Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
July 26, 2018

TBRATL

TBR won this trade +$1.6M surplus TBR won this trade +0.2 WAR
TBRTBR Erik Neander net +$1.6M net +0.2
received +$0.0M+$0.0M ± $0M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.0 ± 0 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved TBR's 2018 odds 62% → 60% (-1.4 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
cash / PTBNL
+$0.0M+$0.0M± $0M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.0± 0 exp WARrealized 0.0
Cash or player to be named — no projection
ATLATL Alex Anthopoulos net −$1.6M net -0.2
received +$0.8M+$0.8M ± $14M expected surplus · −$1.6M realized received 0.3 ± 2 expected · -0.2 realized WAR
Playoff odds: this deal moved ATL's 2018 odds 40% → 41% (+1.4 pts) — how trade timing is graded ↗
receives — most valuable first
Jonny VentersP·33y·L/L
+$0.8M+$0.8M± $14M exp surplusrealized −$1.6M 0.3± 2 exp WARrealized -0.2
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 0.6/yr over 0.2 season
Talent
0.27/yr blended
Horizon
1.0 control yr

Each player is valued on what he was expected to produce at the time of the trade, versus what he actually produced for his new team.

Expected WAR blends a player's pedigree (Baseball America rank / draft slot, or a baseline) with his recent track record, projected over the years of team control acquired. The ± band is the uncertainty — wide for unproven prospects, tight for established veterans. Surplus values that production at the FA market price of a win (~$8M/WAR) minus salary — so cost-controlled players carry large surplus and expensive ones little, even at the same WAR. Who won is descriptive, not a skill claim: ~99% of a trade's outcome is unforeseeable at the time.

Historically these expected values are unbiased and land within ±2 WAR of reality 75% of the time — yet the side the model favors actually comes out ahead only 53% of the time. The grade is a calibrated bet, not a prediction. Why trades are an efficient market →