FanGraphs Weekly Mailbag: August 8, 2026

On Friday, the Boston Globe ran a story by Red Sox beat writer Alex Speier on the concept of momentum. I can hear the collective groans of our Members now. Haven’t we gone over this enough? We’ve already established that there’s no such thing as momentum! Or, if there is, its effect is minimal. Our readers would be the first to point out that the month-and-a-half long surge up in Boston is mostly a matter of a talented, drastically underperforming Sox team experiencing some serious positive regression, bringing its overall record back up to about where we expected it to be all along. I get that, of course. We cannot conclusively prove the effect of momentum in baseball — and it’s not for lack of trying — and so therefore cannot definitively say that it exists. Yet when it comes to the Big Mo, a palpable feeling rather than a tangible metric, I tend to subscribe to what I call the Robert Graysmith Theory: Just because you can’t prove it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
What’s interesting about Speier’s piece is that he, along with Globe staffers Julian Benbow and Daigo Fujiwara-Smith, looked for data to support the impact of momentum on winning and losing streaks. Speier, an analytically savvy writer, said in his Bluesky post sharing the story that he “was skeptical” that their search would lead to anything. Instead, he was astonished to learn that, as he writes in the story, “A Globe analysis of Retrosheet data that includes the outcome of every MLB game from 1901 through 2025 revealed a striking pattern: The longer a winning streak lasts, the higher a team’s winning percentage in the next game.” The inverse is true for losing streaks. Speier mentions several factors unrelated to momentum that help to explain why “baseball streaks tend to be somewhat self-sustaining,” most notably that team quality probably plays a major role in enduring stretches of winning or losing. That alone is enough of a reason to maintain any skepticism you may have toward the idea of momentum. But at the same time, we should acknowledge that many players believe in the power of momentum, and if that belief influences how they feel, and how they feel contributes to how they perform, then it stands to reason that momentum — or at least, their belief in momentum — has at least some impact on performance.
That’s the last we’ll be discussing momentum here, though I’d encourage you to read the entirety of Speier’s story after you’ve finished reading this mailbag. Instead, today we’ll be answering your questions on players to be named later, the teams that most improved (or diminished) their 2027 playoff odds with their moves at this season’s trade deadline, and where Pete Crow-Armstrong would stack up on the five-star catches leaderboard if we had Statcast data going back through baseball’s history. But before we do, I’d like to remind you that this mailbag is exclusive to FanGraphs Members. If you aren’t yet a Member and would like to keep reading, you can sign up for a Membership here. It’s the best way to both experience the site and support our staff, and it comes with a bunch of other great benefits. Also, if you’d like to ask a question for an upcoming mailbag, send me an email at mailbag@fangraphs.com.
Matt is the associate editor of FanGraphs. Previously, he was the baseball editor at Sports Illustrated. His work has appeared in The New York Times, Men’s Health, Baseball Prospectus, and Lindy’s Sports Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @ByMattMartell and Blue Sky @mattmartell.bsky.social.
David Ortiz is also noteworthy for literally being a player to be named later. At the time of the trade he was known as David Arias. I don’t recall why he changed Arias to Ortiz.
His name is David Ortiz Arias. Spanish names are traditionally composed of the first surname from each parent. In most circumstances people just go by the first surname, hence why he’s David Ortiz. Listing him David Arias was just a straight up mistake at the time.
This answers so many questions I have been afraid to ask for about twenty years now.
We also saw this recently with Elmer Rodriguez (previously known as Elmer Rodriguez-Cruz).
I wonder if the Red Sox ‘momentum’ is running a little too hot, too soon. (Just asking for a friend who is a Yankee fan)
If parts of Reddit are to be believed, it ain’t momentum that’s carrying the BoSox right now…
Boston baked beans?
I wonder if the Red Sox ‘momentum’ is running a little too hot, too soon. (Just asking for a friend who is a Yankee fan)
“Momentum is tomorrow’s starting pitcher.”
