The Brewers–Rays World Series shows that money can't buy everything in baseball, and that small-market teams can succeed and entertain
Source: Brady Brickner-Wood. "The World Series No One Wanted | The New Yorker." October 26, 2026. www.newyorker.com
The Gist
Everyone thought a World Series between two small-budget teams, the Brewers and the Rays, would be a dud. The author argues it's a good reminder that money doesn't guarantee wins in baseball and that smart scouting and scrappy play can make for great, watchable games.
Conclusion
Despite pre-series fears that it would be a ratings 'nightmare,' the Brewers–Rays World Series shows that baseball does not need big-market, big-payroll stars to be compelling. Money does not guarantee success, and small-market teams that use smart scouting and old-school, grind-it-out play can compete at the top and make the game worth watching.
Premises
- Before the series, pundits and former players called a Brewers–Rays matchup a 'nightmare' for MLB because both teams are small-market, low-payroll, small-ball clubs unlikely to draw casual viewers.
- Baseball's recent resurgence in ratings and culture has plausibly been driven by star power and big markets (Ohtani and the Dodgers, Judge and the Yankees), and MLB's lack of a salary cap has concentrated talent and spending in those markets.
- Spending is not a surefire path to success: the Angels, Giants, and Mets have failed despite huge payrolls, while the Brewers and Rays were the best teams in baseball this season despite tiny payrolls.
- Baseball is an ensemble, high-variance sport in which no single star dictates outcomes, so depth, bullpen arms, role players, and luck can offset huge salary disparities (Brewers sweeping the Dodgers; Frelick's Game Two homer).
- The Brewers' and Rays' success comes from shrewd scouting, trades, and drafting (Chourio, Caminero, the Rays' sustained winning on low payrolls), not just luck.
- Game One was entertaining, with early offense, tension, a ninth-inning rally, and a dramatic finish, showing that small-ball teams can produce compelling baseball.
Assumptions
- A few cases of high-payroll failure and low-payroll success are enough to show that money is not decisive in baseball.
- A compelling series, as judged by the author, means the pundits' worries about audience appeal were misplaced.
- Game One's drama is representative of the whole series and of small-ball baseball generally.
- Scouting skill, rather than luck, explains the small-market teams' success, and that skill is repeatable.
- The salary-cap debate and competitive-balance concerns are relevant to evaluating this World Series, even though the Dodgers have won three of the last six titles.
- Quality of play and narrative interest can substitute for star power and market size when judging what is good for baseball.