Would they have been more successful or just as successful the following seasons with Bradley? Well actually, no. His WAR was .5 for 2009 and -.1 for 2010. But that is neither here nor their. I said the team had success without Bradley. They were more successful in 2009 than 2008. And more successful in 2010 than 2009.

You think I’m trying to attribute wins gained or loss to Bradley. I’m not. I’m saying, and what I’ve said all thread, is that Texas thought they didn’t need Bradley’s talents to be successful. And if you look at wins to indicate team success, they were right.

Yes to the first paragraph. To the second…I guess do not see what you’re saying, because all of your comments seem to be about Texas’s success being greater after he left, with the implication that Bradley had something to do with that. You can make that argument using WAR (or WARP) as you did in the first paragraph.

As for what Texas thought about Bradley? You might be right. I haven’t heard Jon Daniels specifically address this in the past. But they were certainly not in a hurry to re-sign him or pick up his option.

Wins are a fantastic way of measuring TEAM success.

Would they have been more successful or just as successful the following seasons with Bradley? Well actually, no. His WAR was .5 for 2009 and -.1 for 2010. But that is neither here nor their. I said the team had success without Bradley. They were more successful in 2009 than 2008. And more successful in 2010 than 2009.

You think I’m trying to attribute wins gained or loss to Bradley. I’m not. I’m saying, and what I’ve said all thread, is that Texas thought they didn’t need Bradley’s talents to be successful. And if you look at wins to indicate team success, they were right.

Wins are a fantastic way of measuring TEAM success. But if you wanted to try to identify what effect Bradley had on a team’s wins from year to year, you might try using WARP (Wins Above Replace Player). That gives a relatively nice approximation of how much more valuable Bradley was to Texas ahead of some Joe Schmo journeyman. Deputizing that into your argument would help you greatly.

way different. not harmful, didn;t move around, champion

But this:

Because they won more games after he left than they did when he was there.

is not the way to prove it.

Well then. How would you measure success then? Because I would thing wins is a good measurable for success. If there is something else I don’t know about, enlighten me, I’m not afraid to learn. Again, this isn’t a knock on individual production. This is a case in the ability to generate results no matter what the individual production may or may not be.

laughter right here

Different sort of goof, Dennis Rodman.

No I understand the distinction you are making. The former assertion is a logical fallacy. The latter is not one necessarily and may well be provable.

But this:

Because they won more games after he left than they did when he was there.

is not the way to prove it.

but arguing whether Bradley was “necessary for Texas’s success” or not is still somewhat subjective.

I think you’re confusing “They got better because they didn’t have Bradley” with “They didn’t need Bradley to be successful”

The first part is tough to prove. The second part actually has some credence to lean on. Because they won more games after he left than they did when he was there. Maybe there is no correlation between the two, but Milton Bradley was on the team for a season and they were under .500. The two seasons after, they were for both seasons.

Didn’t he go to rehab for that? Or was it something else?

If I was sure about it I would say “I’m certain you cannot conclusively argue that”.

I will say that there is more logical grounding for trying to prove it, but arguing whether Bradley was “necessary for Texas’s success” or not is still somewhat subjective.

Or a dinosaur.

But Carl Everett said dinosaurs never existed.

Or a dinosaur.

I don’t think you can argue that conclusively either.

Are you sure about that?

I don’t think you can argue that conclusively either.

So the answer me this: If Milton’s talent was so great that a team, that wanted to win and could use Milton’s talent to win, that it outweighed whatever personal issues he had, why has he had such a tough time finding a team to stick with?