Michael Young?

[machinehead11]

I realize that it's still a bit too early (and possibly premature) to discuss Michael Young's (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=youngmi02) HOF chances, but seeing as how he's been mentioned several times here recently for having his 4th consecutive 200-hit season (and seeing as how he's my favorite current player), I'd like to get your thoughts on the likelihood of a sustained career of excellence, as well as possible enshrinement later on.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Mmmmmm, still too early to call.

[Brad Harris]

No shot at the Hall of Fame.

The 200-hit seasons are nice. The .301 career average is nice. He won a batting title. He's been a two-time All Star. (Three if he was an AS this year?)

All of that adds up to a nice career. But no Hall of Famer.

Young (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=youngmi02) isn't a gold glove shortstop. He doesn't steal bases. He doesn't draw walks. He has minimal power. In other words, he's a one-dimensional player and that one dimension (batting average) isn't the best one to have if you're looking for a Cooperstown-worthy career. Most usually have peripheral skills that Young doesn't possess.

Barry Larkin (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=larkiba01) is a closer case than he ought to be. Larkin (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=larkiba01) had a boat load of steals, an MVP Award (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_mvp.shtml), a World Championship ring as was the recognized leader of his team for more than a decade.

Young (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=youngmi02) moving to another position will only hurt his chances. Young (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=youngmi02) getting injured will only hurt his chances. His sole chance to reach Cooperstown is to get 3,000 hits (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/hi3000c.shtml) and that seems highly unlikely given he's "only" got 1,100 at this point in his career.

Enjoy him while he's in his prime. Everybody needs a favorite player and every player needs his fans. It's not taking anything away from Young (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=youngmi02) to say that he's not going to be in Cooperstown some day.

It's not too early to project, either. He has established performance standards and his career is half over. Hence, unless he gets considerably better over the next 10 years - a practical improbability - he won't really need a second look when he retires.

[bama50]

If he has another five or six I say maybe.

[candy curveball cummings]

Young isn't a gold glove shortstop.



Actually, it could be argued he deserves one this year.

As to him being in the hall, I'm one who strictly believes in waiting until a player has at least the minimum number of seasons played to discuss the Hall of Fame.

[EvanAparra]

Actually, it could be argued he deserves one this year.

As to him being in the hall, I'm one who strictly believes in waiting until a player has at least the minimum number of seasons played to discuss the Hall of Fame.

It could be argued, but solely on his putouts and assists...his range isnt great.

[ElHalo]

Actually, it could be argued he deserves one this year.

As to him being in the hall, I'm one who strictly believes in waiting until a player has at least the minimum number of seasons played to discuss the Hall of Fame.

That minimum number of seasons played thing is ridiculous, in my view. If Albert Pujols got run over by a train tomorrow, it would be just pathetic to argue he doesn't deserve a plaque.

[Naliamegod]

Young is going to be 30 next year. Unless he pulls a Hank Aaron, I doubt he'll make it.

[candy curveball cummings]

That minimum number of seasons played thing is ridiculous, in my view. If Albert Pujols got run over by a train tomorrow, it would be just pathetic to argue he doesn't deserve a plaque.

Oh I agree. Pujols already scores about a 40 on Bill James' Hall of Fame Career Standards Test, and he's only in his 6th season. He can just about right his ticket, but unfortunately there is a rule. The rule might be bent in his case, but certainly not for Young or really any other active player.

[Ubiquitous]

Albert Belle has 10 full seasons under his belt, had around 6 great seaons in him. Isn't going to the hall and he is eligible. Granted one could argue that he isn't going because people don't like him, but my point is that if Albert was to shatter his ankle today and never play another game the Hall would not be a foregone conclusion. Would they keep him out forever? I don't know, I doubt it. But I could see it happening.

[MICKEY7]

If he gets 3000 hits he will be elected.

[mtortolero]

I think we must wait to see if Young will be playing at Texas all his carrer. Looking that Young hit .322 avg/ 862 OPS at home and .273 avg/723 OPS away in the last five years and .348/901 vs .285/744 this year, he looks as a hitter with a cristal roof which fate can change if he sign as free agent with a team playing in the wrong park.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think we must wait to see if Young will be playing at Texas all his carrer. Looking that Young hit .322 avg/ 862 OPS at home and .273 avg/723 OPS away in the last five years and .348/901 vs .285/744 this year, he looks as a hitter with a cristal roof which fate can change if he sign as free agent with a team playing in the wrong park.

We shall see what we shall see. It's ridiculous to say, however, that Young has NO shot. He has a shot, and his chances get bigger every year he puts up numbers like he's been doing lately.

How long he can stay at shortstop and put up the numbers he's been putting up will dictate his chances. This, of course, is kind of obvious. I will say that Young will need a LONG career to make the HOF.

[538280]

We shall see what we shall see. It's ridiculous to say, however, that Young has NO shot. He has a shot, and his chances get bigger every year he puts up numbers like he's been doing lately.


How are his numbers big? As far as I'm concerned the only reason anyone calls his numbers big is because they still buy into BA and hit totals being much more important than they are. The guy is 30, he is a very good player, but I don't think it's such a stretch to say he has just about no shot.

[candy curveball cummings]

How are his numbers big? As far as I'm concerned the only reason anyone calls his numbers big is because they still buy into BA and hit totals being much more important than they are. The guy is 30, he is a very good player, but I don't think it's such a stretch to say he has just about no shot.


Well, if he did tag on another 8 200-hit seasons, (which I don't think he will do), even with how little value you give to hit totals, don't you have to at least consider Young and his 12 consecutive 200 hit seasons? I know his career OPS+ is still just above 100, but if he could get another 8 200-hit seasons, that'll go up. I think any chance of Young getting in the Hall is minimal, but I think to say he has no shot is incorrect. I don't think anyone though that McCovey had a shot after 6 seasons. He's in. Give Young a fewer more years before we start writing him off entirely. I know he's 30, but for all we know, this could be his peak.

[machinehead11]

Also, Young started playing and being productive when he was 24, so it's not like he started being really good just recently.

[candy curveball cummings]

Also, Young started playing and being productive when he was 24, so it's not like he started being really good just recently.

I'd like to hear your definition of "being productive". At 24, Young certainly did not play to the standards at which I deem "productive". He didn't have an OPS+ over 100 until 2004. He was a slightly above-average fielder at second base and a below average hitter. Even in 2003, the first time he reached 200 hits and had a .306 average, Young was not very "productive". I can see you saying he was productive in 2003 at the age of 26, I disagree but I understand the argument. But to say Young was productive at 24, I think that's outlandish, unless you have proof to back-up this claim.

[EvanAparra]

Also, Young started playing and being productive when he was 24, so it's not like he started being really good just recently.
When he was 24, he hit .249/.298/.402
At 25, he hit .262/.308/.382
Even at 26, when he had his first 200 hit season, his stats were .306/.339/.446

He really became an all-star in 2004, when he was 27

[538280]

Well, if he did tag on another 8 200-hit seasons, (which I don't think he will do), even with how little value you give to hit totals, don't you have to at least consider Young and his 12 consecutive 200 hit seasons? I know his career OPS+ is still just above 100, but if he could get another 8 200-hit seasons, that'll go up. I think any chance of Young getting in the Hall is minimal, but I think to say he has no shot is incorrect. I don't think anyone though that McCovey had a shot after 6 seasons. He's in. Give Young a fewer more years before we start writing him off entirely. I know he's 30, but for all we know, this could be his peak.

If he did that he would have to stay at shortstop during all those 8 years, still be able to field the position competently, and tack on a bit more longevity at the end then I MIGHT consider him a borderline HOFer. Sorry, 200 hit seasons in this era of high SLGs just are not that valuable for the team. And if he were to do that, he would possibly have the most unlikely career pattern in history, considering he is 30 now (a time when players tend to lose their fielding ability, and he was never that good at SS to begin with).

[candy curveball cummings]

If he did that he would have to stay at shortstop during all those 8 years, still be able to field the position competently, and tack on a bit more longevity at the end then I MIGHT consider him a borderline HOFer. Sorry, 200 hit seasons in this era of high SLGs just are not that valuable for the team. And if he were to do that, he would possibly have the most unlikely career pattern in history, considering he is 30 now (a time when players tend to lose their fielding ability, and he was never that good at SS to begin with).


I agree completely. I don't think Michael Young is a great player, and is only at times even a very good player. He has a chance, and that's only if he does what no one else has ever really done. He needs to play at the level he's been playing at for the last three years and play like that for another 8 years. Like I said, he has a slim chance at making it and he probably won't. But to write him off right now is a little premature. Let's at least give him 4 or 5 more years.

