So long, Lance Berkman and Michael Young

A couple of Texas institutions during the past fifteen years hung up their spikes this week. Between the two of them, Lance Berkman and Michael Young banged out 3,940 hits while wearing the uniform of teams from Texas. Berkman, of course, was the first round draft pick of the Houston Astros who had quite a career there and Young plied his trade with the Texas Rangers for his long career.

Though they were both drafted in 1997 and both were institutions where they played and banged out consistent .300 batting averages over the years, the similarity between the two players pretty much ends there. If the sun were Cooperstown, Lance Berkman was the Earth and Young, probably Jupiter. I said Pluto last night on Twitter, but that was a bit unkind and in response to another blogger who stated that Young retired on the cusp of Cooperstown. Young was not even close to that kind of player.

But Lance Berkman was. If he could have stayed healthier, he could have really put up the kind of numbers that would get him a plaque. Berkman's injuries led him to have only twelve seasons where he played more than a hundred games. Out of those twelve, he slugged over .500 eleven times and had over a .400 on-base percentage eight times.

Just to give you an idea of how different they were offensively, Lance Berkman had a career wOBA of .400 on the dot. Michael Young had a career wOBA of .342. Lance Berkman's offense was worth 433.6 batting runs during his career. Young's offense was worth 44.2, almost ten percent of Berkman's contribution. Berkman finished with a 144 wRC+ (same as his OPS+) and Young, 104.

Interestingly, they finished within six total bases of each other for their career, but Berkman compiled his in almost 800 fewer plate appearances. Berkman's 1,201 career walks more than doubles Young's career total.

Young was much more durable. In one twelve year stretch, Young played more than 150 games in eleven of those seasons. He also led the league in hits twice and batting average once. He made seven All Star teams and finished in the top ten in MVP voting twice.

Young was more of a cog in a wheel of some very good Rangers teams (and some very bad ones). Berkman was a contemporary with Biggio and Bagwell for years and was just as much as an offensive star as either of them.

Young will always be marked down a bit because he played half of his games in Texas Rangers' home parks, always considered hitters' paradise. Indeed, his home OPS for his career is 108 points higher than his road OPS.

Berkman just flat out hit no matter where he was. For his career, Berkman a .946 OPS guy at home and .940 on the road. His OPS was over .900 for every month of the year--over .950 for three of those months. He had a career .970 OPS with two outs and runners in scoring position, a .926 OPS in late and close games and a .956 OPS in tie games.

Young played more valuable positions on the field and his versatility is somewhat what kept him a fixture for so long. That is not to say that he always played them well. Berkman played the bulk of his career as a left-fielder (while Bagwell was at first) and then as a first baseman: two positions that do not rate highly on the positional skill ranking. But he played them reasonably well most of the time.

Young was strictly a right-handed batter who was consistent against pitchers who threw with either arm. Lance Berkman was a switch-hitter who was much, much better batting left-handed.

Both players were considered good clubhouse guys. Berkman was known for his humor and for keeping things loose and teammates laughing. Young was a leader of his clubhouse in Texas for many years.

Both played quite a few post-season games. Berkman over-performed his career numbers there was killer in his two World Series appearances. Young under-performed in his post-season career.

As you have seen, Lance Berkman was twice as valuable a player than Michael Young. But both are gone now and after watching them for all these years, they are going to be missed. Baseball goes on, but every so often, you lose players that have seemed to be with you forever. Michael Young and Lance Berkman were Texas baseball and it won't be the same without them. 

The first annual Dan Meyer Awards - the Anti-MVPs

Now that the World Series is over, everyone will be focusing on off season awards. The BBWAA will have theirs. The BBA will have theirs and I have already contributed to that effort. All of the focus will be on players that played wonderfully in 2013. But there should be an award for the worst players in the league. Every top statistic has to have a bottom. Every yin needs a yang. Every Red Sox needs an Astros (too soon?). And so I have created my own: The Dan Meyer Awards

Why Dan Meyer? Good question. I was going to go with Dave Kingman. I mean, how else can you hit over 450 homers in the pre-PED era (we presume) and still not make the Hall of Fame? But Kingman had enough good years to put him in the positive numbers for his career. That didn't make him very good. But he was not bad enough to name an award after.

I considered Doug Flynn, a guy who played over 1,200 games and had unprecedented negative WAR for a guy with that many games. But Flynn could field a bit. He was no Mark Belanger, but he held his own with the glove. He could not hit a lick.

The last guy I considered was Bill Bergen, the worst hitter that ever lived. But again, Bergen was a pretty good catcher as far as we can tell for the early dawn of professional baseball. None of them really fit. And so I settled on Dan Meyer. For a fun tribute to the player, look here.

There were two Major League players named Dan Meyer. One was a pitcher the Braves unfortunately selected in the first round of the 2002 draft. He had one good year in 2009 for the Florida Marlins. But the rest were all bad. The one we want here is the other one. This Dan Meyer was a fourth round draft pick by the Tigers in 1972 and somehow managed to play twelve awful years in the Majors.

