A Not-So Theoretical Theoretical
Given the current roster construction and ignoring salary, length of contract, etc., which player would you rather have in the Rays lineup:
Player A: 33-years-old, right-handed, last three years has averaged 145 games played and a .360 wOBA when weighed by plate appearances.
Player B: Turns 32 in April, switch-hitter, last three years has averaged 104 games played and weighted-by-plate appearance wOBA of .390.
The first question you (should) have is whether defensive value comes into play. In this scenario ti does not. The second should be "How many plate appearances does 145 and 104 games translate into?" Which I will provide in this space:
Player A three-year PA average: 573
Player B three-year PA average: 409
Now, which player creates more runs? The lesser performer with more consistent health or the wild card who offers more reward with his greater risk? Let's do some math.
Up first: Player A
We'll assume he posts a .360 wOBA through 573 plate appearances in a league with a .330 average. Let's figure out the amount of runs this produces.
.360-.330 = .030
.030/1.15 = .02609
.02609*573 = 14.9 runs
Okay, now Player B:
.390-.330 = .060
.060/1.15 = .05217
.05217*409 =21.3
14.9 - 21.3 = -6.4
If you assume these players play just like this - which isn't a given, but none of us know any better at this point - then Player B needs only 286 plate appearances to equal Player A's output through 573 plate appearances. How good of a bet is Player B to reach that total? Well, since 2002 he's reached the 300 plate appearances threshold in every season but one, which just so happened to be 2007. Seven out of eight seasons is nearly 90%. Let's say you can trade Player A for Player B straight-up ... well, why would another team do that? Because Player B has a reputation for wearing folks down through his attitude. How many runs is that worth?
There's no set answer for that. Everyone will have varying degrees as to whether chemistry affects individual performance and by what extent. The poll taken last night shows that most people (as of this writing) surmised the effect of a bad attitude on team performance was worth five or fewer runs during a full season. Look at the math above. Even if five runs is correct - and really that seems like too much in my eyes - Milton Bradley still looks like a better option than Pat Burrell when examined in a world without contracts or money.
40 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You have to factor in the performance of whoever plays DH in those other 164 PAs
Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com
Aybar
Aybar’s career wOBA is .336 so the .330 be used as replacement level works out quite nicely.
by MetsRaysFan on Nov 23, 2009 12:13 PM EST up reply actions
A small quibble
That would actually be league average of .330 not replacement level. Replacement level would be lower than league average, by definition.
I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 23, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
I think he meant the replacement of Bradley level, not actually replacement level.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 23, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
Gotcha
I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 23, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
Being a DH should help Bradley remain healthy...
Theoretically…
Attitude
I think the only way to ballpark attitude is through effort approximations. Most of this translates through the stats for which they are already measured. A player who doens’t bust for balls in the outfield will measure worse for it on UZR. Not running hard to 1st base shows up in Offensive metrics. If its solely a team chemistry evaluation, I don’t put much stock in attitude.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
In your poll, I voted two handfuls
With the caveat, that those handfuls are largely already accounted for in WAR
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Nov 23, 2009 12:30 PM EST up reply actions
See, I didn't consider that.
I was assuming Bradley’s attitude towards his own performance is already included in his personal WAR. Therefore, I just wanted to know what level of effect people thought he had on the team performance as a whole.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 23, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
I change my vote then to the most minimal.
This is not exactly TO making his quarterbacks head cases. Baseball is such a sum of the individual parts sport.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Nov 23, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
The poll was too ambigious.
Also I think including “more hands needed” had people voting it as a joke option rather than seriously believing it costs a team 10+ runs.
At least, I hope.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 23, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
eh
If someone’s uncomfortable in the workplace, they’re less likely to put in their all. People can talk about professionalism and whatnot, and there are some guys it wouldn’t affect at all, but with 25 guys, you need to take human psychology into account, at least a little.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Sure, a little
If there is a team full of Bradleys, it could be far more cancerous, than one Bradley on a high character team with a players coach. Pinella-Bradley was more predictable. Pinella-Percival woudl have been a much bigger distraction.
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
by FreeZorilla on Nov 23, 2009 12:43 PM EST up reply actions
I would've loved to see Percival yell at Piniella on the mound.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 23, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
I think my biggest irritant to these kinds of issues is how overblown the negative value of a bad-attitude player really is.