[candy curveball cummings]

When he was 24, he hit .249/.298/.402
At 25, he hit .262/.308/.382
Even at 26, when he had his first 200 hit season, his stats were .306/.339/.446

He really became an all-star in 2004, when he was 27

And even his 2004 season wasn't spectacular. Sure he had 216 hits, but that was for 690 at-bats. Even with those 216 hits, he had a .353 OBP, which was the league average that year. He only had an OPS+ of 106, was a league-average fielder that year, and wasn't particularly a great fielder. I'd say that Michael Young hasn't had any great years other than 2005. I'm interested as to how 538280 would view Young's 2005 season.

As of this moment, Michael Young is not a Hall of Famer. Michael Young needs a whole heck of a lot to become even a borderline candidate. However, I just don't think you should write the guy off.

[mac195]

We shall see what we shall see. It's ridiculous to say, however, that Young has NO shot. He has a shot, and his chances get bigger every year he puts up numbers like he's been doing lately.

How long he can stay at shortstop and put up the numbers he's been putting up will dictate his chances. This, of course, is kind of obvious. I will say that Young will need a LONG career to make the HOF.

Agreed. Young has a shot, if a slim one. Voters are impressed with hit totals. If Young plays most of his career at SS, finishes with 6-8 200 hit seasons, and 2500+ career hits, he will get a lot of attention from HOF voters. He has a very long way to go, but it isn't an impossible scenario.

[machinehead11]

Interesting arguments. And I guess I was a little off in declaring his value at the beginning of his career with the Rangers several years back.

I don't know if he'll get to the HOF, but I'd like to think that if he continued to have a slew of 200+ hit seasons throughout his career, it would be hard to overlook him. I'm not saying this is likely, but in an ideal world, something like this would have to be considered.

[gambler21777]

:applaud: What do you guy's think about Michael Young in hall of fame talk. My thing is He has to get a ring before he gets in but he has potential. Oh well thats just me what do you think. :think:

[KCGHOST]

Well, with ESPN in the mix who knows?? If they get behind a guy anything can happen. However, the guy has a career OPS+ of 101 (virtually dead average) which isn't bad if you are an SS. His only real chance is to confuse the writers be reaching some kind of counting number "milestone".

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't think getting a ring has anythying to do wit hgetting into the HoF, except for perhaps Lou Brock. Young started to late, he's already 30 years old. He's a singles hitter with a 101 OPS+. But his career BA is only .299. He does have four 200 hit seasons but he'll need more 2004 type of seasons and several more 200 hit seasons. He's a poor defensive player as well. I say he has no chance.

[RubeBaker]

I say first of all he's only 30, so he has many years to go and it's really far too early to determine anything, plus he's only been around like 6 or 7 years.

He only has 1,198 hits to this point, I doubt he'll get 3,000.

Only 98 homeruns, he may or may not get to 300, but certainly not 500.

But he is a 3 time all-star, and he does have 1 batting title. A couple more 200+ hit seasons would help. His lifetime BA is .299, a couple .300+ seasons will help him too. His glove is ok, but nothing spectacular.

A ring to get him in? Ask Cal Ripken or Tony Gwyn if they needed one to get in.

I like Young, he is a good, and maybe somewhat underrated player. I ring would probably help him a bit, but it's going to take a lot more than that for him to make it. As much as I like him, he's not going to make it in.

[tearforamariner]

He's a poor defensive player as well.

He was a poor defender, yes, and he is still preceived that way. However, last season he was far above average defensively and this year he's off to a pretty good start defensively.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

I love Michael Young he's a good ball player, but heprobably won't get in unless he goes lights out for the next 6 years and then he could get in, but i doubt it

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

I think the only players on the Rangers' team that will go or will have a chance to go is:
Sosa - will most likely make it but not as a Ranger
Lofton - May go but not likely and if he does not as a Ranger

Those are really the only ones i can see having a shot, Young would have to play Much Much better to get in and at this point in his career I believe Teixeria would get in before Young.

[Erik Bedard]

A ring to get him in? Ask Cal Ripken or Tony Gwyn if they needed one to get in.

Ripken has a ring. In fact, he caught the final out to get him that ring.

As for Young... if he pulls a Julio Franco and stays in the game until he's nearly 50, and accumulates a ton of hits, only then will he have a case.

[RubeBaker]

Ripken has a ring. In fact, he caught the final out to get him that ring.

As for Young... if he pulls a Julio Franco and stays in the game until he's nearly 50, and accumulates a ton of hits, only then will he have a case.


Whoops, you're right. He won it in 1983, his rookie year. But a line of .167/0/1 makes it easy to forget he was there.

Anyway, the point I was making was there are a number of players in the Hall with no rings like Gwyn, Ted Williams, Yaz, and Ryan Sandberg. No doubt, a ring can help your case, but if you have the numbers, you don't need one.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Whoops, you're right. He won it in 1983, his rookie year. But a line of .167/0/1 makes it easy to forget he was there.

Anyway, the point I was making was there are a number of players in the Hall with no rings like Gwyn, Ted Williams, Yaz, and Ryan Sandberg. No doubt, a ring can help your case, but if you have the numbers, you don't need one.

Ripken was actually voted league MVP the year the Orioles won the WS. It was his second full season, after being voted ROY in 1982.

But your point is correct. Winning a championship is not something a qualified player really needs. It's too much a team effort.

[Brad Harris]

:applaud: What do you guy's think about Michael Young in hall of fame talk. My thing is He has to get a ring before he gets in but he has potential. Oh well thats just me what do you think. :think:

A ring? :laugh Didn't keep Ernie Banks out. Of course, that's what a 500 home runs by a shortstop will do for you. :)

[nerfan]

My brother is a huge Texas Rangers fan, and so I hear a lot about Michael Young's batting prowess. The thing is, a shortstop is no longer the weaker offensive position it was in the past. True, it's still one of the weaker (along with second base and catcher) hitting positions in baseball, and should be given some extra hitting credit (looking at a shortstop with an EqA of .300 over 9000 PA, and a first baseman with an EqA of .300 over 9000 PA, the shortstop would definitely get in to the Hall of Fame, while the first baseman would be only halfway legitimate). Middle infielders like Nomar Garciaparra, Derek Jeter, Ray Durham, Craig Biggio, and Jose Reyes all beat out Michael Young in hitting and mostly in fielding.

Still, you can't, in this day and age, give Michael Young too much credit. So far, he's only shown us one star season, 2005. Also, playing in a hitter's park helps along his counting stats. Even in the super-extra-duper friendly for hitters, nightmare for pitchers Ballpark at Arlington, his career high in taters is a decent 24. While I'm not looking for stratospheric slugging numbers from a league-average shortstop, his SLG relative to the league's (.450/.442) doesn't merit consideration for the Hall of Fame. And while slugging percentage doesn't mean everything for the Hall, (just ask Richie Ashburn) the conglomerate of offensive statistics other than batting average does. Most unacceptably, his on-base percentage is actually lower than league average (.343/.344). More stats to consider are his .276 EqA, compared to Jeter's .306 EqA, to Nomar Garciaparra's .300 EqA, and to Ray Durham's .280 EqA (he, however, has good fielding). Today's slugging infielder is tougher than yesterday's star shortstops, such as Luis Aparicio. Luis Aparicio was Hall of Fame quality for the era he played in. Despite his .248 EqA, Aparicio should be a Hall of Famer. Why? His defense was great, he was a strong runner, and was an average or better hitter for a shortstop in the 1960's.

But perhaps a shortstop's main job is to field- Aparicio proves this point exactly. This point is well taken. Offense isn't everything, especially for a middle infielder. But Michael Young has a -16 FRAA in his combined efforts between second base and shortstop.

Michael Young is also a little bit too old to be considered for the Hall of Fame. At age thirty, he has done little to impress me. If he turns out Michael Young circa 2005-caliber seasons year after year for ten years, and has his decline phase like vintage 2006 Michael Young, I would consider him for the Hall of Fame. But at age thirty, and seemingly past his ages 27-29 offensive peak, Young, unless he turns around drastically and unlikely at age thirty-one and age thirty-two, is not a Hall of Famer. There are too many shortstops that I would consider before allowing Michael Young in. Simply put, Michael Young does not meet the offensive or defensive standards that today's shortstops must fulfill to be full-fledged Hall of Famers.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

. Also, playing in a hitter's park helps along his counting stats. Even in the super-extra-duper friendly for hitters, nightmare for pitchers Ballpark at Arlington

True you pose a good point there about Ballparks, but at the same time in Defense of the Texas Rangers and other teams that play in unfairly hot areas of the country, it has to wear on you as a player if play in TX, AZ, FL, GA, and other really hot and/or Humid locations. Especially compared to places that tend to have a much milder Summer. Not take away from any of the other teams. I try not to totally take away from hitters in Arlington, because the heat takes a much more substantial toll on those who play there. I think because of the weather that is in Arlington they are almost doomed to not have too many World Series appearances. I think with it being a hitters park and it being very hot there that it evens out especially in August. In Arpil and May yeah it may be a huge advantage but when June rolls around expect some tough outtings because even at night it gets pretty dang warm there. On the other hand it is very feasible to discredit some of the things that happen for the Rockies because they usually have mild summers and their park is in favor of the hitters.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Young is NOT a HOFer now, and probably won't be a HOFer unless he is good enough to play until age 40 at second base.

