Bradley's Very Own Injury Thread

[17 Seconds]

like adam dunn.

 

I was a Dunn supporter in the offseason, but keep in mind you have to weigh his offensive production with his awful outfield defense. That defense negates at least some of his value offensively.

 

milton bradley is a pretty poor defender too. at least dunn isn't hobbling around out there and wouldn't make us hold our breath every time he has to use his legs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Bradley has a career .358 wOBA, despite being pretty bad the first ~800 PA's of his career when he was only 22-24 years old. For reference, 27 OFs were better than that mark last year(26 if you don't think Jack Cust is an outfielder).

[dew1679666265]

like adam dunn.

 

I was a Dunn supporter in the offseason, but keep in mind you have to weigh his offensive production with his awful outfield defense. That defense negates at least some of his value offensively.

 

milton bradley is a pretty poor defender too. at least dunn isn't hobbling around out there and wouldn't make us hold our breath every time he has to use his legs

 

As SSR said, Bradley is actually an above average right fielder defensively. His UZR is 13.2 in RF (11.7 UZR/150).

 

Dunn in right field in his career is a -15.0 UZR defender (-41.8 UZR/150). This season so far Dunn is at -11.6 UZR, Bradley is at -1.6.

 

Fielding metrics aren't flawless by any means, but that's a pretty huge difference between the two - enough to make up for any inaccuracies. I'll agree with the durability issue - and that's one of the biggest reasons I supported Dunn (and I didn't think Bradley would be significantly better offensively minus defense).

[17 Seconds]

i cant believe people still actually put any stock whatsoever into UZR and defensive metrics in general.

 

i never said bradley is as bad as dunn anyways. just that he's bad.

[dew1679666265]

i cant believe people still actually put any stock whatsoever into UZR and defensive metrics in general.

 

i never said bradley is as bad as dunn anyways. just that he's bad.

 

What metric would you prefer? UZR has him as an above average defender and from what I've seen in his career, that's probably pretty accurate. I was concerned before the season that his defensive skills would have dropped off after not playing the field last year.

 

I haven't seen all that many terrible plays so far this year.

 

EDIT: I'm also curious as to what reason you have for "not putting any stock whatsoever" in UZR. Being wary of any defensive metric is perfectly understandable, but they also all have their merits (mostly, at least).

[17 Seconds]

i cant believe people still actually put any stock whatsoever into UZR and defensive metrics in general.

 

i never said bradley is as bad as dunn anyways. just that he's bad.

 

What metric would you prefer? UZR has him as an above average defender and from what I've seen in his career, that's probably pretty accurate. I was concerned before the season that his defensive skills would have dropped off after not playing the field last year.

 

I haven't seen all that many terrible plays so far this year.

 

like i said, i don' put any stock into any defensive metrics.

 

and i don't doubt that he's been a good defender in the past, but that's the past. now he reminds me of cliff floyd hobbling around there. just because you don't see him make any terrible plays doesn't mean he doesn't suck. he doesn't get to any balls out there.

 

edit: as for defensive metrics..... they just aren't reliable at all imo. they jump around every year like crazy. anyways, i just don't see how you could possibly put defense into a statistic and have it be accurate on any sort of regular basis. there are just way too many factors and variables. it's just not logical.

[dew1679666265]

like i said, i don' put any stock into any defensive metrics.

 

and i don't doubt that he's been a good defender in the past, but that's the past. now he reminds me of cliff floyd hobbling around there. just because you don't see him make any terrible plays doesn't mean he doesn't suck. he doesn't get to any balls out there.

 

edit: as for defensive metrics..... they just aren't reliable at all imo. they jump around every year like crazy. anyways, i just don't see how you could possibly put defense into a statistic and have it be accurate on any sort of regular basis. there are just way too many factors and variables. it's just not logical.

 

I see where you're coming from on the defensive metrics. I don't agree that they have no value, though. There are some I outright disregard - such as one a few years ago that had Andruw Jones (before his age caught up to him) as a middle of the road defender. That said, UZR hasn't really given any outlandish analyses that I've seen.

 

As for Bradley's ability, what I've watched I've seen a pretty average defender. He gets to most of the balls he should and generally fields them cleanly. UZR might be erring to the positive for Bradley, but I don't think significantly. He certainly hasn't been poor this season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

UZR has Bradley as a pretty poor defensive RF so far this year. Last year in a similar amount of playing time it had him as an awesome defensive RF.

[imb]

and i don't doubt that he's been a good defender in the past, but that's the past.

 

*posts slash stats from 10 years ago*

[17 Seconds]

and i don't doubt that he's been a good defender in the past, but that's the past.

 

*posts slash stats from 10 years ago*

 

yeah, because those are the stats i always show from bradley. 2004-2006 is 10 years ago, right?

 

*posts bradley's arlington numbers and 2003 numbers that make him look a lot better than he is*

[Guest]

how can you possibly say that when he has a career .823 OPS?

