Bradley still running his mouth

[SouthSideRyan]

 

So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care?

That's not what I said.

 

The idea would be, the bad chemistry of Bradley impacts on-field performance in ways that can't be measured easily, if at all. That's obviously much different than there being no impact.

 

Would you agree that on-field performance is measured accurately via statistics? If so, shouldn't you be able to look at the statistics of individual players, and based on their relationship with Bradley, judge him on that.

 

I mean, if he was this monstruous force that, it affected how people performed on the field, shouldn't it have AFFECTED HOW PEOPLE PERFORMED ON THE FIELD??

[treebird]

He's a [expletive] idiot, has always been an [expletive] idiot, will be a [expletive] idiot in seattle, and will always be an [expletive] idiot

 

I hope he tears his ACL tomorrow and blames the Cubs for it

 

don't attack jonnyred just because you don't like his posts

[Rob]

There's too many idiots amongst the fans and the sports media that think Hendry made the right move in trading him and don't care what Silva does. Anything stupid thing Bradley says just reinforces that in their minds.

 

Every Cubs fan I know in person (i.e. not people on this board) had the exact same thing to say about the Bradley/Silva trade: "I'm just glad he's gone." Most people don't want to think about the other stuff. They just don't really care, or want to be told why (I think) they should.

 

Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff.

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

 

Irony much?

 

I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it.

 

But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

Can we rename "Occam's Razor" as "Hendry's Razor" on this site?

[KaiserCesar]

 

So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care?

That's not what I said.

 

The idea would be, the bad chemistry of Bradley impacts on-field performance in ways that can't be measured easily, if at all. That's obviously much different than there being no impact.

 

Would you agree that on-field performance is measured accurately via statistics? If so, shouldn't you be able to look at the statistics of individual players, and based on their relationship with Bradley, judge him on that.

 

I mean, if he was this monstruous force that, it affected how people performed on the field, shouldn't it have AFFECTED HOW PEOPLE PERFORMED ON THE FIELD??

 

It's called separating variables, determining causation instead of just correlation etc etc. It COULD have an impact on statistics but its not really possible to objectively determine what that impact is because you don't know what is affecting what. In an ideal world we would conduct a scientific experiment where we create one Cubs team where Bradley is a jerk and one where he is nice and see who is better, but we can't, so relax.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

It seems like people just assume that they'll perform better if they are happy, but they want to be made happy, so it's in their best interests to believe it.

[badger1679666666]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

It seems like people just assume that they'll perform better if they are happy, but they want to be made happy, so it's in their best interests to believe it.

 

As someone in the field, it's pretty difficult to operationalize "happy" in a quantifiable way in order to do meaningful research on it I would think.

[Banedon]

Bradley is not on the team anymore? Why is there 5 pages of blathering and foaming at the mouth about him?

[BigSlick]

I don't mind saying I wish we kept him -- even after this, which means virtually nothing to me.

[BigSlick]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

It seems like people just assume that they'll perform better if they are happy, but they want to be made happy, so it's in their best interests to believe it.

 

As someone in the field, it's pretty difficult to operationalize "happy" in a quantifiable way in order to do meaningful research on it I would think.

oh god finishing up a degree right now seeing the word "operationalize" makes me see red

[davearm2]

There's too many idiots amongst the fans and the sports media that think Hendry made the right move in trading him and don't care what Silva does. Anything stupid thing Bradley says just reinforces that in their minds.

 

Every Cubs fan I know in person (i.e. not people on this board) had the exact same thing to say about the Bradley/Silva trade: "I'm just glad he's gone." Most people don't want to think about the other stuff. They just don't really care, or want to be told why (I think) they should.

 

Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff.

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

 

Irony much?

 

I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it.

 

But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do.

Show me where I said anything close to this.

 

If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said.

[Sosa21MVP]

Milton should still be a Cub. I mean for cripes sake, we have opened ourselves to the remote possibility of Carlos freaking Silva making our roster. Granted it should not happen but I have little faith in the baseball gods to smite him from our sight.

