Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
As detailed in this article, the Blue Jays have traded Shannon Stewart and a PTBNL to the Twins for Bobby Kielty.
Bobby Kielty is a Blue Jay | 193 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#97326) #
I guess Jacques Jones moves to RF, or will Stew DH like Durham with Oakland?

Also, will he start running again with Gardenhire?
_DS - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#97327) #
I didn't post my thoughts on the trade before, but as long as the PTBNL isn't anyone substantial, JP comes off smelling like roses on this one. I didn't think it would be possible to get anything of remote value for Stewart in this market. Kudos JP!
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:43 PM EDT (#97328) #
Amazingly enough, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article seems to seriously suggest that the Twins might play *Stewart* in right.

I have to think that's a misprint.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT (#97329) #
Also, amazingly, it suggests that Kielty was traded for his defensive shortcomings. So you trade for Shannon Stewart!?!?

You can come back, Coach!
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT (#97330) #
Amazingly enough, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article seems to seriously suggest that the Twins might play *Stewart* in right.

I bet that wasn't a misprint, and I wouldn't be surprised if Stew played a few games in RF. I think people are under the delusion that Stew is a good fielder. Like Roger Cedeno, people assume that because of he's fast he must have a good glove.

I was emailing the otherwise knowledgeable Christian Ruzich of the Cub Reporter a possible three-way deal (Stew to KC, Beltran to CHC, Cruz to TOR), and he thought that we should just cut the middle man and move Stew to CHC. I was surprised, and told him that Stew's barely adequate in LF, and would be a disaster in CF.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:54 PM EDT (#97331) #
Poor Aaron Gleeman. Too bad we couldn't get Santana, too.
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:55 PM EDT (#97332) #
Kielty is free at last!

Talk about highway robbery. As long as the PTBNL isn't much.
_Shrike - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:57 PM EDT (#97333) #
Nice move by JP, no mistake about it. I'm guessing Reed Johnson, Kielty and Phelps--when healthy--will rotate through the DH/LF spots, and Tosca will continue to sit Cat vs. LHP to get them playing time.
_Jacko - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT (#97334) #
My guess: PTBNL is likely someone from the 40-man roster.

Can't be a 2003 draft pick because players can't be traded within a year of signing, and PTBNL must be named within 6 month of trade.

Rule 5 draft is within 6 months of now, so Twins would effectively get a 41st slot, while the Jays only get to protect 39.
Pistol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT (#97335) #
http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/kieltbo01.shtml
It's hard to evaluate the trade fully right now (who's the PTBNL, how much is Toronto sending to Minnesota, etc.) but Kielty will do similar things as Stewart at a fraction of the price. And he can throw the ball in from the OF!

Stewart
2003 - .294/.347/.449
2002 - .303/.371/.442

Kielty (DOB 8/5/76)
2003 - .252/.370/.420
2002 - .291/.405/.484

Aaron Gleeman was/is really high on Kielty. His reaction should be interesting.

There was an AB this year that Kielty had against the A's, I think it was against Zito, where he just owned the AB before hitting a 3 run HR to win the game. I was impressed.

Kielty had a stretch where he battled a pulled ribcage muscle and he couldn't throw. Not sure if that impacted his hitting, but the averages might indicate that.

It seems like a good trade, but would 2 first round picks next year be better than a productive OF in the majors today? Given the success rate of draft picks and the cost, maybe not.

Click on my name for his Basebaa-reference page. He only had 400 or so ABs coming into this year so he'll be real cheap for the next 2 seasons.
Lucas - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT (#97336) #
Awful, just F'ing awful.

Keith and JP, if you are reading this, thanks a lot!
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#97337) #
Jurgen, I don't want to steal Aaron's thunder but I e-mailed him just before I posted this link and his response was "Awful, just [deleted] awful."

John Bonnes's reaction over at Twins Geek should also be amusing.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 01:59 PM EDT (#97338) #
Wow, that was synchronous.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:01 PM EDT (#97339) #
PTBNL is likely someone from the 40-man roster.

"Terry, listen, I want to talk to you about how terrific Diegomar Markwell is looking..."
_Brent - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#97340) #
I have a mental picture now of Coach dancing the Charleston.

As I said before the in other thread, this is a good trade. Although we'll have to see what the PTBNL is to be sure.
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:02 PM EDT (#97341) #
Gotta wait and see who the PTBNL is to make any judgement. My first question is: where do you play Kielty? Also, b/c I can't find his minor league numbers, what does his power project to? And why did the Twins want Stewart? He seems pretty redundant, and even looks like he'll hurt the, playing in RF. I'm hoping the PTBNL isn't anyone significant- Kielty doesn't seem to fill any real need for the Jays, unless they're going to platoon him with Johnson (Kielty has a career .916 OPS as LHB).
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#97342) #
I have a mental picture now of Coach dancing the Charleston

I believe that's the Hully Gully.

My first question is: where do you play Kielty?

Right field or left field. Right with Cat in left might be better, but it's hard to say. He's not a good outfielder but is very reliable with the glove.

what does his power project to?

Hard to say. He's shown more power in the majors than the minors. I'd say he projects to being a .450-.500 SLG guy but no more.

The need Kielty fills is a good all-around hitter who gets on base... he will be a corner outfielder for this team after Catalanotto moves on to pastures new.
_Eric C - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:12 PM EDT (#97343) #
Do the Jays pay most of Stewart's salary? I haven't seen "cash" next to Stewart's name. Does this mean JP has 3 million of extra money?
Dave Till - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT (#97344) #
Wow, what an interesting trade. I'll be curious to see who the PTBNL is - I can't see why the Twins would make this deal, unless they get a useful prospect in return. Kielty's OBP is higher than Stew's.

I would guess that the Jays' plan is to use Cat, Kielty and Wells in the outfield in 2004, and then move two of the Mavens From New Haven [tm] into place in 2005. Kielty is probably a 1 1/2 year solution - I assume he will be arbitration-eligible in 2005.

Brace yourself for more Toronto Star "journalism", by the way: Kielty is white, and Stewart is (obviously) black.
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#97345) #
Kielty is a switch-hitter, which balances our offense out a little more (we've been suffering from a lack of lefthanded hitters). All sorts of pinch-hitting opportunities open up because we have 1 lefty outfielder, 1 switch outfielder, 2 righty outfielders and 1 righty DH.

Kielty hit for excellent power as a 23.8 year-old in 2000 in the Eastern League. It was his first full season in the minors after a late start out of college (he was non-drafted). At New Britain (2000) he had 47 XBH in 451 AB, with 98W/109K.

He will soon turn 27 and over the next 3 years I think he'll put up numbers in the neighbourhood of .380 OBP and .490 SLG.
_Jim - TBG - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:17 PM EDT (#97346) #
http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
The story on The Score mentioned that the Twins would pick up the remaining $3 million on Stewart's contract.

Also, I'm not sure that Kielty needs to be platooned, as he's flattening lefties to the tune of a .999 OPS this year.
_Pat - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#97347) #
So is Kielty our new leadoff man? I'm assuming he can fill this role when Johnson is not in the lineup, otherwise why do this trade? Did he leadoff in Minny? Is this trade a sign of more to come?
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#97348) #
Does this mean JP has 3 million of extra money?

About $2.35 million (67/162 times (Stewart's $6 million minus Kielty's $325,000)).

Not bad.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:23 PM EDT (#97349) #
Stewart shouldn't be a bad (albeit baffling given the team's glarring weaknesses in the rotation and up the middle) acquisition for the Twins if they make him their full-time DH. Keep Ford/Mohr in RF (or call up Cuddyer and his .272 MjEQA), give Morneau more AB at 1B, and Jones can bat 3rd, 4th, or 5th where he belongs.

Kielty might be younger, cheaper, and more versatile, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking he's better. (The Jays juggernaught offense, however, can afford the hit.)

If J.P. uses the extra dough to get another pitcher, however, I'll be very happy.
_Jacko - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:25 PM EDT (#97350) #
I'd be happy if he flips Kielty to Oakland in a deal for Harang and/or Duchsherer...

jc
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:27 PM EDT (#97351) #
Cat can leadoff against RH pitchers, with Eric in the #2 slot. (Although would Tosca ever fill out a lineup card that reads L, L, R, L?)
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT (#97352) #
It's no delusion. Kielty IS better. Unless he never stops slumping.

And lack of lefthanded hitters? How so? Delgado, Cat, Hinske, Hudson, Frankencatcher-L...or do you you just mean the bench? The Jays suffer from a lack righthanded hitters. It's just Wells, Phelps and Frankencatcher-R really.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#97353) #
For those of you counting at home, Stewart has 9 Win Shares (7.67 hit, 1.04 field) so far this year, and Kielty has 7 (6.92 hit, .55 field).
_the shadow - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:33 PM EDT (#97354) #
Is that one down and one to go, or one down and two to go,or even more,
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:34 PM EDT (#97355) #
Kielty fills the hole of replacing Stewart's production for about one sixth of the cost. He's about a year and a half away from seeing arbitration and another three years away from free agency. And his performance in the limited major league playing time he's had so far has been quite impressive, in some ways better than Hinske. If there's a hitter who fits the JP mold, it's Kielty (short of having more power). Almost all of his at bats are quality at bats.

Negatives: He's 26 already and not likely to get MUCH better than what he's already shown. He's not a great defensive player. The Jays don't really need an outfielder.

The last one I don't really consider a negative...the Jays DO need offensive depth for the next few years and Kielty seems to represent the ideal mix of known quantity and relatively young, cheap player. This only gives the Jays more options and depth to trade from. While they have a lot of prospects in the outfield, it's hard to predict that any of them will be ready to contribute in a meaningful way in the next year or even two.

Between Gross, Griffin, Kielty, Phelps, Werth, and Rios, the Jays have some attractive trading chips. Assuming one of them isn't the PTBNL. Kielty can DH or play one of the outfield corners. He has significant playing time in center for the Twins in his brief career.

To get Kielty for 2.5 months of Stewart to me represents a very, VERY good move for the Jays. Both in terms of the talent they can field in 2004 and financial flexibility they've gained without sacrificing any offensive production or defence.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:37 PM EDT (#97356) #
Kielty is not better. He might be more useful to a rebuilding mid-market club like Toronto given his age and contract status, but he's not better. And if he takes ABs away from Phelps, that's not a good thing either.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:40 PM EDT (#97357) #
I think the Jays need outfielders more than any other position. Other than Catalanotto, who is a one-year rental, the only dependable major-league-ready outfielder the organization has is Wells.

I love what Johnson's done, but I refuse to get excited about a guy with half a season above Double-A.
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#97358) #
Jurgen, I don't really know how win shares works. Does it take into account playing time?

Evenso, you have to consider youth, salary expectation, flexibility gained as added value of Kielty over Stewart. The Jays probably have an extra $5 million or so to play with for the 2004 budget without having to worry about getting an established hitter to replace Stewart.

That money isn't going to just disappear. It will be reinvested into the team to add pitchers or other players who will more than make up for whatever difference might exist in win shares. Looking at raw stats, I find it hard to believe Kielty is going to be worth LESS than Stewart considering he appears to have better isolated power and appears capable of higher onbase numbers.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:45 PM EDT (#97359) #
It's like saying Albert Pujols is better than Barry Bonds. He's not.

That doesn't mean that if you were looking ahead to the next ten years you wouldn't want Pujols on your team instead (given that Bonds' OPS will probably slip to .900 by the time he's 48). But he's not better.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:45 PM EDT (#97360) #
R Billie, yes WS takes playing time into account. It's a "count" measure, like home runs or runs scored. To measure how well a position player has played, win shares per PA or something would be fine.

Kielty is the better player, both last year and this year, by any rate stat I have seen.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#97361) #
Jurgen, if Pujols had been a better player than Bonds last year, and was a better player than Bonds this year, would it be wrong to say he was better? I don't think it's wrong.
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#97362) #
Pujols and Bonds? Okay. It's like saying Bonds is better than Pujols. Neither are great defensively, one has better power and OBP, the other has a nice batting average.
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:50 PM EDT (#97363) #
"I think the Jays need outfielders more than any other position. Other than Catalanotto, who is a one-year rental, the only dependable major-league-ready outfielder the organization has is Wells."

Gross should be ready by next year (May-June?), unless he struggles in AAA the way he did when he hit AA. Werth has actually started hitting again in AAA. And there's always cheap OF help available (though no one's told the Mets!)- look at the Reds: Encarnacion last year, Guillen this year, and Mateo, who passed through waivers earlier this year, hitting .411/.521 in AAA.
Coach - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:50 PM EDT (#97364) #
Can't stop dancing (actually a modified disco move). The Jays keep getting cheaper, younger and better.

Stewart in RF will be hilarious; if you start a runner from first, he can score on a single, or one of those line drive outs Shannon pulls up on.

See you at the Dome!
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:52 PM EDT (#97365) #
Cat isn't a 1-year guy, his $$$ will be affordable for next year. We can get another Kielty for him.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 02:56 PM EDT (#97366) #
Evenso, you have to consider youth, salary expectation, flexibility gained as added value of Kielty over Stewart

I think I did just that when I wrote: He might be more useful to a rebuilding mid-market club like Toronto given his age and contract status....

Don't get me wrong. I'm not down on this trade. Stew didn't factor into the Jays' longterm plans, and I'm surprised they got something useful for him. But what will really sell me is if that extra money is reinvested into some arms and not pocketed by Ted.

