I couldn't agree more. I find this literally unfathomable, and in a bout of serendipity tweeted it at the same time. Am I missing something here? Mick? I realize Young gets magical bonus points for leadership, but Napoli, Hamilton, Kinsler and Beltre were probably better, as was Wilson.

I'm not surprised Bautista didn't win, though it's always painful to read the completely arbitrary post-facto rationalizations of why people didn't vote for him - only 12 home runs in the second half! I am a bit surprised Verlander won. Other than the 24 wins, it wasn't an especially magical season, and the calibre of Bautista and Ellsbury's performances was very strong. If Boston hadn't lost to Tampa at the end I think that Jacoby would have won too. Oh well. There's always the next time we make the playoffs.

Is Michael Young the anti-Barry Bonds?

Am I missing something here? Mick?

No, Anders, not at all, though I would question your half-serious (I think) use of "magical." Young is, there is no question in my North Texas-local mind, the most imortant Ranger, the most valuable Ranger. He is not even CLOSE to the most productive or "best" Ranger (though he is damn fine) which would include, ahead of him, Hamilton (when healthy), Napoli, Beltre and Andrus. I'm not counting pitchers here because, well, suffice to say I don't think Verlander deserved the MVP!

I've only ineracted with Grant a couple of times, so can't really speak for his selections -- or the vaarious wry sarcastic responses drawn here --  but he is, to my read, a damn fine sportswriter and has never particularly struck me as a honer. Maybe this was a he-won't-win-but-what-the-hell vote, I dunno. I'll ask Jamey Newberg in a few inutes if he wants to check in on all the Michael Young conversation (he is a Box member, recall) ....

Just remember, and this is debated every year, "most valuable" doesn't necessarily mean "best" or "most gifted." The 1988 NL MVP was Kirk Gibson, who in many ways was to that Dodgers team what Young is to the current Rangers.

Stepping off the soapbox now ...

P.S. Michael Young, Hall of Famer?

I think so, though it's not a sure thing, He has some glitzy, kind of meaningless baubles on the resume -- the only player to be named to the All-Star team at all four infield positions, for example --  but the important counting stats are there in place or in progress 00 last year he crossed 2000 hits and 1000 runs; next year he will get to 400 doubles and possible 1000 RBI. He's not far off 200 homers or 100 SB. A .30 4 career hitter and a former Gold Glove shortstop ...

If the Ranges had clsoed the last two seasons with wins, he'd already be a lcok. As it is, he's damnclose and not even 35 yet ...

Here's my response ("pre-sponse?") from back in August:

The Chicago fire
By Jamey Newberg    August 20, 2011
There has been a ton of writing and sound over the last week or so tossing around the idea that Michael Young is an MVP candidate and asking whether it has legs. A surprising number of you have requested that I weigh in. So I will. Sort of.
Full story here ...

Yeah, but, um, he durn throwed a no-hitter ...

(Kidding! Please keep in mind, I am in the no-pitchers-for-MVP, except in xtraordinary circumstances> camp ... 1968 comes to mind when BOTH league MVPs were pitchers. And if you have to look up either one, shame on you! Hints: a 30-game winner and the best ERA in something like ninety years, both for teams that ended up faccing each other in the last "true" World Series ...)

Verlander was on the other end of 969 plate appearances, which is not an insubstantial number.

Yes!!!!! Why don't people see this?

Say Verlander was only involved in 750 opposition plate appearances. Why would that not be analogous to a starting player being involved in 750 offensive plate appearances? The offensive player's PAs are spread out in chunks of 4.5 per game while Verlander's are spread out in chunks of 30 per game. Why should this dispersal method preclude Verlander from being considered for MVP when both are involved in the same number of PAs?

In Verlander's case, all his PAs beyond 750 can be used to offset the defensive contributions of offensive players (who do more than bat 750 times).

Whether Verlander deserved the MVP in 2011 is another issue. But that he not be considered at all is something I can't fathom.

If one were to consider a pitcher's PAs against, would it have to be acknowledged that strength of opposition might mean more for evaluating a pitcher than it does for a batter? For example, in each start, a pitcher's opposition strength is heavily concentrated depending on the opponent when compared to a position player, who bats nearly every game against different pitchers.

If one were to consider a pitcher's PAs against, would it have to be acknowledged that strength of opposition might mean more for evaluating a pitcher than it does for a batter?

Definitely. The whole "strength of opposition" topic often gets raised at Cy Young time, though not necessarily by the mainstream press. I believe that's one of the key arguments for Halladay being more valuable than Kershaw this year.

Off the top of my head -- I have not thought this through, please feel free to pick iit over -- yjr ABs-faced argument has never quite worked for a starting pitcher because he affects, approximately, 35 games per season (granted durability affected the bullpen and the otehr starteres in the rotiation, but that's minor I think) ... If Bautista affected 155 or so games a year in a positive way, isn't that arguably more valuable than Verlander dominating 30-some?

It's not about total AB affected, it's about total GAMES affected ... innit?

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

I had no idea that the voting rules actually define "value".  Why does every writer insist on coming up with their own definition?  Can't they read?

Strength of offence and defence!!!!!! 

And don't tell me pitching is defence.  Pitching is pitching, hitting is hitting and defence is defence.

If Bautista affected 155 or so games a year in a positive way, isn't that arguably more valuable than Verlander dominating 30-some?

But does he really affect 155 games in a positive way? His 0-for-4's don't help (being below replacement value). His 1-for-4's where the one hit is a single are not terribly helpful (.250 OBP, .250 SLG). Even someone like Bautista is a net negative in many of his games. He probably makes a positive contribution in more games than most, but it is certainly not in all his games.

And just how often can he impact a single game as meaningfully as a starting pitcher?

To my mind, as I argued above, Bautista spread out his goodness, generally speaking, little by little over a lot of games. Verlander's goodness was concentrated heavily and dramatically in many fewer games. On balance, their total goodness nets to roughly the same (for the hand-waving, generalization of this conversation). The only difference is the dispersion pattern of that goodness.

Mike, I agree with everything you have said. My position, no doubt poorly argued, is that the top flight starting pitchers are generally in the mix with the league's best players and thus should be given consideration at MVP time. In years where position players are particularly outstanding, starting pitchers will typically not be able to compete for top billing (limited by the parameters of what they can do to contribute).

I do part company slightly with you on the idea of adjusting for a pitcher's (or, presumably, hitter's) good luck. Verlander's low BABIP suggests a regression is in order, no question. But for evaluating past performance, I feel he should get to reap the benefits of his luck. The same for a hypothetical homerun hitter who, say, hits all his homeruns just barely over the fence. That might spell trouble for the future, but he should get full credit for his luck retrospectively.

There is certainly an argument to be made for distilling, if possible, the true legitimate value a player contributed, and teasing luck out of the equation. But my feeling is that while this makes sense for forecasting, it's not mandatory for an evaluation of what actually happened. MVP and Cy Young should be based on what happened, now what should have happened (though the latter is certainly an interesting line of inquiry).

On the new CBA: Might as well take back that offer to Omar Minaya