2026 Red Sox/MLB Season Thread

[Vermont Green]

I heard the argument a lot that moneyball works in the regular season but MIL had never won a title.  That is now out.  Quite a run for MIL.  Hard not to be happy for them and their fans.

The point isn't that BOS needs to be just like MIL.  But I don't think BOS can win a title just trying to be like LAD.  They need to do moneyball like MIL (do it as well) but do it with more money (which they have) and of course, when they do spend money, they need to do that well too.

So the off season officially starts.  I think BOS is in a good place.  If they make some smart moves (both moneyball moves and big spender moves), they can be right there.  Hopefully they settle the CBA and there is actually a season.

How do you define "moneyball"?

Because it seems like at this point people define it as "small market team does good = moneyball"

Fair question. Every one defines it differently.  To me it is trying to build the core of the team with younger, under control players, often that you develop. This is as opposed to having the core of the team built by signing big money free agents who are often older.  Or trading away prospects for big money vets.  Analytics can play in either.

And as I have been trying to say, it is not all or nothing.  You can build a core of young players and go get key vets too. 

[BitterJim]

I heard the argument a lot that moneyball works in the regular season but MIL had never won a title.  That is now out.  Quite a run for MIL.  Hard not to be happy for them and their fans.

The point isn't that BOS needs to be just like MIL.  But I don't think BOS can win a title just trying to be like LAD.  They need to do moneyball like MIL (do it as well) but do it with more money (which they have) and of course, when they do spend money, they need to do that well too.

So the off season officially starts.  I think BOS is in a good place.  If they make some smart moves (both moneyball moves and big spender moves), they can be right there.  Hopefully they settle the CBA and there is actually a season.

How do you define "moneyball"?

Because it seems like at this point people define it as "small market team does good = moneyball"

Fair question. Every one defines it differently.  To me it is trying to build the core of the team with younger, under control players, often that you develop. This is as opposed to having the core of the team built by signing big money free agents who are often older.  Or trading away prospects for big money vets.  Analytics can play in either.

And as I have been trying to say, it is not all or nothing.  You can build a core of young players and go get key vets too.

At its core, moneyball is about finding undervalued talent. Traditionally that means finding players who contribute to winning more than the baseball establishment thinks: on-base percentage (OBP) and on-base plus slugging (OPS) were the gold standards for this (as opposed to more traditional stats like batting average). At this point, though, every team is aware of those stats, so they've become the main stats and are arguably overvalued.

Of the last 3 teams to make the World Series, 3/4 had lineups that were based more around "slap hitters" than power/3-true-outcome guys. To me, that's moneyball. They found a market inefficiency and took advantage. The market will eventually catch up, and small market teams will need to react to that (zig when others zag).

The Rays and Brewers are also great at being low payroll teams in general, willing to trade really talented players for prospects and then developing them to be good/great MLB players (before eventually trading them for more prospects). I wouldn't call that moneyball, but it complements moneyball perfectly and is really needed for a small market team to compete at a championship level. I think Breslow has done a good job of it with pitching, but not hitting, and that's been our downfall the past 2 seasons.

[Vermont Green]

I heard the argument a lot that moneyball works in the regular season but MIL had never won a title.  That is now out.  Quite a run for MIL.  Hard not to be happy for them and their fans.

The point isn't that BOS needs to be just like MIL.  But I don't think BOS can win a title just trying to be like LAD.  They need to do moneyball like MIL (do it as well) but do it with more money (which they have) and of course, when they do spend money, they need to do that well too.

So the off season officially starts.  I think BOS is in a good place.  If they make some smart moves (both moneyball moves and big spender moves), they can be right there.  Hopefully they settle the CBA and there is actually a season.

How do you define "moneyball"?

Because it seems like at this point people define it as "small market team does good = moneyball"

Fair question. Every one defines it differently.  To me it is trying to build the core of the team with younger, under control players, often that you develop. This is as opposed to having the core of the team built by signing big money free agents who are often older.  Or trading away prospects for big money vets.  Analytics can play in either.

And as I have been trying to say, it is not all or nothing.  You can build a core of young players and go get key vets too.

At its core, moneyball is about finding undervalued talent. Traditionally that means finding players who contribute to winning more than the baseball establishment thinks: on-base percentage (OBP) and on-base plus slugging (OPS) were the gold standards for this (as opposed to more traditional stats like batting average). At this point, though, every team is aware of those stats, so they've become the main stats and are arguably overvalued.

Of the last 3 teams to make the World Series, 3/4 had lineups that were based more around "slap hitters" than power/3-true-outcome guys. To me, that's moneyball. They found a market inefficiency and took advantage. The market will eventually catch up, and small market teams will need to react to that (zig when others zag).

The Rays and Brewers are also great at being low payroll teams in general, willing to trade really talented players for prospects and then developing them to be good/great MLB players (before eventually trading them for more prospects). I wouldn't call that moneyball, but it complements moneyball perfectly and is really needed for a small market team to compete at a championship level. I think Breslow has done a good job of it with pitching, but not hitting, and that's been our downfall the past 2 seasons.

This is all really good analysis.  I would alter this a bit to say that moneyball is about finding value more in general.  Is it more value to have one guy who can hit 40 hrs but costs $40M or is it more value to have 2 @ $20M who hit maybe 25 hrs but have better on-base percentage and play better defense?  Some say the Sox should just have 2 guys at $40M since they have the money.  Analytics can inform either the development of younger players or who you target when you spend.

I think the Sox are at the point where they have built the core with good young players on reasonable contracts.  Good value players like Rafaela.  Maybe Roman Anthony will be a good value player/contract, and so on.  Now they may need to spend, to target some specific players or roles that the team needs.