As for the win shares, yes, they are influenced by playing time. Kielty's had 238 AB in 75 games, and Stewart 303 AB in 71 games. So Stew's advantage is partly a reflection of playing time. That said, Stew's also twenty points below his career average in OBP, and so you have to believe that will go up.
_Jurgen - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT (#97367) #
Alright, I give up. Let the Kielty love-in begin.
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:03 PM EDT (#97368) #
Stewart's career average OBP is less than Kielty's this year...
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#97369) #
Kielty has supposedly been slowed by injuries as well which may account for his dip in performance from last year. I do know that I have him on one of my fantasy teams this year and he was performing very well for a long stretch when he actually got into the lineup with the Twins' crowded outfield.
Pistol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:06 PM EDT (#97370) #
I find it hard to believe Minnesota is taking on that much money when they traditionally have been tight-fisted.

Is the appeal of Stewart that he has a high average and is right handed? Or that he is 'proven'?
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:08 PM EDT (#97371) #
http://economics.about.com
Kielty can't be any good since he was the "prospect" in a deadline deal. :)

Very, very, well done by JP and Keith. I'm not superbly high on Kielty, but he's worth a heck of a lot more to the Jays than 2 months of Shannon Stewart.. let alone the salary difference.

Mike
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:18 PM EDT (#97372) #
Let the Kielty love-in begin.

All right, we got Jurgen's permission! :)

Seriously, though, Jurgen, this cannot fail. If RossCW at Primer thinks (as he does) that this is a good deal for the Twins, then it HAS to be a steal for the Blue Jays.
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:20 PM EDT (#97373) #
I think the main appeal of Stewart right now was that he's healthy. Jones and Kielty have been slowed by injuries. Not that Stewart has been the picture of health either. But the market for corner outfielders couldn't have been very good, both from a buyers or sellers perspective. The Jays probably had to throw in the PTBNL to convince the Twins to take Stewart's salary.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT (#97374) #
http://economics.about.com
I'm convinced that RossCW doesn't exactly exist as such and is a computer program designed to be a foil to all the primates. Basically a way of generating silly arguments so the primates can knock them down and look smart. Sort of like Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic.
_Spicol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT (#97375) #
Don't have much time to read or comment, other than this:

WOO HOO!

(I knew that "proven", .300 hitter, free-agent-to-be, leadoff types still had some value, at least to old-school types like Ryan.)
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:27 PM EDT (#97376) #
Someone on Primer just pointed this out. OPS by month:
April- 1.013
May- .771
June- .634
July- .670

Kielty's been the D'Angelo Jimenez of OFs this year. Suggestions he's better than Stewart are wishful thinking. I'm glad we'll have Kielty for the next couple of years over Stewart for the rest of this one, but let's not get carried away- Stew's been a good, underappreciated player for the Jays, and we'll have a tough time matching his consistent production.
_Chuck Van Den C - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:29 PM EDT (#97377) #
Jurgen: Although would Tosca ever fill out a lineup card that reads L, L, R, L?

Tosca had Delgado-Myers-Hinske in the 4-5-6 holes recently and has had Delgado-Myers back-to-back for much of the year (since Phelps' demotion to the 6-hole, prior to his demotion to the 10-hole). He's clearly not a slave to strict L-R alternating.

Coach: Stewart in RF will be hilarious; if you start a runner from first, he can score on a single, or one of those line drive outs Shannon pulls up on.

Will there even be any singles hit to RF?

Lurch: Cat isn't a 1-year guy, his $$$ will be affordable for next year. We can get another Kielty for him.

Up until this trade, I was pretty sure Catalanotto was next year's LF. Now, maybe JP pockets the $3-4M Catalanotto would cost and opens 2004 with ultra-inexpensive OF corners Kielty and Johnson (rolling the dice on the latter -- colour me skeptical, like Craig B). He then hopes/waits that some of the young OF brigade can step in soon thereafter.

As for being able to flip Catalanotto into another Kielty, I disagree. I believe that lots of Stewart's trade value was derived from his reputation, regardless of the fact that he's likely no more valuable than Catalanotto.

I think this was a great trade for JP. Kielty's better than Stewart now and young enough that he figures to be better than Stewart moving forward. While his age might preclude a high ceiling, he figures to at least give the Jays a middle-of-the-pack corner outfielder for peanuts, letting them spend money elsewhere. Presuming Catalanotto does not re-sign, how many of next year's starting 9 will be making less than $1M? Six? Catcher, Hudson, Phelps, Johnson, Kielty and Woodward? (Being at $750K now, I guess Woody may get up to $1M after this season). That certainly frees up considerable elbow room to address the pitching staff.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:31 PM EDT (#97378) #
Sort of like Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic

While this had me laughing, and while Plato is a bit ham-handed as a dramatist in his characterization, Thrasymachus was a real person and did grow to become a very great physicist/metaphysicist and scholar of argumentation. In modern days he'd be a professor of rhetoric. Politically, he was (in real life) a constitutionalist, which is about as far away from Plato's position as you can get... which is why he rehearses the basic arguments for Socrates to chew on.

But the Thrasymachus of Republic is a very young man, a little too cocksure. Plato makes him look a little stupid at times, probably, because he was very closely linked with Isocrates, who was a rival to Plato.
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:32 PM EDT (#97379) #
Jurgen,

What park factors are you using for those Win Shares?
_Shannon Stewart - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#97380) #
"Kielty's better than Stewart now"

Re-connect your optic nerves.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:36 PM EDT (#97381) #
http://economics.about.com
Here's a snippet of what Baseball Prospectus said about Kielty this off-season:

"He might get typecast as a fourth outfielder because he's a switch-hitter with power and patience who can handle center on a team that has Torii Hunter. That would be unfortunate, because Kielty's good enough to play every day, and he doesn't have any platoon issues."

BP projected him to finish the year at 269/367/443 in 346AB. He's not too far off at 252/370/420 in 238AB so far. So if he's underperformed, it's slight.

Bobby K is one of those guys that OPS should *never* be used to describe, as OPS drastically underweights the value of OBP where Kielty gets a lot of his value.

Mike
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:40 PM EDT (#97382) #
DP,

I absolutely hate it when someone provides monthly OPS splits as if they mean something.

Care to provide some solid evidence that Stewart is better than Kielty? Let's also point out that Kielty is younger than Stewart, so however much better Kielty is (and he is better) that gap figures to increase slightly over the next few years.
_benum - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT (#97383) #
Bobby Kielty
Bobby Kielty Stats

Scouting:
"ASSETS: Has decent power from both sides of the plate and good plate discipline. In the outfield, he has good instincts and an average arm.
FLAWS: He's had trouble cashing in runners in scoring position and hitting consistently from the left side of the plate.
CAREER POTENTIAL: A borderline everyday outfielder, but an excellent platoon player."
_Lurch - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT (#97384) #
You're probably right about Cat not having a good enough "reputation" to be get the same kind of return as Stewart. Although, at this time next season Cat will probably have had a 300+ average over the course of his 4 year career. That would be some nice snake oil.
_Tom - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT (#97385) #
"In the deal, the Twins will also receive a minor league player to be named later. Toronto is picking up the remainder of Stewart's $6.2 million salary for 2003. He will be eligible for free agency after the season." Source: mlb.com Is there that much love for Kielty??
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:49 PM EDT (#97386) #
http://economics.about.com
Craig B: I knew that Thrasymachus was a real person, I must admit I know almost nothing about him. The way he's presented in the Republic I always thought was kind of funny and not at all realistic. Sort of like when you hear someone complaining about somebody else and when they're telling the story to you they give the other person a really bitchy voice that nobody talks like and have the person say things that nobody would really say.

Benum: I probably love platooning more than anyone on the planet, but I don't see Kielty being the kind of guy you platoon with given that he's a switch-hitter and doesn't seem to have a huge platoon split. Unless they want to do some kind of Earl Weaver fastball/curveball platoon because Kielty has some glaring weakness I don't know about.

Mike
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:50 PM EDT (#97387) #
It's nice when a scout (or scouts) point out something that is non-existent (as if there is an ability to cash in runners) as a flaw.

Kielty should leadoff. I expect him to put up a .380 OBP out of that spot if he gets the chance.

I don't know what Ryan was smoking, but he just weakened his team while donating Kielty to the Jays. That PTBNL better be good for his sake. It won't be though; J.P. would not let a A prospect go as a PTBNL.
_benum - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 03:56 PM EDT (#97388) #
If what Tom posted above is true, I'm a little surprised (Jays paying Stew's ticket). I hope the PTBNL is a C+ / B- prospect at best.

Regarding the 'Scouting' info from Waymoresports, I agree that clutch hitting isn't a skill at this level. I was just chumming the waters with any info I could find on him.
Pistol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:02 PM EDT (#97389) #
"In the deal, the Twins will also receive a minor league player to be named later. Toronto is picking up the remainder of Stewart's $6.2 million salary for 2003. He will be eligible for free agency after the season." Source: mlb.com

Just as I figured. I actually prefer this as it makes the PTBNL someone who the Jays likely don't have future plans for anyway.

The real benefit is that the Jays have someone next year comparable to Stewart that will cost $5 million less.
_Geoff - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:04 PM EDT (#97390) #
Presuming Catalanotto does not re-sign, how many of next year's starting 9 will be making less than $1M? Six? Catcher, Hudson, Phelps, Johnson, Kielty and Woodward? (Being at $750K now, I guess Woody may get up to $1M after this season). That certainly frees up considerable elbow room to address the pitching staff.

The 5 year deals Hinske and Wells signed also call for 800,000 and 700,000 respectively in 2004 - so, if Cat does not re-sign, Delgado would be the only regular making more than a million - that said, I think the Cat will be back
_M.P. Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT (#97391) #
http://economics.about.com
We'll assume that the Jays will still be paying Stewart this year and the Twins will still be paying Kielty this year (not that it makes much of a difference). Since the payroll obligations of both teams are unchanged, the trade boils down to the following:

TWINS GET
---
* 69 games worth of Shannon Stewart (plus possible 2003 playoff games)
* PTBNL
* Possible 2004 draft pick (3rd round maybe?)

BLUE JAYS GET
---
* 67 games worth of Bobby Kielty (plus possible 2003 playoff games
* 162 games worth of Bobby Kielty in 2004 at salary of $500,000 or so
* 486 games worth of Bobby Kielty in 2005-2007 at a below market value salary due to arbitration
* Possible draft pick/picks in 2008

I don't see how the Jays lose in this unless the PTBNL is outstanding.

Mike
Dave Till - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:15 PM EDT (#97392) #
I'm guessing that the Cat will be back. He absolutely loves playing in Toronto, so he probably won't be trying to squeeze every last possible dollar out of the Blue Jays. I think the hitters we're seeing now are likely to be the hitters we will see in 2004 (unless somebody offers something useful for one of the Frankencatchers).

I would guess that Lidle and Escobar will be traded before the deadline. There's nothing to stop J.P. from trading Kelvim and then trying to sign him as a free agent - or, trying to find someone in Kelvim's price range who is a bit more consistent.

I could see Escobar going to Oakland. The A's pitching coach (I forget his name) seems like he knows what he's doing - he'd be the guy who could get Escobar feeling confident enough to be more consistently good. Getting into a pitcher's park would probably help, too.

BTW, I like the Kielty trade, in case I didn't make that clear earlier. It's about as much as could be expected (given that the Jays couldn't afford to risk offering Stewart arbitration in order to get draft picks when he is signed as a free agent by somebody else).
_Gwyn - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT (#97393) #
It's so nice to have a GM who comes out on the good end of these trades.

Im rather glad I'm not a Twins fan today. I've been trying to find any kind of rhyme or reason to this trade from their angle. About the only thing I can come up with is that they haven't been terribly productive from the corner outfield positions - despite the number of decent players they have for those positions.

I cant beleive anyone who has seen stewart play would put hiom in right - well maybe Billy Beane,
_Mick - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:27 PM EDT (#97394) #
Ah, the old Plato/Isocrates feud rears its ugly head again. It really puts Stewart/Kielty in perspective, doesn't it?

Plato really was a "name" philosopher but when you take Paradigm Factor into account, "I So Cool"-cratEZ had the clearly superior OPS (ontology plus sophism).
_nelly - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT (#97395) #
It seems like a good trade, but would 2 first round picks next year be better than a productive OF in the majors today? Given the success rate of draft picks and the cost, maybe not.

it was never a given that stew would be offered arbitration... what if he accepted?

i would be even more surprised if the twins made the offer.

for the record, i'll side with those who suggest kielty is better than stewart right now.

great trade, JP.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT (#97396) #
http://economics.about.com
it was never a given that stew would be offered arbitration... what if he accepted?

The Jose Cruz Jr. situation last year showed the JP is more than willing to avoid the risk of offering a player arbitration. The question is: will the Twins take the risk? I'm of the opinion that they will, but who knows what will happen?

If the Jays had no plans to offer Stewart arbitration (which is likely, but again, who knows), then the trade is a *steal* for the Jays as they would have given up Stewart for nothing a few months from now.

Mike
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:00 PM EDT (#97397) #
it was never a given that stew would be offered arbitration... what if he accepted?

I can't imagine going through this whole rigmarole again. Besides, if Stew ended 2003 with the team AND accepted arbitration, Coach might have had a stroke.

That said, if the Jays are sending cash to the Twins as well it makes more sense. But I don't see ANYTHING about cash being part of the deal.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:02 PM EDT (#97398) #
http://economics.about.com
MLB.com says that the Jays will pay the rest of Stew's salary.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#97399) #
Too bad, so sad. According to mlb.com, yes, the Jays are picking up Stew's $2.whatever million for the rest of the year.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:04 PM EDT (#97400) #
See Mike? Great minds think alike.
_nelly - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:13 PM EDT (#97401) #
with the changes in the market, i think stew will be hard pressed to get offered a long term deal at better than $5 milliom per... if offered arbitration the maximum decrease in his salary is 20%... or around 5 million.

besides, if offered arbitration the team that signs him may have to give up a high draft pick.

i expect him to accept, if offered.
_Ryan - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT (#97402) #
Terry Ryan was on The Fan 590 and confirmed that the Jays are paying Stewart the rest of the season. Still, I like the trade.
_Ryan - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:39 PM EDT (#97403) #
Additionally, Richard Griffin was on before Ryan and seemed indifferent to the trade. He also said Ricciardi had an ego "the size of the CN Tower."
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#97404) #
http://economics.about.com
Additionally, Richard Griffin was on before Ryan and seemed indifferent to the trade. He also said Ricciardi had an ego "the size of the CN Tower."