I don't think Young will make it to age 40. Based on this year, he may have a tough time making it to 35. He's not hitting for power, his BA is down, and he's not a primier glove. He's not considered a star by anyone; his one batting title had a Bill Madlock-ish aura to it. On top of it all, his walk rate is OK, but not reflective of the kind of plate discipline that will keep a guy in the lineup when his BA and defensive skills dull a bit. He looks like a guy who stopped doing steroids when the heat was turned up, and now he lacks the power he had not long ago. Fairly or not, some will perceive him that way if this loss of power continues for real. He's the kind of guy who, upon a sudden decline, will be non-tendered when his contract runs out and he will have to go begging for a job.

He's not a great player, and he is probably already in decline. He's not going to go into the HOF, barring a miraculous transfusion of ability.

[538280]

Young is a pretty good hitter from SS. He's not a great one and he's not anything special defensively. He's a pretty good player and nothing more.

True you pose a good point there about Ballparks, but at the same time in Defense of the Texas Rangers and other teams that play in unfairly hot areas of the country, it has to wear on you as a player if play in TX, AZ, FL, GA, and other really hot and/or Humid locations. Especially compared to places that tend to have a much milder Summer. Not take away from any of the other teams. I try not to totally take away from hitters in Arlington, because the heat takes a much more substantial toll on those who play there. I think because of the weather that is in Arlington they are almost doomed to not have too many World Series appearances. I think with it being a hitters park and it being very hot there that it evens out especially in August. In Arpil and May yeah it may be a huge advantage but when June rolls around expect some tough outtings because even at night it gets pretty dang warm there. On the other hand it is very feasible to discredit some of the things that happen for the Rockies because they usually have mild summers and their park is in favor of the hitters.

Park factors are based on runs scored by the team and their opponents at home as opposed to runs scored and allowed on the road, though. Any toll the heat takes on players' hitting while they're there should be accounted for through that. Even if you say it still has an affect on the Rangers on the road, which it very well might, the opponents being a factor in the park factor neutralizes that as well.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Young is a pretty good hitter from SS. He's not a great one and he's not anything special defensively. He's a pretty good player and nothing more.



Park factors are based on runs scored by the team and their opponents at home as opposed to runs scored and allowed on the road, though. Any toll the heat takes on players' hitting while they're there should be accounted for through that. Even if you say it still has an affect on the Rangers on the road, which it very well might, the opponents being a factor in the park factor neutralizes that as well.

Yeah this is true it does tend to even out, if i were a Texas rangers player in August i would want most of my games to be played on the road and in April and early May i would want most of my games at home.

[jalbright]

Park factors are based on runs scored by the team and their opponents at home as opposed to runs scored and allowed on the road, though. Any toll the heat takes on players' hitting while they're there should be accounted for through that. Even if you say it still has an affect on the Rangers on the road, which it very well might, the opponents being a factor in the park factor neutralizes that as well.

Park factors should account for the vast majority of the issues, and are certainly therefore quite useful. However, they can't and don't catch everything. In this instance, if the heat in a park is particularly notable, but can be handled for a few days (a three or four day series) but might become more wearing over 10 days or 2 weeks (a reasonable homestand), I don't see how the park effect factor as calculated would completely nail that one aspect of the park's real life effects.

Jim Albright

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Park factors should account for the vast majority of the issues, and are certainly therefore quite useful. However, they can't and don't catch everything. In this instance, if the heat in a park is particularly notable, but can be handled for a few days (a three or four day series) but might become more wearing over 10 days or 2 weeks (a reasonable homestand), I don't see how the park effect factor as calculated would completely nail that one aspect of the park's real life effects.

Jim Albright

True it just depends on certain situations. My wife's whole family is from Dallas and they are big Ranger fans and her brother has told me that for the last 7 or 8 years or so they tend to play more games on the road in the month of August to try and keep things on an even keel. But i am too lazy to look and find out if that is or isn't true, and mainly because i don't really care about the Rangers.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Either way it goes about ballparks I don't believe Michael Young is a HOFer. Sometimes i like to remind people that the HOF is for those special players that really stand out and make their talents the stuff of legend. Do i think the HOF voting right? Sometimes it isn't but i believe in general they tend to get things right. I guess the only thing that could make him a HOFer is for him to have an abnormally long career and for the rest of that long career he would have to really elevate his game at least for a 5 or 6 year period. I think he is a good ball player and at times tends to be under-rated but i don't know if he is HOF caliber, but i have been wrong before in my day.

[538280]

Park factors should account for the vast majority of the issues, and are certainly therefore quite useful. However, they can't and don't catch everything. In this instance, if the heat in a park is particularly notable, but can be handled for a few days (a three or four day series) but might become more wearing over 10 days or 2 weeks (a reasonable homestand), I don't see how the park effect factor as calculated would completely nail that one aspect of the park's real life effects.

Jim Albright

I agree, but the park factor should catch most of the impact of the park's great heat, and the effect beyond that is probably extremely small.

[micsmith]

I know Michael Young is a long ways off, but how many other shortstops have produced five 200-hit seasons, much less five consecutive 200-hit seasons? Perhaps he started his career a bit late to reach 3000 hits, but he has been a great player the past several seasons. Is he on his way to the Hall?

[machinehead11]

Maybe I'm a little biased because he's my favorite current player, but if he continues his streak, or at the very least, continues to get a high amount of hits while keeping his average over .300, he might be. I don't think 3000 hits is a ridiculous thought at all.

Early this season, he was struggling badly. He was hitting under .200 for a while. After the break, though, he tore it up. That tells you what kind of a player he is- one who can come back from adversity and continue producing.

[Chickazoola]

He needs alot more to get to the hall. He has been overshadowed initially by Nomar, Jeter, A-Rod, and now Hanley, Rollins, Reyes. Plus he is fairly one dimensional in that he doesn't steal bags or hit many home runs. And he plays for Texas.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He needs alot more to get to the hall. He has been overshadowed initially by Nomar, Jeter, A-Rod, and now Hanley, Rollins, Reyes. Plus he is fairly one dimensional in that he doesn't steal bags or hit many home runs. And he plays for Texas.
A carrer 102 OPS+ just won't do. Of course OPS+ is not everything and if he had great defense and had some speed then he may have a stronger argument.

[dgarza]

While it's too early to tell, it's also too early to write him off as well.
He's on a good pace for my taste, but I can't imagine him keeping that pace for long.
I think the only chance he has in this day and age is to maintain the superficial stats (hits, BA). Without those, voters won't look twice at him.

[Cougar]

Young's real good at piling up the hits, and I respect the heck out of that.

I think he's in the process of building an offensive resume that's going to have some similarity to Steve Garvey's -- a bunch of 200-hit, 90-100 RBI, .300 seasons, which unfortunately are a little emptier than they appear at first glance, because the secondary average stats (OBP, SLG, etc.) aren't very big.

Garvey had a lot of "chrome and leather", with the GG's, the MVP, the big performances in the postseason and ASGs, and the consecutive game streak. Not to mention the All-American image that came back to bite him in the butt later on.

Michael Young has an ASG MVP of his own, and led the league in hits and BA in 2005 (his best season). But the extra push to his case will come from the fact that he's producing these numbers while manning the SS position (adequately, if not extraordinarily). And that's value. But it's diminished when there are 3-5 guys at any point in one's career that are pretty clearly more valuable players than you at the SS position.

I dunno...Garvey's a guy I'd support in a vacuum, although I think there's around 10-12 better eligible 1b not yet in. I think I may end up feeling the same way about Young...he'll have done the things that traditionally get one into the Hall of Fame, and I won't see a compelling reason to exclude him, but I also won't see a tremendous reason to bump him to the head of the line.

He's got a HOF Monitor score of 81.5, and he's only 30...that's certainly indicative that the guy's building a compiler's case for the Hall. Those aren't a priori bad cases, in my view.