Our Dan Meyer could not hit and he could not field. As best as I can tell, his career was prolonged twice by two successful years where he managed to crack over 20 homers and score positive WAR. But other than those two years, he was abysmal. He never had a single season where his fielding approached league average.

Our Dan Meyer played three positions: Left Field, First Base and Third Base. He was not good at any of them and finished with negative runs for all three. Of his twelve big league seasons, he finished with a negative WAR figure eight times. In six of those seasons, he played more than 120 games, so it was not like he was a part-timer.

Meyer played from 1974 to 1985. The first three years were with the Tigers, the next five years were with the Mariners where he had his best years. And his last four were with the Oakland A's. Baseball-reference.com gave him a total of -6.5 rWAR for his career. Fangraphs.com was a bit nicer and put the figure at -5.5 fWAR.

Meyer is the perfect symbol of these awards. We I salute him! These are not the Silver Slugger Awards. These are the Talc (Mg₃Si₄O₁₀(OH)₂₎ Awards. The Awards will be handed out by position (450 plate appearances were needed to qualify):

First base: Paul Konerko. Konerko has been a really good hitter for a long time which was great because he was no great shakes in the field and he has always been baseball's worst base runner. But his batting bottomed out in 2013. -1.5 rWAR, -1.8 fWAR. Honorable mentions: Adam Dunn, Lyle Overbay. Dunn and Konerko were interchangeable at first base and DH, so either works.

Second base: Jeff Keppinger. Gee, I wonder why the White Sox were so bad this year? Gosh, these numbers are bad. Keppinger had 451 plate appearances, so he just made it. -2.0 rWAR, -1.5 fWAR. His .266 wOBA was beastly (in a bad way). Honorable mention: Darwin Barney whose wOBA was even worse than Keppinger, but whose glove saved him.

Shortstop: Adeiny Hechavarria. The Marlins' shortstop deserves to be here since he has an impossible name to spell and type. Both Fangraphs and B-R agree that Hechavarria cost his Marlins 32 runs on offense. 32 runs!! He was the only shortstop (other than our honorable mention) that met our minimum requirements that finished with a negative WAR in both sites. -1.9 fWAR, -2.1 rWAR (!). Honorable mention: Starlin Castro. That was one awful middle infield for the Cubs, eh?

Third Base: Keppinger could slide in here too. But that's not fair. So the winner is Michael Young. Which probably isn't fair either as he was a sometimes DH, 3B, 1B, etc. But he did enough of them poorly and batted league average and ran the bases poorly and still managed 565 plate appearances. Jackpot! -0.2 fWAR, -1.3 rWAR. Honorable mention: Can we just give it to the entire Yankees' cacophony of third basemen? No? Okay, David Freese then.

Left Field: Vernon Wells. That little devil fooled us for a couple of weeks, eh? He fooled Joe Girardi too and ended up getting 458 suck-the-life-out-of-you-until-you-die plate appearances. -0.8 fWAR, -0.2 rWAR. The Angels did not kill two birds with one stone. They killed two teams. Honorable mention: Dayan Viciedo.

Center Field: Justin Ruggiano. I do not know what happened to Ruggiano this season. He lost 216 points off his OPS from 2012. That is sort of incredible. Thanks to positional values, no center fielder finished below zero in the WAR category. But Ruggiano had negative numbers both on offense and on defense. The latter might be because center is not his best position. Honorable mention: Michael Saunders.

Right Field: Nick Markakis. This was simply a bad year for Markakis and looking at his career, was probably an outlier. All facets of his game tumbled. -0.1 fWAR, -0.1 rWAR. Honorable mention: Drew Stubbs.

Catcher: J.P. Arencibia. This one is not even close. To finish with a negative WAR as a catcher with all those positional points is pretty darned hard to do. Not only did Arencibia finish with an OPS of .592 and a wOBA of .259, but his defense fell too. And if you followed along with his Twitter account, he seemed to be in complete denial. That was one ugly season. Honorable mention: How about Rob Brantly, except he did not get enough plate appearances.

There you have it: Your 2013 Dan Meyer Awards. I would have to go with Adeiny Hechavarria for the anti-MVP. What about pitchers, you ask? I am saving those for tomorrow when the first annual Kyle Davies Awards are announced.

Five reasons why Michael Young will bounce back with the Phillies

Rangers fans are left this week pondering the mixed legacy of their now departed Michael Young. As a legacy member of that team, Young had produced far more positive moments for the Rangers than the other way around. But his contract--which is not his fault--combined with two episodes of whining at position changes despite that contract--which is his fault--led to a falloff of some of that fan ardor. Add to the mix his horrid 2012 and the prospect of less playing time in 2013 and you have the perfect timing of his trade to the Phillies. And while it is true that he has little way else to go but up after last season, there are reasons to suspect that he will bounce back for his new team.

