LolCardinals

There's lolscats, loldogs and I'm stealing this idea from Kizzing Suzy Kolber and lolnfl.

 

 I know I shouldn't take pleasure in the misfortune of others, but the Cardinals don't count as others.

Tags: 
2009 Playoffs
lolcardinals
Submitted by Rob G. on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:59am
Return to Homepage

Comments

Submitted by Cubster
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 7:32am

He should-a hopped before trying to make that catch.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 10:52am

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/18149...

his "if I were the GM" article...

#3 and #4 on his list

Sign Chone Figgins

Avoid any/all long-term free-agent deals

seems he has a bit of a conflict to resolve there, I guess it depends on what he thinks long term means and what Chone would sign for (not gonna be less than 4 years I'm guessing).

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 6:39pm

How about #1? The Cubs no longer have a strikeout pitching staff, which raises the stakes on the fielding. And we all know how shaky that looked at times, especially in the outfield.

The Cubs were second in the league in strikeouts and third in the league in defensive efficiency. Though I agree Fukudome is a bit short on leg speed to play center.

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 6:50pm

it's gonna suck going into 2010 with z, lilly, dumpster, wells...wait, no, that rules.

disregard.

the IF D isn't bad, imo...and there's a player TBD in the OF that's going to be a major factor in how good or bad it's gonna play.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 6:52pm

yeah, was gonna check his strikeout assertation and forgot about it...

I'm of the bias now that team defensive efficiency is skewed by good pitching based off nothing more than the Cubs the last few years. I'm sure there's studies to be done and I'm probably wrong, but the Cubs sure didn't look like a good defensive team for most of the season...average maybe, but not good.

I read somewhere some time ago that Wrigley was particularly kind to outfield defensive numbers.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 6:59pm

A small outfield should, you would think, help those numbers, but Wrigley does have an outfield with walls made out of brick, which is going to tend to hurt the outfielder's numbers. There's also about 0 foul ground, which I would think would also hurt defensive efficiency.

I think Derrek Lee's catching is probably the biggest factor. In 2003 our DE was 23rd. In 2004, it was 11th (this is with the Alou, Sosa outfield and Aram at 3rd).

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 7:16pm

dlee makes theriot look better than he is.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 10:57am

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/200...

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:00am

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/pro...

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:11am

besides the fact it wasn't blamed...you can't really blame all his woes on his back or collar. he had issues with both, but his contact quality was pure shit.

that and a decline in power...yow.

his D is solid, though. fun player with a bit of pop even with less pop.

the guy came on strong with better contact down the stretch, but it wasn't "classic" hardy by any means...he was poking stuff into the field rather than driving it. it was kinda sad for a kid so young. at least he's finding a way to adapt...that's something.

i wouldn't read too much into his demotion, honestly...it seems to be a shit move by MIL to buy them some time and value on JJ. he came back looking better everywhere but his classic swing, though.

Submitted by Mike Vail
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:12am

It's not Caturday yet is it? Let's hope there's more Fails to post. Hoping for a WS without te Yankees and Deadbirds.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:13am

nice

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:16am

IT'S CATURDAY....POST SOME F'N CATS!!!!

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 11:46am

The Matt Holliday link edition

http://hirejimessian.com/2009/10/09/sweet-uncle-lo...

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:06pm

Funny! I need them to win the next two because I have LAD in 5 on the playoff predictions.

Submitted by navigator
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:33pm

oh my aching

Submitted by navigator
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:41pm

"The ball hit my stomach," Holliday said

Submitted by navigator
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 12:40pm

actual headline at the St.Louis Dispatch:

Playing like Cubs

Meltdown in Game 2 of NLDS is reminiscent of the play that characterizes bumbling team in Chicago.

which is linked to this article...
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists...

Submitted by Paul Noce
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:29pm

Bernie Miklasz is a fucking tool. I hope the lolcatz eat his eyes.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:42pm

Eat your heart out, Atlanta... these are the worst fans in baseball. I hate Cardinal fans far more than I hate the actual Cardinals.

Submitted by Brick
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 5:34pm

Well, I have to smile. I know the reason he's lashing out at the Cubs is because of how angry and sad he is about the Cardinals. Puts a little spring in my step.

Submitted by Rob Richardson
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:04pm

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/sweetspot/0-6-32/Would-...