[gflore34]

Milton should still be a Cub. I mean for cripes sake, we have opened ourselves to the remote possibility of Carlos freaking Silva making our roster. Granted it should not happen but I have little faith in the baseball gods to smite him from our sight.

 

I have complete faith Silva will continue suck, as for Cub management recognizing how badly he sucks not so sure.

[wvcbxl]

Milton should still be a Cub. I mean for cripes sake, we have opened ourselves to the remote possibility of Carlos freaking Silva making our roster. Granted it should not happen but I have little faith in the baseball gods to smite him from our sight.

 

I have complete faith Silva will continue suck, as for Cub management recognizing how badly he sucks not so sure.

 

This is my fear as well, though I must admit that Carlos has started out very well in his mission to make things easy. :wink:

[NCCubFan]

I have complete faith Silva will continue suck, as for Cub management recognizing how badly he sucks not so sure.

 

This is my fear as well, though I must admit that Carlos has started out very well in his mission to make things easy. :wink:

That was a bright spot in yesterday's suckfest.

[Guest]

Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff.

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

 

Irony much?

 

I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it.

 

But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do.

Show me where I said anything close to this.

 

If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said.

For someone that is accusing others about making inaccurate statements about your position, you really should re-read your first quoted post here. I've never, ever heard anyone here claim they "know everything about baseball" and every single person here would strongly say they don't.

 

Also, based on what I remember you say about your background, you understand that people have to make decisions all the time with an incomplete set of information. To say that nobody has any business spouting off on what Hendry should or shouldn't have done with Bradley is to say that nobody should ever comment on any move made by any professional sports team they are a fan of since they don't have equivalent information. That is a completely ridiculous position to take.

 

Also, as a quick aside, we do have a "clue" about what was going on in the clubhouse based on the reports from the media and quotes from Cubs players themselves.

[NewUserName]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

It seems like people just assume that they'll perform better if they are happy, but they want to be made happy, so it's in their best interests to believe it.

 

Fontenot and Soto really looked unhappy last year

[davearm2]

Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff.

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

 

Irony much?

 

I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it.

 

But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do.

Show me where I said anything close to this.

 

If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said.

For someone that is accusing others about making inaccurate statements about your position, you really should re-read your first quoted post here. I've never, ever heard anyone here claim they "know everything about baseball" and every single person here would strongly say they don't.

 

Also, based on what I remember you say about your background, you understand that people have to make decisions all the time with an incomplete set of information. To say that nobody has any business spouting off on what Hendry should or shouldn't have done with Bradley is to say that nobody should ever comment on any move made by any professional sports team they are a fan of since they don't have equivalent information. That is a completely ridiculous position to take.

 

Also, as a quick aside, we do have a "clue" about what was going on in the clubhouse based on the reports from the media and quotes from Cubs players themselves.

More nonsense that doesn't resemble any position I've staked.

 

Hey if you want to rip on Hendry for the Aaron Miles fiasco, or for giving Soriano way too much money for way too many years, then knock yourselves out. In those situations, the statistics really do tell the story... or at least the majority of it.

 

With Bradley, statistics had little or nothing to do with why he was traded. As we all know he was traded for off-the-field reasons. The gravity of those circumstances, the posters here (myself included) have no reliable way of judging.

[Guest]

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

 

Irony much?

 

I have never said that Bradley didn't have an impact on clubhouse chemistry or even on performance. I've only ever said that it can't be quantified, and that the best route we could take would be to ignore it.

 

But you, you say that he definitely had a net negative effect. And that it was a big one. And you rail against us for not being close enough to the situation to have any idea what was going on. But I didn't see you in the clubhouse last year... No, your only "proof" of your statements is that Jim Hendry, a man with a very long line of questionable decisions, has the same opinion on the matter that you do.

Show me where I said anything close to this.

 

If I had, then your little rant would've been understandable. But as it is you've simply misconstrued what I've said.

For someone that is accusing others about making inaccurate statements about your position, you really should re-read your first quoted post here. I've never, ever heard anyone here claim they "know everything about baseball" and every single person here would strongly say they don't.

