeter's future.

I wrote posts like this 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago and last year. I don't write posts like this anymore. Oh, I know it's true. But, damn it if he isn't the greatest shortstop of my lifetime. For all we know, he'll age like Rose and continue to defy his critics into his mid 40's.

Well, Young was one of Wash's earliest and most vocal supporters when the whole cocaine thing broke a couple of years ago, so it's entirely possible that Wash feels a sense of loyalty towards Young that goes way beyond baseball or clubhouse reasons.

On the other hand, Young and Kinsler are, I think, the only Rangers on the roster whose tenure precedes Wash, and for all we know, Wash's reputation as a guy who knows how to keep a clubhouse happy and motivated comes from whatever leadership Young has exercised. Take away Young (or piss him off enough), and it's possible that Wash loses the clubhouse.

A week or so ago, there was a thread which considered the question whether there are any real differences among major league managers, outside of bullpen usage. This is the answer. There are any number of ways for a manager to handle a situation like this. Objectively, in isolation, it's hard to defend Washington's continuing to run Young out there. On the other hand, nobody (including Washington) really knows how it effects the bottom line, and Texas has the best record in the league and a 4 game lead in the division coming out of Labor Day weekend.

This is a sneak peek at Derek Jeter's future.

I wrote posts like this 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago and last year. I don't write posts like this anymore. Oh, I know it's true. But, damn it if he isn't the greatest shortstop of my lifetime. For all we know, he'll age like Rose and continue to defy his critics into his mid 40's.

I think the comparison to Rose is apropos in relation to the comment. Young is a sneak peek at Derek Jeter's future, if Jeter tries to hang around long enough to break the hits record. The difference is that Young hitting like this at 35, while Jeter would be about 45.

So one conclusion would be, yes, Young has been terrible, but was there a better option sitting around to fill his role?

The Rangers have 800 kajillion pitching prospects sitting around. If they wanted a DH who hit like a DH, they certainly had the opportunity to trade for one.

The Pirates were able to get Travis Snider in exchange for a relief arm, for example. Think he'd look better as the Rangers' DH than Young does?

So one conclusion would be, yes, Young has been terrible, but was there a better option sitting around to fill his role?


The Rangers have 800 kajillion pitching prospects sitting around. If they wanted a DH who hit like a DH, they certainly had the opportunity to trade for one.

The Pirates were able to get Travis Snider in exchange for a relief arm, for example. Think he'd look better as the Rangers' DH than Young does?

The problem is not that the Rangers don't have/can't get a DH who'd be better than Michael Young. The problem is that as long as Young is on the roster, Washington WILL play him every day. Considering how terrible Young is on defense, it's probably best to have him sucking at DH as opposed to giving runs back in the field as well.

The Rangers have 800 kajillion pitching prospects sitting around.

TINSTAAK.

Objectively, in isolation, it's hard to defend Washington's continuing to run Young out there. On the other hand, nobody (including Washington) really knows how it effects the bottom line, and Texas has the best record in the league and a 4 game lead in the division coming out of Labor Day weekend.

But aren't there enough quite good models that can measure how a player's tangible performance does effect the bottom line? And shouldn't such measurements trump the perceived effects of any intangible skills?

As far as the 4 game lead goes, many would argue that it is only a 4 game lead because of Young's performance, and that the lead would be much more comfortable without Young. And the upside of a bigger cushion would be the flexibility to rest pitchers and players with greater ease, thereby presumably improving the team's chances for success in the post-season.

If they wanted a DH who hit like a DH, they certainly had the opportunity to trade for one

Possibly. But they've had to make moves to shore up their pitching (as nearly every team has to), and to shore up their catching as well. I reckon the theory was that Young would start to hit sooner or later. That, and his accursedly empty batting average which suggests that he maybe isn't as bad as he really is. He's a real-life experiment in seeing how little value you can have while hitting .267 in a .256 league :)

The difference is that Young hitting like this at 35, while Jeter would be about 45.

Ken Griffey Jr. was 39 when it was him. It could happen to anyone who 1) wants to keep playing and 2) has a reputation that makes if very difficult for the manager to bench him. So they run him out there as a Veteran-Leader-Doing-Things-the-Right-Way.

Young hit better in 2011 than Jeter in 2012; I don't think we need to wait for Jeter to be 45.

And shouldn't such measurements trump the perceived effects of any intangible skills?

That'd be my guess, but the point is, how can you be sure?

Jeter (à propos of not much, and I know no-one needs another comment on Derek Jeter, but here goes anyway) has the same career OPS+ as Steve Garvey. He's Steve Garvey, plus 2000 PAs and 600 hits, minus scores of illegitimate children, and still leading a league in hits at age 38 (at which point Garvey was batting .211 and cashing in his chips). IOW he would have been able to hold a job as a first baseman his entire career, and would still be a Hall of Famer as a first baseman (not much doubt a 3,265-hit Garvey would be in the HOF). Being a weak shortstop (but a great baserunner) is mere icing on his resumé.

I dunno why I bring that up exactly; it's just interesting. By contrast, Young has had a very respectable career, but at a lower level than Jeter, and not likely to last nearly as long. Garvey was at Jeter's level (as a hitter), but not as long. That seems to me the important context for Fernigal's point upthread.

For the record --

I was willing to take on Young and his contract in my many trades that saw the Cubs acquiring Profar + Perez for various major league flotsam....

"when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind" - Lord Kelvin

Young has absolutely no value beyond statistics. Nor does Jeter or anyone else. Now if you wish to argue that his valyue goe beyond merely his own personal batting statistics, then choose your measurement and we can talk. Maybe team wins, or how much his teammates have statistically improved when he was around,...

