Michael Young is the absolute king of overrated players. That does not mean he’s bad. In fact he’s been quite good over the course of his career. But he has been considered far better than he really is — has been lauded for his game-changing intangibles, leadership and MVP-worthiness despite there being scant evidence of any of those things — since almost the first day of his major league career.
So of course when Sports Illustrated polled 228 major league players about who the most underrated of their ranks is, they chose Michael Young. I’d laugh if I wasn’t on the verge of tears.
What is the source of Young’s svengali-like power? I can get how people close to him — journalists, other players — can like the guy a whole hell of a lot, but why does it render them unable to view him objectively? Other players apart from maybe Derek Jeter don’t have this problem. Journalists and players who surround them see their strengths and weaknesses and assess them more or less fairly. But not Young. Woe be unto the person who dares suggest that Young is not one of the best players in the game and one of the best leaders to ever wear a uniform. If you say that Young is merely very good and has, at times, not been an ideal leader, you’re a hater.
The response will clearly be that I don’t get it. But really, I’m begging someone, anyone, to tell me what it is I don’t understand. What does Michael Young actually provide that causes a guy who gets MVP votes and kudos in total disproportion to his measurable accomplishments to be underrated? If it’s just leadership, why is he considered a leader when other players who have acted in exactly the same way he has (i.e. having little tantrums when asked to move off a position for a better player) considered selfish?
I honestly do not understand. And I apparently never will.