 

How can you possibly keep throwing his career OPS number like it's supposed to predict exactly what he's going to do this year? You're including his first three season in the league (ages 22-24).

 

It's like say that Sammy Sosa averaged a HR every 32 at bats in 1991 (age 22 season) and because of that it's obvious that he used steroids.

 

Players get better and not everybody comes into the league and rakes right away. From 2003-08 Milton had an OPS of .879.

 

And right on cue, here we go with the skewed Bradley stats to make it look like he's been a badass hitter over the 5 years. Saying he's been an .879 OPS hitter from 03-08 is dumb. No, more like he's been a 1.000 OPS hitter for the last 600 at-bats (most of which came in Texas, big surprise) and has been his typical .820ish OPS guy the previous 3 years

 

04- .786

05- .835

05- .818

 

so uhh, yeah... he's been an .879 OPS guy for the past 5 years. Except for those 3 straight year where he, uh, wasn't

 

The reason I talk about his career OPS is because he's performed to that level for most of his playing career.

 

You know how many seasons he's had with an OPS over .835?

 

THREE

 

And that's being really generous, considering the total PA's of those 3 seasons really add up to about 2 full seasons worth of at-bats.

 

I don't understand why this guy continues to get some kind of free pass, like he has an awesome track record of hitting or something, and he's sure to turn it around. Guess what guys? For the vast majority of his career, he hasn't been a great hitter.

 

Again, can you please tell me why his first three seasons in the league matter to you so much?

 

Young players struggle when they first come up. There are more players who struggle when they come up than there are guys like Ryan Braun who come up and rake.

 

Not to mention that you're completely ignoring that he played his games in LA, Oakland and San Diego for four years. You keep beating the whole Arlington thing into the ground yet you ignore the other side of that.

 

2004: .823

2005: .861

2006: .890

2007: .964

2008: .872

 

Milton Bradley's road OPS' over the past five years.

 

I don't think many people expected Bradley to come in and OPS 1.000 again this year. There's the Arlington factor plus his high BABIP from last year. But I don't think many people would have predicted he would have a .728 OPS either.

[17 Seconds]

how can you possibly say that when he has a career .823 OPS?

 

How can you possibly keep throwing his career OPS number like it's supposed to predict exactly what he's going to do this year? You're including his first three season in the league (ages 22-24).

 

It's like say that Sammy Sosa averaged a HR every 32 at bats in 1991 (age 22 season) and because of that it's obvious that he used steroids.

 

Players get better and not everybody comes into the league and rakes right away. From 2003-08 Milton had an OPS of .879.

 

And right on cue, here we go with the skewed Bradley stats to make it look like he's been a badass hitter over the 5 years. Saying he's been an .879 OPS hitter from 03-08 is dumb. No, more like he's been a 1.000 OPS hitter for the last 600 at-bats (most of which came in Texas, big surprise) and has been his typical .820ish OPS guy the previous 3 years

 

04- .786

05- .835

05- .818

 

so uhh, yeah... he's been an .879 OPS guy for the past 5 years. Except for those 3 straight year where he, uh, wasn't

 

The reason I talk about his career OPS is because he's performed to that level for most of his playing career.

 

You know how many seasons he's had with an OPS over .835?

 

THREE

 

And that's being really generous, considering the total PA's of those 3 seasons really add up to about 2 full seasons worth of at-bats.

 

I don't understand why this guy continues to get some kind of free pass, like he has an awesome track record of hitting or something, and he's sure to turn it around. Guess what guys? For the vast majority of his career, he hasn't been a great hitter.

 

Again, can you please tell me why his first three seasons in the league matter to you so much?

 

Young players struggle when they first come up. There are more players who struggle when they come up than there are guys like Ryan Braun who come up and rake.

 

Not to mention that you're completely ignoring that he played his games in LA, Oakland and San Diego for four years. You keep beating the whole Arlington thing into the ground yet you ignore the other side of that.

 

2004: .823

2005: .861

2006: .890

2007: .964

2008: .872

 

Milton Bradley's road OPS' over the past five years.

 

I don't think many people expected Bradley to come in and OPS 1.000 again this year. There's the Arlington factor plus his high BABIP from last year. But I don't think many people would have predicted he would have a .728 OPS either.

 

Umm no, I haven't ignored the fact that he's played in pitcher's parks most of his career. I've touched on it several times.

 

If you'd read over the thread, you'd see that I thought Bradley would probably be goodoffensively, based on his recent road numbers that you showed. But like I said, I never thought it was a sure thing like most people seemed to think. All offseason it was "if this dude stays healthy he's going to be SICk". People were worried about his health and his brain, but nobody questioned if he'd for sure be good.

 

I just didn't understand why people thought he'd for sure be a badass hitter. Look at those numbers you showed. In 04 and 05 he was the same mediocre bat I'm talking about. Not a bad hitter (I've never said Bradley is a bad hitter), but the same mediocre mid .800's OPS guy. He was good in 06 and 08 and great in 07, but that was only for 98 at-bats.