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:18pm

Look, there are all sorts of ways to win baseball games. Could the Cubs win 90-some games with Alfonso Soriano in left field, Kosuke Fukudome in center field, and Pat Burrell in right field? Sure. Baseball's a funny game. But it's hard to win 90 when you open the season having already given away four of five games with unspeakably awful outfield defense. If the Cubs are going to trade Bradley to the Rays, they should at least ask for someone who can actually, you know, play the outfield (for example, Matt Joyce).

The Cubs got into this mess by forgetting that there's no DH in National League games. Now would be an excellent time to remember.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:34pm

Pat Burrell love aside, I got to agree with that point.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:41pm

If OF defense doesn't matter, there's a guy who's even better than Burrell named Jake Fox.

But this isn't about being good anymore - it's about saving face.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:43pm

Meh.

Submitted by Rob Richardson
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 2:50pm

"If OF defense doesn't matter, there's a guy who's even better than Burrell named
Jake Fox."

Really? Cheaper sure, but better?

Submitted by John Beasley
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:08pm

Considering age and salary - definitely a better bargain/bet.

Better production in 2010? Flip a coin.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:18pm

I would wager Burrell has a better OPS next year than Jake Fox, yes.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 4:27pm

OK, but that would mostly be a result of Burrell's better OBP. They're likely to slug about the same and probably have similar batting averages. If there's anyone this side of Adam Dunn who is as bad on outfield defense as Fox, it's Burrell. But like I said, if it's going to be close, which it should, why not go with the younger, cheaper guy who already happens to be in your organization? The money you swap Bradley for could be someone who's overpriced but brings something to the team we don't already have. There are plenty of bad contracts out there. Michael Young?

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 4:43pm

but only on a few teams likely willing to take Bradley....

the Cubs just aren't going to have a lot of options here...

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 7:01pm

True, but we don't necessarily have to fill the outfield spot with whoever we get for Bradley.

Gary Matthews Jr is another potential target, I'd think.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 7:24pm

definitely don't have to take an OF back, but my guess is Hendry will be lucky to get 2 legit offers for this and for the sake of the rest of the offseason, he'd be best to move on the first one that isn't a complete screw job.

I guarantee the Angels will not take on Milton Bradley.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:04pm

Texas seems like a more likely destination than Tampa to me; the Tampa speculation just seems like it started because it had interest in MB last year, when he was coming off his career year and not getting sent home two weeks before the season ended.

And as a target, Young as a 2B - obviously more expensive than Burrell - but fits into the Cubs' configuration much better than Burrell.

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:08pm

michael young is their default team captain and the face of the organization.

Submitted by Sweet Lou
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:13pm

But Young is owed a ton of money ($64 million over the next four years) and Rangers owner Tom Hicks is in financial trouble. MLB has loaned him money and they are pressuring him to sell and/or reduce expenses. Trading an expensive Young for a less expensive Milton Bradley may make financial sense, even if it doesn't make baseball sense.

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:14pm

ah yeah...the hicks/money thing.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:16pm

well that's how it started, but then we had the reports that they actually talked about Burrell over the last 2 days...

Ron Washington seemed to like Milton, then there were the reports that the rest of the organization was annoyed by his protecting his numbers quotes. And Michael Young is still sort of good and owed a lot of money, the Cubs at best are looking for something where the money evens out or hopefully save some cash, they certainly don't want to take on another $16M per year through 2013.

Submitted by John Beasley
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:57pm

It's not perfect, but it seems more logical to me than Tampa. I'm sure there's some Bradley opposition in Texas, but in terms of the money they need to save, it seems like a no-brainer, especially if the guy they get back is someone who can actually play baseball.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:15am

There's a general feeling in Dallas that the major difference between the 2008 and 2009 offenses (first and seventh, down .7 runs/game) was the absence of Bradley. I am not sure how much that comes from management, though.

Submitted by Charlie
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 8:07pm

Gary Matthews Jr is another potential target, I'd think.

Please no.

Submitted by MikeC
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:22am

Texas isn't going to trade Michael Young who played with broken bones in his hand with a slim playoff chances the year before to get back Milton Bradley back who faked injuries to protect his stats.

Young even came back from a hamstring injury early at the end of the season this year to play the final week.

Michael Young will give you the shirt off his back to help a team, Milton Bradley will steal your money and sit on the bench whenever he feels like it. Geee who do you think Texas wants on their roster?