Let's look at five good reasons why Michael Young will bounce back in 2013:

1. It seems clear that Michael Young never gelled in the designated hitter position and is much more comfortable playing in the field. In 2012, his triple slash line as a DH was: .265/.295/.367 in 292 plate appearances. In 108 plate appearances as a third baseman, his triple slash line was: .307/.352/.396. Yes, there is an element of small sample size there but looking at his career splits, he has compiled a career OPS as a DH of .784 while compiling a career OPS of .817 as a third baseman. The Phillies intend to make him their starting third baseman which will allow him to concentrate on just one thing.
2. There were some anomalies in his batting stats for 2012 compared to the rest of his career. For example, looking at his batted ball data, Young traditionally had a ground ball to fly ball ratio of 1.5. That skyrocketed to 2.22 in 2012. His line drive percentage remained high, but his increased number of ground balls led to a BABIP of .242 on batted balls with that trajectory and a lowering of his historical BABIP from .334 (career) to .299 last year. Let's say that was a fluke and his hit trajectory goes back to his career norms, then he'll bounce back. 2012 also saw an uncharacteristic loss of plate discipline. For his career, he has swung at only 23.3 percent of pitches out of the strike zone. That rate has been closer to 30 the past three seasons and 33 percent in 2013. If he gets back on track in that category, that will also help.
3. Michael Young played in a very tough pitching division last season. The Angels and Athletics had shutdown starters and even the Mariners could bring King Felix. Young moves to a division where he will face the Mets nineteen times and the Marlins eighteen times. Both of those teams should have difficulties maintaining a rotation, especially if the Mets jettison Dickey. Plus, the Mets boast two left-handed starters in Santana and Niese and Young kills left-handed pitching.
4. One glaring statistical anomaly for Young in 2012 was his loss of effectiveness against the fastball. For his career, Young has compiled 147.3 runs above average against the fastball, an average of 14.7 runs above average per season. The prior three years, he averaged 24.3 runs above average. And then suddenly, he scores a -7.1 against the fastball in 2012!?  That will bounce back.
5. The statistical gurus state that walk years on player contracts have not statistically proven to be that much better than a player's normal seasons. But it still matters. There is a renewed emphasis to get one last contract and to prove his career is not over. That combined with a new situation with a new team will give him all kinds of incentive to get back to some semblance of his normal self.

Look, Mighael Young has always been a mixed bag as a player. He has compiled better than decent wins above replacement on offense while losing a third of that total with his defense. He was overrated and overpaid with the Rangers. But on the Phillies, all he has to do is his part and he will help what was a pretty pathetic offense in Philadelphia this past season. Write it down: Michael Young is going to have a bounce back season.

Michael Young has cratered

Michael Young has long been the poster boy of the analytic crowd when it comes to poking holes in empty superstars. His fielding--or lack thereof--has greatly reduced the value of his offensive benefits over the years to put him on that poster. But all fielding aside, the guy has always been a good offensive player for the Rangers. In his eleven seasons, Baseball-reference.com has him at 35 oWAR (wins above replacement from just an offensive standpoint). His average season equals 199 hits, 90 runs scored and driven in with a .791 OPS. That has to be adjusted for his home ballpark and it still gives him a 104 OPS+ for his career. And he had one of his best seasons offensively a year ago. But this year? Crater city.

Michael Young currently has the tenth lowest wOBA of all qualifying batters in baseball. Add that to the times he plays in the field and you come up with the second LEAST valuable player in Major League Baseball behind only Francoeur of the Royals. And for once, Fangraphs is more kind than B-R. Fangraphs gives Young a -1.5 fWAR whereas B-R gives him a -2.2. Ugh and ouch, that is a lousy season. So what happened?

For one, his power has disappeared. And he has been trending that way for the last couple of years. He hit only eleven homers last season despite the very good offensive season he had. And that came after two 20+ homer seasons the previous two years and an average of 16 dingers a season. This year, Young has hit four homers. Four. But at least Young hit 41 doubles last season and six triples. This season, with a little more than a month to go, he has hit 20 doubles and three triples. His slugging percentage is 124 points below last season and his OPS is down a whopping 200 points. His homer to fly ball rate is the lowest of his career at 3.9 percent.

Perhaps Michael Young just had a bad start and hasn't had a full chance to recover. Nope. His OPS in the first half was .656. His OPS in the second half is .650. His OPS for August is a bit better at .703. He is not taking advantage of his home park like he did in the past. For his career, Young has an .849 OPS at home. That is 114 points higher than his road OPS. But this year, he actually has a higher OPS on the road than at home and neither one of them are any good.

The two biggest things his stats show are first, he is hitting a lot more ground balls. And, secondly, his BABIP is way off on his career mark. The ground balls have to be hurting him. His ground ball percentage for his career is 46.3 percent. This season, that mark is 53.4 percent. His career ground ball to fly ball ratio is 1.57. This season, it is 2.25. He is still hitting line drives at a good clip at 23 percent. But the high ground ball rate and much lower BABIP is killing his production.