 

Now please listen to what I'm about to say. I said going into the season that I expected an like a .290/.380/.500 type line. HOWEVER, I thought it was far from a sure thing. Why? Because he's shown that he can be badass one year and then mediocre the next year. In 03 he was badass. How did he follow it up? By 2 straight years of these "bleh" numbers I'm talking about.

 

The point is we guaranteed 30 mil to a guy who MIGHT give youan .890 OPS for MAYBE 115 games. If yopu're paying that much for not even a full season, he should be more of a sure thing. Bradley showed in 04, 05, and now 09, that he is not a sure thing.

 

People are all "I don't understand it? Why isn't he badass?". Umm, because for most of his career, he hasn't been badass, that's why.

 

.835 OPS Bradley is showing up yet again for another season in his career, but people are shocked.... even though he's done it multiple times.... even after having what looked like a breakout season. I'm sure people were shocked that he was mediocre for the 2 years following his awesome 03. Now people are shocked again that he's following up his awesome 2008 with a subpar. I'm sure later on he'll have a monster season followed by another one where he doesn't get hot, and the same people will be saying "I don't get it. How could we have possibly seen this coming?"

 

Cliffs-

-I thought Bradley would be good

-I was still worried that he wouldn't be

-People are shocked that he's having a mediocre season, even though he's shown multiple times in his career that he has seasons like this between good seasons

 

People just need to realize the difference between a proven hitter and a hitter who can be good at times. There are countless players in MLB history who oculd be awesome at times but never really put it together for an entire career. Bradley is obviously one of those guys. People just don;'t want to admit it for some reason, even though he's doing it AGAIN.

 

I'm calling it right now. Bradley will finish 09 with an .835 OPS, then have a .915 OPS in 2010, then he'll start off slow again in 2011 and these same people will be baffled and not understand how it could possibly happen.

 

So one last time- People shouldn't have expected Bradley to suck, but they shouldn't be flabbergasted that it's happening either. His bat was a risk all along.

[Guest]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

[Sammy Sofa]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Meet dextermorgan.

[Joe_Cub]

damn, i missed his ph appearance today

 

maybe i'll be able to see another later this week

[17 Seconds]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

maybe you should read my posts. i said i expect him to fnish the season around .835 or so. that's the part i'm not surprised about. i'm surprised that he's been THIS bad, but i except he'll pick it up.

[17 Seconds]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Meet dextermorgan.

 

nothing of substance yet again. not my fault you don't understand my posts.

[Larry Horse]

damn, i missed his ph appearance today

 

maybe i'll be able to see another later this week

 

Great point. Is this scenario going to be a season-long thing? Bradley tweaks something, PH's for 7-10 days and then gets back in the lineup and tweak something again. Go on the DL, get as close to 100% as possible and see if you can come off of the DL and play for oh, lets say 3 weeks in a row.

[Sammy Sofa]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Meet dextermorgan.

 

nothing of substance yet again. not my fault you don't understand my posts.

 

It's impossible for anyone here to not understand your posts since you pound the same stubbornly simplistic points regarding career numbers and park factors into the ground over and over again regardless of what anyone counters with.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Why? Bradley was always going to have a wide range of potential numbers. Two months of numbers not that far outside the realm of possibility should not surprise anybody. If he was healthy all year at at 722, yeah, I'd be surprised. But why do you have to be surprised that he's been banged up and had an OPS 100 points below his career? If that was an option before the season, would you really say, "no way that happens." Guys struggle when switching teams/leagues all the time. Plus, again, it's 2 months. 2 months of banged up subpar peformance by Milton Bradley should not be a surprise to anybody.

[17 Seconds]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Meet dextermorgan.

 

nothing of substance yet again. not my fault you don't understand my posts.

 

It's impossible for anyone here to not understand your posts since you pound the same stubbornly simplistic points regarding career numbers and park factors into the ground over and over again regardless of what anyone counters with.

 

god your act is obnoxious. it was proven in the other thread that you don't even read my posts, so it's not a surprise that you're ignoring the fact that career numbers and park factors are a very small part of thew arguments di've made.

 

i'll say it again... either read my posts, or don't respond. i'm sick of you bringing up stuff that i've already responded to over and over and over again

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, you rarely hinge your arguments on career numbers. What was I thinking?

[17 Seconds]

Yeah, you rarely hinge your arguments on career numbers. What was I thinking?

 

you're simply not reading my posts.

[NCCubFan]

OK, both of you just stop responding to each other. We don't need yet another pissing match in another thread.

[Arnold Layne]

If you're not surprised that Bradley has a .722 OPS after two months, you're insane.

 

Why would anyone be surprised that playing the field may impact his at bats? He was a DH last year and hit fine. Fresh legs work wonders.

 

It is not unrealistic to think that a player who never has more than 300 AB a season and who recently became a DH might be impacted by wear and tear.