Playing the Odds: Previewing the Buyers and Sellers of the Trade Deadline
With the trade deadline approaching rapidly, teams are trying to decide which direction they are going in. Some teams are going to trade young talent to try and win this year. Take the Cardinals: they have already traded away 4 prospects, varying from really good to "meh", and are still on the hook for 2 PBTNL's. And while that certainly hurts them in the future, the returns this year, namely DeRosa and Holliday, are expected to vault them into the playoffs. Indeed, since the trades, the Cardinals increased their playoff odds drastically and are now the heavy favorites to win the NL Central.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Pirates. Faced with the realization that they had virtually no shot of making the playoffs, have already traded 3 players who are in their primes and have peak value (McClouth, Morgan and Laroche) in an effort to stack up for the future.
However, while those two teams have made up their minds; others are faced with some more difficult decisions. Take the Mariner's, a team that is playing quite well, yet is a longshot at making the playoffs. Do they sell high on Washburn and Bedard and try and stock up for the future, or do they go all in for Roy Halladay or someone (I think I know what Lookout Landing wants). Many other teams are going to be facing such dilemma's over the next few days, so I spent some time in excel and a chart depicting the playoff implications of adding or subtracting talent to each team:
| Team | Playoff Odds | +1 Wins | +2 Wins | +3 Wins | -1 Wins | -2 Wins | -3 Wins |
| Athletics | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Blue Jays | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| D-Backs | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Indians | 0% | 0% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Nationals | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Orioles | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Padres | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Pirates | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Reds | 0% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Royals | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Marlins | 2% | 2% | 4% | 7% | -1% | -1% | -2% |
| Mets | 2% | 2% | 4% | 7% | -1% | -1% | -2% |
| Astros | 4% | 2% | 5% | 9% | -2% | -3% | -3% |
| Mariners | 7% | 3% | 7% | 12% | -2% | -3% | -5% |
| Rangers | 10% | 4% | 8% | 12% | -3% | -5% | -6% |
| Giants | 12% | 5% | 11% | 19% | -4% | -7% | -9% |
| Twins | 12% | 4% | 9% | 13% | -4% | -6% | -8% |
| Brewers | 13% | 4% | 10% | 17% | -4% | -7% | -9% |
| Rays | 24% | 7% | 14% | 23% | -6% | -11% | -15% |
| White Sox | 27% | 7% | 14% | 21% | -6% | -11% | -15% |
| Braves | 29% | 8% | 16% | 26% | -7% | -13% | -18% |
| Rockies | 41% | 9% | 19% | 28% | -9% | -17% | -23% |
| Cubs | 47% | 9% | 18% | 27% | -9% | -17% | -24% |
| Cardinals | 55% | 8% | 16% | 23% | -8% | -16% | -24% |
| Tigers | 60% | 7% | 13% | 19% | -7% | -15% | -22% |
| Red Sox | 76% | 5% | 10% | 14% | -5% | -12% | -19% |
| Angels | 83% | 4% | 7% | 10% | -6% | -12% | -18% |
| Phillies | 88% | 4% | 7% | 10% | -5% | -11% | -18% |
| Yankees | 94% | 4% | 6% | 6% | -5% | -12% | -19% |
| Dodgers | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | -1% | -2% |
Note: I have realized that some people may not understand how these odds are calculated. Here is first installment of the odds, with the methodology described.
The columns are pretty self explanatory. They depict the current odds for each team, and the change in odds based on adding or subtracting a given amount of wins to their projected totals the rest of the way. You can click on the headers to sort.
These are freshly updated this morning, so the numbers in the "Playoff Odds" column are an accurate portrayal of each teams current playoff odds, at least by my projections. Click on the full article for some commentary.
The Roy Halladay Sweepstakes
Sky already looked at how much Roy Halladay was worth in a trade, and found that he would have a surplus value of about 23 million over this year and next. This year, Halladay would be about a 2-3 win upgrade for most teams in the rotation, and he figures to be the only guy on the trade market who is capable of that kind of an upgrade. If you'll look at the above table, the teams that would benefit most from acquiring Roy Halladay would be the Rockies, Cubs, Braves, Cardinals and the Rays.