Griffin was probably mistaken: It probably *was* the CN tower. If the guy can't tell the difference between his butt and a hole in the ground, what chance does he have differentiating buildings and egos?

Mike
Pistol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:51 PM EDT (#97405) #
Perhaps there was concern that Stewart would accept arbitration. I still think he'd take 3 years $10 million over 1 year in arbitration, and I think a team would certainly offer at least that.

It could also be that even if you get draft picks you have to give them a big bonus, and the success rate is less than 50%. If the draft pick turned out to be Bobby Kielty, you'd probably be satisfied. The Jays get Kielty today instead of draft picks down the road and don't have to pay a bonus to him.
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 05:56 PM EDT (#97406) #
Griffin proved as much as ever that he doesn't know what he's talking about. He said that Quiroz has now surpassed Kevin Cash as the catcher of the future because he's a "JP player" and Cash is a "Gord Ash" player.

Lost in the analysis is the fact that:

A) Quiroz has been with the Jays since he was 16 and therefore couldn't possibly be a JP player.

B) Quiroz is five years younger and outperforming Cash in the minors so any GM who wasn't drunk (as I suspect Griffin often is) would place more value on the former than the latter.

The smear campaign against the Jays new regime by the clueless T.O. media continues.
_Jacko - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:02 PM EDT (#97407) #
Kielty's career numbers, courtesy of the Star:

http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2701

jc
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:10 PM EDT (#97408) #
http://economics.about.com
Quiroz has now surpassed Kevin Cash as the catcher of the future because he's a "JP player" and Cash is a "Gord Ash" player.

Impossible. Cash is white and Quiroz isn't. So JP must be trying to dump Quiroz, if we're to believe Griffin's paper.

Kielty has 631 career ABs, which is a bit over what he'd get in a full season (since he walks so much). In that "season", he hit:

269/374/444, 35 2B, 23 HR, 92 RBI, 102 BB, 147 K, 13 SB, 3 CS.

Other than the steals, he sounds like the Jays type of guy, particularly if he can start hitting with more power.

Mike
Coach - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:21 PM EDT (#97409) #
I'm glad the Jays picked up the tab. It guarantees that the PTBNL won't be a top prospect. Well done, Mr. Ricciardi.

I don't know what Ryan was smoking, but he just weakened his team while donating Kielty to the Jays.

My response exactly.

As thrilled as I am at this trade, I hope it doesn't prolong the Free Josh Phelps campaign. I'd platoon Cat and Kielty batting second in LF, with Johnson in right and leading off. Bobby can give Reed an occasional rest and pinch-hit against situational lefties. When he's activated from the DL, Phelps needs consistent at-bats, which he hasn't had since the start of interleague play.
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:22 PM EDT (#97410) #
Looking at those career numbers and those of one Brian Giles, one can almost call Kielty a lite version of Brian Giles. He looks like he has the size to hit over 20 homeruns per year and if he approaches 30 in the next couple of years it's not the biggest stretch in the world to compare the two. He could become the ideal 5-hitter behind Wells and Delgado if he does add that power.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:28 PM EDT (#97411) #
http://economics.about.com
The problem is there's about 30 guys you could compare to Brian Giles. Nobody expected Giles to blossom the way he did.. he went from a 18 homer to a 38 homer guys overnight. It's noteworthy because it's so rare.. nobody could have expected that. Just ask Keith Law. :)
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:43 PM EDT (#97412) #
Actually, what Giles did is got to play everyday for the first time in his career and managed to cut his strikeout rate significantly. His walks actually went down, but he was making more contact (so his batting average went up to the levels he displayed in the high mnors).

He was 28 when he arrived in Pittsburgh and his power had been increasing slowly from age 22 to 27.

Giles developed well, but there is a case to be made that his growth was stunted in Cleveland.
_Jeff - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 06:53 PM EDT (#97413) #
http://www.hauserreport.com
One possible Twins' justification: if the poster who said 2 first round picks is right, the Twins have reduced by one their glut of corner OFs and young players for 2004 while adding to the generation below, a generation that will have to be built from worse draft picks than the current one. Since the Twins are paying nothing for this trade, it really doesn't limit their ability to further convert their corner glut into middle infield or starting pitching help.
_jason - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 07:13 PM EDT (#97414) #
I guess this also means we're back to being the whitest team in the majors.
_Spicol - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 07:31 PM EDT (#97415) #
I heard Ryan on the FAN on the way home too...his voice sounded strained with a slight dash of desparation. Way to take advantage, JP.

Since the Jays are paying the rest of Stewart's salary and since Kielty and Shannon are performing similarly this season, one could almost say that the Jays lose absolutely nothing this season and the deal really breaks down to be the PTBNL for 4 years of below-market Kielty. The prospect-to-be-named won't be Top-10, so that's pretty damn sweet.
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 07:44 PM EDT (#97416) #
Giles developed well, but there is a case to be made that his growth was stunted in Cleveland.

Left unsaid in Robert's analysis (did I detect a trace of a smile behind that, my friend?) is the fact thay Kielty's growth has been similarly stunted in Minnesota for two years now.

if the poster who said 2 first round picks is right

It's a bit of a misnomer to say "two first round picks", but not much. If (big if) the Twins offer Stewart arbitration and he turns it down, or if he's signed to a new deal before the arbitration deadline, then the Twins get the first-round pick of the team that signs him, plus a "sandwich pick" between the first and second rounds (surprisingly, the term has nothing to do with either Cecil or Prince Fielder).
_Donkit R.K. - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 07:47 PM EDT (#97417) #
I agree with Coach that " ... platoon Cat and Kielty batting second in LF, with Johnson in right and leading off. Bobby can give Reed an occasional rest and pinch-hit against situational lefties. "

I also agree with Chuck that JP should pocket Cat's slaary next year (unless he really does love playing in Toronto and will sign for a year or two at, say, less than 2.5 million). For 2004, or even the first half of it, I see no problem with Kielty-Wells-Johnson eventually leading to Kielty-Wells-Gross. Then the main chip is Rios (unless Werth can recover). If they trade Lidle and let Cat walk, could Rios be moved for a guy like Santana? Vazquez? A good no. 2 starter who can stay with the team a few years through the contending seasons. With the Stewart-Lidle-Cat money saved they cna be resigned to a multiyear deal. I think that that would be the best move. If Rios is moved, there's still Gross, Werth, Kielty, Johnson and Griffin looking to fill the corner spots. Even if Rios projects to be the best of the bunch, I'd say trade him anyway since he seems most likely to land a Vazquez level starter. If Delgado walks, Griffin and Phelps will, hopefully, be able to play 1B/DH (any chance of a guy like Pond joining that discussion?)

And as for the trade, in the here and now, I think Kielty is at least as good as Stewart is right now and his .380 OBP with some power is gonna be real nice. .380 and .450-.470 from the leadoff spot sounds good ;-)
Craig B - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 07:51 PM EDT (#97418) #
the Twins have reduced by one their glut of corner OFs and young players for 2004 while adding to the generation below

Except they gave away the best one. I mean, Morneau might turn out to be the best one, but Kielty was the best hitter on their whole team last year and it wasn't all that close. You don't give away the best one in your stable to play the guys who aren't as good. Still, it's only because the Twins have 322 of these guys that the move is defensible at all, so you're right on there.

I bet that Ryan sees Stewart as valuable, primarily because the Twins sorely need a real leadoff man, and Stewart is nothing if not a good leadoff man. The funny thing is, though, he gave up an equally good leadoff man to get him.
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#97419) #
"DP,

I absolutely hate it when someone provides monthly OPS splits as if they mean something."

Why? Kielty hasn't played a full season yet- he started out hot and cooled. I'd use Ty Wigginton as a comp, but TW has actually had a couple of hot streaks since his solid April. Kielty has slumped for 3 months after not even a full ML season, where Stew has a .300 BA and .367 OB% over 8.5 ML seasons- Stew can get away with 2.5 cold months without us doubting his level of ability, but Kielty can't

"Care to provide some solid evidence that Stewart is better than Kielty? Let's also point out that Kielty is younger than Stewart, so however much better Kielty is (and he is better) that gap figures to increase slightly over the next few years."

Where the hell is your evidence? There's homerism, there's forecasting, but this is a different breed entirely. You're asserting a guy whose has yet to play a full major league season is better than guy who's got 3400 AB with a .367/.441/.301 line, and the burden of proof is on me? Throwing out defense (if you've got a measure that shows Kielty's significantly better, I'll take your word), Kielty's a guy who has posted this line at AAA, mostly age 24-25:
.391/.470/.286
Age 25-26, in the majors (2002):
.405/.484/.291, 289 AB

Those are impressive numbers, but as indicators, it would seem like 289 AB sample is a little misleading (higher power than in the minors, higher BA and OB%), unless Kielty shows that that was real improvement by continuing it into '03. He started the season strong, but even Lenny Harris can hit .300 for a month. Since then, he's had a good OB%, but a horrid BA. He's slugging well under .400 since April, in over 200 PA.

The guy he's clearly worse than posted this line at age 24:
.377/.417/.279
Age 25:
.371/.411/.304
Age 26:
.363/.518/.319

The difference? All of Stew's numbers are from the majors, and all in full seasons. BA tends not to be a good indicator of future performance, so is often discounted, but Stew manages to consistenly carry his over from year to year. The OB% Kielty posted in the minors is good, but you act like being able to translate it into the majors is an automatic, and I'm saying it isn't. You can say that Kielty will probably improve, and that if he does he'll be better than Stewart, but he hasn't. Don't treat your projections like facts, because they aren't. I hate the stereotyping of statheads, but this is one of the things people do with stathead dogma that destroys its crediblity- you have tools that tell you Kielty will probably be the better performer in the long run to tell you he's the better player now, then act like anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

You also ignore Stewart's speed, which has gone unused but hasn't neccessarily disappeared.

Going forward over the next 3 years, equalize salary, defense, and baserunning, and I'll take Stewart. Over the next 5, Kielty. But those things aren't equal; Shannon costs too much. It's nice to have Kielty, but at least recognize that we've lost a valuable player, one that does a lot of things well and was fun to watch (at least in the batter's box!).
_Donkit R.K. - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:24 PM EDT (#97420) #
I'll definitely agree with dp and say we lost a valuable player. I always thought Stewart should be a run producer in the three spot and wondered why his numbers dipped so much in his forays (albeit seldom) from the leadoff spot. But I'll disagree with dp and say that Kielty will out produce Stewart next season, unless Stewart gets the green light on the baspaths (though that could also cause hammy problems...)
_Cristian - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:31 PM EDT (#97421) #
Don't get me wrong. I love this trade from a Jays perspective. However, it does not follow that the Twins got fleeced. The Twins needed a few things...

1. To shake up their underachieveing clubhouse...check
2. A lead off hitter...check

I know that a statshead will tell you that a high obp is a better leadoff skill than a high average/high speed. However, given that Gardenhire values the prototypical speedy leadoff guy, is it such a bad thing to acquire one for him? Stewart will be running now and creating excitement for the Twins and hopefully injecting a bit of juice into that unachieving lineup. Let's not forget that Stewart is no OBP slouch either. You don't need to walk much to be an offensive force when you consistently hit .300. Stewart is hardly the no hit/all speed Chuck Carr leadoff hitter out there (as well Stewart pulls up on balls that could be caught while Carr dove for balls he had no chance of reaching).

Could Minnesota have made a better trade? Possibly. Did they get fleeced? I don't think so.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:45 PM EDT (#97422) #
http://economics.about.com
Let's look at the actual 2003 figures.

BASEBALL PROSPECTUS TALE OF THE TAPE

PAs: Kielty 283, Stewart 332
OUTS: Kielty 180, Stewart 216
EQA: Kielty .283, Stewart .277
EQR: Kielty 38.5, Stewart 43.6
RAR: Kielty 15.7, Stewart 16.2
RAP: Kielty 0.1, Stewart -2.7
RARP: Kielty 10.3, Stewart 9.6

These more advanced metrics give an advantage to Kielty, but given the sample sizes I'd call it a draw.

Going forward over the next 3 years, equalize salary, defense, and baserunning, and I'll take Stewart.

What about injury risk?

Why the heck should you take salary, defense and baserunning out of the equation? Why not just take out hitting and rate the two on veteran leadership?

Mike
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:45 PM EDT (#97423) #
dp,

1) I absolutely do not believe in the significance of month to month OPS fluctuation. It is based on incredibly small sample sizes and is heavily influenced by park and opponent factors which change month to month.

2) Um. Kielty has played 224 games in the big leagues (last time I checked a full season is 162 games). In that time, he has a .375 OBP and a .444 SLG (average PA-age =26.12). In triple A in 105 games, he put up a .391 OBP, .470 SLG (average PA-age 24.83) - which is COMPLETELY consistent with the type of performance he's displayed in the majors. I see no reason to think that his big league performance is some kind of lucky fluke.