Another big thing to notice is that he is struggling against the fastball. Michael Young has always been a good fastball hitter. Just last year, his ability to hit a fastball was worth in the positive at 29.4 and he has been over ten on that pitch for five straight seasons. This year, his score on fastballs is -9.7. He is hitting off-speed stuff at a decent clip, but the fastball? No. 

This leads to the question of whether at the age of 35 if Young's bat has slowed down the point where pitchers can overpower him. The only other possibilities are that his mechanics are off or he is fighting injuries we haven't heard about.

Whatever the case, Michael Young is having a very bad season and has another year left on his contract to the tune of $16 million. That cost is a sunk one for the Rangers this year. As such, what will they do with Young next season? Are his intangibles and leadership worth that kind of money if his days as an offensive producer are over? Those are tough questions the Rangers are going to have to figure out over then next five to six months.

Is Michael Young the next Paul Molitor?

Michael Young was a fashionable pinata after the 2010 season. The Texas Rangers had just signed Adrian Beltre to play third and Mike Napoli to split time between catching and first base. Michael Young was going to be the designated hitter. Michael Young was not happy and requested a trade. He was skewered by this space and by others around the Web. After his 2011 season, nobody is laughing now. Sure, Young still makes a lot of money from an ill-advised contract. Sure, you really should not give him a glove. But boy, the guy handled the transition after his initial pout and quietly put up a monster offensive season. It was a season that rivaled the 34 year old season of a Hall of Fame designated hitter, Paul Molitor.

Molitor, like Young, had a difficult season at age 33. But both came back with a vengeance at age 34. Compare the numbers:

• Molitor (1991 - Twins): .325/.399/.489 .888 OPS. 752 plate appearances. 216 hits
• Young (2011 - Rangers): .338/.380/.474  .854 OPS. 689 plate appearances. 213 hits

Pretty similar seasons, eh? Molitor continued on a tear for several more seasons. He played seven more seasons after his age 34 season and collected 1,233 more hits to cement his Hall of Fame ticket. While not predicting Michael Young as an eventual Hall of Fame candidate, the two players were at a similar crossroad before their age 34 season. Molitor was a designated hitter long before Young in his career. But Molitor had never had quite a season like his age 34 season before. He famously shortened his swing and well, he just went crazy. 

Are we seeing a similar life change for Michael Young? It's possible. Young cut his strikeout rate from 16 percent in 2010 to 11.3 percent in 2011. Paul Molitor struck out less than Young and walked more. Molitor had a slightly higher career wOBA and wRC+. And Molitor played in an era that was less of an offensive era. Thus, his OPS+ was higher than Young's. But their age 34 seasons seem otherwise to be so strikingly familiar. And Young is creaming the ball again this spring training. So again, is Michael Young the next Paul Molitor?

One last comparison for you. After Molitor's age 34 season, he had compiled 2,086 hits. Michael Young after his age 34 season now has 2,061 hits. Who is to say that Young can duplicate Molitor's amazing 1,233 hits after his age 34 season. But who is to say he can't? 

Rangers' Infield - Three Beemers and a Dodge

These new Texas Rangers have been an amazing story the past two years. Most baseball fans through the years remember how the Rangers were always a one-dimensional team. They could always pound the ball, but they could never pitch. From 1997 through 2008 (a twelve year stretch), the Rangers gave up an average of 883 runs per game. In seven of those seasons, the pitching staff gave up more runs than the batters plated. Obviously, that's not a winning formula. The last two seasons, the Rangers have allowed only 687 and 677 runs while scoring 787 and 855 runs respectively. That's as good a reason as any for two straight World Series appearances in a row. But as we all should now know, defense plays a key role in preventing runs and few teams do it better than the Rangers. A big part of that defense is the infield, which boasts three Beemers and a Dodge.

Perhaps it is unfair to pick on Dodge. From their television commercials, they are trying hard to change their brand/quality image. The Yugo has all but disappeared, so that analogy is too obscure. But anyway, you get the idea. The Rangers boast three sparkling defenders and then there is first base. Adrian Beltre at third? One of the best ever. Elvis Andrus? The reason Michael Young is a DH. Ian Kinsler? One of the most underrated, all around players in the game. And then there is the first base gaggle of Mitch Moreland, Mike Napoli (when he isn't catching) and Michael Young. The Rangers are one cog away from a beautiful wheel.

Elvis Andrus hasn't developed as expected as a hitter, but his defense more than justifies his existence. It is not mere coincidence that the Rangers started pitching better once he became the shortstop. He was the fifth (or sixth depending on which site you believe) best fielding shortstop in baseball last season. No offense to Michael Young, but once Elvis took over, the difference was night and day.

Ian Kinsler was the third best fielding second baseman in baseball last season. He wasn't rated as highly in 2010, but injuries can explain a lot of that story. But his defense in 2011 was even better than his stellar defensive season of 2009. We can safely state that if Kinsler is healthy, then he's one of the best at his position in baseball.

