Bigger Team Douche

[PilotMan]

TO or Milton Bradley?

TO has worn out his welcome with three teams and has been suspended and is in general, a douche.

Bradley has done the same pretty much wherever he has been, and now finds himself suspended for the rest of the year.

You choose.

[RomaGoth]

I voted for Bradley. He is quickly douching his way straight out of MLB. Nice trout option btw.

[Atocep]

TO. Shouldn't even be much discussion. What Bradley said was relatively mild and probably doesn't result in a suspension if he was playing for any other franchise. The Cubs have always been very conservative and drive anyone out of the organization that criticizes them in any way (see: Steve Stone).

[Young Drachma]

Bradley, easily. TO is a toxic Pro Bowler. Bradley is a problematic figure almost everywhere he goes and while good, isn't any sort of perennial all-star.

[RomaGoth]

Maybe we should add Sean Avery and Allen Iverson to this discussion, then we have the 4 major US sports covered.

[bulletsponge]

that last option scares me

[RendeR]

Avery wins in that situation. TO has talent, Iverson can actually play, Bradley is a close call but its baseball and its the cubs so he gets a pass.

Avery is a douchebag, can't play for Shyte and does so in the weakest of the big 4 sports in terms of viewership, and still most people know he's a douchebag.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Gotta be Bradley. TO is in the discussion for top 25 WR of all time, potentially. Bradley is merely "ok."

[Vince, Pt. II]

Dola - Bradley's also had incidents while on the field, has he not? TO (other than a couple of ridiculous TD celebrations) has kept his jackassery off the field.

[rowech]

Just a comment...I think Bradley is mentally unstable. I believe he has severe psychiatric issues, not the least of which includes paranoia. I do believe he needs a doctor full time.

[tarcone]

Isnt what Bradley said true? I know I agree with him that the Cubs suck.

[Scarecrow]

TO never went after an announcer

Milton Bradley Tries To Attack Royals Announcer Ryan Lefebvre | MLB | Kansas City Royals | Texas Rangers

[Izulde]

TO's not a douche. He has passion that he sometimes channels the wrong way.

[kcchief19]

TO has played for winners. Bradley implodes every team he is with.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Gotta be Bradley. TO is in the discussion for top 25 WR of all time, potentially. Bradley is merely "ok."

Top 25?

More like top 10

[stevew]

TO is in the top 5 of touchdowns and receiving yards. As well as top 10 in receptions.

Milton Bradley is merely an average to above average player. TO is a hall of famer.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Heh. I started with Top 10, deleted it, and went the safe route. Should have gone with the gut feeling.

[Schmidty]

TO.

The other guy is still playing? I remember him in Minny, but I don't remember seeing him since.

So yeah, TO I guess.

[Cringer]

I like a good board game, so I would have to say it's TO.

[Karlifornia]

Milton Bradley is a hothead, but he has some intelligence, and some thirst to learn about art and the world around him. TO is a narcissist, but an immensely talented player. They both have their pluses and minuses, but if I had to choose based on a strictly athletic criteria, I'd take TO. I'd rather hang out with Bradley, but TO is the better, more focused athlete.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Izulde

TO's not a douche. He has passion that he sometimes channels the wrong way.

Disagree. He has thrown at least 3 QB's under the bus in his NFL career. He is a top 10 all time WR, and a sure hall of famer, but he is also a douchebag.

[ISiddiqui]

I think people are underplaying how good Bradley is. He gets injured a ton, granted, but since 2003, he's had a 127 OPS+, which is definitely a bit more than mere average (or even just above average).

[boberot]

TO is already starting to take shots across the bow of his new QB. [After week 1.]

I think TO is an incredibly sensitive person [too sensitive] who also happens to be an egomaniac and a media whore.

I guess I prefer that over violent, unstable hothead.

[KWhit]

I think it's this guy.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I think it's this guy.

That made me laugh.

[Dr. Sak]

TO is at least a funny douche.

[Passacaglia]

Gotta be Bradley. Has TO ever refused to take the field when asked?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think people are underplaying how good Bradley is. He gets injured a ton, granted, but since 2003, he's had a 127 OPS+, which is definitely a bit more than mere average (or even just above average).

Don't you have to factor durability in to how talented someone is?

[Noop]

Tim Tebow. Urban Meyer. Lane Kiffen. Nick Saban.

[ISiddiqui]

Somewhat, but his injury history doesn't make him just an average player as some are trying to state.

[Lathum]

Bradleys career stats

Milton Bradley Stats, News, Photos - Chicago Cubs - ESPN

Career high HRs- 22
RBI- 77
BA- .321- career -.277
SB -17
Runs -78

Not good, maybe he puts up bigger numbers if he plays a full season, but does a guys OPS really matter if he can't stay in the lineup to produce for a full season?

And those stats look pretty average across the board, for a guy to be above average I think they need to crack 80 RBI at some point in there career.