I didn't say Kielty is better than Stewart was at age 24-26. I said he's clearly better now. Stewart is now 29 years old. The last 3 years (including the current one) he's put up:

.371/.463 (698 PA)
.371/.442 (641 PA)
.347/.449 (340 PA)

So, while both players have been in the majors, Stewart has put up a combined .366 OBP, .452 SLG in 1679 PAs. So Kielty has a 9 point edge in OBP and an 8 point deficit in SLG. We know that OBP should be weighted approximately 1.7 times more than SLG.

So I conclude that Kielty (starting out in the majors and 2.5 years younger than Stewart) has performed ever so slightly better offensively than Stewart since both have been in the majors. Kielty is regarded as a capable defender who can play centre if needed; Stewart is regarded as a below average leftfielder (mostly due to a horrible throwing arm). If you have anything that contradicts that defensive assessment I invite you to share it with us.

I can only conclude that right now, this second, Kielty is a better player than Stewart. Not a lot better, but better. Since he is younger, it stands to reason that we should expect that gap to grow in the coming years. That doesn't mean it will happen - that's for the future to decide.

From personal observation, Stewart has little speed left. He can't get down the line to first base better than average. He's perpetually nursing a sore hamstring. There is no cause for optimism (that I see) about a future re-birth of speed.

I invite you to deal with the specific claims I've made in this post, and, more importantly, provide counter-arguments.
_Wildrose - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:47 PM EDT (#97424) #
Love the trade, I'm amazed J.P. got so much for the 2 month rental of a player whose position (L.F.)is easily filled in the grand scheme of things.

The PNTML my intuition tells me is a grade B-/c prospect, otherwise the Twins you would think , would have released his name.(Most likely they have a list of players to choose from at season's end.)

Going forward the Jays have outstanding O.F. depth,( 7 legit guys for 2005, 8 if you somehow extend Cattlatano)giving them some great trading options.

I'm not convinced that Kielty is here for a long time( mainly because of all of our Of's). Seems like he'd be a pretty good fit for the A's as well(cheap,versatile,more of a grass footspeed guy )and may be part of a bigger trade with Beane. Any input Gitz?

Here's a clarification of free agent compensation http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draftorder03.html ,not sure if Stewart is in the top 30% of Mlb at his position.
_Wildrose - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT (#97425) #
Sorry, I really need to do links properly.
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 08:59 PM EDT (#97426) #
http://economics.about.com
You just need to do it like (I don't know if you don't know how or don't feel like it:

(a href="http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/draftorder03.html")Baseball America(/a)

But use < > instead of ( )

Baseball America
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 09:00 PM EDT (#97427) #
Christian,

Here's why I think it's a bad trade for the Twins:

1) They have a surplus of corner outfield types. They should have used this surplus to trade for something they need (like a middle infielder who's at least average).

2) They are in a pennant race. They traded a younger, cheaper and, YES, better player for an older one who will not be with the club next year. Draft picks depend largely on the risky ploy of offering arbitration to a player they can't afford to keep on beyond this year.

So,

They haven't addressed their weaknesses and they've traded away one of their useful trade chits for a slightly inferior player.
_Wildrose - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 09:11 PM EDT (#97428) #
Thanks Mike.(I really don't know how)
Pepper Moffatt - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 09:12 PM EDT (#97429) #
http://economics.about.com
No problem, Wildrose. It's one of my many jobs. :)

I wonder if this type of linking works.

[link url=http://economics.about.com]THE GREATEST SITE ON THE INTERNET[/link].

Mike
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT (#97430) #
"1) I absolutely do not believe in the significance of month to month OPS fluctuation. It is based on incredibly small sample sizes and is heavily influenced by park and opponent factors which change month to month."

Kielty's got 733 career PA. Over the last 200, he's slugged below .400. This isn't a 1 month slump against great competition. I think that's cause for concern now that we've got a 200 PA sample size.

"2) Um. Kielty has played 224 games in the big leagues (last time I checked a full season is 162 games). In that time, he has a .375 OBP and a .444 SLG (average PA-age =26.12)."

Coming into this season, he had 460 PA, not a full ML season, not enough to qualify for the batting title. I said "Kielty has slumped for 3 months after not even a full ML season," meaning he really hadn't established himself as .400/.480 hitter, and has now entered a bad slump. He's still walking, which is a good sign, but his power has disappeared (12 XBH in tose 200 AB).

I'll grant you defense- I don't know anything about Kielty other than that his defense was cited as a reason for this trade, which has to strike any Jays fan as ironic.

"From personal observation, Stewart has little speed left. He can't get down the line to first base better than average. He's perpetually nursing a sore hamstring."

He did steal 14 bases last year against 2 caught. The hamstrings have always been a problem, and have acted up this year again, but he always seems to recover.

"So I conclude that Kielty (starting out in the majors and 2.5 years younger than Stewart) has performed ever so slightly better offensively than Stewart since both have been in the majors. Kielty is regarded as a capable defender who can play centre if needed;"

Kielty's had 480 solid PAs in the majors followed by 200 that look like they were posted by a middle infielder. He's entering his prime but hasn't shown it this year. There's not enough there, in my mind, to suggest he's better than Stewart. I have no idea how the Twins used BK last year- did they maximize his skills by spotting him against the type of pitchers he suceeds against? Are those weaknesses being exposed with increased playing time? I don't have those doubts about Stewart- he rarely slumps, always manages to keep the BA and OB% up, and has shown he can do it. This isn't the hollow shell of a proven vet vs. a young rook bursting with potential- Stew has proven he can hit, is still hitting, ect, while Kielty's been a middle infielder in the last 25% of his major league plate appearances.

Mike,
"Why the heck should you take salary, defense and baserunning out of the equation? Why not just take out hitting and rate the two on veteran leadership?"

Salary is irrelevant to who is the better player. Defense I just don't know enough about Kielty to evaluate him (I've heard bad things about his OF play, but they use him in CF) and Stew I think has a worse rep than is justfied by his numbers. Baserunning is uncertain because we don't know if Stew has stopped stealing b/c he can't or b/c he doesn't want to or b/c they said stop.

BK had some injury problems earlier this year. Anyone know if that's a persistent thing or if this is the 1st time they've popped up?
_R Billie - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:00 PM EDT (#97431) #
BK has had a ribcage injury which could account for his weak numbers from the left side of the plate. His OPS from the right side is .999 I think.
_Cristian - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:00 PM EDT (#97432) #
Robert,

Do you attribute any value to shaking up a clubhouse? I never said this is a great trade for the Twins. However, they clearly needed to do something. The Twins were projected to be much better. They have played poorly. The Twins can't afford to sit on their hands and hope that by game 162 the team will have met their potential--the underachieving being a statistical abberation that evens out by the end of the season. We don't know what the effect of this trade will be on the rest of the Twins but I'm sure Terry Ryan considered this when making the trade. He said as much on The Fan today.

In a city that is not selling out the Metrodome, there is also value to creating interest among casual fans (although Stewart will be page 2 material tomorrow with the TWolves signing Olowokandi today). A casual fan may not buy a ticket to see Stewart specifically but he/she will if the Twins get on a roll and management gives the impression they are 'going for it' this year.

I still think that if Stewart goes to Minnesota, leads off, and steals a few bases, the Twins could be re-energized. Of course, I have no numbers to back this up. I could run a statistical analysis of team performance pre and post trades of prototypical leadoff hitters but I just don't have the time or the desire. Is my argument worse for not being backed up with statistical data? Of course it is. Does this mean that it has no merit? I don't think so.

Once again, let me reiterate. I'm not suggesting that Stewart is a better player; only that he is a different kind of player. Stewart leading off fits the manner in which the Twins think a roster should be constructed. I can't defend this way of thinking but assume that during this season this thinking will not change. I then submit that finding players that fit their philosophy is a good move. Ideally for the Twins, a hitter with Stewart's hitting skills plays second base. However, this player is not available on the trade market.
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:10 PM EDT (#97433) #
dp,

It's beyond me why you assign some kind of significance to these 200 PA where Kielty hasn't done well. Does that mean that if he puts up a .420/.550 in August and September this year you'll take back and praise him as a coming superstar?

I'm looking at his entire career, ALL the PAs he's had in pro ball since he entered it in 1999. It leads me to the conclusions I stated in my previous post. His minor league performance has been completely consistent with his major league performance.

You're looking at 200 PA and I'm looking at 2057 PA - who's got sample size on his side? Those 2057 PA prove that Kielty can hit - minor league stats are a good indicator of hitting talent if you know how to interpret them.

Your uncertainty about Kielty should lead you to prefer him over Stewart. We know a lot about how Stewart will perform because he's one of the most consistent hitters in baseball (that's not necessarily a compliment). Kielty has been a little better overall, but the uncertainty means he could actually be much better or much worse than he's shown. If he's much worse then you simply replace him with another outfielder. If he turns out to be much better, you've got a very productive player locked up for a few years at bargain prices.

Stewart has had leg problems the last couple of years. In half a year he'll be 30. I think that's about all we need to know about the likelihood of a speed rebirth.

Weren't you the guy who argued over the off-season that Felipe Lopez was going to make J.P. sorry even though he had about 300 bad PAs at the major league level in 2002? If recent performance is so important to you, why did you tout Felipe?
robertdudek - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:19 PM EDT (#97434) #
Well, it could go the other way. Stewart might not be in shape to steal bases, or he could get injured. Or he may need to be rested frequently because of the turf. The fans might notice all those runners taking liberties on him.

There are a lot of things they could have done to "shake things up". This wouldn't have been on my top 10 list.
_jason - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:38 PM EDT (#97435) #
I would think the Twins would be DH'ing Stew given that the OF of Jones, Hunter, and Mohr is one of the best defensively in MLB. For a struggling pitching staff it would seem to me that this makes more sense. Hopefully, Stew can get the green light a few more times in Minny as I'm sure he can still steal 20+ bases. (The Twins better run, outside of Koskie and maybe Jones, I don't know if they have a decent power threat in the line-up. Although, I'm sure Justin Monreau will fit that bill in future years.)

And I think it is a sad commentary on Stewart's defence that people would actually try to argue Kielty is the better player. Kielty may become a better player, but Stew is a career .300 hitter in 6+ years of MLB experience. Kielty has yet to demonstrate he can play a full-year. I'm excited about Kielty too, his OBP is impressive and he seems to have decent power, but it also wouldn't surprise me if he never becomes the hitter that Stew is.

At the very least the Jays have a good 4th OF and it opens up the possibilty that maybe JP will flip Kielty, Werth, Johson, or Cat to Oak-town for some of that there pitching.
_dp - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:39 PM EDT (#97436) #
"I'm looking at 2057 PA"
His AAA numbers aren't overwhelming, and he posted them at a not-particularly young age.

"minor league stats are a good indicator of hitting talent if you know how to interpret them."
Major league stats are better. This is stathead droll that makes you guys look foolish sometimes. Kielty couldn't hit .300 in AAA (in a hitter's park, in a hitter's league), whereas Stewart hasn't hit below .300 since 1998. But you're saying that it isn't enough minor league stats can be good indicators (w/an admitted qualifier), that we should accept them as evidence of superior performance/talent.

"If recent performance is so important to you, why did you tout Felipe?"

Age, the Raul Mondesi factor, and his performance at Syracuse after escaping Toronto- I would've started him at AAA this year and told him he had a clean slate, told him if he's doing well he'll be called up in July at the earliest. He's struggled in AAA this year, but kept his walks up. I still think he'll be a productive player, but that's a hunch more than anything.

Look, I have a lot of trust in minor league numbers, but treating them as if they're major league performance is misguided- for every guy who breaks the mold of a AAAA player, there's one who makes it. Kielty's performance the remainder of the year will show what side of the line he falls on. I'd love to know that his performance since May is because of that injury and that we've got a bonafide .400/.450 hitter on our hands, but that's far from a certain thing.

"Stewart has had leg problems the last couple of years. In half a year he'll be 30. I think that's about all we need to know about the likelihood of a speed rebirth."

SBs fluctuate pretty randomly, and he was OK when Buck ran him. If he stays healthy (no DL time), I'll bet you a cheap seat he steals 10 from now until October. If he gets hurt this year, the bet goes to 20 in '04. I don't make it to Toronto often though...
Gitz - Wednesday, July 16 2003 @ 10:57 PM EDT (#97437) #
Moffatt, your machinations with HTML won't work here.
_rodent - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:28 AM EDT (#97438) #
Fine thread, you all.
_benum - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:11 AM EDT (#97439) #
Aaron has posted on the trade at his blog site:

Aaron's Baseball Blog
_Jurgen - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 02:00 AM EDT (#97440) #
If Kielty turns into the next Brian Giles I'll eat Tucker Carlson's shoe.
_Jurgen - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 02:53 AM EDT (#97441) #
Can we agree on some things?

1) This is pretty odd move for the Twins, given their glut of OF/DH/1B types, major problems in the starting rotation and middle infield, and all around cheapness of their ownership.

2) Kielty buys the Jays some payroll flexibility, some position flexibility, some youth, and essentially gives them something for nothing.

3) Anyone not named Delgado or Wells taking AB from Phelps is a very bad thing.

4) J.P is clearly a racist.

5) Kielty is not the missing piece of the championship Toronto Blue Jays, and if J.P. can flip him or Reed or Cat for some quality pitching we'd ultimately all be a little happier--but we'd be happiest if Ted hands J.P. a blank check to sign Millwood next year.
_Ken - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 03:51 AM EDT (#97442) #
J.P. is clearly a racist

woah there. thats going to far, anyway ppl have discussed this at length b4, I think he isn't but if ppl choose to make a deal out of it then let that be on them.
_benum - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 05:23 AM EDT (#97443) #
J.P is clearly a racist.
I'm assuming that there is a missing smiley face at the end of this one.

