A Tale From Two Perspectives
Baseball, like so many other forms of entertainment with passionate followings, has long had a dichotomy between its rabid fans and the more casual ones. It follows logically that the media that covers these forms of entertainment must find a way to cater to both types of fans. Realistically, the type of in-depth analysis that is done here at BBTiA, or mirrored in advanced cooking books, wine magazines or insider music blogs, is not generally ideal for people who are not truly interested in the subject and only want quick synopses of what’s happening every month (or more rarely). Baseball throws in the added complexity of a new statistics vs. traditional statistics approach, but I think that interesting points can be made using both.
Michael Young has been a bit of a Rorshach test for most baseball analysts over the past few years. He is a player who has measured well in traditional statistics like batting average, has played multiple defensive positions with decent fielding percentages, and is an overall clean-cut, genial guy who took on a leadership role and became a fan favorite. However, as our methods of analyzing baseball became more advanced, we began to see that Michael Young was a perfect example of a player who is easily overrated and subsequently overpaid. It doesn’t mean that we hate them; it just means that they will likely draw our ire as players who are not pulling their weight relative to their pay.
Tension naturally develops between the traditional and new statistics fans as the data that each of them value show a larger and larger discrepancy. Sequential All-Star nominations hit six, while WAR only points to three All-Star-worthy seasons (4.0 WAR and up); UZR consistently ranks him as one of the poorer defenders over a significant sample size right around the time that he is awarded a Gold Glove at shortstop; a .300 lifetime hitter with double-digit home run totals in all but two seasons measures out as a merely above-average hitter in all but two seasons in advanced, park-adjusted statistics. Young’s positive portrayal in the press and good interactions with fans results in him becoming a fan favorite and one of the faces of the franchise -- all while advanced statistics are telling us that he’s not quite as good as a cursory look would have you believe, and he’s almost certainly not going to be worth the money that his large contract extension will be paying him.
The reaction to this argument from the quarters of both the traditional statistics-inclined fans and the more traditional, larger media sources who write articles directed at them was to diminish these statsand point out the importance of Michael Young as a selfless leader on this team who has changed positions multiple times, putting the team first.
While I don’t believe that leadership is valueless, I also don’t think Young’s leadership skills were enough to make up for the difference in performance and his contract, especially in the future. However, every spring and then throughout the year, we were fed narratives about the importance of Michael Young’s intangibles, because narratives are as much a part of baseball as box scores.
This off-season, when the team looked for ways to upgrade itself, it was inevitable that they would look at the expensive, older, defensively-challenged Young as a place to upgrade. Every other position outside of catcher and DH had either an established star or a cheap young player providing adequate, if below-average, performance. More importantly, there was a chance to upgrade with a premier defensivethird baseman who could hit just as well (if not better), was younger, and provided the sort of talent at the position that would not be available through free agency for the next two years or so. The Rangers had one shot for a prospect-free improvement to the team at third base, and they made the right moveby taking it.
And so began the complaining by Michael Young ...
It was so brief at first. A bit of disgruntlement before the signing actually happened that was so quickly reversed that most of us forgot about it. The Rangers looked into the possibility of trading Young, but most assumed that the dollars involved would be too limiting. It seemed that Young was going to handle this position change with more grace than the last time he was asked to change positions. The traditional media raced to write the easy narrative:
The Adrian Beltre signing will work for the Texas Rangers, not only because of Beltre's significant talent, but because Michael Young's attitude will allow it to work...
The willingness to put the needs of the team first is not a new development for Young. He came up as a second baseman, was moved to short, and more recently, moved to third to make way for Elvis Andrus.
For Young, the desire to remain with the Rangers is a larger factor than the desire to have things his own way.
"This is where I want to play," he said Wednesday in a teleconference. "I'm willing to make a pretty big sacrifice to do that."
Then a trade for Napoli and, all of a sudden, whispers started about Young being disgruntled and Texas once again looking to trade. Things escalated last week, and finally Young decided to take matters into his own hands, giving quotes to multiple sources that ripped the front office and specifically Jon Daniels in an outright attempt to make sure that some trade happens before spring training, even if the trade was overly costly to the Rangers:
“I want to be traded because I’ve been misled and manipulated and I’m sick of it,” Young added.
