This article is part of our The Z Files series.
It's rankings season. Buckle up for all sorts of lists: some by position, others by category, but all intended to help guide drafts and auctions.
Don't worry, this is not another diatribe on how rankings shouldn't be taken verbatim. Instead, I'm going to take a unique approach to classifying everyone's favorite group, relievers.
I was recently tasked with ranking and profiling the top 40 relievers. While it wasn't for RotoWire (hey, a guy has to make a living), I'm going to share the fruits of my labor, in a general sense.
To be honest, I left the project feeling more optimistic about the closer pool than when I first embarked on the assignment. This doesn't mean I'm confident drafting saves will be a breeze, just that I see more pathways to success than I intuited working blind.
The key is not ranking/tiering the inventory as a whole, but rather to approach things via classifications. Of course, there will be a ranking within each group, but everyone will be compared via the same criteria with a greater delineation between occupants.
The approach in the draft then entails deciding which classification(s) to target. As is the case with all strategies, more than one road map should be at the ready. You know what Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face,"
What follow is my current tiering, with an explanation for each classification and some comments within each grouping. The placement between and within tiers is fluid
It's rankings season. Buckle up for all sorts of lists: some by position, others by category, but all intended to help guide drafts and auctions.
Don't worry, this is not another diatribe on how rankings shouldn't be taken verbatim. Instead, I'm going to take a unique approach to classifying everyone's favorite group, relievers.
I was recently tasked with ranking and profiling the top 40 relievers. While it wasn't for RotoWire (hey, a guy has to make a living), I'm going to share the fruits of my labor, in a general sense.
To be honest, I left the project feeling more optimistic about the closer pool than when I first embarked on the assignment. This doesn't mean I'm confident drafting saves will be a breeze, just that I see more pathways to success than I intuited working blind.
The key is not ranking/tiering the inventory as a whole, but rather to approach things via classifications. Of course, there will be a ranking within each group, but everyone will be compared via the same criteria with a greater delineation between occupants.
The approach in the draft then entails deciding which classification(s) to target. As is the case with all strategies, more than one road map should be at the ready. You know what Mike Tyson said, "Everyone has a plan until they're punched in the face,"
What follow is my current tiering, with an explanation for each classification and some comments within each grouping. The placement between and within tiers is fluid and subject to change once roles are more defined.
Elite
| Josh Hader | Dominance covers for command and control blips |
| Liam Hendriks | Will no doubt sign to close for a contender |
| Aroldis Chapman | Hard to believe he's already 33 years old |
| Ryan Tepera | Looking to build on an MVP caliber season |
The elite tier is usually small, but this year it's a candidate or two shy of normal. Plus, the top closers are likely to linger on the board longer than normal.
Steady
| Taylor Rogers | No issue with bumping Rogers to elite |
| Raisel Iglesias | Solid rebound from subpar 2019 |
| Brad Hand | May not get big bucks, but should close |
| Kenley Jansen | No issue dropping to risky |
The dearth of options in this tier is driving the consternation among early drafters. It's common to eschew a stud, confident in one's ability to find saves from this group. Without the usual peace of mind offered by this historically lusher tier, drafters feel like they're scrambling.
Risky
| Edwin Diaz | Arguably the best stuff among relievers |
| Will Smith | 39 million reasons he'll take over with Mark Melancon gone |
| Ryan Pressly | Durability a question |
| Trevor Rosenthal | If 2020 is the new baseline and Rosenthal proves durable post-TJS, he's elite - two big ifs |
| James Karinchak | Has the skills, but unproven |
| Richard Rodriguez | Success as a setup man, limited history in the ninth |
| Craig Kimbrel | Final 2020 stretch reminiscent of his salad days |
| Rafael Montero | Taking well to bullpen, but still health and performance risk |
| Rafael Dolis | Solid skills, but Toronto could opt to bring in a more experienced closer |
| Mike Mayers | A two-month stretch doesn't erase years of mediocrity |
| Daniel Bard | Feel-good story in season largely devoid of smiles, but shelf life of Rockies closers is tenuous |
Here's where most of the typical steady options reside. Chances are, half of this group will have a solid season, and an argument can be made for each -- some more plausible than others. Many early strategies will likely entail targeting someone in this group that the drafter feels good about. There will no doubt be shuffling within this classification once roles flesh out in the spring,
M*A*S*H Unit
| Kirby Yates | Return from bone spur removal generally yields positive results, but will be 34 years old this spring |
| Roberto Osuna | Avoided TJS, at least temporarily |
| Jordan Hicks | Should be healthy but effectiveness, at least right away, unclear after long layoff |
| Corey Knebel | Velocity close to returning, but 13.1 IP isn't enough to deem clear of risk after TJS |
| Jose Leclerc | Even if healthy, may not have closer gig |
| Hunter Harvey | Has displayed closer skills but can't shake injury bug |
| David Robertson | I'm old enough to remember when he was good |
There are some intriguing options throughout this grouping. This time last season, Yates and Osuna were viewed as elite. Knebel was previously on the verge, while Hicks has elite potential. As is always the case, it's a matter of one's risk tolerance and deciding if the reward outweighs the risk, factoring in team construction at the time. If Yates proves healthy in the spring and is indeed lined up to close, he jumps to the head of the risky class.
Lloyd Christmas
| Nick Anderson | One guy is not the Rays' style |
| Matt Barnes | If Boston spends elsewhere, moves up to risky tier |
| Diego Castillo | Actually, Tampa Bay pitchers deserve their own classification |
| Emilio Pagan | Padres usually promote from within, but could look outside this time |
| Jeremy Jeffress | Lots of competition |
| Daniel Hudson | Had job last season mostly by default |
| Ryan Helsley | Live arm capable of several roles |
| Hector Neris | Coming off an uneven year; team in win-now mode, likely to seek more reliable option |
| Aaron Bummer | Sexy speculative pick, but White Sox apt to bring someone in, plus I'm not as impressed with skills as others |
| Emmanuel Clase | Has the stuff, but also coming off PED suspension |
| Drew Pomeranz | More useful in setup role |
| Giovanny Gallegos | Seems to always be the fallback option |
| Alex Colome | Will smoke and mirrors act continue to work? |
| Brandon Kintzler | Same as Colome, but even more smoke and bigger mirrors |
Yes, I'm telling you there's a chance. There are 25 viable names preceding this grouping. Ergo, in a 15-team league, several drafters will be forced to take a shot at someone in this tier. While it's prudent to wait on your initial closer, procrastinating on the second could be playing with fire.
Solid Setup
| Devin Williams | Could close for 29 other teams |
| Tanner Rainey | If newfound control proves real, could be looking at a near elite closer |
| Freddy Peralta | |
| Trevor May | |
| Blake Treinen | |
| Pete Fairbanks | |
| Brusdar Graterol | Needs to translate stuff to strikeouts |
| Chad Green | |
| Zack Britton | |
| Jake Diekman | |
| Evan Marshall | Quietly effective |
| Tyler Clippard | |
| Tyler Duffey | |
| Adam Ottavino | |
| Victor Gonzalez | |
| Joakim Soria | |
| Archie Bradley | |
| Chris Martin | |
| J.B. Wendelken | |
| Yusmeiro Petit | |
| Matt Strahm |
There are several speculative closer candidates in this group. Many have superior skills to those discussed previously. With the current pitching landscape, everyone listed here merits at least a reserve spot on a 15-team roster. Not to mention, a bunch are more attractive in points scoring than back-end closers, as their volume of innings and strikeouts mitigates their paucity of saves.
Did I miss someone? Do you have a beef with someone's classification or placement within the group? Let's talk about it in the comments.