 

Also, based on what I remember you say about your background, you understand that people have to make decisions all the time with an incomplete set of information. To say that nobody has any business spouting off on what Hendry should or shouldn't have done with Bradley is to say that nobody should ever comment on any move made by any professional sports team they are a fan of since they don't have equivalent information. That is a completely ridiculous position to take.

 

Also, as a quick aside, we do have a "clue" about what was going on in the clubhouse based on the reports from the media and quotes from Cubs players themselves.

More nonsense that doesn't resemble any position I've staked.

 

Hey if you want to rip on Hendry for the Aaron Miles fiasco, or for giving Soriano way too much money for way too many years, then knock yourselves out. In those situations, the statistics really do tell the story... or at least the majority of it.

 

With Bradley, statistics had little or nothing to do with why he was traded. As we all know he was traded for off-the-field reasons. The gravity of those circumstances, the posters here (myself included) have no reliable way of judging.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it?

 

(red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret)

[wvcbxl]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

I highly doubt it's been studied in the field of baseball, but there has been similar research in the field of work environments.

Recent research has shown a correlation, but apparently not a simple causal link.

Abstract of such research, and from the conclusions in the full document (p.48):

 

If companies aim at achieving increased performance of their employees, they should be aware that both well-being and job performance are intertwined and have both cause and effect on each other.

[davearm2]

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it?

 

(red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret)

Red: check the context. The quote I was responding to from SSR: "Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff." That's called hyperbole, so I responded in kind.

 

Blue: I've addressed. Bradley situation is unique inasmuch as the reason for the trade is behind-the-scenes stuff. Nowhere have I suggested that a blanket policy of not critiquing moves is appropriate.

[Brett]

I have complete faith Silva will continue suck, as for Cub management recognizing how badly he sucks not so sure.

 

This is my fear as well, though I must admit that Carlos has started out very well in his mission to make things easy. :wink:

That was a bright spot in yesterday's suckfest.

 

So rarely is it a positive when a guy sucks in Spring Training, but it would have been just our luck for Silva to dominate in Spring Training - just enough to make the rotation, and torpedo the Cubs in his April and May starts.

[Soul]

Honest question: Is there any evidence that people perform better when they are happy? I'm sure there've been studies on it.

 

It seems like people just assume that they'll perform better if they are happy, but they want to be made happy, so it's in their best interests to believe it.

 

I don't even know how we would measure if someone is happy.

[Guest]

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it?

 

(red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret)

Red: check the context. The quote I was responding to from SSR: "Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff." That's called hyperbole, so I responded in kind.

 

Blue: I've addressed. Bradley situation is unique inasmuch as the reason for the trade is behind-the-scenes stuff. Nowhere have I suggested that a blanket policy of not critiquing moves is appropriate.

Red: so you admit you were just being pompous. fine

 

Blue: Yes, you've sorta addressed it. But you're still treating it as an absolute, which is ridiculous and is what everyone is calling you on.

[davearm2]

Of course the unintended comedy is that the folks here that think they do know everything about baseball and everyone else is an idiot and/or uninformed, are themselves uninformed on the most critical elements of the situation.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: unless you were in the Cubs clubhouse day in and day out last year, then you have no clue what was really going on, and therefore you have no business spouting about what Hendry should or should not have done with Bradley.

I'm replying to a direct quote from your embedded post. How can you possibly deny saying it?

 

(red goes with red, blue goes with blue in case you need the assistance of color coding to interpret)

Red: check the context. The quote I was responding to from SSR: "Most people don't know anything about baseball. My friends are all idiots when it comes to this stuff." That's called hyperbole, so I responded in kind.

 

Blue: I've addressed. Bradley situation is unique inasmuch as the reason for the trade is behind-the-scenes stuff. Nowhere have I suggested that a blanket policy of not critiquing moves is appropriate.

Red: so you admit you were just being pompous. fine

 

Blue: Yes, you've sorta addressed it. But you're still treating it as an absolute, which is ridiculous and is what everyone is calling you on.

LOL you certainly have a fascinating view of the world Tim. By your logic, about 98% of this board is pompous. I guess I fit right in.

 

As for the topic at hand (Bradley), ridiculous would be to neglect to treat the situation as a special case, which is all I'm suggesting.