You also have to take a look as to what kind of negativity he would bring. For example, most of Bradley’s baggage comes in the form of a short temper with people outside of the clubhouse; press, umpires, opponents and fans, and some level of immaturity when controlling his temper. Last year he had one game where he looked absolutely incompetent in the OF (that one where he threw a 2 out ball into the stands and cost the Cubs a run, then later on did a Ramirez flop), but when healthy, he was out there playing every day with maximum effort.
I guess what I’m saying is, yes the guy might be a clubhouse distraction, but this is not Derek Bell that we’re talking about. If the team can keep blinders on him and keep the ridiculously stupid fans we have here out of his ear, he should be fine. And even not, his antics are not clubhouse-cancer quality stuff.
I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.
Cubs fan here.
Your comment has a number of incorrect statements, first, so let me correct them. Bradley’s outfield gaffe did not cost the Cubs a run (it was a sac fly, a run would have scored on the play anyway; the only thing it “cost” was another runner moving from 2nd to 3rd, who did not score). He played reasonably well in the outfield.
You’re also incorrect in saying that “most” of Bradley’s baggage is a short temper with people outside the clubhouse. Look at this statement from one of his Cubs teammates:
Cubs outfielder Reed Johnson had trouble understanding why Bradley was so unhappy.
“I came from Toronto and come here and just like fall in love with the city and fall in love with the organization,” Johnson said. “It’s just hard for me to believe that you can come to this city, come to this organization, and not enjoy your time here.”
Johnson didn’t think Bradley had any reason to feel isolated from the rest of the team, saying “I think for the most part that was his choice.”
Johnson’s statement was echoed by many of his teammates. Several Texas players were quoted, after Bradley left, that they were upset with his statement that he sat during some 2008 games he could have played to “pad his stats for free agency”. (Sorry, don’t have a link for that, but he did apparently say it.)
I am personally acquainted with a Cubs beat writer who told me Bradley is a “strange dude”. Apparently, virtually all of his Cubs teammates agreed, and here’s what Ryan Dempster said:
“At the end of the day, he was provided a great opportunity to be part of a really great organization with a lot of really good guys,” Dempster said. "It just didn’t seem to make him happy- anything. Hopefully this is a little bit of a wake-up call for him and he’ll realize how good of a gig you have. It probably became one of those things where you start saying things that you’re putting the blame on everybody else.
“Sometimes you’ve just got to look in the mirror and realize that maybe the biggest part of the problem is yourself and (not) wanting to be here and play every day, and (not) wanting to have some fun. It didn’t seem like he wanted to have some fun, even from spring training.
Personally, I hope you still want Bradley for the Rays, because the Burrell-for-Bradley deal seems as if it might be the most doable, even though Burrell is virtually useless to the Cubs (they’d likely have to flip him to an AL team where he could DH). But don’t kid yourselves about exactly who and what Milton Bradley is.
Al, visiting from Bleed Cubbie Blue
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Your response has a number of distortions of truth and misinterpretations of quotes, so let me correct them.
First, Milton Bradley’s mistake did cost them a run. Throwing the ball in from the outfield to the catcher with a man advancing from 3rd results in a > 0% chance of that run not scoring, where as throwing it into the stands nullifies that chance and guaranteed that the run would score. Since you’re in the mood for splitting hairs and decided that your only purpose in this discussion would be to bash Milton Bradley, I might as well point that out. The fact that Bradley threw the ball into the stands was largely irrelevant to the discussion that we were having as to whether he’s a cancer in the clubhouse; I mentioned it as a testament to his otherwise focused play.
On to you rebuking my comment that most of Bradley’s troubles occurred outside of the clubhouse. Well, let’s go over everything in the press that’s been controversial to Bradley:
Bradley was traded in 2004 from the Indians to the Dodgers after they tried to assign him to minor leagues. With no other press information available, here’s a quote from the ESPN article discussing what was known leading up to the event:
“The majority of his time here he was a good teammate and a good member of our organization,” Shapiro said. “There were moments in time that he compromised the standards and expectations that we communicated to him, not one time, but a pattern of times.” — ESPN
Without an explanation of what these ‘standards’ were, and considering that outside of this one statement, neither the Indians nor Cleveland press had made any comments towards incidents that occurred relating to Bradley’s behavior, it’s impossible to derive what was going on here.