Emoticons...it's a good thing...
_benum - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 05:31 AM EDT (#97444) #
Oh yeah...this too:
Kielty is not the missing piece of the championship Toronto Blue Jays

He could be if he delivers Stew-level lead-off performance (with better D) for <=$1 Million for a few years.

We have to look at these deals from a team wide perspective. Kielty could very well be an 850 OPS (with .400 OBP) switch hitter getting on base for Wells/Delgado next year. If DP is correct (the 'worst case scenario'), he could be trade bait or a 750 OPS 4th outfielder switch hitter with an OBP heavy value.

As long as the PTBNL is light (A ball or advanced C+/B- prospect), this is a good move IMHO.
_Ken - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 06:12 AM EDT (#97445) #
I am really hoping the prospect is not good, someone from A ball who is not in the future plans. please please please.

I disagree with a comment made by someone earlier, i think the jays should keep Rios, he's too good to trade. I'd prefer to trade Griffin or werth and get some good pitching but most likely you will not get the right value for Rios, a good pitcher in my view will not match his production in the majors.

As you can tell i'm really HIGH on lexi!
_Ken - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 07:53 AM EDT (#97446) #
just to illustrate my point, Rios was MVP in the Eastern League all-star game getting 3 hits and scoring 2 runs.
He should not be traded unless its for a TOP pitching prospect eg Williams, Harden etc
_Cristian - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 08:42 AM EDT (#97447) #
I like Rios as well but you can't look too much into him being made an MVP of one game. Everyone can have a good game. Heck, if I played in the Futures Game there is a small chance I could come home with the MVP trophy. A better guide that Rios is valuable is his play over the larger sample size of half this season that allowed him to be chosen for the game in the first place.
_Ken - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 08:50 AM EDT (#97448) #
well yea of course and this season his play has been outstanding, he was also good last year in Dunedin. The thing is, he is def on a growth curve and at the age of 22 he has been improving the last 2 seasons, god knows where he'll be in another 2.

I was simply using the all-star game to illustrate my point, surely the fact that he was picked also proves that he is a very good player.

Christian, don't tell me you aren't excited about the prospect of a wells, gross and rios outfield in 2005/6, cus all jays fans have to be.
robertdudek - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 09:08 AM EDT (#97449) #
dp,

You know what? His minor league stats look just as good as his major league stats. If he failed to hit in the minors and then put up great numbers in the bigs over 500 PA, you'd have cause to be skeptical.

There's nothing particularly special about the remaining 200-250 PA, just as there isn't about the last 250. They're just going to added to the sample size pile. This guy has proven he can hit in the minors and the majors and he's 2.5 years younger than Stewart - that's pretty much all we need to know to predict who's going to be the better hitter over the next few years.

Performance for a given level of experience is far more important than age. There is a learning curve involved in hitting against successive levels of pro pitching. Kielty got a late start, but since then he's risen to every challenge, including over 700 successful PA in the majors. Skepticism might be warranted if he had not yet hit against major league pitching, but that isn't the case here.
Pistol - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT (#97450) #
I went to the Eastern League All Star game last night. Rios was 3-4, but 2 of those hits were infield singles (he roped a double for the other hit). There weren't a whole lot of candidates for the award. I don't think anyone else had 2 hits or more than 1 RBI.

This isn't to knock Rios at all, just pointing out that his All Star game MVP isn't as great as sounds.

"My phone's been ringing a lot more the last couple of days than it was before the break,'' Ricciardi said, without wanting to get into too many of the specifics.

Of course, other than to say that he'd already had two calls yesterday asking if he wanted to move Kielty.


Hard to imagine who else besides Toronto would want Kielty.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 09:44 AM EDT (#97451) #
http://economics.about.com
Gitz: Moffatt, your machinations with HTML won't work here.

Moffatt: My machinations with HTML won't work here.

Gitz: These are not the droids you are looking for.

Moffatt: These aren't the droids. Carry on.

Mike
Craig B - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 09:48 AM EDT (#97452) #
Everyone: You want to go home, and rethink your life

Burley: I want to go home, and rethink my life.
_dp - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 10:46 AM EDT (#97453) #
"You know what? His minor league stats look just as good as his major league stats."

Bullshit. His AAA line is .390/.470 in 400 AB in a league of bandbox parks- in the IL that slg% drops to .450. His AA is .397/.435 at 23, not particularly young for that level. He's managed to carry his OB% over well, but he's not hitting for any power this year, and we don't have evidence that suggests he will.

"If he failed to hit in the minors and then put up great numbers in the bigs over 500 PA, you'd have cause to be skeptical."

C'mon Robert, you know there are guys who failed in the majors after successful minor league careers. Now you're just being difficult. You said "Kielty is the better player right now" and backed it up with (unimpressive) minor league numbers and 3/4 of a major league season. That's weak. He hasn't proven he can hit in the majors over a full season. He had 500 succesful PAs, followed by 200 pretty miserable ones.

"Kielty got a late start, but since then he's risen to every challenge,"

Slugging .423 at AA is "rising to the challenge"? A little objectivity, please.

"including over 700 successful PA in the majors."

Come again? He's hitting like a middle infielder this year. You have so much faith in him you'll throw out a 200 AB slump, but the fact is that Kielty has NEVER had more than 500 PA at one level until this year. And since eclipsing 500 PAs in the majors, he's hit with Nefi Perez power.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#97454) #
http://economics.about.com
You have so much faith in him you'll throw out a 200 AB slump, but the fact is that Kielty has NEVER had more than 500 PA at one level until this year.

Nobody is throwing out *anything* dp. We're just giving equal weight to *all* his PAs. You're the one throwing out 500 PAs. We're considering *both* his 500 successful PAs and his 200 less than successful ones.

QUESTIONS:

1. What is the cutoff point at which we should only consider the most X recent PAs. Is it 500? 200? 100? 5? And why is it that number.

2. Why do you think Kielty's total numbers in the major leagues have been a fluke when they almost *exactly* match Baseball Prospectus' projections?

3. Do you dispute the fact that so far during the *whole* 2003 season that Kielty's rate stats are as good if not better than Stewart's?

Mike
_benum - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:05 AM EDT (#97455) #
Come again? He's hitting like a middle infielder this year.
.370/.420 would be nice to have from a 'middle infielder.'

You have so much faith in him you'll throw out a 200 AB slump
Is it a slump? I thought that he had a shoulder ailment which inhibited him from the left side (.695 OPS v.s. RHP, .999 v.s. LHP)

the fact is that Kielty has NEVER had more than 500 PA at one level until this year.
This is his fault somehow? He progressed up the minor league ladder. He went from A Ball to Minny within three years. He should have had 500 PA last year, that's the Twins fault, not his.
_R Billie - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#97456) #
"Hard to imagine who else besides Toronto would want Kielty."

The A's, Red Sox, Yankees, Padres, Cubs, Pirates, or any team looking for cheap outfield help for the future. The first two seem to me to be the most likely teams to be calling about a player like Kielty though the Padres wouldn't surprise me either.

They tried to get two of Minnesotta's "better arms" which I can only assume included Johan Santana and either Juan Rincon or one of the relievers. Therefore, IF the Jays get offered a premiere young pitcher for Kielty (Rich Harden, Jerome Williams, Jake Peavy) I don't think they'd hesitate to trade him. It would make the trade of Shannon Stewart a ridiculous success for them from both a talent and needs standpoint.

The tough part for the Jays in the next couple of years will be deciding who stays and who goes in the outfield. I think Catalanatto will come back and become next year's Shannon Stewart type trade bait. I think Kielty gives you the depth to do that without any worry. Or even trade a Gabe Gross or JFG without worry. I agree with the person who wouldn't trade Rios...I'd want to see where his development curve ends up before offering him up.

"Anyone not named Delgado or Wells taking AB from Phelps is a very bad thing."

Phelps will get his at bats once he gets healthy and the outfield sorts itself out (I think Johnson becomes a semi-regular fourth). But it's pretty simplistic to say no-one should play ahead of him. If Kielty is a .400 obp player then by all means he should play. I agree that Reed Johnson shouldn't be playing ahead of Phelps. He's been a help in the absence of Stewart but he hasn't been THAT good.
robertdudek - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#97457) #
dp,

The distinctions you make in the data between one season and the next, one month and the next, are mystifying. Attaching some special mystical importance to amassing 500 PA in a single season is akin to an astrological creed. Your hyperbole is not only worthless, but dangerously misleading ("he's hitting like a middle infielder this year").

You also get your facts wrong: Kielty slugged .435 in AA. You conveniently ignore his strengths: that same season his OBP was .396. Prior to that season he had played only 69 games of proball, which indicates that he was an inexperienced player at that point.

He had a .370 OBP in May, so his "slump" is something like 110 AB, over the months of June and July - not 200 PA.

The best thing to do is aggregate data, not pick out the samples that make your case look as good as possible. You are playing lawyer when you ought to be playing judge.

The following are my component stats (league average in parentheses) which I use to evaulate hitters.

A/AA (854 PA, age=23.55) power = .188 (.126); bip = .319 (.304); walks .162 (.093), strikeouts .194 (.179)

AAA (453 PA, age=24.83) power = .189 (.155); bip = .342 (.315); walks .135 (.079); strikeouts .192 (.186)

AL (750 PA, age=26.12) power = .171 (.149); bip = .313 (.291); walks .128 (.079); strikeouts .198 (.165)

He has always shown well-above average power and walk rate, and an above-average bip average. His weakness is strikeouts, but it is not excessively high. IF (a big if) he ever cuts his k rate to league average he's going to be a superb hitter. That's certainly doable, and I'm optimistic - but that is a question for the future.

Where I present context-based analysis, you counter with generalities, superstition and sophistry. I'm done debating this topic with you.
robertdudek - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:38 AM EDT (#97458) #
"Hard to imagine who else besides Toronto would want Kielty."

I'm pretty sure this was sarcasm, as Oakland is in despearte need for someone like Kielty. I'm sure Billy Beane knows this.
_dp - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:51 AM EDT (#97459) #
"1. What is the cutoff point at which we should only consider the most X recent PAs. Is it 500? 200? 100? 5? And why is it that number."

Kielty has 700+ career AB. The most recent 1/4 of those have been bad. That's cause for concern. If Frank Thomas had 4000 career AB and had hit .350/.350 in the past 1000, I'd say he probably shouldn't be playing. With Kielty, I'm saying maybe we don't have enough data to conclude how he's going to weather the ups and downs of a full ML season.

"2. Why do you think Kielty's total numbers in the major leagues have been a fluke when they almost *exactly* match Baseball Prospectus' projections?"

Because no one told me they found that book from Back to the Future II with all the sports records in it...if they've have in afct found that book, there's way more I want to know than how Bobby Kielty will hit...

"3. Do you dispute the fact that so far during the *whole* 2003 season that Kielty's rate stats are as good if not better than Stewart's?"

They're about the same, depending on how much weight you give to BA, OB% and slugging. But Kielty's in a 2 1/2 month tailspin, and hasn't shown signs of coming out, while Stew's been up and down.

We're in the realm of statnazi fantasy now, so I'm just going to bow out. You're pushing the tools beyond their limits, and it has just ceased to be fun. If you want to say we didn't lose anything by dropping Stewart, fine, but I think we did. Maybe I've overrated Stewart because I love watching him hit, but is it possible you've overrated Kielty because you jizz for underdog high BB/mediocre BA types? I'll grant you that last year's 300 AB suggested a power spike, but you have to concede that so far, it looks like a fluke. When Stew slugged .518 at age 26 (over a full season) it also suggested a power spike that never materialized.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:09 PM EDT (#97460) #
http://economics.about.com
Kielty has 700+ career AB.

a.k.a "Minor League Stats Are Worthless"

Because no one told me they found that book from Back to the Future II with all the sports records in it.

a.k.a. "Projections Are Worthless"

But Kielty's in a 2 1/2 month tailspin, and hasn't shown signs of coming out, while Stew's been up and down.

This is just funny. You're basically saying that Kielty had 1 good month and 2.5 horrid ones, and he's still been as good as Stewart. If Kielty only needs to have 1 good month out of 4 to match Stewart, the Jays must have gotten one hell of a deal.

You're pushing the tools beyond their limits, and it has just ceased to be fun.

a.k.a. "Tell Your Statistics To Shut Up"

If you want to say we didn't lose anything by dropping Stewart,

Nobody said that. We just said that what the Jays got is worth more than what they gave up. That does not imply what they gave up had no value.

Heck, I'm not even saying Kielty is going to be a great player. I don't think he will at all. Saying that he's had a rough couple months (when he's also been nursing a rib injury) should outweigh *all* the stats and *all* the projections is just foolishness.

Hell, you should have argued that Kielty's two months indicate that he's hurt and JP got hosed because he bought damaged goods. You'd atleast have a leg to stand on.

Mike
_Donkit R.K. - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:11 PM EDT (#97461) #
'twas I who suggested trading Rios. I think the outfield will be fine without him and that he'd be best used for bringing in a Javier Vazquez type pitcher. I didn't mean to trade him now, I was thinking have him play a full season of AAA next year and call him up in September (or maybe earlier if his play peaks). Showcase him a little bit then move him for a soon to be arbitration eligible no. 2 with a rebuilding team (I keep coming back to Javier Vazquez. Maybe you've noticed that I'm really high on Javier Vazquez and would love to see JAVIER VAZQUEZ in a Blue Jays uniform. Those 'Spos just need to fall waaaay out of the playoff race in the next year or two). Mind you, if Griffin has a powerspike next year and bring in the same type of pitcher, then trading him would be fine too. I just think there's a big difference between picking up a Vazquez and a solid no. 3 (Cory Lidle....) and trading Rios might get the Blue Jays the former (or at least someone in a similar ability range).