Besides the comments about missing Bradley in Texas forget one fact. Josh Hamilton was injured this year and Marlon Byrd and Nelson Cruz more than made up for the absence of Bradley. Going from 32 HR and 132 RBI from Hamilton to 10 HR, and 54 RBI is what is missing in Texas not a mental case named Bradley.

Submitted by navigator
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:42am

Rangers | Not interested in Bradley
Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:09:19 -0700

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Jeff Wilson reports the Texas Rangers aren't interested in Chicago Cubs OF Milton Bradley because he told reporter Gil LeBreton that he could have played at times last year but opted to sit out to make his stats look better for potential suitors in free agency. That didn't sit well with some players and management, especially when 3B Michael Young was playing with broken fingers on each hand.

For some reason it hasn't penetrated Ron Washington's thick skull that Milton Bradley was playing him for a fool, just like he does everyone else.... "I aint never had a problem with Milton because I was always honest with him," Washington said. "If I didn't like what he was doing, I let him know. I didn't let anything fester with Milton."

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:55am

Well if the theory is to trade Young for Bradley, that wouldn't be much of a problem. Sometimes your bosses (in this case a failing owner or maybe MLB) make you do things you don't particularly want to do, such as dump a very popular player on a bad contract for a reasonably popular player on a shorter bad contract.

I think the Washington quote is another pretty telling indictment of Pinheads ability to run a clubhouse, and he's not the first guy to say it.

Submitted by Ryno
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:09pm

edit nvm... I'm tired of Milton Bradley.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:49am

I know how you get all upset when I use facts and all, but here's a couple that disprove your ridiculous argument.

2008 Rangers CF: 25HR's 117 RBI's
2009 Rangers CF: 21HR's 94 RBI's

You're missing 96 RBI's. Any idea why? Could it be that they had about 350 less men on base in 2009?

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:32pm

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091008&c...

says he either wants to be a GM or a non-office job, i.e. a scout...

Hendry and him are buddies, could see him joining the Cubs...

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:33pm

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/p...

the first 2 bullet points sound familiar...

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 3:58pm

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2...

Representatives from the Gila River Indian Community met with the Chicago Cubs about building a new training facility for the team, a move that upset Mesa Mayor Scott Smith.

Submitted by jacos
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 4:03pm

NY Times confirms
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/sports/baseball/...

Submitted by Cubster
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 4:08pm

per CarrieMuskat tweet: Jeff Samardzija to start Fri night for Mexicali in season opener v Hermosillo. Iowa's Bobby Dickerson to manage

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 5:48pm

something I've bitched about for years, described perfectly and good to see some teams are working a solution.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/p...

Submitted by crunch
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 5:53pm

good one.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 9:41pm

Hey that's really great. Nice video.

I always thought PNC had a terrible angle to watch balls and strikes, I wonder if this has anything to do with it.

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 9:52pm

I wish we could see more shots from behind home plate, too.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 6:58pm

Brendan Harris with an RBI triple in 6th to break a scoreless tie...

Submitted by Ryno
on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 10:07pm

Can I Haz A Cheezeburger?

Submitted by Rob G.
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:13am

anyone see that blown call on Mauer should-be double in the 10th? Was Paul O'Neill moonlighting as the LF ump? not that the Twins didn't have their chance...but damn.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 7:15am

That was an awful, awful call. The ump was 20 feet away, right on the line, right on top of the play.

One more reason to add some form of real instant replay to baseball.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:50am

Yuck.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:32am

I'm not completely against instant replay as long as they figure out a way that it won't take the umps 10 minutes to look at the play. The few home run calls I saw this year took forever to figure out. The game is long enough as it is.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:08pm

Just give each team 1 or 2 challenges a game.

There is absolutely no reason a playoff game (or any game, for that matter) should be decided, or possibly decided, by an obviously bad call.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:12pm

To me that's like saying "there's absolutely no reason any game should be decided by an obviously bad pitch".

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:24pm

Well... maybe the team could use their one or two challenges on pitches?

I just hate when bad calls have an obvious impact on an outcome of a game.

Would the Twins have won last night if that call was correct? We will never know, but it very possibly could have made the difference in that game. And there are very easy ways to avoid such situations.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 3:15am

Not that I was trying to sucker you, but had the calls in the playoffs been correct, the Twins couldn't have possibly won Friday night since they'd be watching the game from their living rooms.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 9:22am

True enough... but that, imo, just strengthens the argument for some kind of instant replay/challenge system.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 7:46pm

Not really. There's human error on made by batters, there's human error made by pitchers and fielders and there is human error made by umpires. Why is the last so egregious when the others are acceptable? That doesn't seem logical to me. They all can obviously have an impact on a given game. It makes as much sense as giving the pitchers or batters a mulligan.