However, he declined to reveal details of how he was misled or manipulated.
“That would be unproductive for everybody, particularly my teammates and coaches,” he said. “I know the truth and Jon Daniels knows the truth and I will sleep well.”
How can this be? How can a player who is openly quoted as being accepting of a position switch so that the team can get better so radically change his stance? Why wouldn’t somebody who had become one of the public leaders of the team, who is well-compensated and will be for the next three years, and who is finally getting to play on a team that is truly contending for championships, suddenly want a trade to a location that will give him more playing time? A tweet from the FWST's Anthony Andro:
Rangers president Nolan Ryan: Young's mindset is best interest of career, better to move on and play position on daily basis.
Furthermore, it looks like the basis of this decision revolves around the type of contract Young could get after this current one (yes, the one that pays him $48 million over the next threeyears). Though I do not begrudge any player’s attempt to make as much money as possible, I can not help but point out the strong disconnect between his current actions (and the likely motivations for them) and the many articles written about Young’s selfless leadership of this team.
It will be interesting to now watch the fan reaction to Michael Young’s comments and likely trade. He has been a fan favorite for a long time and the Rangers will almost certainly have some fans lose interest with the team as Young leaves town, though not as many as if this had happened in 2008.
Pieces like this, written solely in defense of Young and attacking everyone else involved, become further examples of the traditional media putting the easy, incendiary narratives above a more measured look at the situation:
In the curiously sad and bloody case of the Texas Rangers and Michael Young, however, we'd also know it was "death by committee." It was a conspiracy to commit "murder" on the local career of a player whose only crime was in giving his heart and soul to an organization he loved with every fiber of his being.
So here's my list of those culpable in this heinous crime:
John Hart did it. And Jon Daniels. And Nolan Ryan. Tom Hicks did it, and so did Chuck Greenberg. An aggressive prosecutor probably would also indict Buck Showalter as an accessory to the crime.
Each and every one of them is guilty of bringing the Rangers' de facto team captain to this sorry juncture in his stellar career.
It is frustrating to read such a hyperbolic piece that so strongly defends Young without spending as much time looking at reasons why the Rangers would trade him (and why so few teams would take him on). I can see how it approximates the feelings of many in the fan base who love Michael Young, avoiding what the advanced statistics said about him and lacking understanding of why the Rangers would trade a good player. However, though this article is directed at casual fans and those who eschew advanced statistics, it does not mean that it needs to ignore the fact that there are multiple sides in any trade request of this magnitude. I wish the piece were more balanced to help inform some of the casual fans about the value of players, even if from the perspective of other front-office types like Richard Durrett’s piece here, and the potential benefits of such a trade.
Fortunately, other voices have started weighing in and we are starting to see some balance on the issue from traditional outlets like NBC:
Wow. Young declined to provide any details of how he was misled or manipulated, but JaysonStark of ESPN.com reported earlier tonight that the Rangers were shopping him earlier this winter, but telling him otherwise.
There’s probably a certain segment of Rangers fans who will defend Young in this instance. That’s understandable. After all, he is the club’s all-time hit leader. But it’s still awfully difficult to feel sorry for someone who is going to get paid $48 million over the next three seasons, whether he plays third base or sits on the bench a couple days a week.
It is simply astounding to me how quickly the narrative of Young as Selfless Leader has been turned on its head. And for those looking for reaction from sources with a more advanced statistical bent, well, let’s turn to Twitter:
The Rangers should respond to Young’s request for a trade with their own formal request for him to be a better player. (via @DSzymborski)
Number of teams to which Michael Young would accept a trade > Number of teams that would accept Michael Young’s contract (via @keithlaw)
"We moved you around the diamond in the hopes you would improve, but we ran out of positions." (via @Marc_Normandin)
It should be noted that just reading the opinions of those who place weight in advanced statistics will not give the complete picture. I’m not advocating only picking one side; there are biases on both sides and being informed of the strengths and weaknesses of both will help discern between the two.
The issue, then, is this: Baseball fans can be roughly broken down into these two disparate groups and there is media available that caters to both; however, if we don’t do a good job of having dialogue between the two sides, we do ourselves a disservice and make it harder to see the full picture.