PS: Johan Santana would be just as good. Maybe JP can completely destroy Aaron's love of the Twins and get Santana for Lidle and a PTBNL ;-)
_dp - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#97462) #
dp:
"His AA is .397/.435 at 23, not particularly young for that level."

"Slugging .423 at AA is "rising to the challenge"?"

RD:
"You also get your facts wrong: Kielty slugged .435 in AA."

Just so you know I wasn't being "dangerously misleading"- that was a typo. I got it right above. Damn keypad.

"You conveniently ignore his strengths: that same season his OBP was .396."

I thought it was firmly established he can get on base. I agree that is a valuable skill that Kielty possesses, but Stewart did it as well at around the same clip- what we disagree on is his power, which is still in question. If he slugs .480-.500, he's going to be a better player than Stewart, but if his power is in the .420 range, like his minor league numbers suggest, then Stew's the better offensive player. Nothing coated with "superstition and sophistry" there- sorry you feel that way about anything that would call into question your (flawless?) projections.

I love reading your posts and articles, Robert- they shed a lot of light on the game for me. I just happen to disagree with you in this instance. I'd like to end on a civil note- sorry if I've said anything offensive. Cheers.
Craig B - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:19 PM EDT (#97463) #
Those 'Spos just need to fall waaaay out of the playoff race in the next year or two

By then, Javier Vazquez will be making $8-10 million a year. No thanks! The time to get Javier would have been last year, when he was undervalued. One great thing about him, though... he's a horse.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT (#97464) #
http://economics.about.com
Are you saying that you'd rather have a 350/440 guy rather than a 370/420 guy? Particularly as a leadoff hitter?

Mike
Gitz - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT (#97465) #
Wait, I'm Obi Wan Kenobi? Wow! The Ultimate Compliment!!!!!

But Mike, you're much better/stronger than an Imperial Stormtrooper. You're someone like Jabba the Hut, impervious to my Jedi mind games.
_R Billie - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT (#97466) #
Well sure, Rios for the right return wouldn't be bad. But it's just hard to say what the right return is just now. He's at an age where he still figures to add size and strength...I wouldn't deal him until he's near 24 and his power/patience curve is more evident.

To put it another way, I think trading Gabe Gross could mean trading the next Trot Nixon. Trading Alexis Rios could mean trading the next Vernon Wells, Nomar Garciaparra, or even Magglio Ordonez. We're talking about a different level of prospect; if he adds the power that his body suggests he can I think he's untouchable. I would consider trading him as part of a package for an ace quality pitcher who we know will be in Toronto for a few years.

Is Vasquez that pitcher? I do like him a lot and would love to see him in Toronto too. But is he worth a potential superstar at the beginning of his career?
_DS - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:32 PM EDT (#97467) #
Gitz,

Have you seen Mike's picture? Jabba would eat him for lunch!
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:36 PM EDT (#97468) #
http://economics.about.com
Yeah.. I don't think a 6'3" 175lb guy can be Jabba.

I'd say I'm Admiral Ackbar, but I don't want to start a "It's a trap" thread.

I want to be Wedge. He was cool.

The tricky part on this board is to find someone who can be Leia. :)

Mike
Gitz - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:43 PM EDT (#97469) #
Well, we are speaking metaphorically here. It's not accurate for a 33-year-old hack writer to be a sagacious Jedi Knight -- for any number of reasons -- but that didn't stop me.

Didn't Wedge die like nine times?
_R Billie - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:49 PM EDT (#97470) #
I think it's obvious that Kielty has more power than Stewart. Isolated power for Stewart's career is .147 while Kielty's is .175. This year Kielty has a .168 ISO meaning he has NOT lost power...when he's hitting the ball he's hitting it about as hard as last year. And as his career stats show, he easily has 20 homer potential and he's shown it early in his career.

To further illustrate, Stewart hits a homerun every 47 at bats while Kielty hits one every 27 at bats...a significant difference. Kielty's major league homerun rate almost matches his minor league rate exactly. He could hit anywhere from 1st to 5th in the lineup and not be out of place (unless you have Wells and Delgado already in the 3rd and 4th spots).

The only edge Shannon holds is batting average which I will certainly give to him. But Kielty holds a clear advantage in the more important categories of power and patience. I think you want to have a mix of pure hitters and patient hitters. In terms of overall value though, Kielty brings more to the table than Stewart.
_Spicol - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#97471) #
The tricky part on this board is to find someone who can be Leia.

We'll get a female poster in here someday. Yes, someday.
_Pfizer - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 12:52 PM EDT (#97472) #
Now I see what the problem is. He strikes out too much.

Seriously though, I'm pretty pleased with all this. Hopefully this will shake loose some more deals from JP, and we can be free of Lidle and Escobar. Imho, it should be all youth, all the time for the rest of the year. Except for Delgado whom we should lock up as soon as possible.

Back to my opening snarky commment though. I can't resolve the issue that if the best thing a pitcher can do is strike out, that it isn't the worst thing a hitter can do. I lie awake at nights thinking about it.
robertdudek - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#97473) #
dp,

I appreciate your sentiment in your last post. Keep in mind that my statistical analysis pertained exclusively to past performance. It's important to compare a player's performance to the league norms. That's the starting point for gaining any kind of insight about a player's batting skills.

I strongly believe my component batting stats reflect the 4 most important batting skills. When I talk about a possible future for any player I almost always use conditionals.

A quibble: when you say that Kielty's power is in the .420 range you are using slugging percentage as a stand-in for power. This is wrong, dangerously wrong. SLG, like OBP, is a conflation of 2 or more of the 4 batting skills. Talking only of OBP and SLG and OPS is pretty much the most superficial kind of "sabermetric" analysis one can do.
_Lurch - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT (#97474) #
Rios is the most likely to get dealt Jays prospect because he's the one most overvalued by other GM's. 5-tool, ridiculously good batting average. Some GM out there probably looks at him and says "Who's your Vladdy?" If they can get that kind of value, then go for it.
robertdudek - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:16 PM EDT (#97475) #
Pfizer,

The short answer is that major league hitters vary much more in their abilities to do damage when they make contact than majorleague pitchers vary in their abilities to prevent damage on contacted balls.
_Female posters - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#97476) #
We'll get a female poster in here someday. Yes, someday.

Not if you keep talking about Star Wars, you won't.
_Mick - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 01:42 PM EDT (#97477) #
I had female posters on my walls when I was younger, but mom made me take them down.

According to The Toronto Star, the character metaphor that will never be filled in this forum is that of Lando Calrissian.
_Pfizer - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 02:44 PM EDT (#97478) #
I also want to admit that I thought RossCW was a fictional character, waved in front of a new Primate as a warning against too much ego and too little rational thought. Sadly, it seems I'm mistaken.

As I've always said, the only people that should be truly feared are the ones with no capacity to consider themselves wrong. Oh, and bunters too.
_John Neary - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 03:21 PM EDT (#97479) #
One of the big problems with trying to use statistics to show that a guy has improved or worsened is that the analysis is nearly always post hoc. We didn't particularly care about Bobby Kielty when he hurt his rib, so no one made a post saying "I think Kielty's rib injury is going to decrease his performance by amount X for a period of time Y." Post hoc analysis isn't considered valid in most areas of research, because if you make (1/p) comparisons you'll on average find one difference that's statistically significant at a significance level of p. To put it another way, let's suppose that there are 450 batters and 300 pitchers in the major leagues. In every two-month period, you'll expect to find 22 batters and 15 pitchers whose records have significantly improved or declined (p<0.05) through luck alone, significantly enough to be validated by a common test of statistical accuracy.

Ideally, we'd like to be able to predict which guys are likely to improve or decline at any given time. Then we could prospectively decide to analyze their stats using predetermined methods at a given time in the future. The reasons for making such predictions could include injury, a radically new throwing motion or batting stance, or past performance of similar players.

However, this sort of analysis is hardly ever done. Rather, we see that a player is doing better or worse than we expect, and after a while we say to ourselves "gee, this performance isn't what I expected; something must have happened to this guy." At that point, we're stuck in the position of trying to figure out whether there's a good reason why the player's numbers have changed or whether he's just that one out of twenty who's had unusually good or bad luck.

Very occasionally, a player's stats will dramatically change for no apparent reason. Ben Grieve hit .278/.363/.474 in 1911 PA from 1998 through 2000, when he turned 24. In 335 PA before the All-Star break in 2001, he hit .240/.345/.365. Was this a statistically significantly difference? Almost certainly. (If someone feels like calculating p-values, I'd be happy to hear them.) Did it reflect any real change in Grieve's ability? As far as I know, Grieve hadn't been hurt, hadn't changed his batting approach, and hadn't had anything else unusual happen to him. He was only 25 years old.

In retrospect, Grieve's decline that spring was real; he's hit .254/.349/.399 in 1402 PA since 2001, and I can't dismiss a sample that large. But would anyone have been justified in calling his decline real at the 2001 All-Star break? Not to the best of my knowledge. When you're doing a post hoc analysis and there's no good reason to have predicted a change in performance, I think you have to set the bar awfully high for statistical evidence.

I give Robert "Defender of the Null Hypothesis" Dudek full marks for consistently using the same stats to analyze players as opposed to picking and choosing; it's much harder to fall into the post hoc trap that way. I don't quite believe that you should always give a player's entire major and minor-league career equal weight in predicting future performance, as Mike Moffatt seems to suggest. There are a few players like Rick Ankiel and Ben Grieve in whom you really should give extra weight to recent performance. When Francisco Rosario comes back from surgery, I'm going to care as much about his first 30 innings in 2004 as I do about his 130-plus innings in 2002.

Bobby Kielty's numbers since May 1 are definitely worse than you'd expect based on his career path through April 30. Are they significantly worse? I wouldn't be surprised if someone came back and told me that the p-value is .03. Are they so much worse that we should accept a post hoc analysis given what we know about Kielty outside the stats? No, as far as I'm concerned. The only reason that anyone has raised for a real decline in Kielty's ability is a rib injury. I don't know the nature of it, and I don't know how disabling these types of injuries usually are. But any argument that relies entirely on Kielty's modest decline in May, June, and July isn't going to convince me. You've got to explain why he ought to have declined first.

The standard I describe here is an awfully hard one to meet, and I won't pretend that I always meet it myself, but it's something that we should aim for.

John
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 03:48 PM EDT (#97480) #
http://economics.about.com
We'll get a female poster in here someday. Yes, someday.

My girlfriend lurks from time to time, but only when I tell her that there's something she'd be interested in on the site, like an interview with Jason Arnold or naked pictures of Eric Hinske.

RE: RossCW

I think I saw him on other boards before BaseballPrimer. I'm sure he's posted to rec.sport.baseball, and I remember seeing him on Rob Neyer's message board for the brief (1 month?) time I visited the cult of OPS.

I still think I could take the Hutt in a fight.




I really should readjust my glasses before I try to take a picture of myself.

Mike

_R Billie - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#97481) #
Rib injuries can play a significant factor as they can cause pain as a hitter rotates when he's swinging a bat. It's what basically wiped out Jose Cruz's season last year.

It could also explain why he's hit only .238/.354/.341 (28 bb, 45 k) from the left side this season where he hit .303/.417/.495 (36 bb, 48 k) from that same side last year.

For his career now he's .261/.366/.404 batting left (67 bb, 114 k). He's been much better batting right (.286/.392/.524, 35 bb, 33 k).

If he can get his lefty batting back to 2002 levels he'll be just fine. These splits are all very small samples though, less than 200 at bats each. At the very least, the Jays have themselves another lefty masher which isn't a bad thing to have at all.
_John Neary - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 04:30 PM EDT (#97482) #
R Billie,

That Jose Cruz comparison is the most constructive criticism of the Kielty trade that I've seen yet. Mind you, Cruz bounced back all right this year. Worst reasonable case for Kielty seems to be a bit of injury-related scuffling this year and a return to normal after some offseason rest.

John
Gitz - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT (#97483) #
Let's just say this about Ben Grieve: he suffered from the same problem as Jeremy Giambi -- and I'm not talking about being a lousy left fielder, if you know what I mean.
_Jurgen - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 04:40 PM EDT (#97484) #
Gitz:

Would you say it's the same problem as chronic underachiever Jeff Weaver?
Gitz - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT (#97485) #
Maybe it's a Cal-State University thing. Weaver went to Fresno State, while the Giambi boys went to Cal-State Fullerton. My own experience with the CSU system helped me learn that, um, Bob Marley and his accoutrements is indeed more influential than Mario Savio, if you know who he is.

As far as I know, Jason never got into the stuff. I could be wrong, obviously, but Jason has always seem more focused and driven; it seems he, like Barry Bonds, is too smart to jeopardize his future success by playing around with foreign substances, no matter how "benign" they are.
_Mickey Charles - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 05:49 PM EDT (#97486) #
Come on Grieve, get off the grass and get on the greenies!!
Gitz - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 06:06 PM EDT (#97487) #
By the way, one of my readers passed on a delicious rumour regarding Barry Zito and his (relative) first-half struggles. It seems Zito's Cy Young has indeed gone to his head. No, not the one that obtained a degree from my pseudo-alma mater, but the one that occasionally causes as many problems as the whacky stuff.
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 09:11 PM EDT (#97488) #
http://economics.about.com
I wouldn't be surprised if someone came back and told me that the p-value is .03.

Of course, you could have actually calculated it yourself. :)

In his last 170 ABs (covering May, June, and July) his slugging has been an awful .352941.

The variance for slugging over those 170ABs is .663668

So that method doesn't seem to give anything close to significance.