We all know about Adrian Beltre. The guy is a flat out magician over at third base. Despite ups and downs with his health, Beltre (according to Fangraphs) has been 152.8 runs better than average for his career. If he can continue his pace, he won't catch Brooks Robinson in that category, but he will finish a solid second. He is the best fielding third baseman of his generation.

And then you get to first base. Mitch Moreland got the bulk of the time there. He played first for 99 games and spent another 34 games in right field (due to injuries to Nelson Cruz). Baseball-reference.com gives Moreland a -1 runs lost below average, which isn't terrible. Fangraphs has him at league average for his 99 games at first. Mike Napoli played 35 games at first. B-R has him 2 runs better than average, Fangraphs at -1.5. Michael Young played 36 games at first and B-R gives him -2 runs below average and Fangraphs, -2.1. The obvious statement is that first base fielding at first base does not match the high rent district found elsewhere around the diamond.

Despite endless Google searches, "scoop" data could not be found for an individual seasons like 2011. Tango Tiger and others have done superb studies on such data for a large number of years. Basically, these studies show how many errors are saved by first basemen. But suspicions are at least aroused by the fact that Ian Kinsler made only two throwing errors in all of 2009 and none in 2010 and yet that figure jumped to six in 2011. It's possible that he air-balled all six of those throws and without the data, who knows. But let's call it suspicious.

The bottom line here is that the Rangers are one positional fielder away from having the best infield in baseball. It's a shame that Justin Smoak needed to be traded away to obtain Cliff Lee. Smoak has all the makings of a good fielding first baseman (though his numbers there went south some in 2011). While Prince Fielder may have made the Rangers' line up invincible, he wouldn't have helped in the field. So at least that's a positive. But with Mitch Moreland penciled in as the starting first baseman and Young and Napoli continuing to take their turns over there, the Rangers' infield will continue to contain three Beemers and a Dodge...or a Kia...or..oh you get the idea.

Michael Young - the Next Paul Molitor?

One of the fun pastimes of watching Major League Baseball for a long time is making comparisons of players of this current generation to players that played in the past. While we all know that such comparisons are difficult because the game changes subtly over the years, we still do it. Everyone is always looking for the next Mickey Mantle or the next Pedro Martinez. This writer has found one compelling comparison that actually may be relevant. Michael Young of the Texas Rangers is Paul Molitor. Sort of.

Young received plenty of criticism (especially in this space) for his reaction to the Rangers moving him to the Designated Hitter with the acquisition of Adrian Beltre. Young makes a ton of money and the criticism was fair as far as this writer is concerned. To his credit, Young has quieted down and is having a very good year at the plate. He's batting .335 and closing in on 200 hits and 100 RBIs. His .855 OPS is solid. He's been the steady provider in a Rangers' season that has seen its share of injuries to top performers.

The move of Young out of the field was the right one. Despite his laughable Gold Gove in 2008, Michael Young simply wasn't very good in the field. Elvis Andrus was the right choice at short over him and Adrian Beltre is the right choice at third over him. But the move is a great thing for Michael Young if he would embrace it. It was such a move that ended up making Paul Molitor a Hall of Fame player.

The careers of Young and Molitor are remarkably similar. Molitor's career slash line was: .306/.369/.448. Young's: .303/.349/.451. Molitor started two years younger than Young in the majors so when you compare their WARgraphs over at Fangraphs.com, Molitor had an edge on the the accumulated WAR by age. But Young's WAR was hampered by his fielding. Compare the two in this WARgraph:

But now that Young is a DH, and if he continues to get considerable at bats in the coming years, his chart should continue to build like Molitor's.

Let's compare the two players at Young's current age of 34. At 34, Molitor had accumulated 2086 hits on his way to over 3300. Michael Young has 2041 hits. Molitor had 369 doubles. Young has 385. Molitor had 3,057 total bases. Michael Young has 3,037.

In all fairness, these stats have been somewhat cherry picked. Molitor was much more patient at the plate and had almost two hundred more walks at 34 than what Young has. Young has slightly more homers but almost two-hundred less runs scored at the same age as Molitor at 34. But Young has almost 200 more RBI. Molitor with an earlier start and a better OBP also had a much higher oWAR at 34 than Young. 

But the overall point is valid (this writer thinks). Molitor went on to compile enough counting stats to buy his ticket to Cooperstown. If Michael Young can maintain his current pace for the next few years like Molitor did at a position that asks him only to hit, perhaps the same may happen for him.

No Apologies to Michael Young

There are three things we know about Michael Young. The first is that he is a professional who goes about his business earnestly and does everything he can to help his team win. The second is that he tends to whine to the press when he isn't happy. The third is that he makes a lot of money...far more money than his play is worth. The first fact is to his credit. The second is unfortunate and the third is not his fault. Hey, the Rangers agreed to give him that much money in a fair bargaining process. After extending an olive branch and attempting to smooth things over with Michael Young, Rangers' general manager, Jon Daniels, went to talk to Young and after he had done so, took responsibility for some of the criticism Young received. There was no need for Daniels to do so.

