Dtwncbad

I appreciate your explanation.  My point was really more along the lines of. . .if your team has Escobar batting 3rd, your offensive lineup probably sucks.

Norris was released.  Angels can grab him.  Part of the fun of being a fan is hoping for a big value find.  I just have a gut feeling (which is worth nothing) that Norris is going to be better in 2017 than what the Angels currently have on the roster.  I would be very happy to take a chance on this guy.

Norris was released.  Angels can grab him.  Part of the fun of being a fan is hoping for a big value find.  I just have a gut feeling (which is worth nothing) that Norris is going to be better in 2017 than what the Angels currently have on the roster.  I would be very happy to take a chance on this guy.

Norris was released.  Angels can grab him.  Part of the fun of being a fan is hoping for a big value find.  I just have a gut feeling (which is worth nothing) that Norris is going to be better in 2017 than what the Angels currently have on the roster.  I would be very happy to take a chance on this guy.

I feel like there is a really simple context to view rbi that settles and resolves what it is, and what value it has.
RBI is a historical stat, not a predictive one.
It simply keeps track of something that happened in the past.
But it has very little predictive value. Which player is more likely to be a high impact offensive player next year, the guy that had 64 rbi or the guy that had 89 rbi?  You can't even begin to try to answer that question.  So in that predictive value, it is meaningless.
But does rbi tell a historical story?  Sure. Smith led his team in rbi two years in a row.  OK.  I now now something about Smith that already happened.
Is Smith now a good bet to be a high impact offensive player next year.  I have no idea.
Smith had the highest OPS on the team the last 2 years.  That is historical data but it also has predictive value.
Two guys with the same number of rbi can be drastically different in terms of their offensive value.
Two guys drive in 100.  Are they both great players?  No idea.
One could hit .240 batting 4th behind a mess of beast players.  And one could drive in 100 batting 8th behind a bunch of slugs.
So even at 100 rbi there is not much predictive value.
Just to be fair though, given a while season of at bats, you can get to an rbi number that is more reliable.  Rbi between (about) 50 and 110 are in the slush zone.  Once you get 115 or so rbi, it is pretty darn hard to knock in that many runs unless you are a high impact bat.
So I don't care much or even notice rbi in the slush zone of 50ish to 110ish--in terms of predictive value or as an indication of a players ability offensively.
But tell me a guy got 640 plate appearances and drove in 38?  Yeah I think I know something about that player that will likely continue.  Tell me a guy drove in 138?  Yeah, my money is on he is a legit MVP caliber offensive player.
Unless the rbi number is not in that slush zone, rbi is nothing more than a bean counting historical number.
Outside the slush zone, it is a decent bet to mean something as a predictor or as an indicator of talent.
 

No attempt to change your mind, but why?  That's kind of puzzling to me.  He is a very good person who is a family man and charitable and plays the game the right way.  Is it the money?  I personally will never hold a contract against a player unless they are cheaters or they quit (stop trying) once they have the guaranteed contract.  Pujols doesn't fit those descriptions, so what's the beef?  Just curious.

No attempt to change your mind, but why?  That's kind of puzzling to me.  He is a very good person who is a family man and charitable and plays the game the right way.  Is it the money?  I personally will never hold a contract against a player unless they are cheaters or they quit (stop trying) once they have the guaranteed contract.  Pujols doesn't fit those descriptions, so what's the beef?  Just curious.

No attempt to change your mind, but why?  That's kind of puzzling to me.  He is a very good person who is a family man and charitable and plays the game the right way.  Is it the money?  I personally will never hold a contract against a player unless they are cheaters or they quit (stop trying) once they have the guaranteed contract.  Pujols doesn't fit those descriptions, so what's the beef?  Just curious.

You heard it here first:
"Howbout" Trout
 

I think he will call him "Weetsy".
"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."
 

I think he will call him "Weetsy".
"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."
 

I think he will call him "Weetsy".
"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."
 

I think he will call him "Weetsy".
"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."
 

I think he will call him "Weetsy".
"Weetsy called a good game today, and Troutsy did his thing of course, and Simsy made two great plays.  Skaggsy didn't have his best stuff, but Maybsy picked him up good with that catch in left.  Cronsy should be back tomorrow."
 

I think this is why Sherman Johnson's agent will not even discuss a 10 year extension for him that would otherwise be an obvious.

To be clear, he doesn't do all the Christmas shopping.  He just finishes it.

So I can break my solar lease and tell my wife the seven year itch is legal?
 

To be clear, he doesn't do all the Christmas shopping.  He just finishes it.

To be clear, he doesn't do all the Christmas shopping.  He just finishes it.

To be clear, he doesn't do all the Christmas shopping.  He just finishes it.

Free agency really has become so much less fun for the fans.  I wish owners would get smarter overall in terms of contract length.  The market is a function of player wants and owner willingness.  I get it.  But when will owners learn?
You can't have collusion but at some point you can hope for consensus, which is not the same.  Contracts longer than 3 years for free agents really should be rare.  Most free agents are 30+ yrs of age.  It would be reasonable to give three years and then take a new look at the 33 or 34 yr old to see what they have left.
If owners could smarten up a bit and not piss all over themselves for free agents with 5, 6, 7 or more year free agent contracts, maybe the league would be better with teams not trapped in mediocrity.
To be clear I am not talking about a rule about contract length (Trout and Harper types, of course).  I am just talking about showing some wisdom, and having that wisdom have an effect on a typical contract length for free agents.

I don't think people having their own firm, settled opinion about Hamilton makes them "obsessed".  The subject is still relevant because the Angels are still paying him.  The great divide on Hamilton is between those that are done making excuses for him and those that will never be done making excuses for him.  That divide will remain forever.  The frequency of it being mentioned will drastically reduce when he is finally off the payroll releasing the Angels of the constant reminder of what a complete disaster he was for this team.

Free agency really has become so much less fun for the fans.  I wish owners would get smarter overall in terms of contract length.  The market is a function of player wants and owner willingness.  I get it.  But when will owners learn?
You can't have collusion but at some point you can hope for consensus, which is not the same.  Contracts longer than 3 years for free agents really should be rare.  Most free agents are 30+ yrs of age.  It would be reasonable to give three years and then take a new look at the 33 or 34 yr old to see what they have left.
If owners could smarten up a bit and not piss all over themselves for free agents with 5, 6, 7 or more year free agent contracts, maybe the league would be better with teams not trapped in mediocrity.
To be clear I am not talking about a rule about contract length (Trout and Harper types, of course).  I am just talking about showing some wisdom, and having that wisdom have an effect on a typical contract length for free agents.

I doubt Heyman has any info at all on the Angels lurking on any significant names.  It's all about promoting himself.  Lots of baseball information people use all the same tricks for clicks.  In that sense, Heyman is no different.  But in one sense Heyman is different.  He is actually a complete jerk, fueled by his own uppity attitude and self-righteousness.
But the bottom line is speculating a big name being connected to a big market team "hauls in" a pretty good number of clicks.  I can't see the Angels signing Bautista for any number that is believable, so I say there is no story here (other than noticing an obvious case of Heyman executing click food). 

I have never really bought into idea that the Pujols contract is a problem.  He is a decent player with a big name.  He underperforms the dollars, yes.  But the contract is not an obstacle.
The Angels are financially limited by Arte's newly found discipline.  They are not limited by the existence of the Pujols contract.