Michael Young

by Ryno on Nov 7, 2006 4:16 PM CST Comment 11 comments

It seems like the Tribune's Mark Gonzales brings up the possibility of trading for Michael Young every time he writes about ways the Sox can improve in 2007. I'm not sure if this is a pet idea of his or if he has some inside info, but with the way Hawk kept gushing about Young toward the end of the year, it makes you wonder if there were some organizational rumblings about making a play for him.

Presumably, we would give up Garcia/Vazquez and Uribe for Young and a pitching prospect (Danks? Diamond? Volquez? wishful thinking?). Although Young seems more ideally suited to the #2 hole to me, he could certainly fill the void in the leadoff spot and would be an offensive improvement over Uribe. Of course, he'd be a defensive downgrade, but based on this year's performance, not a liability in the field.

Trading a starting pitcher to acquire Young would probably leave the hole in left field to be filled by a free agent stopgap like Dave Roberts until Sweeney or Fields come around (hopefully!).

So, do you like this idea or would you prefer the Sox use their biggest trading chip to address other areas of weakness like left field and the bullpen?

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Kernel of Truth

but most of it comes from Gonzalez' obvious disdain for Juan Uribe combined with Ozzie's favorable comments about Young.

The Rangers wouldn't give up one of their top prospects and Young for Freddy and Uribe. And I don't know if they'd value Uribe at all. (Boston and Toronto are the only two teams that I know would be in the market for Uribe should a favorable deal present itself.)

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on Nov 7, 2006 4:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Uribe

Yeah, I'm probably overvaluing Juan. I just figured they'd want a major league shortstop back in return if they gave up Young, and if Freddy alone could bring Milledge/Pelfrey (maybe) I thought the combo of Freddy and Juan might be enough to have a prospect thrown in, but you're right that it likely wouldn't be a top prospect. It's just that those are the only names I know.

Anyway, if the Sox were able to swing a deal for Young without including Uribe, could they turn around and trade Juan (and something?) to Boston for Crisp? I'd be pretty happy with that lineup going into '07.

by Ryno on Nov 7, 2006 5:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Make The Best Deal

What we need to do is leverage our excess pitching for the most possible talent, preferably young (not Young) talent. We have the flexibility to patch a hole here or there but we need to be a better team. Simplistically speaking, I don't care if we trade a pitcher for more runs or more run prevention, but we need to improve. Trading starters for relievers is generally a mug's game, but I'm willing to talk about the bullpen. Getting a tasty outfielder would be good but, really, I just want to get better.

Incidentally, I'm not crazy about Young. He's had one really good year with bat (2005, age 28, OPS+ 133). Other than that, he's been a decent bat for a shortstop but no big deal. Defensively, he's been pretty bad except for last year when he was pretty good. I don't know if that is honest improvement or just a blip (like Podsednik's defensive excellence in 2005). He's also just about to get really expensive. I know he's got those scrappy white guy intangibles all over his uniform, but is he so much better than Uribe that you want to give up our best chip? Me, I'd rather have Garcia and Uribe than Young and maybe pitching prospect.

by Landfill on Nov 7, 2006 5:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

yes

Me, I'd rather have Garcia and Uribe than Young and maybe pitching prospect.

same here

and, wasn't uribe rated as the #1 defensive SS?
(I think keith gave a link to BTF?)
and, didn't he drive in 70-some runs?
what in the world more do we want?
a guy who would drive in 20 more and allow 30 more?

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME
THE PEORIA POUNDER

by The Wizard on Nov 7, 2006 5:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed....