Michael Young chose to air his grievances publicly. That was his choice. Nobody pointed a gun to his head and told him to do that. And it's not the first time. When he was told two years ago that he was moving to third base to make room for Elvis Andrus, Young did the same thing. Those are matters of public record. The only thing Jon Daniels is guilty of is trying to improve his team. A part of those efforts resulted in affecting Young's standing and position on the team. That's the way it goes at times. The Fan isn't saying that Daniels is blameless. Perhaps he could have been more communicative with Young. But who is to say that Young would not have still complained publicly about the decisions that were made that affected Young and the team?

It is doubtful that Daniels is talking about criticism of Young from this space. The Fan is just one lone voice crying out in the wilderness. But this says that the Fan's criticism wasn't alone and that other, more powerful voices joined the Fan in that exercise. The criticism stands. The guy is getting paid $16 million to happily do whatever his organization asks him to do. Most of us in the real world would be the designated hitter AND clean the toilets AND do the laundry for that kind of money and would be singing a happy tune while doing it.

As much of a team guy as Michael Young is...as much of a professional as he is in his preparation, he is a world class athlete and by nature, such humans are pampered and coddled and given a sense of entitlement that you and this writer could never understand. When such entitlements come face flush with reality, those used to those entitlements don't react gracefully. Many of us would react the same way. But that still doesn't make it unworthy of criticism. Michael Young has been blessed with a talent that has given him the kind of rewards we will never receive for our talents. That's life. It's not often fair. But those of us who do not receive the kinds of compensation for our skills have every right to call out a player who complains despite their level of compensation.

Michael Young is not a bad guy. He just should have kept his mouth shut. He should have realized how his complaints would be perceived and once he makes those complaints public, the public is going to pounce and his lack of fielding skills and other value-added stats will be poured over. This writer gives him credit for going to camp and working hard and performing well. Credit is also due Young for not allowing his personal feelings to distract what the Rangers are trying to accomplish as they get ready for the season. Young is not a monster and on the grand scale of good and evil, he comes down on the good side. But the criticism was justified and there won't be any apologies coming...at least not from this space.

The Continuing Saga of Michael Young

According to this report, the Texas Rangers are still trying to trade Michael Young and still asking a lot for him. If you've read the posts in this space for any length of time, you already know this Fan's position on Young's "demands." But just in case you haven't, the feeling here is that Young has 16 million good reasons to just shut up and do whatever job the Rangers ask him to do. But saying that and getting all that out of the way, the question still comes down to whether the Rangers are better off with or without Michael Young. And that question is evolving.

When the spring started, it was thought here that the Rangers were better off with Young than without him. Since they did not resign Vladimir Guerrero, they needed a proven bat to man the DH position and Young is a proven bat. He's no longer a proven glove and his bat isn't as good as Vlad's was last year, but considering the alternatives, Young seemed like a good fit at DH. He has some Texas power (yeah, it doesn't translate to the road) and he's got a lot of hits in his career. But after watching the Rangers this spring and looking at their albeit meaningless stats thus far, Young's contributions seem to be less necessary.

For one, Chris Davis is knocking the snot out of the ball this spring. And yeah, it's the third straight spring he's done that. And for the past two seasons, he could not carry that success into the season. In fact, his start to the 2010 season was downright disastrous. But perhaps this is the year that Davis can carry his spring into the season and be the type of major league hitter Texas has always thought he could be.

For another, Mike Napoli has been crushing the ball too. Napoli's addition to the club seems to be what pushed Young over the edge. And perhaps the threat of Napoli foraging into Young's at bats seems to be a real possibility. Against right-handed pitching, Napoli has to be in the line up if this spring (and his past history) is any indication.

The real problem for the Rangers is the injury to Adrian Beltre. Beltre hasn't played at all this spring and has a history of injuries. The Rangers paid a ton of money for the guy based on Beltre's unbelievable season last year for the Red Sox. While it's ironic that Young has had to fill in at third for the injured player that was signed to take his place, heck, again, the Fan says that Young is getting paid a lot of money to do whatever the Rangers ask him to do. But Chris Davis can also play third, so it's not overly important to keep Young around for Beltre-insurance.

Young has told his teammates that he won't be a distraction. And Young's history of whining in the off season but being a pro during the season has historical relevance. But it's still possible for the Rangers to dupe some team to give them a decent prospect or two in exchange for Young. It doesn't seem likely at this point, but it's still a possibility. The Fan once thought that the Rangers would be weaker without Young. But that feeling is melting a bit. A return of Adrian Beltre would erase the feeling completely.

Rockies or Rangers - Who Needs Michael Young More?

The reports of the Rangers wanting to trade Michael Young refuse to die. Buster Olney seems to be at the epicenter of the rumors but Olney has never once mentioned the Rockies. But other writers have stated openly on Twitter that the Rockies are the team the Rangers have been talking to. And how does all this counter Nolan Ryan stating earlier that Michael Young will be the opening day DH for the Rangers? It all seems a bit puzzling, but perhaps it has all been created because Young no longer wants to play for the Rangers. But the question the Fan keeps asking himself is which team needs him more, the Rangers or the Rockies?

