Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Michael Young — Do not want
January 12th, 2009, 10:54 am · 10 Comments · posted by sammiller
Michael Young is demanding a trade, which is sort of like Robert Rubin demanding Citigroup trade him to Bank of America. (Financial meltdown reference! Zing!) 
If I were a GM, I’d want Michael Young if:
I didn’t already have a shortstop who was arguably as valuable, which the Angels do in Erick Aybar.
If the shortstop I already have weren’t making $15.5 million less than Michael Young, which Aybar is.
If I didn’t think Michael Young’s winning a Gold Glove was hilarious, which it was.
I’ve got nothing against Young, who has been one of the biggest bargains in baseball the past six years, and who should be an average hitter, a slightly below-average fielder at a demanding position in 2009. I’ve got a big problem with his contract, though, an extension that was agreed to well before the Rangers needed to and that will make him one of the most overpaid players in baseball for five years, into his late 30s.
Young had a pretty sweet peak in his late 20s, averaging about 70 extra base hits per season and showing excellent durability. He’s still durable, but the moderate power he still has is mostly due to his home ballpark. His isolated power (slugging percentage minus batting average) is below 100 on the road, which makes him more of a true middle infielder than what his reputation suggests he is.
I don’t really buy the explanation that his offensive regression is due to a broken finger in the second half of 2008; he’d already begun striking out more and hitting for less power in 2007 and the first half of 2008.
His defense concerns me just as much. UZR, which measures what percentage of balls in the shortstop zone a fielder gets to, puts Young at below average. John Dewan’s plus/minus system has him among the worst shortstops in baseball over the past three seasons, though in the middle of the pack in 2008. Meanwhile, Baseball Prospectus’ defensive metrics had him as one of the best in the game in 2008, but I tend to not trust BP’s defensive stats, especially when it’s the outlier.
While it’s tempting to see a .300 hitter with a little power as an enormous upgrade over Erick Aybar’s feeble hitting, the difference between him and Young is far smaller than $15.5 million. Averaging out three projection systems’ expectations**, we see that Michael Young (the hitter) is likely worth about five runs more than the average hitter in 2009, while Aybar is worth about negative 10 runs. That’s a big difference. But the difference between the two on the field was just as great in 2008 — 16 runs, according to Fangraphs’ data. Give Young some extra credit for durability, but roughly speaking, both players are likely to be worth somewhere between 1.5 and 2 wins, or $8 million to $10 million, in 2009.
This is an easy pass for the Angels.
** The three projection systems I checked were Chone, Marcel and Bill James.
Other Angels and baseball posts:
ADVERTISEMENT
10 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Young would be worth 10 more wins a year…..the 5 against the Rangers that he’ll cause (he kills us!), and the 5 he would win with his bat for us. Pull the trigger on this one.
Sam: There are many reasons to want or not want Michael Young on the Angels, salary being a major reason against. I would assume the Rangers will have to pay a portion of his salary since they’ve painted themselves into a corner. Yes, Young is expensive and a lot older. But any statistical comparions that say Young and Erick Aybar are virtually the same player need to be seriously doubted. There is stretching a point and then there is the absurd. And notice I make this statement without calling anyone names.
Haha, noted, and thank you Earl. When comparing the two, just remember, a run prevented counts as much as a run scored.
But your point is taken. For what it’s worth, Young’s hitting environment is so much better than Aybar’s that Young wasn’t really *that* much better offensively (.339 OBP, .402 slugging) than Aybar (.314/.384) in 2008.
defensive metric is a dark, unformed art, so, like earl, i’m kinda leery of a calculation that says aybar is as good or better than michael young. but i’m only leery, not dismissive. i want to learn more. and it’s not like you’re comparing a-rod and angel berroa….. finance notwithstanding, i’d bet more money on aybar improving next year than i would on young regaining his mojo…
So, based upon ballpark effect, which non-Yankees player in the ’20s was better than Babe Ruth? I love numbers, numbers are good. But sometimes you’ve gotta forget numbers and just trust your lying eyes. If Moneyball and such weighted, number-based theories were so darn accurate, the A’s under current management would’ve won three World Series by now.
