2018 Trade Deadline ROSTERBATION

[Enscheff]

https://www.theringer.com/mlb/2018/7...odgers-pirates

This article at least puts the trade deadline in perspective as it outlines what everyone did in the last couple of weeks.

Not vouching for all their grades, but I think their putting it in the didn't move the needle much category is correct. Braves need outperformance for these moves to make a big impact.

It would be interesting if someone would calculate the net expected wins added from the Braves' moves.

I think they showed support to the team and made some moves that might help, but the things other contenders did were probably bigger on paper.

We will see how it all plays out.

Not exactly net wins added, but FG just put out an article showing who increased their playoff odds the most:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/zips...tional-league/

The Braves improved their odds by 3.1% at the expense of very little future value. I give AA's first deadline a solid B.

They could have likely increased their odds by another 1%-2% had they added a LHH 3B and acquired better BP pieces, and they probably could have done so without giving up many more future wins than they did. That would have gotten an A+ from me.

However, I wouldn't disagree with someone who said, "Touki and Gohara will likely improve the BP as much or more than any reasonable trade acquisition, so the Braves didn't need to spend any resources on the BP".

[nsacpi]

Not exactly net wins added, but FG just put out an article showing who increased their playoff odds the most:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/zips...tional-league/

The Braves improved their odds by 3.1% at the expense of very little future value. I give AA's first deadline a solid B.

They could have likely increased their odds by another 1%-2% had they added a LHH 3B and acquired better BP pieces, and they probably could have done so without giving up many more future wins than they did. That would have gotten an A+ from me.

However, I wouldn't disagree with someone who said, "Touki and Gohara will likely improve the BP as much or more than any reasonable trade acquisition, so the Braves didn't need to spend any resources on the BP".

So adding Machado improved the Dodgers playoff odds by about 7%. They didn't do odds of winning the WS, but it is likely this increased by no more than 2%. Something to keep in mind next time someone wants the Braves to go "all in."

[Enscheff]

So adding Machado improved the Dodgers playoff odds by about 7%. They didn't do odds of winning the WS, but it is likely this increased by no more than 2%. Something to keep in mind next time someone wants the Braves to go "all in."

In a sport where the odds of winning a single playoff game vary from about 45% to 55%, I'd say a 2% swing is significant....

[jpx7]

In a sport where the odds of winning a single playoff game vary from about 45% to 55%, I'd say a 2% swing is significant....

I’d think 7% increase in playoff odds is pretty huge for a single player addition, too.

[Enscheff]

I’d think 7% increase in playoff odds is pretty huge for a single player addition, too.

The Braves acquired 4 players who cumulatively didn't increase their playoff odds half as much as adding Machado.

Think about that for a second...that's the definition of an impact player.

[nsacpi]

In a sport where the odds of winning a single playoff game vary from about 45% to 55%, I'd say a 2% swing is significant....

I said no more than 2%. Playing around the numbers have convinced me it is somewhere between 1 and 2%. My best estimate is trading for Manny increased the Dodgers odds of winning it all from 11.5% to 13.0%. Something like that. Its a useful thing to keep in mind. Not trivial. But no one ever goes into the playoffs as a prohibitive favorite to win it all and even picking up some very good players does not change that.

[jpx7]

I said no more than 2%. Playing around the numbers have convinced me it is somewhere between 1 and 2%. My best estimate is trading for Manny increased the Dodgers odds of winning it all from 11.5% to 13.0%. Something like that. Its a useful thing to keep in mind. Not trivial. But no one ever goes into the playoffs as a prohibitive favorite to win it all and even picking up some very good players does not change that.

Also not trivial that it probably made a lot more sense for the Dodgers to pay the going-rate for that 1-2% bump, versus the Braves. They have a much greater chance of retaining Machado’s services long-term if they can sell him on their clubhouse/culture/city over the next few months. They’re at the middle of their seeming competitive-window, versus just opening it up. And they’ve graduated a lot of position-player talent to their major-league team the past few years, so they can better weather trading the three positional prospects the trade required (alongside the two arms the Braves could more easily match).

[nsacpi]

Also not trivial that it probably made a lot more sense for the Dodgers to pay the going-rate for that 1-2% bump, versus the Braves. They have a much greater chance of retaining Machado’s services long-term if they can sell him on their clubhouse/culture/city over the next few months. They’re at the middle of their seeming competitive-window, versus just opening it up. And they’ve graduated a lot of position-player talent to their major-league team the past few years, so they can better weather trading the three positional prospects the trade required (alongside the two arms the Braves could more easily match).

Hey, we have a 4% chance of winning the WS this year. I'd give my left arm to get that up to...ah never mind.