Given that the Cardinals have already gutted their farm to get Holliday and DeRosa, and the Rays probably can't take on Halladay's contract; the three most practical suitors would be the Cubs, Braves and Rockies. Interestingly enough, those three teams haven't been linked to Halladay at all. Instead, the Dodgers and the Phillies appear to be most interested.
For the Dodgers, acquiring Halladay would almost certainly be a big mistake. The Blue Jays are reportedly asking for Clayton Kershaw, who is cost controlled and awesome. Given that they already have a 100% chance of making the playoffs, Halladay's only real value would be in the playoffs. Even if Halladay does improve their chances of doing something in the playoffs once they get there, paying that much in talent for really 3 or 4 meaningful starts seems quite foolish.
The Phillies would also be unwise to make the trade for the same reason as the Dodgers. While they aren't as much of a sure thing as LA, they are sitting at 88% to make the playoffs as of this morning. Dan looked at the possible trade combination yesterday, and found that they were all heavily lopsided in the Jays favor.
Is there such a thing as too good?
I already touched on this earlier, but the Dodgers are really good. So good in fact, that if they lost 3 WAR from their projected record, they would still have a 98% chance of making the playoffs. It goes against common sense to sell from a contending team, however in this case it makes a lot of sense. Players like Randy Wolf and Jeff Weaver are having career years and don't figure to be in the future plans of the team, or play a big role in the playoffs. If you could get some decent prospects for one of those guys, that would be an excellent move for the Dodgers.
Minor improvements can go a long way
League average players aren't that hard to find on the trading block. Guys like Austin Kearns, Jarrod Washburn and Jack Wilson could all be had cash and a couple of C prospects, and would probably provide about a 1 WAR upgrade for most teams the rest of the way. If you'll sort by the "+1 WAR" column, you'll see that the playoff odds for teams like the Rockies, Cubs, Braves and Cardinals would all be greatly improved by adding such players.
Please don't get injured!!!
At the top of the -X WAR columns, are teams like the Cardinals, Rockies and Braves. Those teams are the ones that have the most to gain, but also the most to lose. If Javier Vasquez or Chipper Jones were to go down for the Braves, that would essentially torpedo their playoff odds. Ditto with the Cardinals and Chris Carpenter and Albert Pujols, and the Rockies with Ubaldo Jimenez.
So I hope this was helpful to everyone. With the trade deadline coming up soon, I'll be updating the playoff odds more frequently and giving you the chart at the beginning of this article each time so you can see the possible implications of every trade rumor that comes up.
20 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very good
I really like this article. I was just commenting in Dan’s article below about how to properly account for the odds of making the playoffs in approximating trade valuations and explaining some of my methodology that I used in my article on the topic of the Halladay trade possibilities over at BP: http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9263
The one thing that you did not mention in your article that I included in mine is the value of players— and especially starting pitchers— on the odds of winning in the playoffs. We all know that playoff series are a small sample size, but that does not mean that an improved team is more likely to win. I considered the odds of succeeding in the playoffs if you replace a replacement level 4th starter with Halladay and bump everyone down a spot, and approximated that you bump up your odds of winning the World Series from about 10% to 16% with Halladay. It would be less for a hitter because pitchers can pitch in 2/5 of a divisional series instead of 1/5 of the regular season, so they double in value for the divisional series can pitch in 2/7 of a championship and world series too, which makes them relatively more valuable in the playoffs too.
But that’s all why the Dodgers and Phillies make more sense than you would think. The value of adding talent is increasing in playoff odds at first and then decreasing once you reach a certain point, so it has a single peak, but the value of adding talent on odds of winning once in the playoffs is strictly increasing in playoff odds, so the peak of value comes a little later. I found that the Cardinals and Tigers were the teams with the most value from adding Halladay instead of the Rockies and Cubs peak that you found. The Cardinals and Tigers have just a slightly higher value from adding him when you make the adjustment for playoff success.
I don't have a BP subscription
But I would love to read your article and see the methodology. Anyway we can work around this :)
The reason I don’t like the Holliday deal for the Phillies, is that it would only offer a 3-6% improvement over acquiring a Jarrod Washburn or a Doug Davis, and those guys wouldn’t cost nearly as much.
You say the difference in “peak” value is 6 percent better world series odds. It still doesn’t seem like that + the slight improvement in playoff odds is worth cost controlled years of Happ and Drabek or whatever.
Then again, you are the one who has done the research, so maybe you can enlighten me.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions
As a Phillies fan, I do like that you have the Phillies at 88% to make the playoffs but BP has them around 70% and coolstandings has them at 78%. How are you generating your playoff odds?
I skipped the discussion of how I got the playoff odds in the article because the focus of the article was primarily on having a better sense of whether your season would be determined by a couple games with 70 games left than with 162 games left, but I can explain what I did. It was clearly an approximation but you’ll get the gist.
I figured that a six-win player per 35 starts adds about 0.17 wins per game he pitches, so I figured that a replacement level pitcher would win 41.5% of playoff games and Halladay would win 58.5% of playoff games. Then I figured that the team had three starters that had a 50% chance of winning a playoff game they pitched. Then I used the binomial theorem to figure out the odds of winning three games in a five games series, with a 58.5%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 58.5% chance of winning games 1-5 respectively; and then the odds of winning four games out a seven game series, with 58.5%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 58.5%, 50%, 50% respectively. Then I figured out the odds of winning one five-game series and two seven-games series. Then I figured out the odds of winning a five game series with 50%, 50%, 50%, 41.5%, 50% chance of winning games 1-5 respectively, and 50%, 50%, 50%, 41.5%, 50%, 50%, 50% of winning games 1-7 respectively in a seven game series. The difference was 16% vs 10% odds of winning all three series when you add Halladay.
Is replacement level the right choice for the non-Halladay pitcher?
I’m guessing most of the teams are replacing a pitcher who’s at least someone about replacement. Especially if we’re considering the 4th starter.
That’s just conjecture of course. I suppose I could actually look into it.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Jul 26, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions
true
it was an approximation. i didn’t get into the nitty gritty of how good team’s 4th starters were. probably not replacement level but it probably wouldn’t change the numbers much for most teams to make them one-win pitchers or whatever.
I have the Phillies at 92 wins for the year
You can read my methodology here.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Great stuff VEP.
I was personally shocked to see that the White Sox can’t do anything to improve their playoff odds. They’re only three back of Detroit, is it that difficult to add to their team at this point?
The White Sox thing is definitely a typo
I don’t know how I did that, I’ll fix it right now.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, they actually are one of the most leveraged teams
21% for a 3 WAR player.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Makes much mor sense, thanks!
Not that I care what the White Sox do. I’m still a disappointed at my Marlins poor chances. Any 3 WAR players available on the cheap? Please?
Great article VP
I dont know how the tigers are ahead of the sox, but the sox are going to be trading for players on the deadline
Carlos Guillen, the Latino Punto
I love that table. Excellent.
One question: are the changes percentage changes or percentage point changes? I’m assuming percentage points but it would change things a lot if it were percentage change.
Percentage points
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Javier VaZquez with a "z"
but great article. Really confirms two hopes I have for the deadline: the Rays pick up Lee and/or V-Mart and the Mets sell.
King of the bling come to lay down the evidence//Not George Bush, L-Millz be da president
I completely dig this, but...
If I’m reading this correctly, the Yankees adding a +2 or +3 WAR player would put their playoff odds over 100%. And if hypnotized softball ringers on the Simpsons have taught me anything about percentages, it’s this: “That’s impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.”
D'oh
Like with the White Sox thing, I’m pretty sure that’s a typo. I had to copy these by hand, so there may be a couple more of those, I’ll recheck. It should be 6% percent for both 2 or 3 WAR for the Yankees.
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday
by vivaelpujols on Jul 26, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently Matt Bugenhagen thinks otherwise about the Dodgers
F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday

by 

















