What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
Who has a higher chance of hitting 3000/ hitting 3000 with the Rangers?Michael Young Age: 35Hits: 2061Signed through: 2013
Adrian BeltreAge: 32Hits: 2033Signed Through: 2016*
I think you can just change the question to, "which one will get to 3000 hits?" It's rather unlikely for both of them, but Beltre is 3 years younger, so...
I think the "with the Rangers" is the problem. Both guys take care of themselves, and if they stay healthy, and keep hitting, and keep their full-time gigs, they have a shot at 3000 hits. With Mike, though, I can't see how he'll be here after his contract is up. I imagine he will go somewhere in the NL to play 2B for his last few seasons. I guess Beltre could feasibly get 200 hits for 5 years in a row... but I think that it'll probably take him 6 years of full-time play to do it. I guess that means Beltre has a better chance to do it "with the Rangers" than Mike does.
I really hope Mike gets to 3000 though. He's kind of a throwback player who doesn't have power or speed or really good defense. But he knows how to hit, and he's been a top 10-20 AL hitter pretty much his whole career. It would be cool for him to get 3000, since that's probably his only real shot at the HoF.
That's something to ponder. Young has been relatively injury free so far. If by some miracle he could defy the odds and play five years at his current pace he'd be there. Odds of that are astronomical. It's unlikely, but say he could manage another 200 hit year and two 175 hit seasons he'd be 38 years old and still need 400 more hits. At that point, how badly does he want to keep playing? It all depends on how well his body holds up. He seems to stay in pretty good shape. Had he broken into the majors at a younger age I think he'd make it. As it is, time is running out. I'm not interested enough to look up any stats, but my biased, non-scientific estimate is 9.5%.
Beltre broke in at a younger age, but racks up hits at a slower rate and is more injury prone. Again, it's unlikely, but every once in a while somebody come along who plays at a high level to the age of forty. Say 9%.
As for doing it in a Ranger's uniform, if either of them does it, I say it's fifty fifty that they do it for us. If either of them can stay keep it up at a high level, there's a shot of them staying a Ranger. I think a slightly more likely scenario would be playing their contract out here, sticking around on a few teams that need a veteran bat, and coming back for a swan song/last shot at 3000.
I looked at Michael Young's stats earlier this summer, and I compared his stats to those of the men in the 3000 hit club. Michael compares favorably to Pete Rose, because Michael has 5 or 6 seasons of 200+ hits and btw, Michael is only 34 years old, turning 35 later this month. This is very important, because I counted from the 3000 hit club the number of seasons a man had of 200+ hits before turning 35, and Pete Rose had one more season than Michael did. There are only a couple of men who had more 200+ seasons than Michael before age 35, can't remember who they were. I can go back and look. Astonishingly enough, most men did not have 200+ hits, almost all of them had 170-190 hits for more years.
Back to the analysis. Michael started playing in the major leagues approximately 2.5 years after Pete Rose did, but remember Michael has almost as many seasons of 200+ hits. Iow, Michael is hitting his prime, hitting wise, while Pete had a bunch of wear on his tires.
okay, let's do the math, Michael needs 5 seasons of 190 hits, very doable, as long as he stays in the American League, because of the DH. When Michael's agent goes to the negotiating table, he should use his trump card, "don't you want Michael to get to 3000 as a Ranger?", because Michael is on pace for that.
Michael led the league in number of hits this year, 213, his best ever. I wonder how many men can say their best number of hits is at age 34? Michael is very similar to Pete also in that he doesn't miss many games. Michael has played over 150 games in at least 6 years, very comparable to Pete's number before age 35.
I rate Michael Young's chances as very high if he can decide that he likes his role of "super-utility/DH", because if he will accept his role permanently he will almost certainly get to 3000 hits.
realized I made a mistake. Michael's 213 hits this year is his 2nd best, because he had 221 in '05. Still quite remarkable for a 34 year old.
looking back at the 3000 hit club, I need to clarify, I was looking for someone who had maintained some consistency in hitting, similar to Michael, for example there is Wade Boggs, with 7 200+ hit seasons, but fails when compared to Michael because Wade petered out, his last 200+ season occured at age 31, he diminishes quite a bit from there. by the time Boggs was 34 he was down to 133 hits waaaayyyy below Michael's 213.
Young turns 35 in 11 days I'm pretty sure we can say he's 35 it's not like he's going to get any regular season at bats before that time.I think young has about a 30% chance bc he might keep playing until he gets there, but not with the Rangers though.Beltre, if he stays healthy I believe has around a 20% chance because he is only 32 and will be in Texas for at least until 2015
I have posted my Michael Young thoughts on this topic before. Jeter broke in earlier than Mike, but if you compare the #'s start to now? Very similar, except steals and HR's. Difference is Mike's production is not in decline, unlike Jeter's. Mike could well be the Molitor of this club, used correctly.
Beltre will likely play for many years to come. His will & tenacity tells me as much, as does Young's.
So I will say without impunity, that both will reach 3,000 hits. And when Mike does, he should be a HOF'er. To me, he is far more valuable a player than Jeter, who is called a shoe-in. Jeter can in no way do what Mike does. And if Jeter were a lifetime Ranger and Mike a lifetime Yankee, there would be no arguement.
