Dye

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=76907:date=Jan 21 2010, 08:14 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Jan 21 2010, 08:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=76903:date=Jan 21 2010, 09:08 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I understand the theory behind it, but are you telling me that you or anyone on this site would be satisfied with production like that? I'm just not buying it. We had a handful of bench players who put up similar stats as those last season, and we are ready to run them out of town. Gomes would be no different IMO.