[plask_stirlac]

God help us...

JK, he gets more than his share of backlash. But for the HOF I don't support counting-stat potentials such as Damon and Young, or Juan Pierre. Maybe if it were the Hall of Health, then Pierre and Young would be on the path.

[Brad Harris]

I know Michael Young is a long ways off, but how many other shortstops have produced five 200-hit seasons, much less five consecutive 200-hit seasons? Perhaps he started his career a bit late to reach 3000 hits, but he has been a great player the past several seasons. Is he on his way to the Hall?

Of course he's on his way. Now all he needs is 10 more consecutive 200-hit seasons to actually get there! :)

[bob]

Of course he's on his way. Now all he needs is 10 more consecutive 200-hit seasons to actually get there! :)
He could join ichiro there!
Hit totals wont get you into the HoF alone (unless your putting up Pete Rose type of stats), i think he'll need to improve in other areas to get a chance. and maybe finally getting into the limelight wouldnt hurt him. Its difficult to see many people voting for someone who was always the 3rd or 4th man you look at in a team. unfortunate but with floorspace limitd in the HoF, youd have to bypass many bigger names before you get to Young.

[jalbright]

Maybe I'm a little biased because he's my favorite current player, but if he continues his streak, or at the very least, continues to get a high amount of hits while keeping his average over .300, he might be. I don't think 3000 hits is a ridiculous thought at all.

3000 hits is very much a longshot. He's 30 already, and has just over 1300 hits. Give him 8 years of 200 hits, and he's still shy of the mark, and 38. He's not likely to average that many hits for that long. He has a better shot at the HOF than 3000 hits, but he 1) is 30, and 2) hasn't won a Gold Glove. He's going to have to be a very productive hitter for quite a long time to make HOF company. He might do that, but I would think his chances are less than 50-50 that he will.

Jim Albright

[RubeBaker]

Hasn't his name come up before? I think back then the verdict was no, and this still doesn't change my opinion. He is 30 years old with 1305 hits. 3,000 looks beyond reach. He has 103 HRs, he'll be happy to reach 200 let alone 500. His defense is well below average. His career OPS+ is a weak 102.

All in all, a nice player, but not HoF material.

[DaClyde]

I think everyone gets too caught up in "magic" numbers like 3000 hits or 500 home runs. HOF eligibility requires only 10 years of major league service, which is why guys like Ralph Kiner and Kirby Puckett were inducted. They were definitely HOF-caliber players but both had their careers cut short. They weren't snubbed for the hell because they didn't get to 3000 or 500.

If someone plays on a HOF-level but just doesn't happen to play for 20 years, they shouldn't be penalized for that. If Young keeps his current pace for awhile, just like Ichiro, he's pretty much in. It might take a couple years as he's likely to be on the ballot with guys like Manny or AROD (or Ichiro), but he'll likely get in.

Look at Wade Boggs, for instance...is he in because of his 9 years of stellar hitting with Boston or because he mananged to hang on for another injury plagued 6 years to get his 3000 hits?

[RubeBaker]

I think everyone gets too caught up in "magic" numbers like 3000 hits or 500 home runs. HOF eligibility requires only 10 years of major league service, which is why guys like Ralph Kiner and Kirby Puckett were inducted. They were definitely HOF-caliber players but both had their careers cut short. They weren't snubbed for the hell because they didn't get to 3000 or 500.

If someone plays on a HOF-level but just doesn't happen to play for 20 years, they shouldn't be penalized for that. If Young keeps his current pace for awhile, just like Ichiro, he's pretty much in. It might take a couple years as he's likely to be on the ballot with guys like Manny or AROD (or Ichiro), but he'll likely get in.

Look at Wade Boggs, for instance...is he in because of his 9 years of stellar hitting with Boston or because he mananged to hang on for another injury plagued 6 years to get his 3000 hits?


No, magic numbers are not an indcator of wether or not a player will make the hall, but they certainly do help.

But look at what else he's got going on. A career 102 OPS+? It's ok, it is a hair above average, but we are not talking about his canadicy for the hall of mediocrity.

There is no chance he'll get in on the "Ozzie Smith" rule. He'll make about 15-20 errors each year.

The other bad mark against himis the guy makes way too many outs. 4 times in the top 10 in outs (he led the league in 2006 with 500+), 3 times top 10 in grounding into double plays, and 3 100+ strikeout seasons.

I know a lot of Texas fans love young, but he is NOT a hall of fame caliber player.

[KCGHOST]

Young only has 4 200-hit seasons as an SS (the other was as a 2B). Definitely a guy who will need to play a long time at his current level to get in.

[plask_stirlac]

Wouldn't he need to be on a playoff team? A team stat, yes, but for voting. Who besides Banks was elected with no postseason play?

[digglahhh]

I think everyone gets too caught up in "magic" numbers like 3000 hits or 500 home runs. HOF eligibility requires only 10 years of major league service, which is why guys like Ralph Kiner and Kirby Puckett were inducted. They were definitely HOF-caliber players but both had their careers cut short. They weren't snubbed for the hell because they didn't get to 3000 or 500.

If someone plays on a HOF-level but just doesn't happen to play for 20 years, they shouldn't be penalized for that. If Young keeps his current pace for awhile, just like Ichiro, he's pretty much in. It might take a couple years as he's likely to be on the ballot with guys like Manny or AROD (or Ichiro), but he'll likely get in.

Look at Wade Boggs, for instance...is he in because of his 9 years of stellar hitting with Boston or because he mananged to hang on for another injury plagued 6 years to get his 3000 hits?

Umm... okay.

Of course Young hasn't put up a single season befitting of Boggs in his prime. Nor is he one of the elite defenders at his position, which Boggs also was, in his prime.

Young needs the milestones because, unlike Boggs, he was never on the very short list of best players in the game.

Personally, I don't think he is at all deserving.

Supporting Young at all would lead to the conclusion that Jimmy Rollins is basically a first ballot lock. Rollins is the same type of player, except with more pop, more speed, and much better defense.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He really doesn't have a whole lot of power or a lot of speed, he isn't a good defender, and he's not really adept to walking. He has a career ISOBP of .045 which is pretty low. If you ask me he isn't even a top ten SS of his generation, I would put all of these men ahead of him:

Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Nomar Garciaparra
Jimmy Rollins
Jose Reyes (soon enough)
Hanley Ramirez (if you ask me he hasn't even had a season as good as Hanley's Rookie year)
Miguel Tejada
Omar Vizquel (His D makes him the better player IMO)
Rafael Furcal
Orlando Cabrera

Young is a player much like Juan Pierre, they give 200 hit seasons a bad name.

[dgarza]

Wouldn't he need to be on a playoff team? A team stat, yes, but for voting. Who besides Banks was elected with no postseason play?
I might be nice, but hardly necessary.
Jim Bunning, Ferguson Jenkins, Rick Ferrell, George Kell, Luke Appling, & Ralph Kiner also did not see post-season play.

[ElHalo]

I know Michael Young is a long ways off, but how many other shortstops have produced five 200-hit seasons, much less five consecutive 200-hit seasons?

Not many.

Jeter has six; two sets of three consecutive.

Outside of that, I can't think of any shortstops with five 200 hit seasons.

[nerfan]

Michael Young is a fantastic player. But he is not HoF worthy. The last four years (his peak), he has put up 4.3 batting wins. Over the last four years, Garrett Atkins has put up 4.2 batting wins. Over the last TWO years, David Wright has put up 7.9 batting wins. Everywhere you look, you can find shortstops better than Michael Young. Shortstop is no longer a dry offensive position. The breed of good-field, no-hit shortstops is dying. The last of them is Omar Visquel. Basically, Young just piles up hits. And if you think hits are a road to the hall of fame, check this guy's Batting Runs / Hits total.

181 hits / -16.3 runs
204 hits / -23.1 runs
196 hits / -25.3 runs

Pierre.

[yankillaz]

He really doesn't have a whole lot of power or a lot of speed, he isn't a good defender, and he's not really adept to walking. He has a career ISOBP of .045 which is pretty low. If you ask me he isn't even a top ten SS of his generation, I would put all of these men ahead of him:

Alex Rodriguez
Derek Jeter
Nomar Garciaparra
Jimmy Rollins
Jose Reyes (soon enough)
Hanley Ramirez (if you ask me he hasn't even had a season as good as Hanley's Rookie year)
Miguel Tejada
Omar Vizquel (His D makes him the better player IMO)
Rafael Furcal
Orlando Cabrera

Young is a player much like Juan Pierre, they give 200 hit seasons a bad name.

