Goatriders of the Apocalypse

Hypothetical about Bradley

While we wait to find out if Milton Bradley'll actually be a Cub, some Goat Readers have been debating his value compared with, say, Adam Dunn.  I don't really have time to dive into it right now, but I will point out something that Colin pointed out a few weeks back (Colin, forgive me if I am distorting your argument).

Basically, let's say that Milton Bradley lives up to his type and plays in 110 games next year, while Adam Dunn stays healthy and plays in 150.

Counting runs not scored because of superior defense along with their offensive totals, the overall production of Milton Bradley + the guy who starts the other 52 games should actually still be better than the production of Adam Dunn + the guy who starts the other 12 games.  Maybe it'll be a close thing, but having the ability to hit 40 homeruns and walk 100 times will only get you so far.

Besides, answer me these two questions my friends:

1. With our without Bradley and Dunn, would you agree that the Cubs should be favored to win the NL Central and reach the playoffs?

2. If the Cubs are going to make the playoffs even without Bradley, does it matter if he's only healthy for, say, 66% of the season?

If the answer to #1 is "yes," and if the answer to #2 is "good point," then I will submit to you this...

Pound for pound, Bradley brings more to the team offensively and defensively when he's healthy.  If the Cubs are projected to be playoff bound anyway, then in my opinion Bradley's health is only really important for a maximum of 17 games, starting in early October -- and he'd be more likely to contribute to the Cubs winning 11 of those 17 games than Adam Dunn.

Just a thought for y'all.

I recall the Rich Harden

I recall the Rich Harden situation, where we tried to baby him on his way into October, but he still didn't look his sharpest in Game 3. I hope the 66% of the time Bradley is healthy includes October.

I agree...

Arguing that "Bradley just has to be healthy in October" neglects the fact that he's much less likely to be healthy in October than Dunn.

Also, I'd point out that 110 games in the field might still be optimistic for Bradley, considering he's only managed that feat once in his career, and that was in 2004.

The difference in the

two players can be boiled down to how effectively they can help the Cubs. There is no question that Bradley is the superior all around player but Dunn brings some consistentcies that Bradley does not.

Dunn looks to play most of the games and while being injury free is not a given for any player, Dunn should be as reliable as anyone unless he's knocked out cold from a fly ball off his noggin. Besides being healthy, Dunn also can be counted on to hit below 250 and be as much of a negative in the outfield as there is.

Bradley has a checkered injury history to be sure, but even with the most injury prone position the pitcher, can it be said with any certainty that if he is healthy now regardless of his injury history, will not remain healhty in the future. Bradley's late 2007 injury was a fluke and the Cubs have already worked him out and deem him healthy.

So just because Bradley presents an injury risk that doesn't mean he won't stay healthy. On the other hand, Dunn's offensive numbers will suffer because of his defensive liabilities and his numbers prove it.

My concern with Bradley is

My concern with Bradley is two fold.

1- The other 34% with Bradley unfortunately may be in October, which would therefor sap quite a bit of his value.

2- While yes, you can argue that he's more valuable for 110 games and 52 by a replacement than lets say Dunn...his contract will be a burden for the following 2 years. Which might impede you from trading or signing a more important player.

The point is, oft-injured or

The point is, oft-injured or not, he still has tremendous value. I take Bradley over Dunn all day long.

Bradley or Dunn

As hard as this may be to believe, I absolutely agree that Bradley is a much better choice than Dunn. Dunn is so bad on defense that he may actually lose 5-12 games in the field. No one has a bat big enough to overcome defense as bad as Dunn's

Where did you get the 5-12

Where did you get the 5-12 from? Actual statistical estimates put it at something like 2 or 3 games over the course of the season.

The negative value caused by his poor defense makes him worth less than $10MM annually (only about $9MM in '08). He is likely looking to sign for more than what Bradley will make.

If Bradley played 100 games in right field in 2009, he could VERY easily be worth $15MM, and quite possibly worth something more like $20MM.

