@WWJDD: I believe we are indeed in sync. Given the choice between "old school indicators'' (from here on known as OSI) and the SABR numbers, I'll go mostly with the old school figures.
The eye test never fails. If a player appears to be good and is always performing well, his numbers will reflect that.
This isn't to suggest that I'm anti-SABR. I just feel, as I said in my earlier post, there's room for both ways to gauge our favorite players.

A wise man (Obi-Wan Kenobi) once said "your eyes will decieve you, don't trust them". Thats how I feel about the eye test, especially bigger sample sizes. I'm not going to risk Josh Lewin convincing me that Chris Davis is a great player with his "hard hit ball" propaganda. Sorry, no way. Just too much nonsensical stuff that could influence opinion: like homerism, overly impressed by streaks, failure to accurately estimate averages after a while, being too impressed by a player's tools and neglecting production, etc.

Lets be honest, over a 162 game season (with 30 teams!) you need some kind of statistic to gage how good a player is.

Bob,
I just don't know what to say, besides what I've already said, and you just ignored it. That just doesn't work over the course of a full season. I can't watch every single game of every single team, so I can't form valid opinions with just the eye test. Just is not logistically possible. Hell, I can't watch every single game for the Rangers. Just is not logistically possible.

@ Bob

Yes, and I don't know why thats so crazy. The point of using stats is to better understand the game, and to try and take opinion out of analysis.Statistics are alot less fallable than any observations I have over a 162 game season. Sure, over a few game sample size whatever I observe and whatever the stats show may be pretty similar, but I don't think anyone can really get a good grip on a 162 game season. For all I know, if I never used any statistics at all I may come under the impression that Mitch Moreland is better than Albert Pujols.

I think that a great example of the fallacy of the eye test is Evan Grant's MVP vote. Evan Grant, a beat writer for the Rangers, voted Michael Young MVP of the AMerican league. Yes, a player on a team that he watched every day got the MVP vote. And he stated that after watching Young every day, he felt that he was more valuable to his team than any other player in the AL. Ignoring the statistics, it should be pretty obvious what the problem with that is. 1) He didn't watch the other 13 AL teams every day, so no players on those teams stood a chance of meeting the criteria of Grant's "eye test". 2) The consensus amoung most baseball/rangers fans is that even if you go soley by the eye test, Michael Young wasn't even the most valuable player ON HIS TEAM, and the subjectivity of Grants' well documented man crush on PADMY surely played a role in the vote. In his defense, he didn't JUST use the eye test for his vote. He also used poorly applied statistics.

Out of curiosity, Bob, do you ever pay any mind to ANY statistics? Even batting average or ERA or RBIs or something like that? If not, then I would like to see you argue with someone why one player is better than another.

Heavy, why are you paying Bob any heed at all? He's never offered anything to support his opinion, just calls you a nerd and claims you make no sense with no evidence. That's not someone who wants a discussion. That's just someone trying to get a rise out of you, aka: a troll.

Yeah, his unwillingness to take any part of the dicussion past "Your're a nerd so you are wrong" really just tells me he doesn't believe what hes saying and hes just being a troll. If he believed what he is saying then he would actual defend it lol.

Stop raising dead threads!

Oh no! I just did it too!

Whatever happened to "plenty f MY at SS" this spring?

I know Wash is a great guy for the players but his baseball decisions lack something. He, like Evan Grant, is in love with MY. MY can do no foul for he is a .300 hitter.

"What I see him do is hit .300 each year with 200 hits. Errors are so overrated. Stop your hating on him."

lol

MY is degrading and his talents have already degraded to the point he is at best a bench player. 300 BA? Last year he hit .277 with a .682 OPS. That translates to a 78 OPS+. Offensively this make MY the worst Ranger, behind Andrus who had a 91 OPS+. Gentry and Moreland have OPS+ of 100 and 104, respectively. So even without the errors and the many more grounders at which MY waves bye-bye MY has no business being on the field or in the batter 's box.

Yes, MY is a long time favorite deserving of his long ago adulation. So watch his replays and highlights from when he was an above average hitter but keep him out of the lineup and off the field for the rest of our lives.