A second questions is when Michael Young became Mike Young? Okay, perhaps that question doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. But the Fan hates when people change the names players go by in mid-career. The Fan remembers giving up even mentioning Albert Belle after a while. Alright, enough about that topic. Let's get back to the topic at hand.

Why would the Rockies want Michael Young? The Rockies are obviously set at shortstop with Tulowitzki. But Tulo has found a way to get hurt here and there and it would be nice to have Young around in case that happens again (heaven forbid!). Young's other two positions are second and third. The Rockies have two guys in those positions coming off two disappointing years in a row. Clint Barmes plays second and Ian Stewart plays third. Stewart is just okay in the field and Barmes seems to be pretty darn good playing second. So adding Young at either place hurts little at third but a lot at second. But both of those Rockies have really struggled at the plate despite the deceiving power numbers that are inevitable at Coors Field. Steward ended up with a 0.9 bWAR last year and Barmes finished with a bWAR of 1.0 thanks largely to his fielding. Young has averaged a bWAR of 3.0 for his entire career, so he is a significant upgrade for the Rockies in either case.

But there is another possibility here. The Rockies outfield is pretty pathetic. The Rockies could slide Young into left and gain significantly. So the bottom line is that the Rockes could desperately use someone like Michael Young. The question is how much of that value they are willing to obtain and at what cost. Young is going to be making $16 million this year. That's a lot of coin for a guy who will be worth more in the $8 to $10 million range. Can the Rockies get the Rangers to eat $6 million of the deal? That would make the deal worthwhile for the Rockies.

What about the Rangers? This Fan loved their plan to have Young as the DH and also be able to play all over the field to spell others and create some good split match ups. If the Rangers trade their long time star, they will lose a lot of flexibility as well as lose a DH who will give them three wins above replacement. Those three wins are hard to replace with what's left on the market. Branyon is still out there, but he is a health risk and can't hit lefties. Plus, Branyon can only slide over to first base if needed. He wouldn't be a good bet to play anywhere else. So the bottom line here is that the Rangers are much better off with Young than without him. The only instance where it's better to trade him is if he'll hurt the team by pouting. But Young seems too much like a pro to let that happen once the season starts. The Fan would hesitate to ever think Young would be a distraction or a problem once the games begin.

On balance, the Rockies could use Young more than the Rangers can. Young improves the Rockies much more than hurts the Rangers if they lost him. All of that equation changes though on who is paying Young's salary and at what proportion. This writer can't imagine the Rangers would get much in return for Young with the money that is on the table in salary. Saying all that, the Rangers are better off keeping Young as another cog for another run at the AL West title.

The Under-Appreciated Michael Young

Lots of sources are indicating that the Rangers are close to signing Adrian Beltre. The news must be accurate because Buster Olney wrote today in his blog about Young changing positions if Beltre signs. Who knows, the Angels or somebody might come in with a last minute offer and all of this conversation would be moot. But say Beltre does sign with the Rangers, Michael Young would again be pushed out of his position. He was the Rangers' second baseman when Alex Rodriguez played in Texas. He moved to short when A-Rod was traded to the Yankees. Then he was moved to third to make room for Elvis Andrus. Beltre will get third base if he signs. Then what for Young?

Young has stated that he will play anywhere for the Rangers, he just wants to play and he wants to remain a Ranger. But where? Moreland looks to have inherited first base. Hamilton is in left so Young can't go there. Kinsler is terrific at second, so Young can't go there. And while Andrus still hasn't proven he can be an effective offensive player, the Rangers will not give up defense for Young's offense. That leaves Young as a DH. But what about Vlad? The Rangers haven't signed him yet, but appeared close according to the reports. Is Vlad going to be allowed to walk so Young could DH? Vlad had a 122 OPS+ last year compared to Young's 105, so Vlad seems to be a better impact guy than Young. It will be interesting to see what the Rangers do here.

But while the answers to the above questions will not be answered overnight, the Fan thought this an appropriate time to appreciate Michael Young for a few paragraphs. Young has been a good player for the Rangers and a good teammate. He deserves his due. If he does end up as the Rangers' DH instead of Vlad, Young will do a good job. Young's career slash line in high leverage situations stands at: .309/.353/.455. That's pretty darn good.

Here is a list of some of Young's other accomplishments:

• Young has compiled 200 hits or more five times in his ten years as a starter.
• Young has led the league in batting (2005).
• Young has hit more than 20 homers four times and has averaged 37 doubles a year for his career.
• Young is a career .300 hitter.
• Young has averaged 87 RBI a year and 99 runs scored.
• Young batted .322 as recently as 2009.

There are certainly knocks on Young. He wasn't a good shortstop and he wasn't a good third baseman. He doesn't walk enough. His high batting average doesn't lead to a high OPS+ though a 105 career average is above league average. His ten year average is about 2.49 Wins Above Replacement a year. That means that according to his current salary, he is overpaid. He has abnormal splits over his career for home/away. He's about 120 points higher in OPS at home than he is away.