Perhaps having more defensive data to capture PCAs wizardry with the glove will satisfy MVP doubters who keep asking, “Yeah, but what’s his ERA?”
The Cubs should let him pitch to one batter so he could end the season with an era of 0.00.
The thing is you know that inning he does pitch is going to make people seriously consider whether he should try to be a two-way player. He has an arm.
“Show me Ohtani’s gold glove”- the proper response to said Dodgers “fans”.
Paul Blair was a marvel who played shallower than any other centerfielder that I’ve seen (I’m 72 and grew up in Baltimore so I’m surely biased). If a beaning hadn’t destroyed his confidence as a hitter he might have been a HOFer. Also had one of the greatest quotes ever; when asked about Tommy Agee’s diving catch in the 1969 WS, he simply said “I wouldn’t have had to dive.” And he wouldn’t have.
Ha! I thought I was the only one going around saying RsBI. Glad to join the club, Michael.
RBI is an initialism which is its own grammatical unit. The correct plural form is RBIs.
How many CDs do you own? Where do the VIPs sit? Jeff Bagwell had 116 RBIs in 1994.
There is a distinction between RBI and the two examples you cited though – in compact discs and very important persons, you are making the last word plural, hence it makes sense to add the “s” to the last word/letter – there would be no reason to say CsD or VsIP because you’re not making compact or very plural, whereas you are making run plural when talking about runs batted in.
CD: Compact Disc, so Compact Discs is plural, “CDs”
VIP: Very Important Person, so Person = People, but still the last element would be plural, justifying “VIPs”
If you’re arguing it’s an initialism, at least pick ones where the s’ you’re using don’t duplicate how you’d use them in both cases to justify the usage.
Sure if we pretend FBI and CIA switch roles for this example to be moderately coherent.
The FBI’s records suggest the number of POWs held by aggressive nations far exceeds what we previously thought. Additionally, the number of WMDs reported was inaccurate.
Jeff Bagwell had 116 RBIs in 1994.
With all due respect to Alex Speier, in Boston Big Mo is the red hot Andrew monasterio
momentum might not be a real thing, but inertia sure is. just ask the rockies and white sox
You mean the division-leading White Sox?
I find it very interesting that Honus Wagner made the OF DRS list with only 374 games played; PCA already has 402.
How could Honus Wagner be 19th on the chart for outfielder defensive runs saved before age 34 when he made only 637 POs as an OF, the vast majority of which came before he entered his defensive golden period as a SS?
In contrast, Lorenzo Cain, a great OF who apparently saved just 0.7 runs more than Wagner on this chart, made about 4x as many POs before his age 34 season.
Seems like an error to include Wagner, who truly was a great defensive player, but as a SS, not an OF.
Anecdotally I don’t know if major league players feel it, but when things are going bad as a fan or recreational player, you’re just waiting for the bad thing to happen. And when they’re going good, you expect the big hit. I’m pretty sure confidence is a huge factor for pitchers and hitters.
And if you’re on a hot streak, some of those games wind up being blowouts or at least easy wins and you can extend your starter and rest your bullpen. Take the Cubs today, with a 7-2 lead is was easy to extend Boyd for 7 innings and throw their 7th best reliever in the 9th, leaving the pen well rested for “tomorrow”.
That said, at the end of the day a .550 team is about 55% of any given day and maybe that ranges from 52% to 58% if they’ve been hot or cold.
oh boy, the orioles traded their most philosophically significant player of this decade to a division rival, but at least they also self inflicted the most damage for next year of any team in the league.
give mike elias another promotion
It’s “Kiermaier”. You spelled it “Keiermaier” at least thrice.
@Michael Baumann: “I’m less high on Ortiz’s playing career than the consensus” – I’m curious to understand why? In my opinion, his regular season WAR number UNDERRATES his playing career because it doesn’t capture his legendary postseason exploits. But, as a Red Sox fan, I’m obviously biased.