Here’s a bold statement: the Boston Red Sox defense is a statistical enigma that defies easy explanation. But here’s where it gets controversial: In 2025, the Red Sox led all of Major League Baseball in errors—a statistic they’ve consistently ranked near the top of for years. Yet, despite this glaring flaw, most defensive metrics paint a wildly different picture, with some even labeling them as elite. How is this possible? Let’s dive in.
According to Statcast’s Fielding Run Value, as presented by Baseball Savant, the Red Sox boasted the fifth-best defense in baseball last year. FanGraphs, using the same metric (though somehow slightly different), placed them seventh. Meanwhile, Statcast’s Outs Above Average (OAA) ranked them tenth on FanGraphs but a more modest 13th on Baseball Savant. And Defensive Runs Saved from the Fielding Bible? Twelfth. And this is the part most people miss: these metrics, while insightful, often tell conflicting stories, leaving fans and analysts scratching their heads.
So, which metric is the right one? The truth is, it depends on the narrative you want to push. If you’re determined to prove the Red Sox defense is abysmal, errors are your go-to stat. If you’re singing their praises, Fielding Run Value is your best friend. Want to sound nuanced? Good luck—nuance rarely wins arguments on the internet. But here’s the real kicker: defensive metrics are still in their infancy compared to those for pitching and hitting, and they may always lag behind. Some things are just harder to measure.
What complicates matters further for the Red Sox is their roster’s wild inconsistency in defensive talent. Take Ceddanne Rafaela, arguably one of the best defenders in baseball last year, and contrast him with Kristian Campbell, who was, well, not. Carlos Narvaez graded out as elite by many metrics, while Connor Wong’s performance was, frankly, horrendous. When Wilyer Abreu was healthy, the Red Sox had a top-tier right fielder; when Rob Refsnyder took the field, they were below average. The result? A defense that’s as unpredictable as it is polarizing.
Here’s a shocking example: According to Baseball Savant’s OAA, the Red Sox outfield was by far the best in baseball, with a gap between them and the second-best team nearly twice as large as the gap between the second and third. But their infield? Second-worst in the league, a staggering 47 runs behind the leaders. Talk about a tale of two units.
Looking ahead to 2026, the Red Sox infield is still a question mark. Kristian Campbell is likely out, but Willson Contreras, the sixth-best first baseman by Savant’s OAA, is in. Marcelo Mayer and Isiah Kiner-Falefa could be plus-defenders, but their roles and impact remain uncertain. Meanwhile, Trevor Story, David Hamilton, and Romy Gonzalez are, by most metrics, liabilities. And here’s where it gets even more interesting: the revamped pitching staff, including groundball specialists Sonny Gray and Ranger Suárez, could reduce the outfield’s already low fielding chances even further. So, what does this mean for the Red Sox defense in 2026?
Controversial question: Are defensive metrics reliable enough to predict the Red Sox’s future performance, or are we still too reliant on traditional stats like errors? Let’s debate it in the comments. And remember, no matter where you stand, let’s keep it respectful and insightful. After all, baseball is a game of endless debate—and that’s part of what makes it so great.