In 2007, while playing for the Padres, Bradley had an altercation with umpire Mike Winters that resulted in Winters being suspended for the remainder of the season and playoffs for baiting Bradley with an expletive while he was asking for an explanation of a comment that Winters had made earlier in the game towards home plate umpire Mike Runge where he interpreted Bradley as throwing a bat at him. This incident has nothing to do with anything that occured in the clubhouse, and both Winters and MLB apologized to Bradley for the incident.
In 2008, While with Texas, Bradley attempted to confront Royals play-by-play announcer Ryan Lefebvre after he made a disparaging comment on-air. From the Dallas News:
Lefebvre said, from what he remembers, that he was complimenting Josh Hamilton and how he’s been accountable for his mistakes and said "it doesn’t appear Milton Bradley has done the same thing in his life. —Dallas News
At the end of this same article, we get this little quote:
“He was upset that somebody that doesn’t know him was passing judgment on TV,” Daniels said. “The guy’s been a tremendous teammate for us, and it’s obvious he was hurt by those comments. That’s my understanding.”
Hmm…comments about being a good clubhouse guy from administrative personnel. That sounds vaguely familiar.
Now, Bradley’s reaction didn’t help him out at all here, but to be frank, if I were Bradley, I might have been looking for him too, seeing how he all but called him a thug:
(Talking about Josh Hamilton) "Here’s a guy, with all the troubles he’s had, he’s showed that if you work at it, you can get your life back in order. And that would be a pretty good role model for Milton Bradley, who clearly has no control over himself, because it’s the same thing year after year…—Ryan Lefebvre
Never mind that there isn’t a whole lot of love lost here on Josh Hamilton, but that’s a completely different story seeing how often that piece of crap buried his nose in piles of cocaine; this comment is clearly ignorant and drips with borderline racism considering the trouble Bradley has caused for teams he’s played for absolutely pales in comparison to the amount of resources the Rays wasted on Josh Hamilton.
Then we come to the article you couldn’t find, where you mention that Bradley “pad(ded) his stats for free agency”. The paper was the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, and the quote was as follows:
“When you’re on one-year deals constantly, you’ve got to put up as good numbers as you can. When you have days where you’re not feeling like you can contribute, you’re not going to go out there, because you’re not going to want your numbers to suck…”
But see, this quote was made in context to him playing with the Cubs now, so let’s see the rest of it:
“…So, if you’re in a situation like I am now, if they want me to go out there when I’m feeling a little banged up, I’ve got no problem doing that because they’ve made the commitment to me.”
Understanding how utterly incompetent Chicago’s mass media is by and large, I can understand how ‘I can’t afford to play like crap on one year deals so I won’t play when I’m not at 100%’ can easily be misconstrued as ‘I didn’t play when I didn’t want to so I could pad my stats for free agency.’ I mean, The Tribune corp spent the last 28 years trying to run the Cubs into the ground, only to be saved by the sweet release of bankruptcy.
And now we come full circle to your quotes from former Cub teammates, where I readily admit them to be the exception to the rule, oh, except for the part where Lou Piniella expects all his players to gnash sand in their teeth, rub dirt in their cuts and shit rocks, since that’s how he’s acted since he was coach of the Reds. Piniella has had trouble with players and management at almost every stop during his career; George Steinbrenner with the Yankees, Rob Dibble with the Reds, Vince Namoli with the Devil Rays and now Milton Bradley with the Cubs. The only place he didn’t have trouble was in Seattle, and he asked to be traded to the Devil Rays because he thought that Seattle couldn’t win and wanted to be closer to home instead of coaching a losing team on the other side of the nation. Now that’s some team chemistry.
Maybe Cubs fans should actually start looking to management for answers to their teams problems, instead of bestowing blame on jettisoned players and management, and start acting like their team needs better talent to win, instead of acting like World Series Championships are given away like prizes, and that a team needs to deserve, be entitled, or otherwise anointed a championship like BCB did last year in saying those things about the Phillies vs. the Rays.