But there is something to be said for a guy who gets on base 250 times a year and is, based on what we hear, a good teammate who unselfishly worked with Elvis Andrus as the young shortstop transitioned to the majors. If Young has a peak season, he can be as good as an older Vlad season can be as a DH. Plus, he can play all four infield positions and is not a stranger to the outfield if needed. Young makes a lot of money to be a utility guy and probably too much to be a DH, but Michael Young has been a good player for a long time and nobody should forget his contributions to the Texas Rangers.

Padilla, Guillen and the DH

There certainly has been a lot of discussion about hit batsmen lately. Vincent Padilla, apparently a leper to his teammates, likes to hit guys after someone hits a homer off of him. It happened earlier in the year against the Yankees and happened again just last week. In the most recent incarnation, Michael Young got drilled in retaliation. Texas players were fed up with having targets on their backs and when Texas drop kicked one of its semi-reliable starters from its roster, there was nothing but praise for their GM by the Rangers' players.

In another news wire story today, White Sox manager, Ozzie Guillen, no stranger to the verbal highlight reels, said he was tired of his guys getting hit and would start hitting players on the other team if it continued. He was quoted as saying that he doesn't care if he gets suspended if it happens.

There are two problems here that have caused the present situation. The American League has the DH. Those who visit the FanDome on a regular basis know the Fan is a conditional lover of the DH. But one of the fall outs of the AL rule is that if the other team feels that its players are targeted, the DH takes the pitcher out of the lineup, so the other team has no other option than to hit another player. Take Padilla for example (which in all likelihood, somebody will). Padilla has his manhood offended by a homer. He decides to get some of his manhood back by plunking a subsequent batter. Padilla doesn't bat. So the opposing team can't go after him. The only option they have is to hit someone like Michael Young.

If the Fan had been the Texas manager, here's how that could have been handled. Obviously, Ranger players have been warned by other teams. Michael Young said so himself after the Yankee incident. Several of his "friends" on the Yankees (read Teixeira, A-Rod and Jeter) told him that Padilla was going to get his fellow Ranger players killed. So, since this is a known problem, the next time it happened, the Fan as manager would insert Padilla in the batting order where the DH is supposed to be. Can you see how that would play out?

Fan as Manager: "Padilla, grab a bat, you're hitting for Blalock."
Padilla: "Que?"
Fan as Manager: "Oh for goodness sake, will somebody bilingual please tell the guy he is going to hit for Blalock."
Bilingual Teammate: [[spanish translation]]
Padilla: "Porque? He Loco?"

Padilla glances at his manager who does a head shake towards the bat rack. Padilla grabs a bat and furiously begs fellow teammates for whatever body armor they wear up to the plate. Finally the umpire walks over and says, "You have a guy to hit or what?"

Padilla walks nervously to the batter's box. He looks out at the pitcher who just smiles at him. Padilla takes the first pitch which is at his feet. Padilla displays a good dance move to get out of the way. He's even more nervous now. The next pitch is a rocket heading right for Padilla's back. No way Padilla has time to get out the way. The sound is something like a hammer hitting a watermelon. Padilla winces and immediately grabs his back. The pitcher on the mound snickers all the way to the dugout after being tossed from the game. Padilla's teammates snicker too as the trainer tries to keep from laughing as he tries to assess the damage. Padilla vows he is never going to "man up" again and hit an opposing batter.

That would fix it. But it will never happen because a manager would be foolish to lose a DH for a game. Now that the Rangers have punted the pitcher, if he signs with a National League club, he better wise up.

The second problem (you have probably lost the reference here as the Fan had a slight diversion of fancy) is that one of the new Nirvanas for pitching is to pitch inside. As Ozzie rightly points out, if you don't know how to do it, don't do it. In other words, pitching inside is a great idea IF you have the control to pull it off. But if you are slightly unaware of where your mechanics are going to take your pitches, pitching inside is probably not a good idea. People can get killed that way. And it might be your own players who get thrown at in retaliation.

Speaking of hit batsmen, did you watch the Sunday night ESPN game with the Red Sox and Yankees? After Damon and Teixeira wrecked Daniel Bard with back-to-back homers, Bard then walked A-Rod. After Okijama came in, Posada doubled to put men on second and third. That brought up Nick Swisher. On the first pitch to Swisher, the pitch came inside and appeared to graze Swisher's uniform. Swisher, an apparent student of the game and the metrics of OBP, looked at the ump and told him he had been hit. The ump didn't see it that way.

Old school Joe Morgan (and the Fan couldn't quite disagree with him) laughed and said something to the effect of, "Why would he want to go to first like that when he has two possible RBIs sitting out there." Such is the vast cavern of thought currently in baseball. Morgan played in the "RBI is king" days of statistical evaluation. Swisher plays in the "OBP is king" days.

It all worked out for Swisher as he hit a single. He got his two ribbies AND a notch on his OBP.