Rosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
April 24, 2010

BOSPIT

PIT won this trade +$0.8M surplus BOS won this trade +0.0 WAR
BOSBOS Theo Epstein net −$0.8M net +0.0
received +$0.0M+$0.0M ± $19M expected surplus · −$0.8M realized received 0.5 ± 2 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
receives — most valuable first
Jonathan Van EveryOF·31y·L/L
+$0.0M+$0.0M± $19M exp surplusrealized −$0.8M 0.5± 2 exp WARrealized 0.0
Prior
#876 overall draft pick — at the league baseline → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form 1.5/yr over 0.1 season
Talent
0.31/yr blended
Horizon
3.9 control yrs × 0.40 age decline
PITPIT Neal Huntington net +$0.8M net +0.0
received +$0.0M+$0.0M ± $0M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.0 ± 0 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
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

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 →