I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.
by kericr on Nov 23, 2009 11:52 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Well said, sir.
It’s also significant to note Bradley’s reaction when Lou blew in his face (called him something like “poo-poo”) after a frustrated Bradley crushed the oft-targeted Cubs’ water cooler:
“I got a ton of respect for Lou,” Bradley said. “When he says something, I really take heed and listen to it, not just the tone or the exact words but the sentiment behind it. I really think he had a heartfelt talk with me in his office, and I think we are both better for it.”
…and…
“I don’t have the same set of rules as other people,” he said. “I’ve committed mistakes in my past, so I don’t get the leeway that other people might get. To a certain extent, I guess, that’s fair.”
[emphasis mine]
Yeah, only truly self-involved, self-absorbed players admit it’s fair to call them a piece of [poopy].
I’m sorry, but as a Cubs fan, I’m embarrassed how my town has handled Bradley. I really think we found the best ways to bring the worst out of him.
What about the Maddon effect?
He turned this guy:

into this guy:

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 23, 2009 12:45 PM EST reply actions
Its not Maddon, its the woman

When was the last time this guy smiled like that?
Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla
Rays Girl, doin it and doin it and doin it well
I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 23, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions
BAIT
I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!
by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 23, 2009 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Like this:
<img height="200" width="200" src="url.jp">
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 23, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
Maddon effect did not improve :)%
That is the clearest difference between these two pics.
I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.
In my view
it is not that a bad attitude is irrelevant. As Brickhaus says, while we may not be able to measure its effect very precisely if at all, that does not mean it does not exist.
My problem with it is that I do not trust the anecdotes that supposedly demonstrate it nor do I trust the reputations that we hear about. Sheffield was supposed to be a huge distraction everywhere he went, but seemed to be quite popular in Atlanta. Barry Bonds was called a clubhouse cancer but it did not stop SF from contending most years and even get to the World Series. As far as I can tell, the only player who ever had a problem with Bonds was Kent, a player whose reputation as a teammate is itself suspect.
Al provides some anecdotal material to support the view that Bradley is a problem, but I still am dubious. His 2004 Dodgers won 93 games (4 games better than their pythagorean record) and won the division. Did his negative effect show up that year? Did his teammates resent him there? Perhaps some Texas players did not care for him, but I don’t recall much controversy during the year he was there. How much credit do we give to comments made after he left?
In Bissinger’s book about the Cardinals and LaRussa, J.D Drew comes in for harsh criticism as a player who just did not care much, but I haven’t heard Francona complain, Epstein seems to love him and it did not stop Boston from sweeping the 2007 World Series or seriously contending his other 2 years there. Youklis is known as a very intense player; has anyone heard him grumble about Drew’s effort?
To the extent anyone outside of TB thinks about the Rays they seem to have accepted the myth of Upton as a difficult player. I have come across this regularly on non-Rays sites, yet the reality is exactly the opposite. Far from difficult, few players are more cooperative or more popular. On the other hand, I remember an article years ago that detailed the many ways in which Ripken’s reputation as a great teammate was contradicted by his outrageous demands for special treatment. So which is true?
The examples can be multiplied indefinitely. I assume people here know that in the 1950s Hank Aaron was often considered a somewhat lazy player, Roberto Clemente was considered soft and a complainer who whined about imaginary pains and Willie Mays was criticized for hot dogging while it was assumed that Newcombe lacked intestinal fortitude because of his troubles in the World Series. (Of course, other factors were certainly in play in those cases.)
My guess is that in some cases, not necessarily common, particular combinations may have some small effect on winning. I would have voted fewer than a handful of runs. But even if there is some effect, I think the real problem is verifying the reputation itself even more than determining the effect of attitude.
by bobr on Nov 23, 2009 9:52 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
I would add that Kent and Bradley had a run in as well.
Of course, we all know who gets the blame on that one.
by R.J. Anderson on Nov 24, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions

by 








![Zobrist wallpaper I made :]
Actual Link: http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb472/lewiedesigns/Wallpapers/Zobristwallpaper.jpg](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/237766/Zobristwallpaper_small.jpg)