Submitted by Charlie
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 8:58pm

Actually, it doesn't. We go to games to watch two teams of athletes compete, and the ability to consistently execute is a huge part of that competition. When we see the umpires fail to execute--worse when we see that failure decide the outcomes of games--it interferes with what we are really there to see: baseball being played.

That doesn't mean that I don't understand that it is just human error, but if we can quickly and unobtrusively prevent or correct some of those umpire mistakes, why not do it?

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 12:23am

That doesn't mean that I don't understand that it is just human error, but if we can quickly and unobtrusively prevent or correct some of those umpire mistakes, why not do it?

1. We know from the NFL, and this experiment with HR's that we cannot quickly and unobtrusively correct some mistakes. It's this type of pandering to outside interests that has given us the 210 minute football game and baseball game.

2. The umpires judgment is part of the game and it has been for over a hundred years. These umpires, in theory, are the best in the world. They've worked their way up from the minor leagues, beat out thousands of other umpires and introducing further instantaneous review not only will belittle them, it's possible it will affect their performance.

3. It's just lame.

Submitted by Charlie
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 6:23am

I guess what I really took issue with was you claiming that mistakes made by players and mistakes made by umpires were equivalent.

'Cause I actually don't care that much about the replay thing. I occasionally enjoy my umpire-fueled outrage. This was a bit of argument for argument's sake, I guess. On my list of things that piss me off in baseball, blown calls by umpire is way, way down the list, far below jumbotrons and Sam Zell.

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 8:15am

Well, the best in the world flat out blew that call.

Instant replay is not the reason for the 210 minute game...a gazillion commercial breaks lengthens the game.

I'd rather have the right call.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 9:20am

Like charlie, I completely disagree that human error by the umpires is equivalent to human error by the players.

I also don't think that NFL replay really makes games that much longer, nor do I feel that replay at all disrupts the flow of the game.

I want the players, and not the umpires, to decide the outcome of the game as much as possible.

Submitted by Aisle 424
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 10:58am

Maybe Instant Replay could be corporately sponsored. That way they lessen the between innings ads and don't lose any revenue because the additional time spent on replays is paid for.

"Remember, as we're checking to see if the umpire was blind, don't forget to stop in Pearl Vision for your own eyesight needs."

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 5:52pm

Seriously, have you guys learned nothing from the NFL experience?

Instant replay in the NFL does not make sure all the calls are correct. It doesn't make sure the 'correct' team wins. It arbitrarily changes some calls, but not the most important calls of the game. It hasn't added really anything to the game, other than 8 minutes. They still blow calls. They still don't even correct the calls that they blow even if it gets reviewed. The vast majority of missed and subjective calls still stand. And just like in any sport, in particular ones with relatively infrequent scoring, one play can change the entire outcome of the game, and you probably don't realize it when it happens.

Yes, they would reverse an occasional call, but it won't make your team any more likely to win.

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 7:49am

I'm sure that reversing the Matt Forte fumble at the Seahawks 2 yard line had no bearing on the Bears' 25-19 win....

It's there, it doesn't have to take "8 minutes" for every replay, and if it can get the right calls made even some of the time, it's worth it.

I agree to disagree TRN.

Submitted by Cubster
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:32am

next: Bradley for Detroit's Jeremy Bonderman (opposed to previous speculation of an Ordonez swap). Bradley could DH some platooning with Ordonez between RF/DH.

MLive.com (Michigan site)/Patrick Hayes

http://blog.mlive.com/its-just-sports/2009/10/fixi...
---
Right Field: The outfield needs a makeover, and it's going to start here. Trade Jeremy Bonderman to the Cubs for Milton Bradley. Both make roughly $10 million per year. Bradley is signed for one more year than Bonderman, but the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him, so it's conceivable they'd pay that final year if the Tigers take him.

Jim Leyland is known for working well with head cases. Gary Sheffield didn't produce in Detroit, but he didn't make waves either. So what you say? Well, in NY he was calling Derek Jeter "not all the way black" and Joe Torre a slave master. He's had nothing negative to say about his Detroit tenure. Bradley is not as crazy as Sheff, this can work.