I see no possible way

How can a player that is expected to miss 50 games to be more valuable than a guy that is on the field for the entire year? The problem with injury prone players, is that you don't get to pick when they get hurt, you only know that they will. Dunn's defense is bad, but if you plan to utilize Gathright or Pie, then double-switches in the 7th aren't out of the question. For the price-tag, I wouldn't want either Bradley or Dunn, but if I had to pick one I'd have to take Dunn.

To simply prove the point

To simply prove the point about 100 vs. 150 games from a player, let's remove the issue of contention between the value of Adam Dunn and Milton Bradley:

Would you rather have 100 games of Albert Pujols, and 62 games of a AAA callup, or 162 games of Doug Mientkeivcz (that name is IMPOSSIBLE to spell)?

In your Scenario

You take the very best and very worst players to illustrate your point. Hardly a comparison between Pujols and Dougie Meink....... Especially when in this case we are talking about 2 players that you could make an argument for either being better than the other. SO when looking at it realistically, I would rather have Adam Dunn for 150 games than Milton Bradley for 100.

"How can a player that is

"How can a player that is expected to miss 50 games to be more valuable than a guy that is on the field for the entire year?"

That was your question. I answered it.

I understand you are not, nor

I understand you are not, nor will ever be, sold on Milton Bradley. But regardless, I think I answered your question.


Comparing Pujols to Doug Meinke doesn't clear anything up at all. I'm no fan of Milton while you may be, but neither opinion really matters at the end of the day. I would just use a little more realistic comparison if you're trying to make a point; I could compare Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse all day long as well.

Read the question you posed

Read the question you posed again. Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse would have worked just as well in answering it.

I tried to explain this in

I tried to explain this in the post ... and will try again now.

If Player A starts 100 games, then Player X will start around 62 of the remaining.

Then we've got player B, who starts 150 games, and Player X starts 12 in this scenario.

Player X = replacement player.

Scenario 1: Player A + Player X = Total Offensive Production for RF, or 1.

Scenario 2: Player B + Player X = Total Offensive Production for RF, or 2.

Then, factor in runs gained - or lost - due to the difference in defense between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.

In other words, if Player B is a great hitter but a terrible defender, he's less valuable and he might actually not be a whole lot better than even Player X.

If Player A is a great hitter and a good defender, he's got a higher inherent value. Factor in the total number of runs (or wins) that Player A and Player X could be responsible for, then it's conceivable that they'll actually put up better overall numbers than Player B and Player X, even though Player A starts in fewer games.

In this case, Player A = Milton Bradley. Player B = Adam Dunn. Dunn is a disciplined, epic homerun hitter, but that's where his game begins and ends. Bradley's production combined with the guy who starts when Bradley is hurt should still surpass Dunn ... so long as that guy isn't Neifi Perez.

None of that makes any sense at all

So Milton Bradley for 100 games and Reed Johnson for 62 is more productive than Adam Dunn for 150 and Reed Johnson for 12?

Might as well get Griffey

He can play defense better than Soriano even at age 50. Lets get rid of Soriano. Who needs offensive production or someone who stays on the field? If we can get 100 games from Griffey at least he can catch the ball.If Hendry didn't get incentives in Bradley's contract for games played, HE'S NUTS... 10 million for 100 games and a nut case. Should have just thrown the 10 million + whatever his DL replacement will make and taken a shot at Manny. I know he's right handed but I'm pretty sure he can hit and will be on the field more games than Bradley. We should have just stuck with Fukudome in RF, kept his GREAT DEFENSE + 10 MILLION DOLLARS. That sound you hear is Pie's trade value falling off a cliff now that we have 10 outfielders. OK I AM DONE. WE HAVE BRADLEY NOW, and he is my NEW FAVORITE CUB!!!

Doesn't make sense?

According to the guys who do this sort of stuff for a living, yes it does.

Chicago Tribune's Chicago's Best Blogs award