I’m not sure how Michael Young thought his comments from the evening of Monday, February 7th, 2011 would be received, but in the end I can’t help but wonder if it’s going to serve as an excellent way to bring together casual Ranger fans and the more statistically-interested fans as we read quotes like the following:
"This has been a long time coming based on things that occurred off the field. I’m sick of it. It hit a point where I felt it was unfair to me and my family.”
Full of logical gaps and shots at Jon Daniels specifically, Michael Young’s quotes today did his best to kill his future with the Texas Rangers. It seems that it's all because he won’t get enough time in the field in the new configuration to put himself in line for another multi-year contract at the age of 37, three years and almost fifty million guaranteed dollars away from now. For the player who is loved by fans in part for being a selfless leader, this has to come as a shock. For those who have been aware that he would be unlikely to be worth his contract, these comments only serve to further enrage -- especially when considering that the team has seemingly done all it can to cater to a player with diminishing skills.
Though I’m sure that once the trade is finalized, we will eventually look back and try to carry positive memories of Young forward after the initial anger fades, but I would be lying if I said I am not looking forward to the death of the easy narrative of Young as the tragic, selfless leader. He was a very good player while he was here in Texas, a good guy off the field and one of the team’s leaders on it -- but, in the end, he’s still just a baseball player who wants to be treated, paid and played as his pride says he deserves, and not in a way that’s best for the team.
Analysis, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (68)
The Meeting!
Personally, I think JD's ego is too big to take a Lopez deal.
Evan Grant's take is to get JD, Young, Nolan and Wash
together and lock them in a room, as it snow's all day.
Don't come out untill Mikes REAL input is hammered out,
in a 'best case scenario'. That may happen. If so and Mike
stays, that will blow your theory of JD's quest to rid the Face.
Something has to get done in trade or hammered out before ST.
Cooler heads will prevail, but the fans won't view Young the same.
Dear Michael Young,
If you can sleep well tonight, it better because you have been working so hard on your defense.
You think JD has been disloyal to you? His job is to make the team better and he did it by getting your glove off the field.
The disloyal one in this recent business is you.
I will always have fond memories of your time here, but I do not respect the comments you have made recently. You want to improve? Start by getting a better grip on your own limitations.
This team owes you 48 million dollars, but that doesn't seem to be enough. What else do you think they owe you?
I, too, wanted to start in the infield for the rangers this year. WTF JD!? asshole
Jamey posted this random message tonight:
Prediction:
Michael Young will be traded to the Chicago Cubs, with Darren O’Day, Chris Davis, and cash, for outfielder Marlon Byrd, catcher Welington Castillo, and righthander Su-Min Jung.
In December.
Unless he takes a liking to his 2011 role here, and 10-5’s his way out of any potential trades.
Not sure if he meant that he predicted that trade would happen in December or what... but it's defintely a random trade proposal and I don't see why the Cubs would do such a thing (unless the Rangers threw in $10-$15M).
Here's my two cents on both perspectives:
http://40yearrangerfan.mlblogs.com
or
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11079961
Pras,
I do not fall into either of your categories. I appreciate advanced stats but do not consider myself saber educated. I understand that MY is not the player, and perhaps never was, that I once thought.
I have no unconditional loyalty to Young either, but I do appreciate his leadership and hope that he is anything like the face that is portrayed of him (loyal, dedicated, hard working). If he is just the same as the rest then fine, I don't really care that much. But I am not convinced that Young was not mistreated. I think MY was given mixed messages, and that was all about JD engaging in a calculated effort to put just as much pressure on MY as the rest of the FO would allow in order to get him to ask for a trade. JD thought he would ask for a trade after the Beltre sign and was surprised that he did not. The plan was to use the DH thing as an out, "we offered him the DH position but he asked to be traded." When things did not go according to plan JD saw that he would not be able to do as he wanted and started doing things to put pressure on Young to ask for a trade even though the official line from the FO was that he would be the opening day DH. That was, bottom line, two faced and dishonest regardless of the spin you put on it.
The thing about this is that if it is true, that JD at worst blatantly lied to MY or at best misled him willingly, it is not about being a traditional fan or a saber metric fan because I am most assuredly neither of these. For me it is about the truth of the matter. It sure seems like JD was not being upfront with MY and I find this to be disturbing. If that is not true and MY is throwing this hissy fit outside of any cause I would be the first to say he's just the same as everyone else. I am just not convinced that is true.