Before signing with the Cubs, Bradley had a career-year in Texas, with a .999 OPS. Once he escapes the racism in Wrigleyville and comes to the more laid back environment in Detroit, he'll be just fine.

And for those who think Bonderman's still young and can bounce back? You might be right. But it's time to get some of the Seay/Lyon/Bonderman radio-controlled car driving crowd out of here, you know? The Starter: Milton Bradley
---
DH: Magglio Ordonez needs to be moved out of the outfield. Milton Bradley in right is not much of an upgrade defensively, but he does move a little better at this point in his career. Magglio can be the full-time DH and look for him to have a good season. The Starter: Ordonez

Submitted by Charlie
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:52am

Can't say I'm entirely opposed to that trade--at least Bonderman is still young and could improve. However, does that improve the Cubs at all? It leaves us with an hole to fill in the outfield and the lineup (I'm all for a Fox/Hoffpauir combo, but Lou doesn't seem to be open to that), and it doesn't actually improve our rotation which already features Z, Lilly, Dempster, Wells, Marshall/Gorzo/Samardzija/Caridad. I suppose Bonderman has more upside than Marshall, but I'd like to see Sean get another shot--especially if getting Bonderman means we'd have to pay Chone Figgins or the like.

Submitted by crunch
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 1:30pm

"However, does that improve the Cubs at all?"

...no, especially with 4 SP already here worth a damn.

it ties money up while improving nothing that needs improving. actually, the idea of bonderman improving anything would be weird to me at this point. bradley can actually do positive stuff on the field. he had a down season, but it wasn't pathetic like some of the names being brought up for possible cubs milton-dumping partners.

my opinion...hendry needs to cut the cubs' losses on their bad dog they thought they wanted and just try to save some loot to put toward someone else they can actually use.

they are in a position to eat 5m a year on the guy and just call it a lesson learned...maybe less.

bradley at least has upside to a manager/team who can actually be bothered to manage what they're signing themselves up for.

Submitted by Ryno
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 1:59pm

If Bradley is so valuable, as you claim, the Cubs will have no problem getting something nice in return for a trade. Right?

Of course KC & now Texas have told the press to fuck off at the mention of Bradley and the season isn't even over yet. Interesting.

Nobody wants him.

Nobody.

Submitted by crunch
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 2:07pm

i have no doubt that if the cubs want to get rid of bradley to someone at the other team's cost of 4-6m per year for 2 years they will have no trouble doing so.

no, it won't be 29 other teams like it should for that price, but it will be more than 1 or 2, i'd imagine.

and yes, someone wants him at that price. the guy is a big baby, not a broken down ex-ballplayer. it'll take a manager that can actually be bothered to put on a shirt, come out of his office, and interact with him, though. the guy is a lot of work and you have to put the work in.

Submitted by MikeC
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 5:01pm

Why do you always put the burden of coping with Milton on everyone else? Is it just because he is what he is, so every team must just deal with it? That any team that signs him must rip apart their entire world just to make Milton happy?

I say fuck that, Milton was the one preaching how the old Milton was in the past, how he would try harder for a team that commits to him. It wasn't the Cubs saying they would just accept him for who he was. It was Milton saying all the nice bullet points so he could get a contract with no intention of ever changing his behavior.

Milton was the one making the promises about his behavior not the Chicago Cubs. Milton is responsible for his behavior and no one else.

At what point do you figure it out Crunch that Milton needs to control his own behavior?

Submitted by crunch
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 5:19pm

you seem to think a manager doesn't have a responsibility to manage his personnel for some reason...especially one that comes with a known history and handling instructions.

did milton just develop these problems? no. do people know what's up when you bring him around? yes.

he is work. if you want a milton you have to work. you have to put a shirt on, get out of your office, and hold the baby's hand. that's what you do when you get a milton. it's not a mystery. it's not news. it's what you do when you get a milton.

just because you expect and want a guy to man up doesn't mean he will. at what point do you figure out the world doesn't work in a "pull your own weight" manner no matter how much you do?

if you bring a milton...a sheffield...a jeff kent...a sammy sosa...etc. to your team...you have to WORK with these babies a lot more than you would with other players. this is nothing remotely new. you can be disgusted with it all you want, it doesn't change that the operating instructions involve massive inputs other players don't need. what milton does is nothing new. nothing new at all. hell, you were pointing to these issues before and when he got signed...it sure isn't news to you.

hendry/lou committed to a wild player that acts like a baby and he was set loose in the clubhouse without babying the baby. no one should be surprised what happened especially when he's borderline when he is babied.

milton is responsible for his own actions, but this team is bigger than milton. we got a guy making 3-4 million to do the hard work. milton is hard work. this is the kinda crap that got dave miley fired in CIN.