“So, based upon ballpark effect, which non-Yankees player in the ’20s was better than Babe Ruth? ”
Please explain. Not sure what you’re getting at, but I’d like to have an answer.
Park effect is a very, very small part of my comparison between Aybar and Young. The big part is that Young is a better hitter by about the same margin as Aybar is a better fielder. I noted (in the comments) that Young reaches base and hits for power at only a moderately higher rate than Aybar; it’s even less so because of their ballparks. That’s all.
I realize Young performs in a hitter’s park, but he also doesn’t get to hit against Rangers pitching.
It’s also hilarious to hear someone championing Pat Burrell and denigrating Michael Young simultaneously. Ah, the omniscience of OPS-plus. Take one dose and never bother with actually watching a baseball game again!
And, as far as the Aybar/Young comparison goes, that’s comparing ripe apples and very raw oranges. At least we’ve seen Young perform at an All-Star level for several years. We haven’t had a chance to see that from Aybar yet. Young had a slight off year. It can happen. Mike Lowell had one, got traded, and wound up World Series MVP.
And, even though I’ve never swung a bat on the professional level, I wouldn’t be surprised if broken fingers were an obstacle.
But it’s not worth wasting breath on Young coming to the Angels, for several reasons.
Young makes too much money and would improve the Angels. That means it ain’t gonna happen.
And, more seriously, the Rangers would want pitching in any trade and the Angels can’t afford to give any.
And it’s not good when someone gets his nose out of joint because he’s asked to help the team by playing third base, which has its own challenges. I mean, it’s not like the Rangers are asking Josh Hamilton to catch. Young has already moved from 2B.
But I imagine the Angels pitchers would love to see Young move somewhere. Like Pittsburgh.
“It’s also hilarious to hear someone championing Pat Burrell and denigrating Michael Young simultaneously”
Actually, Mark, here’s a bit of fun with logic: It makes exactly as much sense as someone denigrating Pat Burrell and championing Michael Young simultaneously, as you have done. See how that works? :)
Actually, I think I’ll keep going on a few other details in Mark’s comment.
“He didn’t get to hit against Rangers pitching.”
So let’s go to check out the quality of pitchers each faced, and find that Aybar faced pitchers who gave up an OPS of .733. Young faced pitchers who gave up an OPS of .727. Negligible.
“that’s comparing ripe apples and very raw oranges.”
Actually, the argument I’m making isn’t that Aybar will be as good as Young. It’s that in 2008 Aybar was as good as Young. That his value as a no-hit, great-field shortstop was as much as Young’s as a OK-hit, OK-field shortstop. Since you didn’t argue that point, let’s proceed in agreement, and replace the key words in your metaphor: “It’s comparing [fruit near the end of its useful life] to [fruit at the beginning of its useful life.]” Now choose. Seriously, a 24-year-old likely entering his peak or a 32-year-old leaving it? Easy.
“Young had a slight off year. It can happen. Mike Lowell had one, got traded, and wound up World Series MVP.” Ah, the Mike Lowell argument. Naming an outlier isn’t an argument. Or it is, in which case I’ll just say Andruw Jones was a regular All-Star coming off two MVP-type seasons who had an off-year in 2007. Then in 2008 he was the worst hitter in baseball. Yay, I win. But not really because an outlier isn’t an argument. (I’d bet there are a lot more down seasons followed by down seasons than followed by World Series MVPs though.)
“And, even though I’ve never swung a bat on the professional level, I wouldn’t be surprised if broken fingers were an obstacle.”
Well, sure, but let’s read TO THE END of my original sentence: “he’d already begun striking out more and hitting for less power in 2007 and the first half of 2008.” That would be before the broken finger.
you know, the really cool thing about about OPS and OPS+ and all them other newfangled number thingies is how they allow me to watch ballgames only in my mind… often at my computer… in my mother’s basement! (does that cover all the cliches, or should i throw in some manga reference?)… whatever. is there any chance we can get our mind around the idea that you can appreciate the stat side of baseball and, yes, watch the games? concurrently?