Dye

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=76903:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76902:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76900:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Jan 21 2010, 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know about 2 "great" years.

2005 very good year
2006 sucky
2007 sucky
2008 sucky
2009 good

I just don't like the idea of paying this guy several million after a decent year, when he was going nowhere fast for 3 years in a row, when there are clearly better options out there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Dude, his OPS+ in 2006 and 2007 were 95 and 105. Those are almost mathematically, perfectly, average.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2006: .216/.325/.431
2007: .244/.322/.460

I think in a case like this, you can toss OPS+ out and just go ahead and assume we'd be extremely pissed with a 4th OF who produces numbers like those.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

All OPS+ does is reconstitute those numbers when accounting for park factors. You can't toss it out on the one hand, and then point to its components as superior evidence.