Bradley and Lou go at it.

[JimSorgi]

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.

It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb.

 

I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat.

[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.

It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense.

I'll simply refer you to check each player's BR page for evidence if you truly need to see it.

[JimSorgi]

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.

It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense.

I'll simply refer you to check each player's BR page for evidence if you truly need to see it.

I'm not doubting it, I just don't understand why you used RBI at all.

[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.

It isn't silly to dismiss RBI when comparing players. It's an awful stat. If you can prove Derosa was more valuable without RBI, then do it. It would make more sense.

I'll simply refer you to check each player's BR page for evidence if you truly need to see it.

I'm not doubting it, I just don't understand why you used RBI at all.

Well, the original conversation originated with someone asking how long it's been since Milton has driven a run in. I merely answered that question, and the conversation transpired from there.

[Arnold Layne]

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.

 

Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb.

 

I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat.

 

 

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

[Sammy Sofa]

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team.

[Arnold Layne]

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team.

 

:shock:

 

Or, if I were to look at the history of those players RBI per year, I could determine that player B was a consistent run producer, and player A wasn't.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Arnold Layne

[JimSorgi]

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team.

 

 

hahahahha

what a fool, amirite?

[UK1679666180]

 

 

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

It leads to more important questions rather proving fact.

 

My next question would be, how well did they hit? (which is the most important question), what spot of the order did they hit, and who hit in front of them.

 

There are enough variables in there for me to question any RBI difference by itself.

 

Raul Ibanez drove in 25 more RBis last year over Mauer, yet Mauer was a much more productive hitter.

[Sammy Sofa]

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team.

 

:shock:

 

Or, if I were to look at the history of those players RBI per year, I could determine that player B was a consistent run producer, and player A wasn't.

 

If you're only looking at RBI's per player each year? That wouldn't be a safe assumption at all. Sure, that COULD be the case, but there's much better and more accurate ways to determine whether or not a player produces with people on base than only looking at RBI totals. RBI's hinge too much on the performance of the players ahead of that hitter to be an effective stat on their own in evaluating how well he hits with guys on base. A low total in RBI's could very easily be reflective of a player who is an excellent hitter and very good at driving in runners but is on a team where the players ahead of him are awful and he's up to bat too often with nobody on or in scoring position. 2005 Derrek Lee is a primo example of this.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb.

 

I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat.

 

 

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

So if Pitcher A has 18 wins in 33 starts and Pitcher B has 5 wins in 33 starts, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

Of course exaggerated examples like that make it obvious which player was better. The point is that going by RBI totals is extremely unreliable due to all of the different factors. Like I said, Loney has been bad this year but has 49 RBIs.

 

Why use such an unreliable stat when there are much better options?

[Guest]

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.

 

Because RBI totals prove absolutely nothing. This has been explained multiple times. It'sl ike using wins to judge pitchers it's dumb.

 

I'll say this for the 3rd time. Loney has been very poor at the plate this season and still has 49 RBIs. That is a perfect example of why it's a garbage stat.

 

Or a couple of Joe Carter's seasons:

 

1990: .681 OPS, 115 RBI

1997: .683 OPS, 102 RBI

 

Heck, Carter has 1445 career RBI (57th all-time) yet he sports an amazing .306 career OBP.

 

Fun fact: There are 139 players with higher career batting averages than Carter's OBP and Carter doesn't even rank in the top 1000 all-time in career OBP. B-R lists the top 999 career OBP guys all-time and the 999th guy has a career .333 OBP, 27 points higher than Joe Carter.

[dew1679666265]

So if player A hits 29 RBI in a season with 500 PA, and player B hits 120 RBI in 500 PA, it doesn't tell you anything?

 

If those are the only stats you're better off assuming that player B was on a better team.

 

:shock:

 

Or, if I were to look at the history of those players RBI per year, I could determine that player B was a consistent run producer, and player A wasn't.

 

Which player would you prefer?

 

Player A: .335/.418/.662/1.080 107 RBI

 

Player B: .265/.324/.487/.811 114 RBI

 

Player C: .263/.347/.575/.922 128 RBI

[Monco]

If Bradley had men on base more and walked less,he would most likely have more rbi also. But 16 rbi at this point is pretty hard to defend.

[Sammy Sofa]

If Bradley had men on base more and walked less,he would most likely have more rbi also. But 16 rbi at this point is pretty hard to defend.

 

Indeed.

[dew1679666265]

If Bradley had men on base more and walked less,he would most likely have more rbi also. But 16 rbi at this point is pretty hard to defend.

 

Yeah, 16 RBIs at this point is far too low, but it's not entirely his fault. He's underperforming, but so are the guys hitting in front of him.

[Tracer Bullet]

If Bradley had men on base more and walked less,he would most likely have more rbi also. But 16 rbi at this point is pretty hard to defend.

 

No one's defending Bradley's 16 RBIs. They're saying judging a player by his RBI total is pointless.

[javy knows my name]

Heh, I'm not one to buy into the whole team chemistry concept but Milton Bradley is a guy that makes you rethink that position.

 

Bradley's teammates have always adored him.

That is completely untrue.

 

Yes, a few players out of the hundreds that Milton has played with have publicly said he's a good teammate. A few. The general consensus around MLB is that Milton is a huge a-hole and isn't liked by most of his teammates.

 

Link? Evidence? Nonsense?

 

And Jeff Kent doesn't count. Everybody hates Jeff Kent.

 

ahahahah I love this

[UMFan83]

The Chicago Sun-Times recently published an off-hand remark Piniella made to a coach about Milton Bradley while venting in his office in San Diego in May, after one of its reporters overhead the remark in the adjoining clubhouse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-02-cubs-brite-chicago-jul02,0,3892212.story

 

Did anyone catch what that quote is?

[CyHawk_Cub]

The Chicago Sun-Times recently published an off-hand remark Piniella made to a coach about Milton Bradley while venting in his office in San Diego in May, after one of its reporters overhead the remark in the adjoining clubhouse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-02-cubs-brite-chicago-jul02,0,3892212.story

 

Did anyone catch what that quote is?

 

Should we start a poll of the possibilities? :-)) I'm guessing none of the choices would pass through the bad-word filters

[apete6]

The Chicago Sun-Times recently published an off-hand remark Piniella made to a coach about Milton Bradley while venting in his office in San Diego in May, after one of its reporters overhead the remark in the adjoining clubhouse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-02-cubs-brite-chicago-jul02,0,3892212.story

 

Did anyone catch what that quote is?

 

According to 670 The Score, it was "We paid this guy $30 million and nothing is his fault."

[CUBZ99]

The Chicago Sun-Times recently published an off-hand remark Piniella made to a coach about Milton Bradley while venting in his office in San Diego in May, after one of its reporters overhead the remark in the adjoining clubhouse.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-02-cubs-brite-chicago-jul02,0,3892212.story

 

Did anyone catch what that quote is?

 

According to 670 The Score, it was "We paid this guy $30 million and nothing is his fault."

 

Sounds like a fair quote to me.