Very interesting article, thanks. And it perfectly aligns with my opinion of what my Tigers did at the deadline. I guess they got rid of some people they felt needed to go like Flaherty, although no one was impressed with the return from the Dodgers. And after the GM gave his obligatory “we’re thrilled with our return” speech, he also said that he is not going to rush any of our young pitchers up from the minors this year. But the head-scratching result of this is that they now have TWO starting pitchers on their roster. They had three bullpen games in the past week! How any GM could put himself and his team in this kind of predicament is way beyond me. There is young talent on their roster, and they are at least a year or two away from the playoffs, but man…. This is going to be one ugly second half in Motown. There are way more innings left in this season than arms in the dugout
There’s really no explaining Torkelson’s collapse, but two others the Tigers are counting on heavily - Kerry Carpenter and Casey Mize - have been out for months. So here we are again, bring on 2025….
I genuinely do admire the outstanding effort here, but I've commented on this elsewhere but will repeat it in the spirit of hopefully generating further positive discussions. As a general proposition, the trade deadline is a poor method to build an accretive postseason roster. It's a time compressed auction this is too often comprised of a series of mediocre transactions where sellers don't get enough to matter in October, and buyers receive too little in return for the future (a "lose, lose").
Part of the issue is the goal being sought. "Making the Playoffs" used to be significant to a World Series appearance, but with the expansion of teams now diluting the postseason with 40% of teams making it in, it's not aspirational in the least or even arguably a valid goal.
To put a finer point on it, what is the value associated with playing a few extra games after the regular season? If, on the other hand, the goal is to be in the World Series - let's assume that to be a valid goal - then the top 4 or 5 teams in late July should be buyers and everyone else sellers or silent. It's akin to a person on the verge of bankruptcy buying a Lamborghini that only pushes them closer to bankruptcy. It's an ill-conceived transaction but one where sportswriters reflexively cheer the moxie of "going all in" and argue that the Lamborghini is a great car with a high WAR.
Sure, it is a fine car...but to whom and at what cost? What is the context for the transaction? If your chances of appearing in the World Series are less than 10% are your odds really better by grabbing a player for two months who was a 5 WAR player three years ago? Are you really better off by getting "the best reliever available" instead of asking whether that reliever will have a material impact on your club over two months? Is "grabbing" Alex Cobb a direction changer despite him having not thrown a pitch this entire season? Should words like "flashes," "extra arm," "when healthy," "two years ago," "last rehab start," or "innings eater" get you excited?
I just don't get the logic. To be perfectly candid, the last time I saw the trade deadline's level of mass hysteria substituting for intellectual analysis was when watching a production of Arthur Miller's, The Crucible at our local high school. In case you missed it, that story doesn't end well either.
More specifically, I just don't see the supposed logic borne out in results. It strikes me that we need to stop thinking myopically about WAR values and start thinking more expansively about the real world in which these deals are happening - the context.
Put another way, instead of looking at these transactions prospectively and evaluating who got the most rented WAR for the next two months, why not examine these transactions retrospectively when the dust settles to see if there are proof points in performance for this strategy? Even when the net WAR was positive in July - does the strategy of buying assets at the deadline do anybody any good outside of those teams already at the World Series' doorstep? Does buying at the deadline even matter, and if so, how often?
In the tsunami of media trade deadline "grades" and "report cards" and "winners and losers," I'm forever struck by the paucity of analysis following these transactions over a mere next two months to discern whether they did any good. It's like everybody gets amnesia on August 1st. Which teams can you say in October wouldn't have been projected to be in the Series in July but are and for the reason of a specific transaction they did at the deadline? I'll bet the numbers will surprise you.
Look, if you're the Dodgers and your odds of getting to the World Series are 45% and you need a starter, and one is available for a reasonable expense - by all means do it. But if you're San Diego sitting at 5% and nabbing Juan Soto and Josh Hader two years ago amounted to nothing for your club, is strengthening your bullpen via a wild overpay because Jurickson Profar is finally having a decent season an intelligent strategy? I'll take the under and bet on LA or Philly to submit lineup cards in October.
Or take the counter example of the pathetic White Sox. Does not trading their top line assets really merit an "F?" What does it mean to their season which is already over that these guys are still on their roster? As Jim Bowden correctly noted yesterday, their strategy might be to wait until the season is over when there are potentially more bidders and more time to structure a better deal. They're under no time pressure here he added. Well, that makes complete sense to me and should to everyone else except apparently the media handing out an "F" because Chicago was a buzzkill and refused to mindlessly jump into the deep end and do something desperate and unnecessary at the expense of their future.
Sports psychologists have known for some time that soccer goalkeepers who dive left or right stop way fewer goals than those that do nothing and stay put in the center of the net. Yet 94% of the time, they continue to dive left or right even when they know it's a bad strategy. The reason is what is known as "action bias." People are fearful of doing nothing and appearing to others as indecisive or weak. So, they falsely believe that doing anything - even if negative and counterproductive - will make them appear smarter and more confident to observers. They would rather appear to be trying to do something, even when doing nothing is the clearly superior strategy. I would add baseball GMs to goalkeepers.
Would love to circle back in October and examine who was actually benefited by all this adrenaline inducing wheeling and dealing. Sorta like an NFL redraft of the Draft three years ago.
