Perfect example of using stats as a drunk would use a light pole. In 2004 Aramis was 4th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman In 2005 Aramis was 4th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman In 2006 Aramis was 5th in OPS in MLB for 3rd baseman. He is top five 3rd baseman in baseball. Pay him like one. You are incapable of discussion without insults. It's unbelievable. OPS is generally regarded as the most important stat for a player, so I don't see how stating the fact that his declined three consecutive years is a crutch. It's a bloody basic observation on value. I have no problem with paying him good money. But he wants top 10 in baseball money, and he has never been in the top 10 in production. At 5/75 he will be one of the most overpaid players in the league. In 1968 Carl Yastrzemski hit .301/.426/.495 for a .921 OPS. That ranked him #1 in BA, #1 in OBP, #4 in Slug, and #1 in OPS. In 2005, Aramis had a .926 OPS. I already know what you're gonna say. "The AL in 1968 was a ridiculous pitcher's league! You can't compare the two!" Yastrzemski had a 195 OPS+, Aramis a 136. Perhaps I'm being a bit over-the-top in this, but I was just trying to point out that you absolutely have to make adjustments year in and year out. The difference isn't nearly as huge between 2005-2006 as between 2005 and 1968, but there's still a difference. OPS+ adjusts for that.