Cabrera? Furcal? Vizquel? He's had better seasons than those, and has been a constant players as Jeter and Tejada. Too bad some people here think otherwise.

[philkid3]

There is no chance he'll get in on the "Ozzie Smith" rule. He'll make about 15-20 errors each year.

I get your point, but. . . so did Ozzie. ;)

[nerfan]

I get your point, but. . . so did Ozzie. ;)

Yes, but Ozzie Smith had 788 FRAR. Michael Young has 144, and since his career is just about 4/10 of the way done (or more), he'll probably wind up with 250-300. 788-300 = 488 FRAR. To put in perspective, Barry Larkin, a 3 time Gold Glove award winner, had 410 FRAR.

[philkid3]

Yes, but Ozzie Smith had 788 FRAR. Michael Young has 144, and since his career is just about 4/10 of the way done (or more), he'll probably wind up with 250-300. 788-300 = 488 FRAR. To put in perspective, Barry Larkin, a 3 time Gold Glove award winner, had 410 FRAR.

Yes, I know. Ozzie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Young

I'm just saying the errors thing wasn't necessarily the best way to make the point.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cabrera? Furcal? Vizquel? He's had better seasons than those, and has been a constant players as Jeter and Tejada. Too bad some people here think otherwise.

Vizquel gets better than him for his defense, as does Furcal. Furcal's been about ten wins better over his career with the glove, and about the same offensively. So I'd go Furcal. As to Cabrera, he may be better than O-Cab.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If he had two more seasons like his last two, I don't think he'd be in the HOF; he'd be like Cecil Travis at that point.

If it's hits and BA that drive Young's HOF chances, he'd better not leave Texas. He has a little better power in Texas, but a LOT better BA. We wouldn't be having this conversation on this thread if he played his whole career at Comerica Park.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Young had a down year this year. The jury is out as to whether or not it's part of an established decline, or an aberration that will reverse itself some next year.

Young's stats make him look better than he is, but if he keeps getting picked to the All Star team, and has a long career at SS with some power and a BA in the .290s, his chances are going to be pretty good. The HOF monitor already has Young at 85.0, although that will drop if his lifetime BA drops below .300; on the other hand, further ASG selections and a boost in HR power will keep his chances at a decent level.

What is working AGAINST Young is the general perception that he's not really a star. For a .300 hitting SS with some power, Young is a rather anonymous star. He has time to overcome this, however, but he might have to play for a bigger media market in order to achieve this.

[SilentKiller]

Do you think Michael Young is on pace to be a Hall of Famer?

[jalbright]

Merged three threads on Mr. Young, and retained the recent poll.

[Francoeurstein]

Could Michael Young end up in the hall of fame?

His career numbers from today 7/18/09

1595 hits, 302 doubles, 126 home runs, 689 rbi, .300/.347/.444/.792, Career OPS+ of 104.

I voted for "If he keeps up what he is doing for a long time" because I feel if he can average about 180 hits for the next 4-5 years and then a few average years after that, he is in. A few things keeping him from being in is he didn't have his first solid season until age 26. Also, if he stays at 3rd base and his numbers don't increase he won't get the nod because of positional adjustment. Last, I know playing at Arlington has something to do with his numbers but I'm not that big of a ballpark guy so I will see what ya'll will have to say.

[jalbright]

Threads merged

[Francoeurstein]

Sorry about that, Jalbright. I couldn't find another Michael Young thread.

[jalbright]

That's OK. The best way to look is to click on search and click on the advanced search option. When you get that, type in the name you're searching for and change the search entire post to search titles only, and, while you're at it, you can focus in on only the HOF forum. That should help.

Jim.

[Jsquared83]

Since the thread started in '06, Young's been fairly consistent, no huge career years though. He's def helping himself in '09 though. HRs are up and OPS+ has crept up as well. He added a GG last year and has made is 6th AS game this year. If he keeps this pace into his later 30s, it will be interesting. Looks like an infielder version of Johnny Damon.

[JDD]

Just another good player... lots of hits.

[538280]

Almost two years ago I said he had just about no shot and I don't think he's changed much since then, he's put in some solid seasons but still not great. Plus this season he has moved to third base. A nice player but anyone who thinks he's any kind of superstar is mistaken. In this high offensive era just hitting .300 doesn't make you any kind of offensive force. Young doens't have great power or a great walk rate, he's basically been an average hitter over his career. As a SS that can still make a very, very good player, but unless he has a very long career not a great one at all and he's already 32 and is now at 3B. Chances to me are less than 5%.

[AstrosFan]

Almost two years ago I said he had just about no shot and I don't think he's changed much since then, he's put in some solid seasons but still not great. Plus this season he has moved to third base. A nice player but anyone who thinks he's any kind of superstar is mistaken. In this high offensive era just hitting .300 doesn't make you any kind of offensive force. Young doens't have great power or a great walk rate, he's basically been an average hitter over his career. As a SS that can still make a very, very good player, but unless he has a very long career not a great one at all and he's already 32 and is now at 3B. Chances to me are less than 5%.

Chances to me are greater than 5% because his chances of reaching 3,000 hits are greater than 5%.

[STLCards2]

Chances to me are greater than 5% because his chances of reaching 3,000 hits are greater than 5%.

Chris did say, "unles he has a very long career..." You may not be talking about exactly the same thing, but his getting 3,000 hits is very contingent on longevity. I am sure you agree that if he doesn't have a very long career, a 5% chance of election may be too generous.

[AstrosFan]

Chris did say, "unles he has a very long career..." You may not be talking about exactly the same thing, but his getting 3,000 hits is very contingent on longevity. I am sure you agree that if he doesn't have a very long career, a 5% chance of election may be too generous.

To me, his percentage was a summary of his opinion on Young's chances. Something like, the chances of him performing long enough and producing well enough to reach a Hall of Fame standard are less than 5%. I see the chances of him doing that as greater than 5%, with the standard I used being 3,000 hits. That is, I see the chances of him reaching that level, factoring in longevity and productivity, as greater than 5%.

[STLCards2]

To me, his percentage was a summary of his opinion on Young's chances. Something like, the chances of him performing long enough and producing well enough to reach a Hall of Fame standard are less than 5%. I see the chances of him doing that as greater than 5%, with the standard I used being 3,000 hits. That is, I see the chances of him reaching that level, factoring in longevity and productivity, as greater than 5%.

Yeah, I can see how you read that.

Either way, I think we are almost all in general agrrement - it will take longevity and "magic milestome" numbers for Young to get elected, most likely.

[jalbright]

Yeah, while for betting purposes it makes a great deal of difference if the odds given against something are 25 or 30 to 1 rather than 15 to 1, in terms of whether that event happens are still in the longshot category. The consensus here seems to be Young is a longshot, the only disagreement being over how much of a longshot he is.

[JDD]

Yeah, while for betting purposes it makes a great deal of difference if the odds given against something are 25 or 30 to 1 rather than 15 to 1, in terms of whether that event happens are still in the longshot category. The consensus here seems to be Young is a longshot, the only disagreement being over how much of a longshot he is.

There's a five percent chance that we can get forty more posts on that disagreement alone.

Let me start. I think there is a ninety-five percent chance that there will be at least ten more posts about how Michael Young has about a ten percent chance of reaching around 87% of three thousand hits.

[AstrosFan]

There's a five percent chance that we can get forty more posts on that disagreement alone.

Let me start. I think there is a ninety-five percent chance that there will be at least ten more posts about how Michael Young has about a ten percent chance of reaching around 87% of three thousand hits.

They won't be from me. I have zero interest in continuing that kind of debate. I just said my piece on Chris's comment, clarified it for STLCards2, and assumed we'd move on. I find the idea that there is a 95% chance for ten more posts on the issue rather depressing.

[JDD]

That's "one"....

[Francoeurstein]

I voted no. Just tryin' too change the subject here...

[538280]

To me, his percentage was a summary of his opinion on Young's chances. Something like, the chances of him performing long enough and producing well enough to reach a Hall of Fame standard are less than 5%. I see the chances of him doing that as greater than 5%, with the standard I used being 3,000 hits. That is, I see the chances of him reaching that level, factoring in longevity and productivity, as greater than 5%.

My comment was a summary of my opinion, but not necessarily his chances but more my feelings about his worthiness. I meant there is less than a 5% chance that I will one day feel Michael Young is a deserving HOFer. If a player like Young gets to 3000 hits I think I probably will support him for the HOF because he will be a player who played mostly key defensive positions throughout his career. However I think there is a chance if he deteriorates defensively and is moved to say 1B yet still is an average hitter enough years to reach 3000, I would then say that he is probably not a HOFer even if he gets 3000, similar to the possibility people have raised for Johnny Damon.