And realistically it would take more than Garcia and Uribe to get Young (let alone a pitching prospect along with him). I think the Rangers would want something more like Garland and McCarthy for Young. Getting him would cost too much, and I don't like his glove.

by hitlesswonder on Nov 7, 2006 5:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He's been awesome in the clutch

That's a dangerous word to use, but it fits him. Last three years:

RISP:

.412/.444/.615
.368/.426/.566
.342/.385/.509

RISP/2 outs:

.426/.492/.593
.450/.535/.617
.377/.434/.536

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Nov 8, 2006 11:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch

I really don't want to dredge up all the old debates about whether a player can be "clutch" but maybe we have to in order to have this conversation. Everyone who regularly reads this, and similarly literate, sites has heard that there has been extensive research into the idea of clutch. If anyone has ever been able to demonstrate that any player has a substantial clutch skill, I've never heard of it. Now, if you choose to ignore that research, or you think its flawed, or you just don't believe it, that's fine. You have faith that players can be clutch and you can point to anecdotes or small slices of data to justify yourself. I figure, by this point, its almost a religious kind of belief. You have your faith, you embrace evidence that supports your faith and you disregard evidence to the contrary. That's cool. Maybe you're right and there really is a clutch skill that we just haven't found the evidence for. Faith is supposed to be mysterious.

However, even by your own standards, I take issue with the assertion the Young is clutch. Your site the RISP numbers, which is certainly one theoretical measure of clutch, but obviously it includes lots of situations where the Rangers were way up and way down and the theoretical clutchy pressure was absent. If Young really is clutch, wouldn't you expect him to excel late in close games? Isn't that the true measure of clutch? Fortunately, the number crunchers chart "close and late" performance. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=6613&type=batting3) It just so happens that Young is a worse hitter close and late than he is otherwise.

Three-year OPS = .850 (2049 AB)
Three-year "Close And Late" = .793 (283 AB)

Does that mean Young doesn't have the stones to hit when the game is really on the line? I don't think so. I think it just means that clutch performance is the product of the established skill-levels of the players involved without any clutch-based overlay.

Look, if there is a clutch skill, it is, to say the least, an elusive and hard to repeat talent. Any player you care to nominate as "clutch" has years where their supposed ability to play better when it matters leaves them. Because you can't count on it, you shouldn't make decisions based on its supposed presence or absence. It would be a mistake for the Sox to pay a high price for Young because he gets extra credit as clutch (just as it would be a mistake for the Yankees to dump Rodriguez based on the perception that he is not clutch). Faith is great for prayer in church or conversations in taverns. It has no place, however, in hard-edged decisions.

by Landfill on Nov 9, 2006 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hence, "dangerous."

Because it runs the chance of bringing up this whole argument again.

Rely entirely on "close and late" numbers, and it doesn't reward the person who came up with a big hit early and eliminated the need for a "close & late" situation, which is how most teams would prefer it to be.

I went out of my way to not call Young "clutch," but instead to merely state that when there's a chance for runs to be scored, he delivers more often than the average guy does.

There's no reason why he couldn't hit for shit next year in the same situations (because, as we can both agree, he possesses no magical qualities), but he's building an impressive track record.

Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Nov 9, 2006 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

An honest question...

Before I get lynched for bringing this up, I don't buy into the idea of a player being "clutch", but the following came to mind.

Doesn't having runners in scoring position affect how a lot of pitchers pitch?

For example, with the bases loaded, a pitcher presumably doesn't want to walk in a run, so a batter can expect that they're going to get pitches in the strike zone and nothing that's going to break too much and get away from the catcher. I would expect that a good hitter would then change their approach a bit in order to get a hit (ie sit on the pitcher's best pitch). This may have an effect a hitter's "clutch" numbers and a pitcher's "pressure" numbers, if such a statistic exists.

Another thing just came to mind. Think of how Vazquez loses it around the 5th or 6th inning. He's got a no-hitter going and all of the sudden he gives up a hit. Suddenly, the flood gates open, he give up 3 or 4 consecutive hits and the other team puts up 3-4 runs. With the abundance of crappy pitchers in the league, wouldn't similar performances by other pitchers pad a hitter's statistics? I suppose that in the case of Young, the people in front of him would have to get the first couple of hits to be in scoring position and then he would open the floodgates.

Anyways, just something I thought of that could have little or no merit. I'm curious to what everyone else thinks of this as I just pulled it out of my cullo, so to speak.

GO SOX!

by rhythm on Nov 10, 2006 11:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

you could also add

that a pitcher who has put runners into scoring position generally isn't (in the aggregate) pitching that well and, therefore, batters facing said pitcher should hit better against him.

by larry on Nov 10, 2006 2:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs