Can we end the Sidney Ponson: Part Deux experiment now?

It seems like the A-Rod cover counter needs updates. Or disbanding.

I think the Yankees have a pretty good shot at putting a hurting on the Sox this weekend.  They just seem to be in disarray.

What I’m worried about, is with TB playing KC, we could take 3 of 4 and still lose ground.

7 and a half games behind Tampa. Wow.

Is there any where with a write up and analysis of the Yanks International signings from yesterday?

nomaas has a pretty hilarious picture up. Although I can not recognize who is to the right of youkilis?

Is there any where with a write up and analysis of the Yanks International signings from yesterday?

Nomaas has some stuff on the front page; I would link to the article they cited, but they posted the entire relevent text on the front page.  Isn’t a full analysis but there is some.

I almost think the Yankees are playing for the wild card now.

I still think there is a decent (40-50%) chance TB falters (injuries or bullpen collapse), but if they don’t, I don’t think the Yanks can catch them.

nomaas has a pretty hilarious picture up. Although I can not recognize who is to the right of youkilis?

Isn’t that Jon Lester? I see no similarity between them, though. Lester doesn’t seem particularly dislikable.

Is there any where with a write up and analysis of the Yanks International signings from yesterday?

Saberscouting.com has some good info and analysis on the int’l signings.

When Jeter grounded into the DP, I was smoking a cig with my roommate and I expressed my displeasure watching this team, and I said, verbatim.  “This team numbers just can not be this bad with runners in scoring position.  There is going to be a big time “progression to the mean”, but I can’t watch them while I wait for it to happen. It’s too frustrating.”

So I turned it off, turned on the radio and did some laundry.  I check the score about 20 minutes later, and what do you know, a big time “progression to the mean.”

Thanks guys, Yanks signed a bunch of bats, good. They need them. We’ll see if any of them develop I guess.

Hmm...I notice this morning that Gardner has an .833ZR in CF.  What play did he miss?  Maybe that bloop that fell in front of him?  I didn’t think there were any makeable plays that he missed, but I can’t say I saw 100% of the plays last night.

Can we end the Sidney Ponson: Part Deux experiment now?

Food for thought; Jeff Karstens appears to be improving in AAA (pitched very well yesterday), and is on the same schedule as Ponson.  Would we rather see Karstens than Ponson right now?  I’d be leaning towards yes; if we’re going to see a pitcher fail, I’d rather see someone coming up through the system fail.  And, if Karstens happens to pitch well for a few starts (complete fluke or not), he may get some trade value.  Not a lot, but maybe a team that wants young, cheap, ML ready talent would prefer him over an AA prospect.

So I turned it off, turned on the radio and did some laundry.  I check the score about 20 minutes later, and what do you know, a big time “progression to the mean.”

Do you have enough laundry to last you through the AS break?

Would we rather see Karstens than Ponson right now?

Yes.

Wait, is this a trick question?

Karstens isn’t on the 40-man, and I doubt that they’re ready to DFA El Sid just yet (even though we all are).  So I don’t think we’re likely to see a Karstens start for the big club before the All-Star break, unless they move somebody to the 60-day DL.

Why not IPK?

Hell of a game at the Trop last night. I haven’t heard Dwayne Staats get that histrionic behind the mic since Jim Abbot’s no hitter.

Karstens will never have any trade value but I’d still like to see him pitch rather than Ponson.  Dan McCutchen has been stringing together some good starts in AAA and he has much better stuff, but he needs to keep up the good work for another month or so before being ready to face major league hitters.  I would imagine the Yanks want Kennedy to toil in AAA for at least a few weeks as well.

"Karstens will never have any trade value but I’d still like to see him pitch rather than Ponson. “

if we could deal clippard why not karstens? Even if it was for albaladeadarm

Agreed that Karsten never will have any trade value.

McCutchen has not been string together good starts. He has given up 1, 3 and 5 runs in his last 3 games. He’s striking out more guys now, and he’s obviously had some pretty good outings and is probably progressing at this point, but I don’t think he’s anywhere close to helping the Major League club right now.

I would bring Kennedy up the second he’s ready to throw 100 pitches again, but for some reason that’s not going to happen, so I will make this the last time I write it.

Clippard is three years younger than Karstens, that’s why Karstens has no trade value.

39 Ks in 43 IP for Karstens, 39/9 K/BB ratio, the HRs are a little high, but I don’t doubt he’s the best pitcher the Yanks can bring up (other than the one I said I wouldn’t mention).

39 Ks in 43 IP for Karstens, 39/9 K/BB ratio, the HRs are a little high, but I don’t doubt he’s the best pitcher the Yanks can bring up (other than the one I said I wouldn’t mention).

Unbelievably huge red flag. He will get lit up. We have seen that happen before, with frightening regularity, I am afraid.

In Karstens first stint in AAA he struck out 48 in 74 IP. He was improved in AAA last year and is much improved this year. His HRs are up, but so are his Ks and his walk rate is way down. He seems to be, statistically, a much improved pitcher, even though the number of innings he’s thrown in the last three years are pretty limited.

karstens had a solid spring and would have been with the club if he did not get injured. He should be next in line. Let Kennedy figure it out in Scranton for a few starts.

Karstens = Scary Flyball Guy.  Don’t let his numbers deceive you.  He sucked before, and he will suck again.

Don’t let his numbers deceive you.  He sucked before, and he will suck again.

Hmm, sarcasm?

I don’t doubt that Karstens sucks. I think he will be the least sucky of the Yankee options until they feel like their genuine Major League ready prospect has spent enough time dominating minor league hitters.

weird stuff...we are 12th in the league in BA w/ risp but 3rd in the league in BA w/ RISP and 2 outs....13th in the league with the bases loaded and 2nd in close and late situations

<i>I don’t doubt that Karstens sucks. I think he will be the least sucky of the Yankee options until they feel like their genuine Major League ready prospect has spent enough time dominating minor league hitters.</I.

We get it.  You heart IPK.

also we are pretty much at the bottom in BA from our 8th and 9th hitters. Minnesota is hitting .315 with RISP as a team.

Karstens and Ponson both suck.  Karstens tried to pitch with a broken leg.  Ponson is fat.  I say give Karstens a chance.

We get it. You heart IPK.

It’s more like I’m bored at work and can’t think of anything else to talk about.

"It’s more like I’m bored at work and can’t think of anything else to talk about. “

Amen.

By the way, a little primer on sarcasm: “He sucked before and he will suck again,” is not sarcasm.  “Karstens for Cy Young,” now that is sarcasm.

“He sucked before and he will suck again,” is not sarcasm

Indeed.

IE, check your email.

Well, we’ve established that Karstens sucks.  But...he does have a chance to not suck, or at least not suck any more than your average 5th starter.  Whereas Ponson is closer to your average 7th starter.  Which is why I think it is food for thought.  As for the 40-man, there’s an excellent chance S. Duncan’s season is over and he’ll be put on the 60-day DL.

Clippard is three years younger than Karstens, that’s why Karstens has no trade value.

True, but Karstens has shown - in limited action - an ability to pitch in the bigs.  It may have been a fluke, but IF he pitches well in three more starts - think Rasner’s first several starts - it may give more credence to the fact he can pitch in the bigs.  I hold no illusions he’ll ever have *much* trade value.  But by himself he may bring back an overpriced, aging veteran (don’t know what need that would fill), or may be useful in getting a reliever (in addition to another player) from a team with a low-budget.

But by himself he may bring back an overpriced, aging veteran (don’t know what need that would fill)

Aside from fulfilling our quota for having overpriced aging veterans on the team, probably none.

I do agree with your first point though.  Ponson’s suckitude is well and truly established, whereas Karstens has a chance to miraculously string a few decent starts together.  After all, he couldn’t be much worse than Sir Snacks, could he?

It’s really a shame, especially for him, that Horne hasn’t been able to stay healthy this year. Out of all the guys in AAA, he’s the only one with the experience (and not all that much either) and stuff whom you could see succeeding for any extended period of time at the MLB level.

Hey, Clay is still alive!

I am, but I didn’t go see Walle last night. Which is sad. But I’m going to Laguna for the 4th of July weekend. So that kind of makes up for it.

The only time I want to see Jeff Karstens pitch in an Yankee related event is if he is pitching in the HR derby to Giambi in the All-Star festivities.

He could be the greatest guy around, and is in all likelihood a better pitcher than 99.99 percent of the general population. But I doubt his effectiveness in a MLB game in a very serious degree. His flyball tendencies are exactly what is going to get him killed.

Look at it this way, Phil Hughes’s and Joba Chamberlain’s utter dominance of minor leaguers only translates into long pitch counts and short outings in the Major Leagues. Hitters have no problems fouling off their tough pitches and force them to throw strikes in areas where they could be hit. They won’t have to even worry about that with Karstens.

And speaking of pitching with a broken leg, as admirable as that is, if such heroics were to count, the RLYWers should court with open arms a guy who took a line drive straight to his head, shook it off and stayed in the game. He is quite possibly the most reviled Yankees in recent years.

Joba Chamberlain’s utter dominance of minor leaguers only translates into long pitch counts and short outings in the Major Leagues.

Oh?

a guy who took a line drive straight to his head, shook it off and stayed in the game. He is quite possibly the most reviled Yankees in recent years.

I must confess I have no idea who you’re talking about…

True, but Karstens has shown - in limited action - an ability to pitch in the bigs.  It may have been a fluke, but IF he pitches well in three more starts - think Rasner’s first several starts - it may give more credence to the fact he can pitch in the bigs.  I hold no illusions he’ll ever have *much* trade value.  But by himself he may bring back an overpriced, aging veteran (don’t know what need that would fill), or may be useful in getting a reliever (in addition to another player) from a team with a low-budget.

Karstens has poor command and no plus pitches. No one will trade anything of value for him.

I agree with CP, the Yankees need to just promote Kennedy as soon as he can throw 100 pitches and let him take his bumps at the major league level. I’ve never been a fan of the idea that Kennedy (or Hughes for that matter) can benefit much from playing in the minors at this point.

ym, Pavano.

Phil Hughes’s and Joba Chamberlain’s utter dominance of minor leaguers only translates into long pitch counts and short outings in the Major Leagues.

Clearly the minor leagues are not where to look for pitchers. MLB pitchers simply leap out of the ground. The Yankees need to do is throw a bunch of dragon’s teeth on the ground.

True, but Karstens has shown - in limited action - an ability to pitch in the bigs.

I strongly dispute that evidence. In 2006 he started start against the Seattle Mariners and LA Angels, quite possibly the best places where a flyball pitcher can hide by letting the ball be out into play.

Even more than that, 57.1 innings of major league experience is hardly an indication of any ability. In 2007, the maximum number of innings he gave the team in a start was 4.1 against Boston where he repeatedly flirted with danger until David Ortiz hit an absolute bomb to take him out of his misery. Most of the outs were crushed as well.

Pavano

who now?

Since Joba has been off the pitch count, his only “short” outing was the one against Texas and I would hardly say major league hitters have “no problem” fouling off his tough pitches.  Joba strikes out lots of major league batters precisely because his tough pitches are rather difficult to handle.  Moreover, even on a day when Joba had no command, against the best offense in baseball, he still struck out six batters in four innings and gave up only two runs.

Clearly the minor leagues are not where to look for pitchers. MLB pitchers simply leap out of the ground. The Yankees need to do is throw a bunch of dragon’s teeth on the ground.

They are the exact places to look for good pitchers. I remain completely optimistic of the careers that both Hughes and Chamberlain are likely to have. But even they have had their share of lumps, with much better track record and stuff than Karstens.

I am convinced that Hughes and Chamberlain will be able to learn about hitters in ML, and get them out on a regular basis. They have the arsenal. Jeff Karstens does not. He is unlikely to survive in ML as a capable starter.

Sorry sam, I agree with you I was just having a bit of fun.

Joba’s two longest outings have come against Houston and Pittsburg at NL parks which feature hitting pitchers. I do not find that a coincidence.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?share=1&n1=chambjo03&year=2008&t=p#40:45:sum

Also, Toronto is one of the worst offensive teams, and KC and SD aren’t world beaters either. I appreciate watching Joba pitch, but let’s hold off the discussion on his effectiveness until he faces stronger offenses on a regular basis.

I will concede IE’s point about Joba having filthy stuff that results in strikeouts. It also results in high pitch counts which limit his outings. This is perfectly acceptable for a guy who is in his first year, and I am certainly not knocking Joba. But it just shows there is a level difference between major and minor leagues.

Sorry sam, I agree with you I was just having a bit of fun.

Too late, you are now subjected to my latest novel.

"Look at it this way, Phil Hughes’s and Joba Chamberlain’s utter dominance of minor leaguers only translates into long pitch counts and short outings in the Major Leagues. Hitters have no problems fouling off their tough pitches and force them to throw strikes in areas where they could be hit. They won’t have to even worry about that with Karstens. “

Yeah we should probably release those bums because those major league hitters will always have their number.

This kind of thinking sucks. Karstens is not going to get any better by staying in AAA. Bring him up let him pitch and maybe he can figure things out on the ML level(he did put together a respectable line in 06 for 42 innings). What it boils down to for me is that you DO NOT know what he will give you but you do know what Ponson brings to the table.

I must confess I have no idea who you’re talking about…

This is probably because I remembered it wrongly. Pavano did take a line drive to his head on April 10, 2005, but he was removed from the game. He did make his next start on April 15 though.

Too late, you are now subjected to my latest novel.

It’s hard to pass up a chance to reference Greek mythology when talking about baseball. I had to take it.

What it boils down to for me is that you DO NOT know what he will give you but you do know what Ponson brings to the table.

But you do know. Karstens has had this success against minor leaguers before and then brought up and sucked. That pitching line in 2007 could have been a lot worse if some of those bombs in Fenway actually went out.

I am not advocating Ponson. But if the choice is between Ponson and Karstens, then I have no clear preference. I expect them to suck equally badly. Ponson at least has shown some ability to keep it on the ground. Karstens hasn’t.

But nothing was broken.  karstens broke a bone in his leg and tried to continue pitching.  Pavano get hit in the head and left the game.  I can’t fault him for that, but its not a fair comparison.

I’m only half serious about this.  What I’m saying is, if you have 2 guys that suck and you have to choose between only those 2 guys, choose the one with heart, over the one with multiple DUI’s and an attitude problem.

Plus, Ponson is a foreignor… he’s taking away a job from an American.

"But you do know. Karstens has had this success against minor leaguers before and then brought up and sucked. That pitching line in 2007 could have been a lot worse if some of those bombs in Fenway actually went out. “

Ok so you can project a career based on two call ups and 50 innings? Give the kid a chance to face some major leaguers and maybe he can adjust. Maybe he cant but still you gotta give him a chance.

“I am not advocating Ponson. But if the choice is between Ponson and Karstens, then I have no clear preference. I expect them to suck equally badly. Ponson at least has shown some ability to keep it on the ground. Karstens hasn’t. “

You clearly are advocating Ponson. He did a great job keeping the ball on the ground last night.

This kind of thinking sucks. Karstens is not going to get any better by staying in AAA. Bring him up let him pitch and maybe he can figure things out on the ML level(he did put together a respectable line in 06 for 42 innings). What it boils down to for me is that you DO NOT know what he will give you but you do know what Ponson brings to the table.

Exactly.

They have the arsenal. Jeff Karstens does not. He is unlikely to survive in ML as a capable starter.

To repeat, I am *not* arguing that Karstens will have a good ML career.  He *may* get up to 5th starter level.  5th starters in this day and age suck, and that’s a fact.  I think he may suck less than Ponson, and give the Yankees more for the next few weeks.  Would I rather see Kennedy, McCutchen, or another AAA starter who has higher upside?  Yes, but that definitely isn’t going to happen by next week, and probably won’t happen until August.  Neither is it likely the Yankees will trade for a starter until the end of July, if at all.  So for the rest of the month, I think I’d rather have Karstens.

As for trade value...is everyone here seriously telling me that, IF Karstens has 3-4 quality starts (my original position), and maybe even some excellent ones, he’s untradeable?  You mean to say there still aren’t some FO that will look only at ERA and W/L (and probably also salary projections for the next few years)?  I think those people are still out there.  They won’t give any young talent for Karstens, no.  They won’t give a quality ML player.  But - as a for example because I don’t want him - I could see Seattle willing to give up Sexson for him (again assuming Karstens has a few good outings).  What else is Sexson going to bring?

As for trade value...is everyone here seriously telling me that, IF Karstens has 3-4 quality starts (my original position), and maybe even some excellent ones, he’s untradeable?

Yes, he is untradeable.  His stuff is commonplace.  He’s probably a AAA, maybe AAAA, type pitcher at best.  He is fungible.

Other teams’ scouts will not share your even somewhat rosy outlook on Karstens.  Why?  You may be suffering from this.  We all suffer from it, which is why teams don’t trade a star for a couple over-hyped prospects.

Joba may have had his longest outings against two NL teams in their home parks, but one was in an itsy-bitsy park (Enron, er, Minute Maid Park) and the Pirates are fifth in the league in runs scored.  Like any pitcher, Joba will have his good and bad days, but let’s not pretend he’s not ready for the “real” teams.  He has the stuff to pitch against anyone.  On a bad day, he will have an outing like he did against Texas.  On a better day, it will be something closer to the Pittsburgh start.

Ok so you can project a career based on two call ups and 50 innings? Give the kid a chance to face some major leaguers and maybe he can adjust. Maybe he cant but still you gotta give him a chance.

I don’t think you have looked at his component stuff from the minors and the majors. They are available at fangraph. Jeff Karstens at the minor league level was striking people out at 7+ per nine innings in 2006, at the ML level it barely touched 3. He clearly does not miss too many bats at the ML level. Plus he gives up line drives and flyballs at a horrific percentage. Wang has survived those diminishing strikeout rates because of his stuff and ground ball tendencies. Jeff Karstens does not have that stuff.

Again, this is a specific situation where I put much more stock into scouting reports and component stats than actual ERA numbers. If his only claim to the Yankee rotation is his ERA, then he doesn’t deserve a chance. If your only argument is that “Ponson does not offer anything better”, I concur. But I am not at all persuaded that Karstens is an answer to any of Yankee pitching concerns.

He has the stuff to pitch against anyone.  On a bad day, he will have an outing like he did against Texas.  On a better day, it will be something closer to the Pittsburgh start.

I don’t have any disagreement with any of this. But I will wait to see him against good AL teams. I certainly expect him to have to work harder to earn his outs though.

You may be suffering from this.

Ah, but two points. 

1) It works the other way as well, where you can *undervalue* a property because you see it for the warts, not for the good.  Case-in-point; I had a friend about 15 years ago who HATED his car, hated everything about it.  Sold it for 50$ and thought he came out WAY ahead.  He saw the guy he sold it to a few months later, who said he LOVED the car and thanked my friend so much for selling it for so little.

2) Even if this is true, would you believe Tony Womack would have brought back two minor-league players?  Even though they were barely prospects, I remember that a lot of us here, would have been happy if Cashman could have (literally) gotten a bag of balls for him.  The Reds gave two minor-leaguers.

which is why teams don’t trade a star for a couple over-hyped prospects.

See Cone and the Yankees, in 1995.  For example.

If your only argument is that “Ponson does not offer anything better”, I concur. But I am not at all persuaded that Karstens is an answer to any of Yankee pitching concerns.

I don’t think anyone is saying Karstens is the answer.  I know I’m not.  I AM saying I’d rather see Karstens than Ponson.  If Karstens manages to surprise everyone and pitch to a 4.5 ERA for the rest of the season, great.  If not, I’d rather have him keeping the spot warm for Kennedy than Ponson.

He is fungible

Ooooooh!

@13 — This is why I do not trust ZR.

@13 — This is why I do not trust ZR.

ZR isn’t perfect, and I certainly think they may have missed one here.  But I still think over the course of 150+ games, it isn’t going to miss many.  I think that we can still improve on defensive metrics, but ZR, UZR, etc. are still better than, “I know a good defender when I see it”.

Plus, Ponson is a foreignor… he’s taking away a job from an American.

Man, I better watch out.

I’ve got an issue with that Duke University study mentioned in the wiki.  Basically, it’s saying that because the students who had tickets would only sell for them for a much higher price than the other students would buy them for, that indicated an endowment effect.  But couldn’t it be that to a presumably very poor college kid, a net deficit of $100 is a much bigger deal than attaining $100?  So those dollars are not really equivalent in terms of utility.  If I had an extra hundred dollars, that might allow me to buy MGD instead of natty ice, but they’re both going to get me drunk.

See Cone and the Yankees, in 1995.  For example.

Yes, but sometimes scouts are simply wrong, no matter whose scouts they are.  A prospect will simply fail to succeed.

That aside, I do see what you are saying, but I’d bet good money every team has a player like Karstens stashed on their AAA affiliate.  And even if they don’t, why would they give anything of value for him?

But couldn’t it be that to a presumably very poor college kid...

You’ve heard of Duke, right?

See Cone and the Yankees, in 1995.  For example.

Does it strike you as odd that the example you are citing is one from mid-nineties? These days, you have to give up a Hanley Ramirez to give up a Josh Beckett. Or a Jarrod Saltalamacchia to get a Mark Teixeira. Or 6 prospects for a Dan Haren.

My point is, front offices, despite their posturings, are much savvier, and if they make mistakes, they are going to make mistakes on the proven veterans. Teams that end up winners these days are not ones which dump overhyped prospects on others, but the ones that get good prospects by selling off overhyped veterans (cue Pierzynski).

But couldn’t it be that to a presumably very poor college kid

Are there any poor kids at Duke?

You’ve heard of Duke, right?

Point taken. 

I still maintain my initial point that not all dollars are created equally.

A better way to do it would be to call and offer the students without a ticket either a ticket or X dollars, then figure out what X is.  I’m sure that number would have been higher than the amount of money that the students were willing to pay was.

I’d bet good money every team has a player like Karstens stashed on their AAA affiliate

Quite a few teams have a couple of guys like Karstens in their major league starting rotations.

couldn’t it be that to a presumably very poor college kid, a net deficit of $100 is a much bigger deal than attaining $100?

But when a net deficit of $170 is as big a deal as attaining $2400, then something else is going on, whether we’re talking about spoiled rich dookies or community college kids.

A better way to do it would be to call and offer the students without a ticket either a ticket or X dollars, then figure out what X is.

Were you Monty Hall in a previous life?

More importantly, that experiment doesn’t address the question of whether people attach added value to something simply because they already possess it.

The answer is behind door #2.

Doesn’t it though?  You are asking people who don’t have a ticket whether they want a ticket or want X dollars.  Or you’re asking people who have a ticket if they want X dollars in exchange for the ticket they already have.

I still maintain my initial point that not all dollars are created equally.

I agree.  The marginal effect or worth of money varies from person to person.

but I’d bet good money every team has a player like Karstens stashed on their AAA affiliate.  And even if they don’t, why would they give anything of value for him?

Some may not, but a lot probably do.  Though again they *may* value Karstens higher than their own player, because perhaps their coaches have soured on that player.  And we certainly *do* know that some organizations think they can “fix” problems with other team’s players. 

As for value...again, I don’t think he would get much, at least not by himself.  Here’s the type of thing I think he could get by himself; again assuming he were to pitch well in the majors this month, which isn’t a guarentee.  He may be able to get an overpriced veteran from a non-contending team, who wouldn’t expect that player to give back any draft picks.  Sexson I think does fit the bill.  M’s would save about 7M, and get a pitcher back who *could* help them some.  Sexson was a “C” last year according to Elias and I don’t think will be higher this year.  So, for Karstens alone this is mostly a theoretical exercise, because I’m not sure if there is a player like Sexson that would fit the Yankees’ needs.

BUT, Karstens and something else may bring back something.  Look up the Mike Hampton trade.  Spooneyburger(sp) was higher rated than anyone the Yankees would be willing to trade, but I’d have to think Karstens would be more valuable than Baker.

Does it strike you as odd that the example you are citing is one from mid-nineties?

It was the first one that popped into my head.  I can’t immediately think of a more recent example.  Though I’m sure if I dig hard enough I could find something.  And in the case of six-for-one, I’m thinking Karstens may be the sixth player in such a trade, not the first.  Which means that he has value.  Not much, but more than say Eric Duncan.  Probably more than Chase Wright.

Doesn’t it though?  You are asking people who don’t have a ticket whether they want a ticket or want X dollars.  Or you’re asking people who have a ticket if they want X dollars in exchange for the ticket they already have.

If it’s a rich Dookie, then money is probably not as important as the ticket.  But I guess it depends on how rich our little Dookie is and if they are big basketballs fans.

While it is hard to quantify or prove the endowment effect, like most social/psychological theories, I think it definitely affects many fans.  I’d bet most Boston fans overvalue Ellsbury, simply because of the uniform he wears.  They don’t want to hear about his declining stats.  They remember 2007 Ellsbury.  The World Series.

And I’m sure there are fans who wonder why Yankee fans think Karstens is worth something in a trade or JB Cox will succeed in a MLB bullpen, etc.

A better way to do it would be to call and offer the students without a ticket either a ticket or X dollars, then figure out what X is.  I’m sure that number would have been higher than the amount of money that the students were willing to pay was.

You mean figure the dollar amount for which it broke 50-50, I presume? Interesting experiment, and probably more fruitful than what was done. But you’d still need the experiment they did in order to find for what amount people were willing to sell tickets in order to see if they valued the tickets more than the aforementioned X. But I agree, your experiment is better at determining the “true” value of the tickets than seeing what folks are willing to pay for them.

And don’t do this for tickets to the Carolina game at Cameron, as no one could rightly be considered a rational actor that week.

I just read (skimmed) the Duke study and no real money was exchanged, so take it with a grain of salt.  I’m also pretty sure that the study asked the students to suggest a dollar value (rather than the study suggesting a dollar value and the students saying yes or no) which means that they were basically making numbers up.

If you want to find the true value of a ticket, ask a scalper.  Or better yet, follow him/her around while they sell their tickets.  You’ll learn all about the endowment effect, as well as some good economic principles in action.

A better way to do it would be to call and offer the students without a ticket either a ticket or X dollars, then figure out what X is.

Doesn’t it though?  You are asking people who don’t have a ticket whether they want a ticket or want X dollars.  Or you’re asking people who have a ticket if they want X dollars in exchange for the ticket they already have.

No you’re not.  This is what they did in the study, but your experiment simply asks a person who doesn’t have a ticket whether (s)he’d prefer a ticket or x dollars.  That’s not the same thing, and while it may very well be more informative about how those individuals value a ticket, it is completely uninformative about whether they attach extra value to a ticket that they already possess.

If you want to find the true value of a ticket, ask a scalper.  ...  You’ll learn all about the endowment effect. ...

A scalper who succumbs to the endowment effect is going to get stuck with a lot of tickets, and therefore likely lose a lot of money.

So, to sum up, if we could get some other team to hang out with Karstens, maybe let him pitch once or twice, they too would start to overvalue him due to your ENDOWMENT EFFECT®?

Maybe I’m missing something subtle and obvious, but how is comparing the value X that someone would be willing to give up his or her ticket for to the value X that someone would take instead of getting a ticket he or she doesn’t have already not measuring the endowment effect?

And I’m sure there are fans who wonder why Yankee fans think Karstens is worth something in a trade or JB Cox will succeed in a MLB bullpen, etc.

As I’m sure they thought Wang couldn’t succeed and wondered why we liked him, or wondered why we thought Cano was a good fielder when he was lazy, etc.

Maybe I’m missing something subtle and obvious, but how is comparing the value X that someone would be willing to give up his or her ticket for to the value X that someone would take instead of getting a ticket he or she doesn’t have already not measuring the endowment effect?

The entire essence of the endowment effect is that people think some thing is worth more because they already own it.  Your question is more like asking people if they value money that they might receive differently than they value money they might spend.  I’m sure that’s probably true, at least for some people in at least some circumstances, but I don’t think that’s the same effect.

So you have to ask about a ticket that the person already has or you aren’t going to see the effect.  Asking me your question might give you a better idea of how I value a ticket (as opposed to just asking me what I’d pay, as the Duke study did).  But what I’d want for a ticket is not necessarily the same as what I’d want instead of a ticket.  So you still have to ask me how much I’d take for a ticket that I already have in order to find out if I’m inflating the value of the ticket simply because it is my ticket as opposed to just a ticket.

And BTW, when you put in all caps and register it as a trademark, it reads like you’re talking about something completely different, and I really don’t think I need to know anything more about Mr. Karsten’s ENDOWMENT EFFECT®, thank you very much.

and I really don’t think I need to know anything more about Mr. Karsten’s ENDOWMENT EFFECT®, thank you very much.

I hear Mrs. Karstens likes his endowment-effect

All I’m suggesting is that instead of asking the one group how much you would pay for a ticket, you ask them how much they would take instead of a ticket that you’re giving them.  You would still compare that answer to the value obtained by questioning the other group of people who got the ticket in the first place. So group one is being asked to value how much a ticket that they don’t have is worth, group two is being asked to value how much a ticket that they do have is worth. You have two groups.  You compare them.  That’s what the study did.  All I want to do is change one of the questions.  I think it’s more fair.  The way the study was set up it seems like they were biasing the results towards a more pronounced endowment effect so that more grant money can go into studying the endowment effect.