Also, while I don't think Nolasco is a good pitcher (at least in 2016), it's not unheard of for a guy to have a three year span of a significantly lower FIP than ERA and then finally put it together and get the ERA down.
I'm starting to think you might have a mental disability. I brought up Greinke to show that pitchers CAN play to their FIP numbers even if they haven't done it in the past. But of course you somehow rearrange my post and claim that I'm comparing Nolasco to Greinke. Classic. Are your panties bunched up when I say Greinke and Nolasco are both right handers? How about when I say they're both starting pitchers? They both play in MLB?
It's certainly true this can occur in shorter 3 year spans. With that being said, I think it's pretty apparent after 6 years what it is in the case of Nolasco, however. On the flip side, Grienke had "beaten" his FIP 4/5 previous seasons where he pitched > 100 Innings. Makes for a tricky situation for any FO, such as the Twins with Nolasco, interested in signing someone with this profile. With that being said, the subject at hand just merits a more thorough investigation rather than mindlessly invalidating FIP. If nothing else, a 3 year span like this ought to raise an eyebrow. At some point the results on the field, ERA, have to outweigh what we expect the results to be in projective data. Where is that line? I don't quite know, but it's an interesting discussion.
You make no sense and no one agrees with you that Pujols' contract is better than Nolasco's. Have a nice day
Yeah, the Angels definitely didn't get to the playoffs as often as one might've hoped (and they got swept in 2014 to boot in the ALDS) with all of these mega signings in Pujols, Hamilton, etc. Combine that with a horrific farm system and it's a pretty grim picture. Nolasco at least doesn't hurt you as much.
I agree that there are some pitchers who can consistently outpitch their FIPs, and those who simply can't match them. But let's not act like Nolasco has never had success with his ERA in his career. In 2008 in 212.2 IP, he posted a 3.52 ERA and a 124 ERA+. Then in 2013 he had a 3.70 ERA in 199.1 IP with a 101 ERA+.
Not nearly as much. We're comparing a player who has 50 million and three years left who at least has a chance to be a mediocre 5th starter vs. a player with 6 years and 165 million owed left who will be extremely mediocre, especially for the position he's playing- which is a far more important position than a 5th starter. Plus, Nolasco is manageable. If he posts a 5.50 ERA through May, you can stick him in the pen and there will be a hundred different options in the minors to be the fifth starter. If Nolasco can finally match his FIP, you can eat his contract and move him and get a decent return (remember how much the market valued SP this offseason). If and when Pujols is mediocre, you can move him to DH, but not much else. You can't bench him and you sure as hell can't move him.
You're missing the point AGAIN (shocker). Nobody is saying that Nolasco has had a better career than Pujols has. But we're comparing their current contracts now. Do you understand that?
I tend to disagree and think the Angels can deal better with pujols than twins can with nolasco cause they had 100 mil more in revenue last year Lets face it all these 10 year contracts are not real good but the big money teams can deal with them
You're looking completely at production (2 win player) without factoring in the money payed at all. I already made an Excel sheet earlier in the thread in which I concluded that the Angels will lose 102 million dollars in the next 6 years of Pujols' contract. That's 102 million dollars they could've allocated to other resources. But since money doesn't matter to you in contracts, and only production does (2 wins) I guess Pujols' contract would be better even if it was for a trillion dollars.