Honestly, I think these events highlight a serious failure of management on JD's and Greenber's part that let the situation spiral completely out of control to where Mr. Ranger thinks he's being screwd. I would not be surprised if these events are very closely related to the fact that JD's contract extension has yet to be inked and singed. Oh riiiight, I forgot that all those good old boys that love each other so much like brothers just haven't had time to do the contract. Maybe....or maybe not.
Maybe JD wants to be part of an organization that values intangibles less than the Rangers club does. I am sure that he would have no problem getting a job elsewhere. Basically, he completely f'd up the most important situation of his career. Even regardless of whether or not MY is being a baby THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE COME TO THIS even from a cold and calculating best management standpoint.
I would hate to lose JD but maybe Levine would be just as good at wheeling and dealing. I wish we knew if MY really was misled or what. If one side is more in the right that the other I wish we knew, its just so impossible to discern without more information. I will be the first to condemn either side when we have more information, but it sure seems like each side has a legitimate beef with the other.
Joe
I’m reading many of these comments about Young not being a team player because he is doing what’s best for him and laughing. Which of you would like to be the first to name a player who signed a contract that was in the BEST interest of the team? Sure many players have given “hometown discounts” so they could stay where they are but has anyone every opted to take the league minimum? Surely that would always be BEST for the team. My point is that player’s loyalty in relation to an organization stems from what they do beyond the terms of their contract for the betterment of the club and not in relation to how much they allow themselves to play for. Was A-Rod a more loyal Ranger than Young has been because he was a better player or has Young shown greater loyalty by what he has done on behalf of the club.
I side more with Young than JD because a loyal individual doesn’t lash out at their employer unless they perceive an injustice against them. This is clearly the case here. The fact is that it doesn’t really matter how we feel about the Young’s contract because that’s really not the issue. IMO the issue stems from an inability of the front office to effectively deal with how changing a players role will affect the player on a personal level. One of the basic tenants of managing is effectively dealing with personal issues and the front office and JD in particular have been abject failures when it comes to HR and public relations the past few years.
Excellent article BTW!!
@ Joe I am one if the few that is with I agree with you totally. This whole thing is about being straight with someone & not treating them like crap! You can throw the money out the window it about respect if the man askes what your plans are tell him for crap sakes. Let me put it to all of you this way who do not get the human part of it if Young was working for JD as a golf course superintendent & he had always kept the course in great shape for 20 years, but JD the owner came in & fired youngs longtime assiantant super of 15 years because he was let's say " making to much money". Young askes him what is the problem are we in a money bind are you happy with the course condition , and JD says yeah eveything is great we need to bring in a young guy just out of school for you to train. Then he pays the new guy more money than the old assistant was getting. Then in six months he comes to young after they made it through the summer and tells young we are reducing your roll to a once a week consultant . How many of you would tell the golf course owner to shove it? I have been lied to before by ownership and the result made me look the ass they played it perfect for them until there golf course died and they had to close it. Now i have the last laugh , but what I am saying is I know how young feels I have been there before it sucks. This was not excatley what happen to me but this the comparison I could come up with but I was still lied in a way to were it made look bad all the way around and I took my toys and went down the road to another course.
Or perhaps, assuming that previous idea will most likely get entirely blown to a thousand pieces, what in your mind would it take to haul in Pujols from the Cardinals for strictly the next 9 months of remaining contract?
damn... previous post didn't do just that...
my original questions was this (know I am 21 year old rookie, so take it easy. Teach me, don't trash me):
What are the thoughts of a trade consisting of MY plus $20mil contract (rangers pay $28 mil), and either/or Scheppers/E. Beltre, and maybe Kirkman if necessary, all in exchange for Pujols? Seemingly, we could use a power first baseman other than Moreland/Davis, and why not get Pujols for the last 9 months of contract before free agency, knowing we have little chance of retaining him, but going all in for 2011? The Cardinals would like to save up money for Pujols in FA, and what a better way than getting $28 mil for MY (net $8mil to them).
Just imagine:
Andrus
Kinsler
Hamilton
Pujols
Cruz
Beltre
DH (Napoli, Murphy)
Catcher (Torrealba, Treanor, Napoli)
Bourbon
Thoughts?
