Bradley and Lou go at it.

[fasttrack21]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

[Derwood]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

 

yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley.

[fasttrack21]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

 

yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley.

You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's.

[Derwood]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

 

yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley.

You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's.

 

no, you're missing the point. you're using RBI's as your main point of comparison. The fact that DeRosa had 16 RBI on April 27th had less to do with DeRosa being better (his numbers at the time sucked) and more to do with opportunities. Bradley has been bad, but he's also played less frequently and had fewer opportunities to drive guys in.

[Illini Iceman]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

 

yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley.

You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's.

 

no, you're missing the point. you're using RBI's as your main point of comparison. The fact that DeRosa had 16 RBI on April 27th had less to do with DeRosa being better (his numbers at the time sucked) and more to do with opportunities. Bradley has been bad, but he's also played less frequently and had fewer opportunities to drive guys in.

 

If Bradley were a true run producer he would will the guys ahead of him to get on base and into scoring position so he could drive them in.

[Derwood]

To date, DeRosa has had 87 PA's with RISP (155 with men on base)

 

Bradley has had 48 PA's with RISP (87 with men on base)

 

I wonder why one guy has more RBI than the other?

[fasttrack21]

True, but RBI's are not an effective way to judge Bradley's production with Auto-Out and Theriot in front of him. I agree with what you're saying though: (so far) Bradley's not worth his paycheck.

RBI's aren't the best way, sure. But when your big run producing offseason acquisition has 16 RBI's at the end of June... that's very telling.

 

For comparison, Mark DeRosa drove in his 16th run on April 27th.

 

yes, and he had a .618 OPS at the time, which only proves that guys were getting on base ahead of DeRosa at a much higher clip than the guys in front of Bradley.

You're missing the point. The point is, we traded a run producer to clear payroll to add a supposed bigger run producer. And that supposed run producer has been a complete bust. Meanwhile, the guy we traded has three times as many RBI's.

 

no, you're missing the point. you're using RBI's as your main point of comparison. The fact that DeRosa had 16 RBI on April 27th had less to do with DeRosa being better (his numbers at the time sucked) and more to do with opportunities. Bradley has been bad, but he's also played less frequently and had fewer opportunities to drive guys in.

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

[fasttrack21]

To date, DeRosa has had 87 PA's with RISP (155 with men on base)

 

Bradley has had 48 PA's with RISP (87 with men on base)

 

I wonder why one guy has more RBI than the other?

So DeRosa has fewer than twice the opportunities but yet more than three times the RBI's? You're making my point...

[Derwood]

To date, DeRosa has had 87 PA's with RISP (155 with men on base)

 

Bradley has had 48 PA's with RISP (87 with men on base)

 

I wonder why one guy has more RBI than the other?

So DeRosa has fewer than twice the opportunities but yet more than three times the RBI's? You're making my point...

 

I'm not saying Bradley is hitting as well as DeRosa, but that it's not entirely on him, that's all. Bradley needs to hit better AND his teammates need to give him more opportunities

[KingCubsFan]

To date, DeRosa has had 87 PA's with RISP (155 with men on base)

 

Bradley has had 48 PA's with RISP (87 with men on base)

 

I wonder why one guy has more RBI than the other?

One of the reasons is that Bradley has been hurt, and Hendry needs to be held accountable for that due to Bradley's track record

[fasttrack21]

To date, DeRosa has had 87 PA's with RISP (155 with men on base)

 

Bradley has had 48 PA's with RISP (87 with men on base)

 

I wonder why one guy has more RBI than the other?

So DeRosa has fewer than twice the opportunities but yet more than three times the RBI's? You're making my point...

 

I'm not saying Bradley is hitting as well as DeRosa, but that it's not entirely on him, that's all. Bradley needs to hit better AND his teammates need to give him more opportunities

Agreed. But this whole discussion started when someone asked how long it's been since he drove a run in (over two weeks). He's had PLENTY of opportunities to drive in runs over the last two weeks. He's just not getting it done.

[DiamondMind]

...Soriano even had the stones to tell the Tribune that if Bradley "is not 100 percent to help the team, we don't need him." Soriano added that Bradley is "a great guy."

 

This from a player who has been so cold during the past 32 games (25 of 140, .179) that you wanted to bat him 10th in the lineup. As bad as Bradley has been -- and he's been brutal -- he's still hitting nine points higher than Soriano and has an OBP 63 points higher.

[Tracer Bullet]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

So if he had an OPS of 1.000, you'd still be mad if he didn't have as many RBI as DeRosa?

[Butterscup1679666578]

If he was OPS'ing 1.000 he'd probably have more RBI than DeRosa.

[fasttrack21]

If he was OPS'ing 1.000 he'd probably have more RBI than DeRosa.

Exactly.

[17 Seconds]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

 

Comparing RBIs is useless in every situation. RBI's are a result of lineup position, lineup talent, luck, and rate stats. He was brought here to hit. Look at stats that show how he's done that.

 

James Loney has a .732 OPS and has 49 RBIs.

[chasinf5s]

say what you want, 16 RBI's is completely unacceptable

[17 Seconds]

say what you want, 16 RBI's is completely unacceptable

 

never said it was

[fasttrack21]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

[17 Seconds]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

 

Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance.

 

Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls.

 

I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

[fasttrack21]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

 

Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance.

 

Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls.

 

I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes?

[XZero771679666304]

Yes. Absolutely. I realize the importance of OBP and SLG in comparison to counting stats. But, Milton Bradley was unarguably brought here for one primary reason -- to be a run producer. He has failed. Comparing his production to DeRosa in terms of RBI's is not only valid, but should be expected.

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

 

Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance.

 

Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls.

 

I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes?

 

There is literally a laundry list of stats that are better indicators.

[17 Seconds]

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

 

Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance.

 

Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls.

 

I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes?

 

There is literally a laundry list of stats that are better indicators.

 

exactly

[JimSorgi]

 

It should only be expected from people who don't really know anything about stats.

What a dumb statement. I'm not some idiot that thinks RBI's and Runs scored are the important stats. Don't respond to my posts assuming so. What I, very clearly, stated, was that while other stats certainly mean a whole lot more when evaluating a player... when discussing player A, the former Cub was traded to make room for player B, their run producing stats are absolutely fair game for conversation.

 

Ugh. No they're not. They play in completely different lineups. You just don't get it. RBIs are a worthless stat to look at when determing whop has been a better hitter. RBIs are as much about luck and lineup positiomning as they are about actually performance.

 

Nobody is saying the RBIs themselves don't matter. But to use them to compare playuers is dumb, yeah. You should be using rate stats and stuff like that. Thing that a player... you know.... actually controls.

 

I'll say this again. James Loney has 49 RBI's and has a .732 OPS. Do you understand that Loney has more RBIs than many many players who have been much better than him this season?

So is run driven in % fair game? Or is it all about OBP/SLG and nothing else in your eyes?

 

There is literally a laundry list of stats that are better indicators.

 

I can't think of an offensive stat worse than RBI.

[fasttrack21]

There is literally a laundry list of stats that are better indicators.

I agree. But to completely dismiss RBI's when comparing a player you traded to the player you traded him to acquire, is silly.

 

I could easily make a strong case that DeRo has been significantly better without using RBI's in the conversation. I don't get the uproar with bringing it up.