[RomaGoth]

To expand on what Lathum said:

Here are the career stats for Bradley:

Games - 941
AB - 3260
Runs - 501
Hits - 904
2B - 187
3B - 15
HR - 115
RBI - 439
BB - 455
SO - 711
SB - 76
CS - 38
Avg. - .277
OBP - .371
Slug. - .450
OPS - .821

Bradley is an average MLB player, if not below average. The benchmark for OPS is .900, and he is obviously well below that mark for his career. In 9 MLB seasons, nothing above stands out at all (although he does have a decent OBP).

Bradley has played for 7 teams in 9 seasons. That practically screams of mediocre talent and a poor attitude/work ethic. Add the injury problems and you have a subpar baseball player.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The benchmark for OPS is .900? What does that mean? An OPS of .900 is excellent. 27* players currently have over .900 OPS.

Bradley is a good player when healthy and engaged, which is not often enough.

edit: changed from 16 to 27 - was looking at just NL

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

The benchmark for OPS is .900? What does that mean? An OPS of .900 is excellent. 16 players currently have over .900 OPS.

Bradley is a good player when healthy and engaged, which is not often enough.

Sorry, Bradley is not really that great of a player. I think the above stated statistics clearly back that up. He is, at best, average. Below is some random info regarding OPS.

AB(H + BB + HBP) + TB (AB + BB + SF + HBP)/ AB(AB +BB + SF + HBP) = OPS

Generally the OPS of a good player is considered to be around .900 to .950. An OPS of 1.000 is generally the high standard for an exceptional player. OPS of 1.000 or higher is scored by the baseball greats. For example, Babe Ruth has the highest career OPS at 1.1636. He is followed by Ted Williams and Lou Gehrig.

Barry Bonds stands fourth in the rankings for career OPS with a 1.0533 measurement. However, Bonds may surpass Williams, Gehrig, and Ruth when he ends his career, since his OPS is quite high seasonally. He has the two top-rated seasons for OPS.

Some critics feel that the OPS is not a great formula for measuring performance. They feel that the on base percentage is nearer to the mark than the combination of on base percentage and slugging percentage.

Criticism stems from the fact that slugging percentage and on base percentage are given equal status in OPS. However, on base percentage tends to more accurately indicate the likelihood that a player will actually make it to the home plate and score a run. In fact on base percentage tends to be about a 10-25% lower than OPS.

OPS was first established in the 1980s, so it is a new way of evaluating offensive skill. It is a popular measurement for baseball fans. However, it may not be given as much credence by coaches when assessing value of an individual player.

In Baseball, What Is OPS?

&

An OPS Scale

Bill James, in his essay titled "The 96 Families of Hitters" [3] uses seven different categories for classification by OPS:
.9000 and Above A
.8333 to .8999 B
.7667 to .8333 C
.7000 to .7666 D
.6334 to .6999 E
.5667 to .6333 F
.5666 and Lower G
This effectively transforms OPS into a 7 point Likert Scale. Substituting typical Likert scale quality values such as Excellent(A), Very Good(B), Good(C), Average(D), Fair(E), Poor(F) and Very Poor(G) for the A-G categories creates a subjective reference for OPS values.

On-base plus slugging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the above definition, Milton Bradley would fall into the "C" category (.821 OPS). Last time I checked, that was average.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Thanks for the cut and paste lecture, professor, but I ain't buying what you're selling.

65 players have a career OPS over .900. If your argument is that Milton Bradley is not one of the greatest baseball players of all time, congratulations, you've won.

The fact is, his career OPS+ is 116. This is by definition above average. His OPS+ the last two years have been 153 and 163 (163 led the league, by the way).

[Lathum]

He could have an OPS os a million, it doesn't matter if he can't stay on the field.

He has averaged 107.9 starts per season in his 10 year career. To me missing 55 games a year, or 1/3 of the season drops you down a few pegs.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Thanks for the cut and paste lecture, professor, but I ain't buying what you're selling.

65 players have a career OPS over .900. If your argument is that Milton Bradley is not one of the greatest baseball players of all time, congratulations, you've won.

The fact is, his career OPS+ is 116. This is by definition above average. His OPS+ the last two years have been 153 and 163 (163 led the league, by the way).

Not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but they are wrong (unless mine are wrong, but I am using the link provided by Lathum, which is the Cubs ESPN page). As I stated in my "lecture", Bradley's career OPS is .821. His last three years OPS is .947, .999 and .775, respectively.

My argument is that Bradley is merely an average player, and I have the numbers to back it up and have already done so. If you disagree, that is your right.

In any case, the thread is about which is the bigger douche, and I stand by my Milton Bradley choice.

That is all.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My numbers are OPS+ which is OPS normalized to league averages.

And your numbers back nothing up. His career OPS+ states that, over his career, he's an above-average player. His OPS+ the last two years show that he is capable of being an excellent player. None of this is in the same area as "Bradley is an average MLB player, if not below average."

And Lathum, I agree about his injury history which is why I said if he were healthier and more engaged he would be a great player.

[ISiddiqui]

And not just that, I used numbers from 2003 to present. The last 6 years, where he has been much better than he was prior to that. Using OPS by itself is kind of silly as normalized numbers are far better. His last 6 years show an OPS+ of 127, which is very good.

And Lathum is correct about injuries; however, we shouldn't minimize his offensive skills to try to make a point about douche-ness.