[AstrosFan]

My comment was a summary of my opinion, but not necessarily his chances but more my feelings about his worthiness. I meant there is less than a 5% chance that I will one day feel Michael Young is a deserving HOFer. If a player like Young gets to 3000 hits I think I probably will support him for the HOF because he will be a player who played mostly key defensive positions throughout his career. However I think there is a chance if he deteriorates defensively and is moved to say 1B yet still is an average hitter enough years to reach 3000, I would then say that he is probably not a HOFer even if he gets 3000, similar to the possibility people have raised for Johnny Damon.

I gotcha. In that case, I'm with you.

(I don't think this post should count toward continuing the debate.)

[Paul Wendt]

P.S. The move from short to third is already tellling.
--

Here is another No, or two.

Just now I was traveling by city bus to Cambridge (Boston system). A young couple in the seat behind me were talking baseball. She will be doing a lot of pitching this year [baseball or softball?] ... Papelbon blah blah blah ... He doesn't like Michael Young[!]. Young doesn't steal bases. He is really overrated. "I'm not saying he's a bad player but he isn't as good as everyone thinks." She knows what he means.

[JDD]

Figured I would look this guy up. The biggest stat we have is his age. He is 32 years old. He has 1600 hits in 1300 games.

He can afford to slow down a bit and still make 3000 hits if he plays another 1300 games. But will he have the opportunity?

One advantage he has is this: so far for his career he is a lock for 155 games and he hits near the top of the order.

He does not walk too much. More swings, more hits. But I doubt we will see batting averages north of .310 in his 30s like we saw in his 20s. He is hitting .323 at home over his career. That's a plus.

His slugging is up again this year, after a few down years. I think this comes down to opportunity. Will he hit well enough to bat in the top half of the lineup for the bulk of the second half of his career? If he drops down to sixth or lower, then he will loose about 80 plate appearances a year.

Right now he gets more than 700 a year. His stat lines remind me of Steve Garvey, but Young scores more runs (more hitter-friendly environment I suppose). Maybe Pete Rose... its the 200 hits and 100 runs.

And Rose was Young's age when the Big Red Machine was being built, and averaged over 200 hits a year from ages 32 to 39. So while it has been done before, he needs that kind of opportunity. (batting at or near the top of a very good offensive team even after he gets "old").

I say he does not get the chance as he will not have enough plate appearances following a drop in production and a demotion in the batting order. He has finished either second or fourth in at-bats in the league each of the last six years. Is he going to keep that up?

Following Pete Rose's career path is just too much to ask, as we just don't see players getting 200 hits a year every year in their mid and late 30s.

He is averaging 1.23 hits per game so far in his career. With no decline, he needs to play in 1138 more games. He'll get about 60 more this season, so he is down to 1078 starting next year (his age 33 year).

If he gives us 155 games (no guarantees) each year, then that is seven more years of playing time (almost on the nose).

So we are asking Michael Young to keep this up for seven more years. With no decline, as he approaches forty years of age.

That's with no decline, no lost time, and continuing to hit first or second in the batting order.

I would bet against it. And speaking of decline, over the last 365 days, he as only tallied 172 hits and his batting average is .287

At THAT pace, with no decline, (or rise in production for that matter), he would have to play another 8.2 years from right now. I think one of the reasons he even has a shot is the huge number of opportunities he has had in his mid to late 20s. But I think he started just late enough and will break down just early enough to keep him from getting 3,000 hits.

And if he does make it, he will be a most interesting HOF case.

[Paul McCartney]

I live in Carrollton, Texas and am a huge fan of Michael Young. He's been the leader of that Rangers clubhouse for almost ten seasons now. He never complains, always hustles, and if there is indeed such a thing as "clutch hitting," he's got it. He can and has played anywhere in the infield and is by all measures an above average glove. (Win shares, range factor, even one a GG last season) With that said, as for the Hall of Fame he is no where near on pace to be deserving of such a title. His career OPS+ of 104 (his power numbers inflated by the Ballpark in Arlington by quite a large amount) is actually much higher than other Hall of Fame SS (Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, etc.) but in a position where fielding is more valuable than batting IMO, he has never been near or at the best at his position in his league like the players on that list. Perhaps more importantly, he will probably spend his whole career with the Texas Rangers, the only non-expansion team to never win a pennant. Rafael Palmerio was one of the 5 most productive players of the 90s, but would not make the Hall of Fame anytime soon even if he was never affiliated with steroids. Michael does have a shot though, hear me out: In some bizarre trade scenario he finishes his career in New York or Boston and they fall in love with his clutch hitting and hustle just as the fans in Texas have, and 40 years later he makes the hall via Veteran's Committee much like Phil Rizzuto did, whom Michael is much better than.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I live in Carrollton, Texas and am a huge fan of Michael Young. He's been the leader of that Rangers clubhouse for almost ten seasons now. He never complains, always hustles, and if there is indeed such a thing as "clutch hitting," he's got it. He can and has played anywhere in the infield and is by all measures an above average glove. (Win shares, range factor, even one a GG last season) With that said, as for the Hall of Fame he is no where near on pace to be deserving of such a title. His career OPS+ of 104 (his power numbers inflated by the Ballpark in Arlington by quite a large amount) is actually much higher than other Hall of Fame SS (Rabbit Maranville, Ozzie Smith, Luis Aparicio, Phil Rizzuto, etc.) but in a position where fielding is more valuable than batting IMO, he has never been near or at the best at his position in his league like the players on that list. Perhaps more importantly, he will probably spend his whole career with the Texas Rangers, the only non-expansion team to never win a pennant. Rafael Palmerio was one of the 5 most productive players of the 90s, but would not make the Hall of Fame anytime soon even if he was never affiliated with steroids. Michael does have a shot though, hear me out: In some bizarre trade scenario he finishes his career in New York or Boston and they fall in love with his clutch hitting and hustle just as the fans in Texas have, and 40 years later he makes the hall via Veteran's Committee much like Phil Rizzuto did, whom Michael is much better than.

That is simply not true. If Palmeiro had never failed a drug test given his 3,000+ hits and 500+ HR he would have waltzed right into the HoF.

[Paul McCartney]

That is simply not true. If Palmeiro had never failed a drug test given his 3,000+ hits and 500+ HR he would have waltzed right into the HoF.
There was actually MUCH discussion about this, particularly in Texas when the talks of his retirement were brought up. As you addressed, his career totals are easily HOF-worthy, no doubt. He was dependable, had the prettiest stroke around and had a solid glove at first. The knocks against him are: 1) His numbers are inflated by playing at The Ballpark in Arlington and Camden Yards. 2) The man was an All-Star only four times, one less than Albert Belle, a contemporary slugger that isn't making the Hall anytime soon either. That's also one less than Jeff Kent, two less than Nomar Garciaparra, and other players from his era that aren't likely to make the Hall. 3) Palmerio was simply never VIEWED as a potential HOFer. He never received ANY publicity besides his mentioned milestones, being a spokesperson for Viagra while still in his 30s, and of course PEDs. Maybe it's because of the reasons stated above, maybe it's because he never hit 50 HRs or because he never played in a World Series, I don't know. In conclusion, he would not have "waltzed right into the HoF" in my opinion. By the way, Rafael was my favorite player when he was with the Rangers and is a very nice guy.

[Jsquared83]

There was actually MUCH discussion about this, particularly in Texas when the talks of his retirement were brought up. As you addressed, his career totals are easily HOF-worthy, no doubt. He was dependable, had the prettiest stroke around and had a solid glove at first. The knocks against him are: 1) His numbers are inflated by playing at The Ballpark in Arlington and Camden Yards. 2) The man was an All-Star only four times, one less than Albert Belle, a contemporary slugger that isn't making the Hall anytime soon either. That's also one less than Jeff Kent, two less than Nomar Garciaparra, and other players from his era that aren't likely to make the Hall. 3) Palmerio was simply never VIEWED as a potential HOFer. He never received ANY publicity besides his mentioned milestones, being a spokesperson for Viagra while still in his 30s, and of course PEDs. Maybe it's because of the reasons stated above, maybe it's because he never hit 50 HRs or because he never played in a World Series, I don't know. In conclusion, he would not have "waltzed right into the HoF" in my opinion. By the way, Rafael was my favorite player when he was with the Rangers and is a very nice guy.

That is all very true, however, 3000 hits and 500 HRs minus PEDs are first ballot credentials regardless of who posted them.