Submitted by Sweet Lou
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 6:45pm

I agree with you Crunch on the role a manager should play, but I don't think any of us knows what went on behind closed doors between Bradley and Piniella.

I know that early in the season, Piniella engaged Bradley, but I don't know if that included "holding his hand." Eventually, whatever relationship existed between the two deteriorated leading to Piniella famously calling Bradley a "piece of shit." Toward the end of the season, Piniella made the comment that it seemed the best way to deal with Bradley was to keep his distance.

As you've mentioned in the past, every player is different and has different needs. A successful manager has to treat the player based on that player's needs. A "one-size-fits-all" approach doesn't work in the locker room or the corporate office.

However, there are some players (and some employees) who can't be managed. I think Bradley is one of them. He has had problems at just about every stop he has made, including at those where the manager said they got along.

So I think blaming Piniella for not handling Bradley correctly is a little unfair. It doesn't appear that there is any way to handle him correctly.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 7:04pm

So I think blaming Piniella for not handling Bradley correctly is a little unfair. It doesn't appear that there is any way to handle him correctly.

You've got a point to a degree, but we're not talking about a black or white scenario. There's only one clubhouse that has been known to have turned against Bradley and that's been Lou's. Also, when Lou had his tirade he said, paraphrasing "I've been letting it go on for a while now, and I'm tired of it". So you can see that he was doing it both before and after.

Lou failed at his job in pretty much every possible way in 2009. Essentially he repeated the behavior that got him out of Tampa. Manage for a couple of years, and if everything doesn't go right, throw up your hands and say "what can I do?". Well, do your job, Lou, that's what you can do.

Submitted by Sweet Lou
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 7:56pm

TRN -- I think Bradley has disrupted other locker rooms in the past. In 2004 Bradley was causing problems in the Cleveland locker room during Spring Training. After not hustling in a Spring Training game, Bradley and Eric Wedge got into a verbal sparring match and Bradley was traded before the season started.

The next year in Los Angeles, Bradley verbally went after Jeff Kent (calling him a racist) and was subsequently traded to Oakland.

In the past, Bradley was traded before he could become a distraction in the clubhouse. Piniella had to put up with his crap for the entire season. I can't argue that Piniella handled Bradley correctly, but history would suggest there is no way to handle Bradley that doesn't result in problems.

Submitted by crunch
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:02pm

well jeff kent...ummmm...

jeff kent is kinda "special" himself. you could count his friends in baseball on 1 hand and i think he prefers it that way.

not trying to excuse milton calling out another player to the press...that's kinda bush...but jeff kent is ummm...yeah. racist might be a bit too far, but he's got a smug superiority complex thing...only kent is confident as hell in his, not edgy as hell like milton's.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:01pm

People get in arguments all the time.

You've got a pretty big factual error in your summary. This is the first time that Bradley didn't last a season with a team - other than the Pads who knew they were getting him as a rental and didn't have a DH slot for him following his ACL surgery.

Submitted by Sweet Lou
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 8:06pm

I worded that poorly. I knew that Bradley lasted more that a season with his previous teams. My point was that once the problems arose in Cleveland and LA, he was traded quickly rather than allowed to disrupt the clubhouse.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 3:19am

Yes, but he was traded for guys like Zach Day, Franklin Guiterrez and Andre Either.

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 9:03am

Gary Sheffield
Jeff Kent
Sammy Sosa
Milton Bradley

Which of these is not like the other?

Submitted by billybucks
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:39pm

To channel Dennis Green: "Milton was who we THOUGHT he was!"

If Bradley's behavior was a surprise to anyone, that's their fault for being an ignorant rube. He's a selfish dick, and has always been a selfish dick. This year, he was a selfish dick who couldn't drive in runs -- that, too, is not new.

And, yes, stat-heads, RBIs do matter. For anyone who ever watched Corey Patterson bat with the bases loaded -- certain hitters choke with men on base -- they get over-anxious, expand the strike zone, swing a bad pitches, or, in MB's case, hope for a walk and take a called 3rd strike. Check out MB's BA with RISP.

That he was able to scam Hendry into a $30MM deal is Hendry's fault for being a naive fool. That Milton couldn't perform when passionate fans were watching was, well, ultimately predictable.