It's tough because in interviews and from what is fed to us from the media, MY is a good and likable guy. I think even when considering the "new" statistics and metrics he is still a good hitter. Beltre was clearly an upgrade at third as was Elvis at short and Kinsler at second and you can't fault the organization for that but I think two main things almost give MY the right to be upset. Once Napoli was signed (and it became more apparent that Moreland would be the 1st baseman of the future) we began to realize that MY was being squeezed out in every sense. Even his DH time would be limited and I can't really say that I trust Napoli to be that much better than MY at the plate. Especially if he was lied to at any juncture (as in "we are not looking to trade MY") I think he could be upset and not receive our wrath. I think in many ways he does enjoy baseball and it is difficult to see his career moving down the path to irrelevance after so many years of really being the only good thing in Arlington.
It's Aging Ballplayer 101: Having been told he's wonderful his entire adult llife, he can't understand why at this declining point in his career he can't continue to play full time for top dollar for a competitive team in a city he likes. They are all "misled and manipulated" because FO plans change. I don't buy the idea that JD deliberately lied to MY. If JD said "we aren't going to try to trade you", at the time he probably meant it.
Thanks for the great work, Prashanth.
Thx again JD. We are in awe of your ability to get rid of that horrific contract, and make it look like MY is insane. Plenty of stupid GMs out there will think MY is the missing piece for a title run. After all, the Rangers wouldn't have won a pennant without Young, right?
This defense is insanely solid, the balance of the lineup is incredible, and to think none of it was going to work out with RW's surely irrational decision he'd make to give Mikey 700 PAs in the 2-hole again this yr. Now, we just need to hope he realizes want an opportunity he has to solidify the top of the order by sliding Kinsler into the 2-hole.
In a world where money doesn't matter, like when I was 10 and growing up in NJ, watching those 70's Yankee teams that didn't change for 10 years, then yeah - keep Young and just play him until his contract runs out. Or hell, why not just sign him for another 80 million deal in 2013?
But it doesn't work that way now. Maybe that's not good - we could surely debate the ethos of baseball as a business. But we can't debate that money is the bottom line, and teams simply have to make tough decisions from time to time about players who start declining and are suddenly not worth what they are being paid, according to market value.
We can moan about respect, values, etc., but this is an economic issue, and it's easy for us to sit back and judge. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of the owners/GM, trying to compete with New York or Boston for the AL, teams that will buy the top players when they become available in July. If Texas has money, they can play that game. If they don't, they have to watch. The money that they save from Young can mean Texas gets another Cliff Lee, or resigns Hamilton, etc. etc.
The point is, let's not be so shortsighted on this one. Take a long view.
All of you guys praising JD's ability to make MY look stupid or whatever are going to be eating shit, runny shit, when JD doesn't trade him or can't trade him for a reasonable deal.
Then you really have some shit pie on your hands.
And doesn't JD need a contract extension. I wouldn't wan't to lose him but he's starting to looks real bad from a management perspective when he make Mr. Ranger so pissed that he comes out talking SHIT.
shit, runny shit
shit pie
talking SHIT
Son, you need to talk to someone about your repressed potty-training trauma.
@Joe - maybe so but it sure makes sense that JD let MY turn himself into someone who has put himself into a corner. After all, JD isn't stupid. He knows MY has no range and would cripple the team as a "super utility" player (after all, don't you want you "super utility" guy t be a whiz with the glove?) It's obvious too that by going after Thome, Ramirez and then finally Nap that he had NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of allowing RW to DH MY every day. As a matter of fact, it makes perfect sense to believe that either: A> JD wanted MY to request a trade or B>Make an ass out of himself publicly so that MY is the "bad guy" and not JD - which all leads to C>the Rangers are going to get rid of him before the season starts, regardless what they get in return. If the Rangers have to eat $20 million dollars, that's better than earing $48 million dollars for a bench player.
@Scooby Dude - you did peg it. I think everything you have said in this conversation has been right on.
There's a lot of unnecessary verbiage in this post. All that was needed to be said was this: "in the end, he’s still just a baseball player who wants to be treated, paid and played as his pride says he deserves, and not in a way that’s best for the team."
He isn't the first, nor will he be the last. It's just his time. Thanks for the memories Mike, hope the $48 million compensates for the loss of your skills.