No question, they both get there.
So then Beltre is a HOF too? Beltre has better power and defense then Young and if he gets to 3000 then he should be a shoe in.
I can't argue with that, so, yes. If production continues, yes. I can provide several names of guys with lesser numbers in the HOF than what those two will end up with.
Martin, you don't understand, Michael's exact age is very important because all of his hits in 2011 happened at age 34. This is important because Michael needs only five years of 190 hits to get to 3000. Something happens when a player hits 40, I am forecasting production comes down drastically. iow, you can't forecast a full season of 190 hits if a player is 40, the chances are tiny.
Now look at Michael's age. The next five years Michael will be 35,36,37,38,39. He won't turn 40 until after his next five years are done.
Then, when he hits 40 his production will most likely be cut in half, at least that's my projection.
So, he averages 190 a season for the next five years, then predict he plays two more seasons, at maybe 90 hits a season, he ends pretty close to 3200 hits. That's top 20, hall of fame for sure.
One interesting question is does he pass Jeter? I give Jeter only two more years, his production is quickly coming down.
I give Michael Young a pretty decent shot at limping over the 3000 line. Not here, though. I predict that Young's productivity will evaporate somewhere around 2700 hits, and if he's determined to get to 3000 then he'll end up doing the Pudge Rodriguez/Johnny Damon will-play-anywhere-for-ABs tour for 3-4 years to get there, limping across the line for the Royals or some other team.
Beltre is going to have a better shot because of his age. He needs to prove that the move to RBiA is going to lead to a permanent increase in productivity, but if it does, I could see him earning his vesting option and getting to 2900+ by the end of this contract.
Your prediction makes a lot of sense, Scoob. And the examples you gave are excellent ones. However, if Mike is close to 3K hits and willing to take a significant pay-cut to remain here at the conclusion of his contract, then I think he will get 3K hits in a Ranger uniform. Big "if"s, I know. But Mike is a leader here. Almost "the leader" here. I think if all is pallatable to all parties, he will retire a Ranger.
That makes no sence if his production would be cut in half from what he's doing now when he's 40 then it would probably start to steadily decline before he turns 40. How can he go from 190 hits at age 39 to 95 hits a year later?
To all those talking about how Young is sure to just keep banging out 190-hit seasons through his late 30's while Derek Jeter's "production is quickly coming down".
Jeter had 161 hits this year, in 131 games. So he averaged 1.23 hits/game...which translates to 190 hits in a 155 games played. His average for the season was .297, despite his horrendous start.
Prior to 2011, MY averaged "only" 181 hits for the three previous years.
The point is....MY's 2011 season was extraordinary and he's more likely to revert back to 2008-2010 form....and the difference between MY and DJeter isn't nearly as much as some on here are claiming.
Sorry....but this has me going...the statement that MY is "a far more valuable player" than Derek Jeter.
Looking at numbers, that's a pretty hard statement to justify:
Average season for DJ / MY:
Games: 151 / 151PA: 694 / 672Runs: 110 / 91Hits: 192 / 1872B: 31 / 353B: 4 / 5HR: 15 / 15RBI: 74 / 83SB: 21 / 8BB: 62 / 45SO: 103 / 98BA: .313 / .304OBP: .383 / .350SLG: .449 / .451OPS: .832 / .801OPS+: 117 / 105TB: 276 / 278
Seriously, there's really only two categories where there's a noticeable difference in the two. DJ scores more runs while MY gets more RBIs. That reflects one batting lead-off and the other usually batting 3rd or 5th.
So, you could argue that MY has been as good as DJ. However, that would discount two things. The first is....DJ has averaged those numbers for 15 seasons while MY has averaged those numbers for 11. MY will have to keep up his career-pace for four full season just to equal Jeter's career-contribution. While that's possible, highly unlikely, despite the promise that 2011 offers.
Second, some might argue that MY is the ultimate "leader" and his intangibles should magnify his contributions. But how does that argument look when comparing to Derek Jeter? Jeter is every bit the "face" of the Yankees that MY has been of the Rangers. Moreso, he's been "leading" a team that has won five World Series, 6 AL championships, 21 playoff series and average 97 victories those 15 years he played. By ANY "leadership" comparison, Derek Jeter far outdistances MY simply because he's been leading a bigger, badder, much more accomplished group.
So, if the numbers say MY is about the same as DJ but needs to do it for four more years...and the "intangibles" is a clear win for DJ, then on what basis do you think My is "a far more valuable player" than Derek Jeter?
I don't think it's reasonable to expect Young to get 190 hits for the next 5 years. From 2003-2010, Young's age 26-30 seasons, he averaged 210 hits. The next three seasons, he averaged just 181, then hit 213 this year. I think it's much more reasonable to expect an average of about 150-160 hits over the next 5 years then 190, even with continued good health. And that is even assuming he gets regular playing time after his current contract expires, something that I think is far from a lock.
It could happen, but it would be a very big surprise no matter how much you believe in Young's ability to defy the age curve.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.