Or you can do it month by month:

May .400
June .327
July .311
AVERAGE (unweighted) .346
VAR = .0015
STDEV = .0387

At 95% confidence we can say his true slugging ability should be between .056 to .634. (yes, seriously).

In other words, the slump is not at all statistically significant. I'm not sure what you wanted the null hypothesis to be, but it wasn't going to be anywhere near .03. Something like .3 would have been a lot more likely.

Mike
_John Neary - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 10:10 PM EDT (#97489) #
Mike,

I don't believe that analysis is correct. It's not the variance on total bases earned in each at bat (which I think is what you calculated) that matters, but the variance in slugging percentage over 170 at-bats for guys with the same real slugging ability as Kielty.

What I was thinking of doing was a multinomial analysis: take his career HR, 3B, 2B, and 1B rates, and add up the probabilities for all of the outcomes that give him X total bases or fewer (where X is the number he's actually accumulated) in 170 AB. The total probability over all of those outcomes is your p value.

I just can't think of how to do that in Excel, and I'm not about to teach myself C again for an exercise that I don't think is important. I don't care all that much what the p value is, because I don't think it matters either way.

But I would have used .05, in any case. Why use .3 and make it easier to achieve a significant result when the study is of dubious quality to begin with?

John
Pepper Moffatt - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 10:28 PM EDT (#97490) #
http://economics.about.com
but the variance in slugging percentage over 170 at-bats for guys with the same real slugging ability as Kielty.

Isn't that sort of assuming the question? I mean, we don't know what Kielty's true slugging ability is.

But I would have used .05, in any case. Why use .3 and make it easier to achieve a significant result when the study is of dubious quality to begin with?

I did use .05. The only time I mentioned .3 is when I say that's what the p-value might have been. I have no idea what it would have been, because I don't know exactly what your null hypothesis is.

RE: Dubious quality of the study.

I wasn't the one making the claim that his numbers are significantly worse. They're obviously not. I think you'd get the exact same result using the much more complicated method you describe, just because the sample size is so insanely small.

Look at it this way: In those 170ABs, Kielty got 60 bases for a .353 slugging clip.

To get the following slugging, he'd need:
---
.400 = 68
.425 = 72.25
.450 = 76.5
.475 = 80.75
.500 = 85

So we'll assume that he'd normally slug 450. So if the true mean was 76.5, I think less than 60 would come up a heck of a lot, given that changing one out to a homerun changes the figure by 4. I think it would be about the 30% I ballparked. There's no way that it will be around 3%, given how much changing a couple of observations can change the result.

Mike
_John Neary - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 10:40 PM EDT (#97491) #
Incidentally, the p value rose a bit tonight ;)
_John Neary - Thursday, July 17 2003 @ 11:44 PM EDT (#97492) #
>but the variance in slugging percentage over 170 at-bats for guys
>with the same real slugging ability as Kielty.

Isn't that sort of assuming the question? I mean, we don't know what Kielty's true slugging ability is.


We can assume that Kielty's slugging percentage in his previous major league career was an accurate point estimate of his slugging ability during that time. The test is then whether a person with that real slugging ability would slug as low as Kielty did in the last 2.5 months with probability > 0.05.

Technically we should account for the variance in both distributions, but I don't remember how to do that very easily.

>But I would have used .05, in any case. Why use .3 and make it
>easier to achieve a significant result when the study is of dubious
>quality to begin with?

I did use .05. The only time I mentioned .3 is when I say that's what the p-value might have been. I have no idea what it would have been, because I don't know exactly what your null hypothesis is.


I think you're getting to the root of the problem here. You didn't know exactly what I was getting at and vice versa. I interpreted your earlier post as suggesting the use of a significance threshold of 0.3, rather than speculating that the p vlaue might have been 0.3. If you go back and reread it I think you will agree that the phrasing is unclear. I will admit the same about my own posts a priori.

So I'll try to make myself clear from now on:

Null hypothesis: Kielty's slugging percentage over his last 170 AB (before 3 for 4 with a homer tonight) does not statistically differ from his slugging percentage earlier in his ML career.

RE: Dubious quality of the study.

I wasn't the one making the claim that his numbers are significantly worse. They're obviously not. I think you'd get the exact same result using the much more complicated method you describe, just because the sample size is so insanely small.


I'd be careful with that claim if I were you. We get very used to dismissing things because of small sample size without actually checking to see whether there's a statistically significant effect.

I bit the bullet and did the multinomial work in Excel after all. However, in order to do it, I had to reduce the number of possible outcomes for each at-bat to three:

1. out (0 TB per event)
2. single (1 TB per event)
3. extra-base hit (2.80 TB per event: Kielty's average TB per extra-base hit through April 30 of this year)

The probabilities of each of the three events were Kielty's career rates through April 30 of this year:

out: 0.718
single: 0.177
XBH: 0.105

I calculated the probabilities of each of the 14 706 possible outcomes over 170 at-bats using the trinomial distribution. Then I summed the probabilities of all outcomes giving 60 or fewer total bases. The total probability over those outcomes was the p value of the test.

The p value was 0.036.

If I had a day to spend doing the same test with five outcomes (out, 1B, 2B, 3B, HR), which I do not, I would expect a slightly higher p value. Lumping all extra-base hits into one category reduces variability. Nevertheless, there's no way the p value would go from 0.036 to 0.3

I can send you the Excel file if you like.

Again, Mike, we're arguing entirely about math and not at all about baseball. Neither one of us is arguing that Kielty's a worse player than he used to be, and we both know that. I just wanted to make the point that we are often a little bit disingenuous when we dismiss hot streaks or slumps with the line "small sample size." Quite often, the sample is large enough for there to be a significant effect, but we reject the effect because the analysis is all post hoc and no good explanation is offered for it. This is not quite the same thing as the sample being too small for a measurable effect to be found.

It's been fun having this bizarre discussion. I hope Richard Griffin's column tomorrow begins with "Kielty boosts p value from 0.036 to 0.096" (which, incidentally, he did in tonight's game).

John
robertdudek - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:08 AM EDT (#97493) #
John Neary,

It's always interesting to do a significance test, but we have to remember that a player's slugging percentage can be affected by the opponents he faces, the parks he plays in, and atmospheric conditions. In other words, by things that are neither chance nor the player's own abilities. It's not like testing the significance of a series of coin flips in a laboratory.

Month to month, these factors are never consistent. So, unless you adjust for all of these conditions, I don't think the sample is representative of Kielty's abilities and luck only.
_benum - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:29 AM EDT (#97494) #
Too much edumucation.

It seems silly to me to be looking for wisdom in samples this small.

Over the course of 196 AB's (June and July of 2002), Carlos Delgado slugged around .445 (OPS around .810). Is this sample large enough "for there to be a significant effect"? Are we wrong if we "reject the effect because the analysis is all post hoc and no good explanation is offered for it"?
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:41 AM EDT (#97495) #
Robert,

I've been trying to make it clear in my posts that while I'm doing this analysis, I don't ascribe any value to it.

In post 765154 I said "Bobby Kielty's numbers since May 1 are definitely worse than you'd expect based on his career path through April 30. Are they significantly worse? I wouldn't be surprised if someone came back and told me that the p-value is .03. Are they so much worse that we should accept a post hoc analysis given what we know about Kielty outside the stats? No, as far as I'm concerned."

In post 765164 I said "Why use [a significance level of] .3 and make it easier to achieve a significant result when the study is of dubious quality to begin with?"

In post 765167 I said "Neither one of us [Mike and I] is arguing that Kielty's a worse player than he used to be..."

If you want me to say it again, I'll say it again. I don't care what the p value is. Either way, I'm not going to think that Kielty's a worse player now than he was three months ago unless:

1. He piles up several hundred more ABs with a .220 batting average.
2. Someone makes a strong case that rib injuries of the kind that Kielty has suffered cause significant lasting declines in performance.
3. It turns out that Kielty has been hiding another, more serious injury.

Let me state that no one has done any of these things yet, so I don't think Kielty's numbers since May reflect anything but a bit of poor luck, regardless of the p value.

You may reasonably wonder why I did the analysis when I didn't care about the results. In post 765163, Mike suggested that I might as well have calculated it. He also presented a statistical analysis which I felt to be flawed. We proceeded to debate what the p value was, but I never said anything that could be construed as ascribing meaning to the p value.

I've been going out of my way to be clear on this point and I'm not sure what more I can say. If you reread post 765154 you will see that I am firmly in agreement with you on this matter. I agree with you that the factors you list will influence a player's month-to-month statistics, but when you say "So, unless you adjust for all of these conditions, I don't think the sample is representative of Kielty's abilities and luck only" I wonder if you were actually reading my posts. I never said that the sample was representative of Kielty's ability; in fact, I unequivocally stated the opposite at least three times.

If you think that I must ascribe importance to the p value of the Kielty test because I employed a similar test when we were discussing Jeff Tam on June 12, I can tell you that I don't consider Kielty's case equivalent to Tam's. If you'd like to know why, we can open up the Tam debate again, although I really don't see any need to do so.

John
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 01:00 AM EDT (#97496) #
Benum,

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. I'll infer from your second line, "It seems silly to me to be looking for wisdom in samples this small" that you think 196 AB is not enough for any divergence from usual performance to be meaningful.

Suppose you had a pitcher who started 30 games in a season, accumulating 175 IP, 137 H, 90 BB, and 194 K. He then pitched three games in the playoffs, with a line of 4 IP, 5 H, 11 BB, and 5 K. Several of his pitches went ten feet over the catcher's head or behind the batter, IIRC.

Next spring, would you dismiss those three outings as "small sample size?" You sure as hell wouldn't, and neither did Tony La Russa. And you're talking about 28 batters faced.

I'm trying to make two points here. First, significant effects can be found in small samples. Second, it's not just the p value that matters. Delgado's slump could quite reasonably be interpreted as bad luck, and I don't remember anyone putting forward a decent argument for why it should be ascribed to anything else. "Steve Blass disease," however, is very real, so whenever a pitcher starts walking three men per inning and throwing a bunch of pitches wide of the backstop, you have to deal with the possibility that something real is going on, not just small sample size.

So, to answer your questions directly:

1. Yes, 196 AB is absolutely large enough for a [statistically] significant effect. If Carlos Delgado went 0-for-196 from now until the end of the season, no one would argue "small sample size."

2. No, you would absolutely not be wrong to "reject the effect because the analysis is all post hoc and no good explanation is offered for it."

John
robertdudek - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 01:54 AM EDT (#97497) #
John,

I know, but someone reading your statistical analysis might read in more significance than is warranted. I just thought I'd make it clear.
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 05:54 AM EDT (#97498) #
Robert: Fair enough. I think you will understand why I misinterpreted the tone of your post.

John
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 08:36 AM EDT (#97499) #
Not to put too fine a point on it, gentlemen, but that was awesome. And another testament to small samples and the bewitchery they create.

Not if you keep talking about Star Wars, you won't.

Hey, my wife is as big a Star Wars fan as I know. She's a baseball fan, too. But she doesn't read the site, though she keep saying she should.

an interview with Jason Arnold or naked pictures of Eric Hinske

Can I be the first to say, "ewwww". He looks... lumpy.

I still think I could take the Hutt in a fight.

Unless your plan is somehow to take him down from the inside after he eats you for an appetizer, Mike, I'm going with Jabba.

My own experience with the CSU system helped me learn that, um, Bob Marley and his accoutrements is indeed more influential than Mario Savio, if you know who he is.

Possibly because Savio and the FSM were happening at Cal-Berkeley, not in the CSU schools. While the Teach-Ins were happening on at Cal, the Beach Boys were happening at CSU; and when the questions of the political future of the country were being debated at Cal, the big debate at the CSUs was whether the waves were better in the morning or the afternoon.

Not that there's anything wrong with either approach to life.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#97500) #
http://economics.about.com
The probabilities of each of the three events were Kielty's career rates through April 30 of this year

That's your problem right there. Nobody is suggesting that Kielty's April wasn't unusual high so by including it you've bumped up the null hypothesis. So of course your p value was so low.

Was anyone seriously suggesting that Kielty is a .472 slugger? The important question "Is Kielty as good a slugger as Shannon Stewart"? Because of that the null hypothesis would have been around .450, which I think is a lot closer to what people have been arguing. Had you used that as a basepoint, I think the p would have been around .3, like I mentioned before.

I also think it's quite dubious to mix up 2B, 3B, and HR. Instead of looking for a precise value, why not just run simulations?

Mike
Gitz - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:54 PM EDT (#97501) #
Actually, I had Savio as a professor at Sonoma State (nicknamed "Granola U" and a clear Berkeley wannabe), and nobody there seemed too excited that they were learning logic from a legend; they were content to hang out in their dorms rather than join Savio in any extracurricular activities, and there were a few, though nothing close to the level of UC Berkeley.

My father worked over in Berkeley in the 1960s and would tell me stories about "some roustabout who stood on top of police cars." (And who had a speech impediment!) Imagine my dad's surprise when I told him who one of my teachers was.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#97502) #
http://economics.about.com
From 2001-2002, he slugged .458 and had the following:

393 AB
293 OUTS (74.555%)
71 1B (18.066%)
22 2B (05.598%)
03 3B (00.763%)
14 HR (03.562%)

Why not just use a pseudo-random number generator to choose a number between 0 and 1, and assign an out if the number falls between 0 and .74555, a single if the number is above .74555 but at or below .92621, etc. etc. Do this 170 times for a single "test", then run 10,000 tests.

I still think this will underestimate the probability beacuse there should the observations shouldn't be iid (there should be some correlation between ABs because you'd face the same pitcher a few times in a row), but it would give you a pretty good idea.

Mike
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 01:08 PM EDT (#97503) #
I had Savio as a professor at Sonoma State

That is too cool.

