Michael Young and Lance Berkman

[Tank]

Cross them off your wish list. They're both retiring.

[jshep]

There are going to be sportswriters making HOF arguments for Michael Young when that time comes, aren't there

 

I can just feel it coming.

[Taylor]

Crossing them off my wishlist

 

 

 

 

 

from 2005.

[Ochocinco!]

Neither should be in the HOF

[DW711]

Berkman should at least be considered.

[ukyah]

i've never understood all the vitriol directed towards michael young. he's had a lot of success in the major leagues and people seem to want to take it away from him and demean him.

 the guy had a stellar career.

[nando714]

Who's wishlist?

[nmh]

Tip my cap to Michael Young. He put up 7 seasons above .300 and routinely was at or above 700 plate appearances. Knew to hang it up after his big contract ran out. Quality big leaguer each team wants to have.

[Brent Maguire]

i've never understood all the vitriol directed towards michael young. he's had a lot of success in the major leagues and people seem to want to take it away from him and demean him.

 the guy had a stellar career.

I think it has to do with many announcers and analysts overrating him. He definitely had a really solid career no doubt. 

[Jason54858]

Berkman should at least be considered.

No he shouldn't

Berkman going in the HOF would open a flood gate. Berkman and Young were great players, but not HOF great.

[Brent Maguire]

Berkman and Young shouldn't be grouped together.

Berkman ended up being about twice the player Young was.

No real comparison as Berkman at least make a a case for the HOF. Young was an above average player, not a borderline HOF candidate.

[rick99gtp]

Berkman ended up being about twice the player Young was.

No real comparison as Berkman at least make a a case for the HOF. Young was an above average player, not a borderline HOF candidate.

 

Strange how skewed your view is of Berkman over Young.  I wouldn't be so flip about Michael Young and what he accomplished in his career.

 

Berkman played 1 more year than Young and still had 470 hits less (6 seasons of 200+ hits by Young).  Besides OBP and homerun totals, Young is equal to or better than Berkman in every way.  So, in my opinion, the comparison is every bit real and a worthwhile conversation to have.

 

Both class acts.  It was fun to watch them both play.

[Spencer]

Michael Young, UCSB alum. I always liked him

[405z06]

 

 Besides OBP and homerun totals, Young is equal to or better than Berkman in every way. 

 

So aside from getting on base and hitting for power, Young was just as good as Berkman? lol

[YouthofToday]

Michael Young was perhaps the most overrated player in baseball in the last decade.

[rick99gtp]

So aside from getting on base and hitting for power, Young was just as good as Berkman? lol

 

You're missing the point.

 

The point is...it's a worthwhile conversation to have in respect to whether Michael Young is equivalent to Lance Berkman.  Clearly they play two different positions and have held a different spot in the lineup.  You can't compare that.  But, overall career numbers you can.

 

They both had nice careers.  Young a 7-time All-Star; Berkman a 6-time All-Star.  Whether or not either are HOF material, I don't know.

[YouthofToday]

Neither player should be in the Hall. Young does not deserve the 5 percent to even stay in the ballot after the first year.

Berkman at least deserves consideration -- Young does not.

[rick99gtp]

Quite the opinion you have there. Why does Berkman deserve a consideration more than Young?

Is just not clear to me what Berkman did that puts him over the top.

Edited January 31, 2014 by rick99gtp

[gotbeer]

Michael Young had a great career.  I wish our 2b or SS could have put up the numbers he put up in his prime.  

 

Berkman as a career .900 hitter is pretty impressive.  To put it in perspective.  Berkman had a higher career OPS than Vlad.  That and OBP was the the only thing higher than Vlad, but still for a career, to finish with a +900 OPS isn't something to dismiss.  

[Broad Street]

Just because Berkman was a key cog in the "Killer B's", does not merit him consideration for the HoF. And saying that he and Michael Young aren't even comparable is laughable.

 

Numbers don't lie. Opinions do.

[tdawg87]

Quite the opinion you have there. Why does Berkman deserve a consideration more than Young?

Is just not clear to me what Berkman did that puts him over the top.

 

I think it's because Berkman has the better "sexy stats" of the two. What I mean by that, is Berkman had 350+ HR, 1000+ RBI, and a career OPS of .943. That .943 OPS is what sets him apart, as it is in the top 25 all time. Young had a good amount of hits, and while OPS isn't really a great stat to use in a vacuum, his was only .787. Young is closer to a Garrett Anderson type of player.

 

That said, I get what you are saying. I believe Berkman was the better hitter overall, but it's not by so much that one is clearly a HOF candidate and the other clearly isn't. I think both will get "consideration", particularly Berkman, but ultimately it's unlikely that either one gets in.

[ukyah]

Just because Berkman was a key cog in the "Killer B's", does not merit him consideration for the HoF. And saying that he and Michael Young aren't even comparable is laughable.

 

Numbers don't lie. Opinions do.

 

 

am i remembering wrong? i thought the killer b's were biggio, bagwell and bell.

[Blarg]

Even though Berkman only had two more full seasons in the majors than Young his WAR stats look more like had twice as many years in the big leagues.

 

Berkman 55.8

M. Young 26.9

[tdawg87]

The Angels have had their own killer B's over the years: Belcher, Blanton, and bMathis

[NrM]

No he shouldn't

Berkman going in the HOF would open a flood gate. Berkman and Young were great players, but not HOF great.

 

You seriously trying to call michael young a great player?

 

The dude had a career .734 road OPS and was pretty much a one dimensional player.