[Paul McCartney]

That is all very true, however, 3000 hits and 500 HRs minus PEDs are first ballot credentials regardless of who posted them.
Just out of curiosity, do you think Jim Thome will be first-ballot? He hasn't been linked with PEDs (at least not that I know of), and he is likely to end up with over 600 dingers. (With a 148+ OPS, well deserving of first ballot by the way) But he has never been viewed as one of the top players in baseball and has been elected as an All-Star only five times. While we're at it what about Gary Sheffield?

[Domenic]

The knocks against him are: 1) His numbers are inflated by playing at The Ballpark in Arlington and Camden Yards. 2) The man was an All-Star only four times, one less than Albert Belle, a contemporary slugger that isn't making the Hall anytime soon either. That's also one less than Jeff Kent, two less than Nomar Garciaparra, and other players from his era that aren't likely to make the Hall. 3) Palmerio was simply never VIEWED as a potential HOFer. He never received ANY publicity besides his mentioned milestones, being a spokesperson for Viagra while still in his 30s, and of course PEDs. Maybe it's because of the reasons stated above, maybe it's because he never hit 50 HRs or because he never played in a World Series, I don't know. In conclusion, he would not have "waltzed right into the HoF" in my opinion.

Eddie Murray essentially waltzed into the Hall of Fame - his name appeared on 85.3% of the ballots his first time around... and I would consider their cases to be fairly similar.

Murray - .287/.359/.476, 129 OPS+, 96.4 WARP3
Palmeiro - .288/.371/.515, 132 OPS+, 96.1 WARP3

Murray did have four more All-Star appearances and he did fair better in MVP voting - but he was never regarded as the best player in the game. He was always well-respected, and well-known to boot... but he was rarely thought of as a part of the "cream of the crop," so to speak. This is true of Palmeiro, as well.

For what it's worth, baseball-reference's Hall of Fame statistics rate the two very close:

By Black Ink:
Murray - 11
Palmeiro - 8

By Gray Ink:
Murray - 181
Palmeiro - 183

By HoF Monitor:
Murray - 154
Palmeiro - 178

By HoF Standards:
Murray - 55
Palmeiro - 57

[Paul Wendt]

I agree that Eddie Murray was never considered the best player in the game but I think he was regarded as part of the cream of the crop throughout his first twelve seasons, the Baltimore years. Further, some people recognized him as a probable Hall of Famer during his debut season and after five seasons that was generally taken for granted.

Murray played a long time and continued to play daily, long after his prime seasons. His career onbase and slugging rates declined in his tenth season, a very good one, and almost every season thereafter. (I count two exceptions in twelve years.

Palmeiro, in contrast, increased his career onbase and slugging rates through his 17th year, 15th full season, baseball age 37.

Palmeiro was improving his Hall of Fame resume until close to the end; Murray and his managers almost played him out of it. Their career records were like two ships passing in the night and Palmeiro's very different career trajectory is the reason why he never seemed like a Hall of Famer to many fans.

--
P.S.
During their first full seasons, Eddie Murray was a younger 21 (winter birthday),
... Johnny Damon an older 22, Rafi Palmeiro an older 23, and Michael Young an older 24 (three fall birthdays).

[Jsquared83]

Just out of curiosity, do you think Jim Thome will be first-ballot? He hasn't been linked with PEDs (at least not that I know of), and he is likely to end up with over 600 dingers. (With a 148+ OPS, well deserving of first ballot by the way) But he has never been viewed as one of the top players in baseball and has been elected as an All-Star only five times. While we're at it what about Gary Sheffield?

Whoops, posted that twice. Sorry Paul.

Thome is still quite productive this year at 38, (16 HR 138 OPS+). Other than homeruns, he wont have quite the big numbers that Palmeiro retired with, however, he should be a first ballot selection barring any PED talk.

Sheffield is a little dicier. Huge career numbers once again, still fairly productive this year in the NL of all places. 9 AS games, a batting title, 500 HRs, career OPS+ of 140, should be a cinch but again, the PED monster and poor attitude rep will probably kill Sheffield's first ballot, however he should get in within a few years of eligibility.

[Jsquared83]

Eddie Murray essentially waltzed into the Hall of Fame - his name appeared on 85.3% of the ballots his first time around... and I would consider their cases to be fairly similar.

Murray - .287/.359/.476, 129 OPS+, 96.4 WARP3
Palmeiro - .288/.371/.515, 132 OPS+, 96.1 WARP3

Murray did have four more All-Star appearances and he did fair better in MVP voting - but he was never regarded as the best player in the game. He was always well-respected, and well-known to boot... but he was rarely thought of as a part of the "cream of the crop," so to speak. This is true of Palmeiro, as well.

For what it's worth, baseball-reference's Hall of Fame statistics rate the two very close:

By Black Ink:
Murray - 11
Palmeiro - 8

By Gray Ink:
Murray - 181
Palmeiro - 183

By HoF Monitor:
Murray - 154
Palmeiro - 178

By HoF Standards:
Murray - 55
Palmeiro - 57

Murray's #s stood out more in the 80's cause 100 RBIs a year back then wasnt nearly as commonplace as it is today, or back in the late 90s, early 00s when Palmeiro was putting a string of 30/100+ years together.

[micsmith]

3000 Hits and 500 Home Runs are the big numbers. Some guys stick around and play forever to try to reach those career milestones that supposedly make you a Hall of Famer - sometimes it takes them 19, 20, 23 years to get there.

I don't know how to define a player's peak (best five years? best ten years?)

But, if a player takes an average of 20 years to get to 500 and 3000 (historically, speaking), then that would be awfully incredible for a player to get to 2000 hits or 350 home runs in ten years. I mean, you are only halfway through your career and you're on pace to get to 4000 hits or 700 home runs if you play 20 seasons.

There aren' that many guys to have reached 3000 hits or 500 home runs, but as you would expect, there are a lot fewer to have gotten two-thirds of the way to those magic number in just a ten-year span.

One might argue that it is an even more incredible feat (and a testament to one's peak!!) to hit 350 HR in ten seasons than to hit 500 home runs in 20 seasons. Same goes for 2000 hits (10 years) and 3000 hits (20 year).

It's kinda the difference between Ralph Kiner and Gary Sheffield (I know both did a lot more than just hit HRs). Or the difference between Ichiro and Craig Biggio (again, I know both did a lot more to deserve induction - but let's just look at the HRs and Hits).

Take a look at how many players have gotten 2000 hits in ten seasons - it is a short list and only Stan Musial, Pete Rose and soon enough Ichiro will have done it in the post-WW 2 era.

By the way, if Michael Young does it, then he is a lock in my opinion, considering how good you have to be to get 2000 hits in ten seasons.


350 HR in 10 seasons? A few more guys have done that, including Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez. Averaging 35 home runs over a decade is pretty incredilble. Pujols just joined this group this season.

How about 2000 strikeouts in ten years OR 200 wins in ten years?

It is surprising to see how many players hit these ten-year "peak" milestones, but did not hit the magic hall of fame numers (500, 3000, etc)

And it is interesting to see how many reached the big, magic numbers, but didn't hit the peak milestone numbers.



As a Rangers fan, I must say that Michael Young is a 6-time all-star who has 200 hits at 2B, SS, and if he keeps up the pace this year, 3B. And he got a gold glove at the toughest of those positions, along with a batting title. If he reaches 2000 hits in ten years then he is a HoFer in my opinion.

[Jsquared83]

3000 Hits and 500 Home Runs are the big numbers. Some guys stick around and play forever to try to reach those career milestones that supposedly make you a Hall of Famer - sometimes it takes them 19, 20, 23 years to get there.

I don't know how to define a player's peak (best five years? best ten years?)

But, if a player takes an average of 20 years to get to 500 and 3000 (historically, speaking), then that would be awfully incredible for a player to get to 2000 hits or 350 home runs in ten years. I mean, you are only halfway through your career and you're on pace to get to 4000 hits or 700 home runs if you play 20 seasons.

There aren' that many guys to have reached 3000 hits or 500 home runs, but as you would expect, there are a lot fewer to have gotten two-thirds of the way to those magic number in just a ten-year span.

One might argue that it is an even more incredible feat (and a testament to one's peak!!) to hit 350 HR in ten seasons than to hit 500 home runs in 20 seasons. Same goes for 2000 hits (10 years) and 3000 hits (20 year).

It's kinda the difference between Ralph Kiner and Gary Sheffield (I know both did a lot more than just hit HRs). Or the difference between Ichiro and Craig Biggio (again, I know both did a lot more to deserve induction - but let's just look at the HRs and Hits).

Take a look at how many players have gotten 2000 hits in ten seasons - it is a short list and only Stan Musial, Pete Rose and soon enough Ichiro will have done it in the post-WW 2 era.