The most interesting prof I ever had was Charles Taylor.
Craig B - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 01:10 PM EDT (#97504) #
Actually, whoops, my most interesting prof was Bob Rae. Forgot about him.
Gitz - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#97505) #
http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/2.23/961111-savio.html
Craig,

It was very cool. As my wannabe freak-radical views were in germination status, I couldn't get enough of him; he made a dry topic like basic logic well worth it. He didn't get too political during his lectures, but every now he'd sneak in something, and the whole class perceptibly leaned forward. He died during my last year at Sonoma State. It was quite a blow for the university -- as well as the greater Bay Area -- since he was relatively young (53). I imagine it was less than learning from a former PM, but not too dissimilar.

If you're interested, another of my professors, the lesser-known Jonah Raskin, wrote a brief sketch of Savio. Click my name for the link (since I STILL haven't figured out how to post hyperlinks). It may be a bit too liberal for your taste; if so, I apologize.
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 05:39 PM EDT (#97506) #
Mike,

I'm tired of arguing this topic. Mixing up the 2B, 3B, and HR will in my opinion have a very small effect on the outcome of the test. I'll admit that there is no sound reason to consider the April stats as part of the baseline -- this is as extreme a form of selective analysis as you can get -- but I've already stated ten million times that I consider this analysis flawed. My point was that it's not difficult to get a significant p value using proper mathematics if your analysis is all post hoc and you choose the numbers that will help your case. I think I've proved that point. My secondary point was that we need to be careful with the phrase "small sample size." Often, when we (correctly) reject an argument based on a 200 AB sampl, it's not because of a small sample size per se but rather because we don't feel compelled to accept an effect of modest significance with no a priori explanation. I think I've proved that point as well.

As far as I can tell you are determined to argue with the derivation of any p value below 0.05. I don't really understand why, as I completely agree with you that the analysis is meaningless anyway. If you want to run 10 000 simulations, I'd be happy to hear the results. However, I reran my spreadsheet with the numbers you gave in post 765177 and got a p value of 0.053. (Incidentally, he made 283 major league outs entering this season, not 293.) This is not significant, but it's a whole lot closer to 0.03 than to 0.3.

I also agree that there are confounding factors in any sample of at-bats. I explicitedly said so to Robert Dudek in post 765170. I'm tired of having to repeat these disclaimers.

John
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#97507) #
http://economics.about.com
UPDATE:

John: You win.

I ran 100,000 simulations in QBasic (yes, QBasic). During the 2001-2002 period Kielty's slugging was .4580152. In the 17,000,000 million plate appearances I gave to Kielty he slugged .4580679, so I'm pretty sure I got it to work. I fixed the 293/283 thing as well, as when I set up the simulation things didn't add up. :)

Here's the results:

ACTUAL SLUGGING = .4580152
SIMULATED SLUGGING = .4580679
NUMBER OF PERIODS (OUT OF 100,000) WHERE KIELTY HAD 60 OR FEWER BASES = 6706
NUMBER OF PERIODS (OUT OF 100,000) WHERE KIELTY HAD 61 OR MORE BASES = 93294
PROBABILITY OF HAVING 60 OR FEWER BASES = 0.06706

So you're right. It *was* a lot closer to 0.03 to 0.30.

Clearly, though, aggregating 2B, 3B, and HR is significant. So I think you're a lot better off running simulation, given how cheap computing power is lately.

This has been fun. I enjoy math discussions... and you were right. This really had nothing to do with baseball whatsoever.

Cheers,

Mike

P.S. Here's the code if anyone is interested:

RANDOMIZE TIMER
ATBATS = 170
TB = 0
TOTALTB = 0
TOTALTESTS = 100000
BELOW = 0
ABOVE = 0
FOR TEST = 1 TO TOTALTESTS
FOR APPEAR = 1 TO ATBATS
OUTCOME = INT(RND * 393) + 1
IF OUTCOME < 284 THEN
TB = TB + 0
ELSEIF OUTCOME > 283 AND OUTCOME < 355 THEN
TB = TB + 1
ELSEIF OUTCOME > 354 AND OUTCOME < 377 THEN
TB = TB + 2
ELSEIF OUTCOME > 376 AND OUTCOME < 380 THEN
TB = TB + 3
ELSEIF OUTCOME > 379 THEN
TB = TB + 4
END IF
NEXT APPEAR
TOTALTB = TOTALTB + TB
IF TB < 61 THEN
BELOW = BELOW + 1
ELSEIF TB > 60 THEN
ABOVE = ABOVE + 1
END IF
TB = 0
CLS
PRINT TEST
NEXT TEST
AVGSLUG = TOTALTB / (TOTALTESTS * ATBATS)
PRINT AVGSLUG
PRINT BELOW
PRINT ABOVE
PVALUE = BELOW / TOTALTESTS
PRINT PVALUE
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT (#97508) #
http://economics.about.com
Since I wasn't going to be using my computer for a couple hours, I decided to run 1 million tests (or 170,000,000 ABs). Here's what I got:

ACTUAL SLUGGING = .4580152
ESTIMATED SLUGGING = .4580315
P-VALUE = .067389

I can't figure out if I made a mistake in the program, or if there's something weird with the pseudo-random number generator, because you wouldn't think the two would be that off over 170,000,000ABs. Weird.

Mike
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 10:07 PM EDT (#97509) #
I'll put my money on weirdness with the psuedo-random number generator. Dude, you wrote the sim in QBasic.

We could statistically test this hypothesis by seeing whether:

(a) you get similarly poor agreement in simulations written in different languages
(b) other people get similarly poor agreement in simulations written in QBasic.



It's been fun, Mike ;)
_John Neary - Friday, July 18 2003 @ 10:14 PM EDT (#97510) #
Way to study for those qualifying exams, by the way ;)
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT (#97511) #
http://economics.about.com
I'll put my money on weirdness with the psuedo-random number generator. Dude, you wrote the sim in QBasic.

The problem is that I didn't have a copy of Matlab on this computer, so I had to use whatever I had. I'm actually surprised how fast it was.

I figured out what the problem was: I wasn't carrying enough digits so it caused the slugging to be thrown off a little during the division calculation (it wouldn't effect the pvalue at all, tho). If I use double precision variables the answer is quite a bit closer, though it does slow the program down somewhat.

Way to study for those qualifying exams, by the way ;)

Yeah.. this probably isn't the best use of my time. :)

Cheers,

Mike
Craig B - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 04:49 PM EDT (#97512) #
Way to study for those qualifying exams, by the way ;)

If he doesn't know it by now, I'm not sure he's going to be helped at the last minute :)

Are they orals, Mike? I hope not, for your sake.
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 05:23 PM EDT (#97513) #
http://economics.about.com
Are they orals, Mike? I hope not, for your sake.

No, though I kind of wish they were. In one of my two exams I'm the only person who speaks English, so I'd have a huge advantage (2 out of 73 grad students in my department have English as a first language).

Qualifying (or comprehensive) exams are pretty standard in most top-50 economics programs. Some schools like Queen's make you write a Macroeconomics and a Microeconomics qualifier after your first year. Most of the others, like Rochester, make you write two at the end of your second year, but you get to pick the two fields. University of Chicago makes you do *both*, from what I've heard.

The exams are basically just a way to weed excess graduate students out of the department and to find the people who are willing to do whatever their advisor tells them to. The department has pretty much decided who is going to pass the exam before you write it, but writing an exceptional (or exceptionally bad) exam will make them change their minds. You can also re-write one of the exams over again in January if you fail one, which happens to about 50% of the students. For the most part I'm well liked by the faculty, so I'm not really too worried. Plus I have the lowest stipend in the deparment (a.k.a. "The Major League Minimum") so since I don't cost much I think they'll keep me even if they're looking to cut costs (which they almost always are).

I write Political Economy (mainly looking at technical stuff like voting rules) on Monday, and Economic Theory on Friday. My theory exam is only on axiomatic fair allocation / bankruptcy rules, which only a few dozen people in the world happen to be interested in including my advisor William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) and a couple dozen of his former/current students. So it's not very practical stuff.

If any of my messages in the next week make less sense than usual, it's probably due to exam stress.

I'll be taking *all* of August off to recover, so if anyone is interested in going to some Jays games, let me know.

Mike
_Brent - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT (#97514) #
Mike, I hear you on that. I just finished one of my Actuarial exams a little while ago, and I am very glad it is over. Although I'll tell you one thing, this site almost killed me. Well, that and my general disinterest in studying for extended periods of time.
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM EDT (#97515) #
http://economics.about.com
Mike, I hear you on that. I just finished one of my Actuarial exams a little while ago, and I am very glad it is over.

What are the exams like in Acc. Sci.? I imagine they're similar to the ones in economics and physics (the two subjects I'm familiar with). How much time are you given to study for them? We're expected to start studying for these starting June 1st until the middle/end of July when the exams are. Given that I've been studying them for 6 weeks, I'm getting really, really bored.

Although I'll tell you one thing, this site almost killed me. Well, that and my general disinterest in studying for extended periods of time.

Given the fact that I'm posting something here every hour or so shows you how disinterested I am (having a computer 10 feet away from my desk doesn't help). I also spend a lot of time responding to About.com user e-mail which I get piles of.

I don't think anyone is too interested in studying for extended periods of time. Here in the States we're having problems with people abusing AD/HD drugs like Ritalin. Here's one story on the problem. There are 19 people writing these exams (18 2nd year PhD students and one 3rd year PhD student (me)) and there's atleast two students that I'm 95% sure are taking stuff on the side (the side effects make it pretty obvious), and I wouldn't be surprised if there's one or two more who have tried it. That's pretty low compared to really competitive schools like Chicago, where the numbers are easily over 50%. Personally I think it's really stupid: The people who abuse this stuff are generally the most intense people anyway and the people that the department really want to pass, so it's really pointless.

For the record, I'm *not* taking anything except 3 coffees a day, but I have to admit I've seriously considered it. At a tech school like mine, the stuff is easier to get than pot.

Performance enhancing drugs aren't just for athletes anymore.

Mike
Craig B - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 06:55 PM EDT (#97516) #
theory exam is only on axiomatic fair allocation / bankruptcy rules, which only a few dozen people in the world happen to be interested in including my advisor William Thomson (a.k.a. Lord Kelvin) and a couple dozen of his former/current students.

A few dozen people, and just about every jurist alive. This kind of stuff is vitally important in the legal field, though it doesn't get read much.

Performance enhancing drugs aren't just for athletes anymore.

Well, this may sound disingenuous from a former academic who decamped to a profession and never looked back, but have these people not figured out that the game isn't worrth the f***ing candle? Sigh.
_Brent - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 07:30 PM EDT (#97517) #
What are the exams like in Acc. Sci.? I imagine they're similar to the ones in economics and physics (the two subjects I'm familiar with). How much time are you given to study for them? We're expected to start studying for these starting June 1st until the middle/end of July when the exams are.

To be an actuary, you basically need to get your designation. It works like many other professions, but instead of one or two exams, there are 8 core ones. Basically if you get those 8, you are entered as a "Fellow" in either the Casualty Actuarial Society or the Society of Actuaries (it depends on certain exams; basically itís quite complicated). And let me tell you first hand, the exams aren't easy. I just wrote the first one, and I passed (thank goodness), but most of my peers were not as lucky. The first one covered some topics that might interest a few of the ZLC: probability and calculus. The second involves interest theory, economics and other stuff. And so on... I was given three study days off from work to study, but I am but a lowly student in the scheme of things. For the harder exams, some people study over 400 hours, a number that my brain does not comprehend.

Who administers your exams Mike?
Pepper Moffatt - Saturday, July 19 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT (#97518) #
http://economics.about.com
A few dozen people, and just about every jurist alive. This kind of stuff is vitally important in the legal field, though it doesn't get read much.

I completely agree with you. The problem is that the methodology and language used is so overly technical that it can't be readily understood by anyone without fairly advanced training in either economics or pure mathematics. I think the major problem is with the methodology used: in the axiomatic approach a rule either satisfies the properties or it doesn't. Since everything is black or white, you're generally left with a bunch of impossibility results as no rule can satisify all the axioms all of the time. The fact that the literature doesn't get read much is the fault of the people writing the literature, IMHO. I'd like to be able to change that but the level of inertia in academia is incredibly high.

Well, this may sound disingenuous from a former academic who decamped to a profession and never looked back, but have these people not figured out that the game isn't worrth the f***ing candle? Sigh.

I guess not. I think part of the problem is that people mistake the reward with the goal. To me the goal is to discover something new and unusual about human interactions and/or find a better way of doing things. Publishing papers and getting tenure is the reward. Unfortunately academia tends to confuse the two, so you're left with millions of journals that have hundreds of pointless articles. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of academia. Fortunately when you study economics there's generally a lot of private sector opportunities, opportunities at professional schools such as Business schools (a couple of which I'm looking into) plus my work at About.com has given me a great deal of exposure, so I don't think I'd have too much trouble getting a job at a think tank if I really wanted one.

I read a really interesting article in either Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer about how useless a lot of the pure science has become in academia, but I can't seem to find it anywhere. There was also a book in the same vein that I'd love to read but I can't seem to find what it was called.

Who administers your exams Mike?

They're departmental exams. According to school rules, there must be a committee of atleast 3 profs for each exam and atleast 3/4 of the comittee must give the exam a passing grade in order for the student to pass. In actuality for most (but not all) exams each question is graded by the prof who wrote it and the other 2 profs go along with that recommendation. The chair and the grad chair have to also sign off on the results, which I understand is almost always a formality.

I know all this because I'm friends with a couple of former profs who no longer teach here. :)

Mike
Bobby Kielty is a Blue Jay | 193 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.