[jpx7]

Hey, we have a 4% chance of winning the WS this year. I'd give my left arm to get that up to...ah never mind.

Would the fact that Braves are only ~50% to make the playoffs, but would’ve jumped to ~60% with Machado, mean that his addition would have a greater effect on their WS odds, since the former is a necessary condition of the latter? The Dodgers moved from ~70% to ~80%, so they already had a much greater chance of satisfying that basic precondition, which I assume is baked into WS odds somehow.

[Enscheff]

Would the fact that Braves are only ~50% to make the playoffs, but would’ve jumped to ~60% with Machado, mean that his addition would have a greater effect on their WS odds, since the former is a necessary condition of the latter? The Dodgers moved from ~70% to ~80%, so they already had a much greater chance of satisfying that basic precondition, which I assume is baked into WS odds somehow.

Also baked into those odds is the chances of playing in the WC game. Being in that game essentially cuts a teams championship odds in half vs winning the division.

I'm going to guess without even looking that the Braves are much more likely to to play in the WC game than the Dodgers are.

[nsacpi]

Would the fact that Braves are only ~50% to make the playoffs, but would’ve jumped to ~60% with Machado, mean that his addition would have a greater effect on their WS odds, since the former is a necessary condition of the latter? The Dodgers moved from ~70% to ~80%, so they already had a much greater chance of satisfying that basic precondition, which I assume is baked into WS odds somehow.

I don't think so. Some of it has to do with odds of making it to the WC as opposed to winning the division. If most of the increase in our playoff chances come via the WC there is a smaller effect on the WS odds. Other than the WC wrinkle, I think everything scales up by a similar amount.

[nsacpi]

Also baked into those odds is the chances of playing in the WC game. Being in that game essentially cuts a teams championship odds in half vs winning the division.

I'm going to guess without even looking that the Braves are much more likely to to play in the WC game than the Dodgers are.

Yes. Although the difference is less than I expected. About 30% of the Braves playoff chances come via the WC vs about 20% for the Dodgers.

[jpx7]

Also baked into those odds is the chances of playing in the WC game. Being in that game essentially cuts a teams championship odds in half vs winning the division.

I'm going to guess without even looking that the Braves are much more likely to to play in the WC game than the Dodgers are.

I don't think so. Some of it has to do with odds of making it to the WC as opposed to winning the division. If most of the increase in our playoff chances come via the WC there is a smaller effect on the WS odds. Other than the WC wrinkle, I think everything scales up by a similar amount.

So if adding Machado made the Braves a lot more likely to win the division (versus just making the WC play-in), it’s possibly Machado could’ve caused more than a 1-2% improvement for the Braves’ WS odds? Maybe more in the 3-4% range, given Enscheff’s “odds in half” note?

Purely academic, I know—and I still think the cost made a lot more sense for the Dodgers. But this could narrow the calculus a little bit.

[nsacpi]

So if adding Machado made the Braves a lot more likely to win the division (versus just making the WC play-in), it’s possibly Machado could’ve caused more than a 1-2% improvement for the Braves’ WS odds? Maybe more in the 3-4% range, given Enscheff’s “odds in half” note?

Purely academic, I know—and I still think the cost made a lot more sense for the Dodgers. But this could narrow the calculus a little bit.

I think so. Some of the projection systems have us finishing a game back of the Phillies. I imagine that adding Machado in addition to increasing our playoff odds would also redistribute those odds from the WC to division title.

[Orphan Black]

So if adding Machado made the Braves a lot more likely to win the division (versus just making the WC play-in), it’s possibly Machado could’ve caused more than a 1-2% improvement for the Braves’ WS odds? Maybe more in the 3-4% range, given Enscheff’s “odds in half” note?

Purely academic, I know—and I still think the cost made a lot more sense for the Dodgers. But this could narrow the calculus a little bit.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...ere-helps-most

[Acuña’s Bat Flip]

I still wouldn't trade what it would have taken for Manny.

[Russ2dollas]

Except Donaldson is a RH bat.

I don’t know his splits but who cares

The point is a solid defensive 3b who hits over 800 ops vs rh. Healthy Donaldson doesn’t matter what hand he is using.

Plus Swanson is not hitting .... if we were playing a wc game is comargo our ss?

[IowaBrave14]

I don’t think you take DS’s glove out of the line up.

[Heyward]

I still wouldn't trade what it would have taken for Manny.

LA traded one top 100 guy for him, what's a similar cost from the Braves POV?

Something like Allard, Jackson, Demeritte, Wiegel, Ynao?

[nsacpi]

LA traded one top 100 guy for him, what's a similar cost from the Braves POV?

Something like Allard, Jackson, Demeritte, Wiegel, Ynao?

Demeritte