Very interesting article, thanks. And it perfectly aligns with my opinion of what my Tigers did at the deadline. I guess they got rid of some people they felt needed to go like Flaherty, although no one was impressed with the return from the Dodgers. And after the GM gave his obligatory “we’re thrilled with our return” speech, he also said that he is not going to rush any of our young pitchers up from the minors this year. But the head-scratching result of this is that they now have TWO starting pitchers on their roster. They had three bullpen games in the past week! How any GM could put himself and his team in this kind of predicament is way beyond me. There is young talent on their roster, and they are at least a year or two away from the playoffs, but man…. This is going to be one ugly second half in Motown. There are way more innings left in this season than arms in the dugout
My condolences to you and your Tigers. I personally thought they would be much better this season. A lot of young talent that have been wasted
There’s really no explaining Torkelson’s collapse, but two others the Tigers are counting on heavily - Kerry Carpenter and Casey Mize - have been out for months. So here we are again, bring on 2025….
I genuinely do admire the outstanding effort here, but I've commented on this elsewhere but will repeat it in the spirit of hopefully generating further positive discussions. As a general proposition, the trade deadline is a poor method to build an accretive postseason roster. It's a time compressed auction this is too often comprised of a series of mediocre transactions where sellers don't get enough to matter in October, and buyers receive too little in return for the future (a "lose, lose").
Part of the issue is the goal being sought. "Making the Playoffs" used to be significant to a World Series appearance, but with the expansion of teams now diluting the postseason with 40% of teams making it in, it's not aspirational in the least or even arguably a valid goal.
To put a finer point on it, what is the value associated with playing a few extra games after the regular season? If, on the other hand, the goal is to be in the World Series - let's assume that to be a valid goal - then the top 4 or 5 teams in late July should be buyers and everyone else sellers or silent. It's akin to a person on the verge of bankruptcy buying a Lamborghini that only pushes them closer to bankruptcy. It's an ill-conceived transaction but one where sportswriters reflexively cheer the moxie of "going all in" and argue that the Lamborghini is a great car with a high WAR.
Sure, it is a fine car...but to whom and at what cost? What is the context for the transaction? If your chances of appearing in the World Series are less than 10% are your odds really better by grabbing a player for two months who was a 5 WAR player three years ago? Are you really better off by getting "the best reliever available" instead of asking whether that reliever will have a material impact on your club over two months? Is "grabbing" Alex Cobb a direction changer despite him having not thrown a pitch this entire season? Should words like "flashes," "extra arm," "when healthy," "two years ago," "last rehab start," or "innings eater" get you excited?
I just don't get the logic. To be perfectly candid, the last time I saw the trade deadline's level of mass hysteria substituting for intellectual analysis was when watching a production of Arthur Miller's, The Crucible at our local high school. In case you missed it, that story doesn't end well either.
More specifically, I just don't see the supposed logic borne out in results. It strikes me that we need to stop thinking myopically about WAR values and start thinking more expansively about the real world in which these deals are happening - the context.
Put another way, instead of looking at these transactions prospectively and evaluating who got the most rented WAR for the next two months, why not examine these transactions retrospectively when the dust settles to see if there are proof points in performance for this strategy? Even when the net WAR was positive in July - does the strategy of buying assets at the deadline do anybody any good outside of those teams already at the World Series' doorstep? Does buying at the deadline even matter, and if so, how often?
In the tsunami of media trade deadline "grades" and "report cards" and "winners and losers," I'm forever struck by the paucity of analysis following these transactions over a mere next two months to discern whether they did any good. It's like everybody gets amnesia on August 1st. Which teams can you say in October wouldn't have been projected to be in the Series in July but are and for the reason of a specific transaction they did at the deadline? I'll bet the numbers will surprise you.
Look, if you're the Dodgers and your odds of getting to the World Series are 45% and you need a starter, and one is available for a reasonable expense - by all means do it. But if you're San Diego sitting at 5% and nabbing Juan Soto and Josh Hader two years ago amounted to nothing for your club, is strengthening your bullpen via a wild overpay because Jurickson Profar is finally having a decent season an intelligent strategy? I'll take the under and bet on LA or Philly to submit lineup cards in October.
Or take the counter example of the pathetic White Sox. Does not trading their top line assets really merit an "F?" What does it mean to their season which is already over that these guys are still on their roster? As Jim Bowden correctly noted yesterday, their strategy might be to wait until the season is over when there are potentially more bidders and more time to structure a better deal. They're under no time pressure here he added. Well, that makes complete sense to me and should to everyone else except apparently the media handing out an "F" because Chicago was a buzzkill and refused to mindlessly jump into the deep end and do something desperate and unnecessary at the expense of their future.
Sports psychologists have known for some time that soccer goalkeepers who dive left or right stop way fewer goals than those that do nothing and stay put in the center of the net. Yet 94% of the time, they continue to dive left or right even when they know it's a bad strategy. The reason is what is known as "action bias." People are fearful of doing nothing and appearing to others as indecisive or weak. So, they falsely believe that doing anything - even if negative and counterproductive - will make them appear smarter and more confident to observers. They would rather appear to be trying to do something, even when doing nothing is the clearly superior strategy. I would add baseball GMs to goalkeepers.
Would love to circle back in October and examine who was actually benefited by all this adrenaline inducing wheeling and dealing. Sorta like an NFL redraft of the Draft three years ago.
Thanks again for the time.