By the way, if Michael Young does it, then he is a lock in my opinion, considering how good you have to be to get 2000 hits in ten seasons.


350 HR in 10 seasons? A few more guys have done that, including Albert Belle and Juan Gonzalez. Averaging 35 home runs over a decade is pretty incredilble. Pujols just joined this group this season.

How about 2000 strikeouts in ten years OR 200 wins in ten years?

It is surprising to see how many players hit these ten-year "peak" milestones, but did not hit the magic hall of fame numers (500, 3000, etc)

And it is interesting to see how many reached the big, magic numbers, but didn't hit the peak milestone numbers.



As a Rangers fan, I must say that Michael Young is a 6-time all-star who has 200 hits at 2B, SS, and if he keeps up the pace this year, 3B. And he got a gold glove at the toughest of those positions, along with a batting title. If he reaches 2000 hits in ten years then he is a HoFer in my opinion.

Michael Young needs a lot more than that to get in. I'm not sure even half of this board thinks he's on a HOF track at the moment. 2500+ hits and a .300+ BA will be the bare minimum to get him consideration.

[Edgartohof]

Take a look at how many players have gotten 2000 hits in ten seasons - it is a short list and only Stan Musial, Pete Rose and soon enough Ichiro will have done it in the post-WW 2 era.

By the way, if Michael Young does it, then he is a lock in my opinion, considering how good you have to be to get 2000 hits in ten seasons.


What about a guy who gets 2,000 hits in 9 years?

Of Musial and Rose, neither had 2100 hits in 10 years (2056, Musial; 2067, Rose). Even Hornsby "only" had 2085 hits in 10 seasons (1920-1929)

Ichiro is on pace for 251 hits this season, giving him 2026 hits . . . in just 9 years!!! That would tie him with Musial who did it in 10!). So what do you think he'll have after next season? A good 2200+!!!

[Jsquared83]

What about a guy who gets 2,000 hits in 9 years?

Of Musial and Rose, neither had 2100 hits in 10 years (2056, Musial; 2067, Rose). Even Hornsby "only" had 2085 hits in 10 seasons (1920-1929)

Ichiro is on pace for 251 hits this season, giving him 2026 hits . . . in just 9 years!!! That would tie him with Musial who did it in 10!). So what do you think he'll have after next season? A good 2200+!!!

A whole lotta singles in there though..

[mwiggins]

Why not just call the thread "I think Michael Young should be a Hall of Famer"?

[Brad Harris]

ROFL

Indeed.

[JDD]

Michael Young was discussed in another thread... heck I even chimed in.

[Cougar]

Micsmith makes a pretty fair argument.

Historically, guys that do what Young has done, in terms of accumulating hits while playing a key defensive position (or bouncing between key positions), get into the Hall.

One can contest the value of the hits, if they're disproportionately singles, but if there's enough of them, it's enough for the writers.

[STLCards2]

Why not just call the thread "I think Michael Young should be a Hall of Famer"?

Or even better: "My vailed attempt to make a Michale Young thread, not appear as a Michale Young thread." :laugh JK!

[jalbright]

this is being merged into the Michael Young thread.

[mwiggins]

Micsmith makes a pretty fair argument.

Historically, guys that do what Young has done, in terms of accumulating hits while playing a key defensive position (or bouncing between key positions), get into the Hall.

One can contest the value of the hits, if they're disproportionately singles, but if there's enough of them, it's enough for the writers.

"Enough" would be 3,000 I think.

[Cougar]

"Enough" would be 3,000 I think.

Certainly.

But if Young gets to 2400-2700, while maintaining a career .300 BA, I suspect that might be enough too.

[JDD]

He'll need that many SINGLES...

[nerfan]

He'll need that many SINGLES...

No, he won't. He plays a premium defensive position and has a lot of the stuff writers like, 6 All-Star games, a GG, a batting title. I think the writers will be VERY friendly to him.

[Jsquared83]

No, he won't. He plays a premium defensive position and has a lot of the stuff writers like, 6 All-Star games, a GG, a batting title. I think the writers will be VERY friendly to him.

2 dingers last night. Having a career year so far. Another batting title would be a nice addition to his resume. Still, the 105 OPS+ is kind of an eyesore, even for a GG SS. Counting numbers are his ticket.

[nerfan]

2 dingers last night. Having a career year so far. Another batting title would be a nice addition to his resume. Still, the 105 OPS+ is kind of an eyesore, even for a GG SS. Counting numbers are his ticket.

I'm just saying he needs his numbers to make the BBWAA's HoF, not my personal Hall.

[JDD]

While his current level of play is fantastic, I still maintain he started playing at a very high level about three years too late.

He really needs to make it up on the back end, and play much better that what we normally expect from someone in his late 30s (when he gets there).

It comes down to holding off father time. He might turn into another Carlos Baerga, he might not. He's playing better than Carlos, but will he avoid falling apart?

[Seattle1]

If he winds up with, say, three or more additional 200-hit seasons, 3,000+ career hits, and is able to maintain a .300+ career batting average why not put him in the HOF? Unless he turns out to be on steroids or something.

[RubeBaker]

I said it the last time his name came up, and I'll say it again.

Is Michael Young a hall of famer?

NO

Thank you and have a nice day.

[machinehead11]

While his current level of play is fantastic, I still maintain he started playing at a very high level about three years too late.

He really needs to make it up on the back end, and play much better that what we normally expect from someone in his late 30s (when he gets there).

It comes down to holding off father time. He might turn into another Carlos Baerga, he might not. He's playing better than Carlos, but will he avoid falling apart?

Molitor did quite a lot during his last years. In fact, he played at a high level until his final season (he had a mediocre '98 season). Sure, he got an earlier start than Young (Molitor started playing at an all-star level at age 22), but the fact that he finished strong and finished with over 3300 hits shows that Young can at least get to around 3000 if he continues his high level of play until his retirement year. At least I hope so.

[Paul Wendt]

It comes down to holding off father time. He might turn into another Carlos Baerga, he might not. He's playing better than Carlos, but will he avoid falling apart?
It's too late for Michael Young to be Carlos Baerga! and for now he is more like the opposite.

Baerga "didn't do anything" after he turned 27. Young has 2004-2009 since then, about as long as Baerga's career before that age.

As batters:
PA OPS+
3457 115 Baerga before 27
2438 _80 Baerga at 27 and after

1777 _86 Young before 27
4053 113 Young at 27 and after

[Cowtipper]

This year he hit .322 with 22 home runs and 68 RBI. That was the second highest batting average of his career, and it tied for the second most home runs he's had in a season.

Young has quietly put together a fairly impressive resume. Six straight All-Star games, a Gold Glove...he needs to do more to be a Hall of Famer, for sure, but I think he may be Hall of Fame worthy one day.

[Paul Wendt]

Park factors should account for the vast majority of the issues, and are certainly therefore quite useful. However, they can't and don't catch everything. In this instance, if the heat in a park is particularly notable, but can be handled for a few days (a three or four day series) but might become more wearing over 10 days or 2 weeks (a reasonable homestand), I don't see how the park effect factor as calculated would completely nail that one aspect of the park's real life effects.
Regarding this particular failure of park factors: if true then we should see the a relatively poor record for the Texas Rangers at home. Right? They play homestands but all of of their visitors play short series there.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Young took a step forward and a step backward toward the HOF this year. His step forward was hitting .322 with 22 HRs, boosting his career BA to .302. I think it's real important for Young to keep his lifetime BA over .300 to make the HOF, as he won't seem like a HOFer without that.

For a guy who's played for the same team for his entire career, Young's career is pretty truncated. He's shifted from 2B to SS to 3B, and the shift to 3B makes his offense look less impressive than it would if he were a SS. He has a poor defensive reputation, but he was won the AL Gold Glove at SS in 2008. This is going to hurt Young in the long run; his image will be blurred, and he won't be considered outstanding at any one position. That would make him a multi-position star, but I don't see him being thought of like Harmon Killebrew, Pete Rose, or even Dick Allen. He'll be something of a Tommy Leach, but Tommy Leach isn't a HOFer, so how much better than Tommy Leach do you have to do to make a HOF?

[Cowtipper]

These can be combined:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=62861

[Fuzzy Bear]

The guy who Michael Young is most comparable to, IMO, is Gil McDougald. Both of these guys played second, short, and third in their careers. Young's batting stats are superficially more impressive, but McDougald has a higher career OWP, and McDougald was an AL ROY (in Mickey Mantle's rookie season no less).

Bill James rated McDougald highly in his 2000 Historical Baseball Abstract, but not at HOF level. Young's done about as much to date as McDougald did in his entire career. How much better than McDougald does Young have to be to be a HOFer?