More thread necromancy! Well, I don't think most of us expected Young's offense to fall off a cliff quite like it did this year.

Mike young has never been a great defensive player and he has been a very poor defensive player and significant defensive liability the last couple of seasons. However he has always more then made up for suboptimal defense in the past with his bat. Unfortunately his offensive out put totally fell off a cliff this season. Very little power, almost never worked the count or walked and was one of the league leaders in GIDP. No one expected his bat speed to drop off so suddenly after his excellent season in 2011 and I understand why wash stuck with him although the level of loyalty was way over the top. Perhaps we would have won the division if wash hadn't been so stubborn about this but no one really knows and I am almost certain we would not have won any playoff series this season with or without the face. I doubt we will be able to get rid of him this winter so I expect he will be on the roster in spring training. Perhaps he can have a reasonable bounce back season at the plate (it does happen) but given his age that's unlikely that he will be anything close to his former self. Hopefully whomever is managing the team be willing to sit him quickly if if does not have a good start at the plate and I hope he has almost no time with a fielders glove on.

Most likely Washington will be back next season. He had a trump card in going to back to back WS and used it on his lineup decisions and player usage in contrast to the front office's opinion. Washington told Galloway and Mosley in August that he had skins on the wall from being to btb WS and nobody was going to tell him who to play and Young was going to do grand things down the stretch.

Young's performance got better but not grand or consistent. He went 1-10 in the Angels series, cost a game against the Mariners with an error at 3rd and hitting into two dps. In the last game against the A's with men on 2nd and 3rd twice he was 0-2.

So, silver bullet gone as it didn't work and actually imploded in Wash's face. The team look tired, old, and whatever was going on in the club house they didn't have the same energy and chemistry as the past two seasons. He was wrong about his use of Young and will have to listen/comply with JDin 2013.

Washproof. Whoever came up with that, it's pretty funny if wasn't so true. So here is my prediction for the offseason. JD goes after both Uptons plus CarGo with one rotating as DH. Young will be traded. If he uses his 10/5 rights JD will release him and argue to the owners the money can be made up in attendance of a winning team. If Young is on the roster he is in the lineup. Some say he will have a Jeter type come back but historically age 35 is when most players lose it for good. Ergo if he is in the lineup the Rangers will lose more games and less fans will show up. JD knows it is not a function of loyalty but product that determines if a club will end up in the black.

How can they trade him? With a collection of prospects and money. I'm guessing this roster will be blown up with Josh, Young, maybe Kinsler or Andrus gone and, pardon the pun, new faces in town. I'm actually very optimistic about what JD will do.

"...NOBODY is going to tell you that MY sucks on offense."
Cough, cough! Huh?!? I'll step up and say nice and loudly that MY sucks on offense! He was one of the worst offensive players this season. Yes he did much better in September but that in no way makes up for 4 months of pure suck. His occasionally single does not make up for all his PADMY and all his GIDPs. I seriously doubt he is going to add much value if any to the team next season and certainly not 16 million $ worth. Flat out, MY being on the with his contract hurts the Rangers.

At this point, I would just go ahead and substitute "diving" for "defenseless" or even "dreadful," "defunct," or "decrepit."

Really, it covers all aspects of his game:
"Past A Decrepit Michael Young"
"Punted Again, Defenseless Michael Young"
"Putrid At-bat Double-play Michael Young"

Nice article in the FWST about Young being the real elephant in the room. LeBreton even mentions WAR but only that fans don't care about it. Too bad he didn't actually state that MY had negative WAR and how bad he really is because of that...

WAR, PADMY, OPS, OBP, WFXPQRP, etc. Isn't there some stat that can support most arguments? Delve deep enough and you can create your own (see Bob Sturm and his basketball stats). So many want to be the next John Hollinger and find the magic stat bullet. Tiring. Stats in baseball are only important if they're valid, reliable and predictable. Unfortunately there are variables outside of the stat line that can impact the game and a player's effectiveness (see Josh Hamilton). Why watch the games when all you need is statistics. Stats can be useful but on this site they often times become the only answer. That said, the majority would have to agree Young had a down year and needed to play less. That conclusion can be reached through both the statistical analysis and watching the Rangers games.