Hendry is a fault here. Milton was the same guy he has always been, and Lou couldn't be expected to magically make him a good guy and supportive teammate.

Submitted by Ryno
on Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:37pm

I'll see your Bradley plus Clutch-hitting and raise you politics.

But seriously, I agree. Bradley is a dick. Hendry is a dunderhead for signing him. Find a way to trade him and let's move on.

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Sun, 10/11/2009 - 3:26am

You know, I pretty much have to agree with the assessment that Bradley didn't do shit with runners on base in 2009... but when I was looking up team MVP I noticed something interesting:

Clutch: "A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment."

Soriano: 1.62
Bradley: -.03
Fukudome: -.55
Scales: -.80
Theriot: -1.08
Fontenot: -1.33
Lee: -1.45

Submitted by Dusty Baylor
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 9:27am

DLee 2009:
2 outs/RISP: 59 PA, 3HR, 28 RBI, .320/.424/.1024
Late and Close: 97 PA, 5HR, 8 RBI, .302/.381/.512

MB 2009:

2 outs/RISP:58 PA, 1 HR, 10 RBI, .203/.379/.311
Late and Close: 74 PA, 0 HR, 4 RBI, .193/.361/.246

Submitted by Rob G.
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 11:05am

that stat doesn't really measure what we think it measures by that name or definition...at least not what I thought it meant.

it's a measure of how much a player raises (or lowers) his game so to speak...

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/all-about...

This measures how much better Burrell performed in high leverage
situations than all others. If he posted a .900 OPS in crucial plate
appearances but an equal OPS in all others, he is not considered
clutch. And why should he be? Sure, he posted great numbers in high LI
game states but he did not raise his game at all.

Submitted by Charlie
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 12:13pm

That is a lame stat. Like whoa.

Submitted by Rob G.
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 1:53pm

if used and understood properly, I don't think it is...how often is it said that this guy really picks up his game when it matters? That being said, it's no way to evaluate who's good or not as I'm guessing it hasn't shown much predictive value over the years...

Submitted by Ryno
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 2:56pm

I know there's been a lot of stat voodoo going on with defense and a player's defensive abilities lately, what's the current, best stat for player defense at a position?

Submitted by Rob G.
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 3:07pm

UZR at Fangraphs, Rate, Rate 2 at BP or Fielding Bible

Submitted by The Real Neal
on Mon, 10/12/2009 - 7:39pm

When questioned on UZR, Lichtman said the standard deviation was like 5, if memory serves. So you can be 99% confident that the scores reflect the actual players values within +- margin of 15. The vast majority of players scores are between 15 and -15.

It's pretty crap.

Submitted by big_lowitzki
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 9:25am

A conversation about UZR and standard deviation, on a discussion board

I had no idea the standard deviations were that extreme.

Defensive metrics really do suck...

Submitted by Craig A.
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 9:42am

No, that's the standard deviation for the each position, not the standard deviation for repeated measurement of a a player. Of course if you take +/- 3 sd of the population it includes pretty much the whole population, but that's not what your interested in. I don't know what the correct value is, but this ain't it.

Submitted by Ryno
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 11:27am

Hmmm.... looking at UZR/150 distribution of OUTFIELDERS for the last 3 years worth of statistics (rounded to the nearest 5), you see a nice bell curve distribution.

Actually you see a valley in the middle which usually indicates two seperate bell curves overlapped. This isn't too surprising as teams will have those Adam Dunn-style outfielders who are out their because they slug the ball and outfielders who are playing because of their plus-defense. This should present itself as two overlapping bell curves, one just below the zero mark and one just above and that's what you see.

I won't dig into this anymore and I have no reason to doubt this Lichtman feller, I'm sure he's way more involved with this stuff than I am, but I'm satisfied enough with it to use UZR for my own purposes.

Thanks.

Submitted by Ryno
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 11:36am

One more thought: One COULD think of the Adam Dunns of the world and the BJ Uptons of the world as two separate groups: Offensive outfielders and defensive outfielders. If you were to do that and determine deviance for each group independently I think you would find far less deviance from the mean.

Submitted by Ryno
on Tue, 10/13/2009 - 12:17pm

I guess I'm kind of oversimplifying. Really what you have are the Adam Dunns and everyone else.

X
You may login with either your assigned username or your e-mail address.
The password field is case sensitive.
Loading