"Large increases in cost with questionable increases in performance can be tolerated only in race horses, women, and designated hitters." - Lord Kelvin

Now if you wish to argue that his valyue goe beyond merely his own personal batting statistics, then choose your measurement and we can talk. Maybe team wins, or how much his teammates have statistically improved when he was around,...

Well, Washington's job is not to maximize Michael Young's stats or value. It's to win the pennant (for starters). Given that he's doing that, and has done so for the past few years, it's tough to second-guess the particular mixture of factors that have led to that result (so far).

I wrote posts like this 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago, 2 years ago and last year. I don't write posts like this anymore. Oh, I know it's true. But, damn it if he isn't the greatest shortstop of my lifetime. For all we know, he'll age like Rose and continue to defy his critics into his mid 40's.

I love Jeter, but he's not the greatest SS of my lifetime. Yount and Nomar were better at their peaks. Ripken was better by peak or career. I'd go with Larkin, his better glove offsetting the injuries, but it's close enough to argue. Then there's A-Rod. He was better in every way as a shortstop, and his move off the position was dictated by workplace politics and not player abilities.

As for Jeter vs. Young, they are superficially similar in batting stats (if you don't look at walks) and brought below average range to the position. But when you consider ballparks, Young has never been close to Jeter as a player.

Well, Washington's job is not to maximize Michael Young's stats or value. It's to win the pennant (for starters). Given that he's doing that, and has done so for the past few years, it's tough to second-guess the particular mixture of factors that have led to that result (so far).

His job is to win baseball games. The fact that his team is talented enough to do so despite him making foolish playing time decisions does not justify his making foolish playing time decisions.

The only quasi-reasonable argument for Washington's Young fetish is that he believes benching Young could result in him losing the clubhouse, leading to a BoSox-esque collapse. Seems a stretch to me.

When I see this kind of comment, and you do see a lot of them, I tend to respond, "Yes. Michael Young's (or whoever's) contribution goes beyond those pesky statistics of Wins and Losses.

Because I have Jetrer's glove as downright putrid, I have, in my lifetime:

Banks
ARod (probably the best SS I have ever seen)
Ossie Smith (the best defensive shortstop I have ever seen)
Barry Larkin
Robin Yount

ahead of him. He belongs in the Hall of Fame, but in the Outer Circle, about 13th-15th best SS ever. Nomar burned out too fast for me. Jeter's mere time of service will place him ahead of Nomar. - Brock Hanke

Intangible? I bet Castrovince didn't think, so I command you to. Panoramic view. Look, Wash'll make it all manageable.

Did you forget Ripken Brock?

Peak SS of my baseball lifetime ... alas Banks as a SS was before then:

AROD
Nomar
Ripken
Larkin
Jeter
Tejada
Yount
Trammell

You could probably sort the last 5 or so in any manner you want. Fregosi's peak was before I became a baseball fan too.

Career, ignoring the peak-only guys who still belong on the "career" list:

Ripken
Larkin
Jeter
Trammell
Tejada
Concepcion
Campaneris

Oh yeah, I need Ozzie in there somewhere ... between Jeter and Trammell? Anyway those top 3 are quite close and I could move Jeter up one based on career length.

This is one of the tougher positions to decide how to combine these peak/career guys. ARod, at his peak, is probably second only to Wagner. But in the end, rightly or wrongly, it was just 1256 starts at SS. A great 8 years (62 WAR!) but I've definitely got to put him behind Ripken, maybe behind Larkin/Jeter although I'd rather not.

Banks' peak as a SS was either third or fourth best (Vaughan) and that was just 1100 games and "just" 52 WAR. He's got to drop below Larkin/Jeter I think, maybe Trammell. Nomar falls well behind Banks but could still be ranked ahead of Tejada et al. People tend to forget about Fregosi but when you bring in defense, his peak rivals Nomar ... but I'd still put him behind.

Hanley Ramirez and Jose Reyes should get some consideration as peak guys if Garciaparra and Tejada do.

I'll grant I didn't even think of those guys. So let's take a look:

Tejada 2002-6: 26.6 WAR in 3556 PA
Nomar 1997-03: 40 WAR in 4083 PA
Reyes 2006-11: 23 WAR in 3586 PA
Hanley 2006-10: 25 WAR in 3370 PA

As I'm sure we all knew, Nomar blows these guys out of the water (he was my #2 peak of my lifetime for a reason) but Reyes and Hanley are both in the Tejada territory although Reyes is a bit light in that bunch.

Those were off the top of my head. I put Larkin so low not based on peak talent but a guess that he missed enough playing time to move down a peak list. Similarly I wasn't sure Yount had enough top years as a SS (took him a while to get going and he left the position early). Trammell just seemed consistent.

So, I've under-rated Trammell who had a much nicer consecutive run than I realized -- 39 WAR over about 4300 PA which you could extend a couple years either side into an outstanding "prime". Larkin falls around the same spot. So move Trammell up the peak list substantially. Yount is either 35 WAR in 3100 PA or about 42 WAR in 4300 PA.

Anyway my list kinda sucked but the easiest thing is to just yank Tejada (and Hanley and Reyes) out of the peak list. Of course Hanley and Reyes have a chance to add to their peaks ... but they didn't add much lustre this year although Hanley at least looks much better under fWAR than under bWAR the last two years but still nothing special. Jeter's placement depends on how bad you're going to whack him for defense.

" He's Steve Garvey, plus 2000 PAs and 600 hits, minus scores of illegitimate children"

Not for lack of bedroom effort though. The value of the condom.