RRosternomics
← Trade Database
Share on 𝕏
December 20, 2017

ATLHOU

ATL won this trade +$0.0M surplus ATL won this trade +0.0 WAR
ATLATL John Hart net +$0.0M net +0.0
received −$2.4M−$2.4M ± $30M expected surplus · +$0.0M realized received 0.0 ± 4 expected · 0.0 realized WAR
receives — most valuable first
Preston TuckerOF·28y·L/L
−$2.2M−$2.2M± $30M exp surplusrealized +$0.0M 0.0± 4 exp WARrealized -0.0
Prior
league baseline (track record outweighs draft pedigree) → 0.21/yr
Evidence
recent form -0.7/yr over 0.5 season
Talent
-0.06/yr blended
Horizon
3.0 control yrs
HOUHOU Jeff Luhnow net +$0.0M 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 →