The Z Files: Catch as Catch Can

Catchers! The bane of fantasy baseball. The inventory behind the plate has become so dismal many leagues are eliminating the second catcher position and adding another utility spot. Personally, I'm not a fan. Sure, the quality at the low end of the pool is terrible, but everyone is playing with the same rules. I won't bore you with the replacement level/useful stats diatribe -- at least not yet -- but I'm for anything that adds some strategic thinking, and the inequities of the catcher pool require proper valuation and a game plan to approach the position. Sign me up!

For the past two weeks, I've ranked relievers and starting pitchers using a method I'm going to call, "Tiers of a Clown." In brief, instead of segregating players by quality and defining tiers by where there is a drop, I group players via a subjective trait. This trait is the first thought I have when I see the player's name when I'm on the clock. Each group can have a wide range of talent, or by design they all may be similar. The main idea is to draft a trait that helps further roster construction. The elegance of the approach is that everyone has their own set of classifications. Your catcher tiers will likely be different than mine, since we have different philosophies with regards to putting a roster together. There is no right or wrong, just different.

As will be the format as we parade through the position players, I'll begin by defining my groups. Then, I'll present the players within each, roughly ranked by quality. I'll do my best to offer individual and group commentary.

Please keep in mind the order of presentation is arbitrary, though some groups have more fantasy potential by definition, if you will. For example, J.T. Realmuto is my top ranked receiver by standard ranking, with Will Smith second, but they're in different groups.

• 75% Club – Projected for at least 75 percent playing time, doesn't all have to be at catcher
• Playing Time Upside – Generally solid skills without a track record of more playing time, but there's a pathway to achieve it
• Risky Business – Boom or bust potential, market price isn't too high, but it's not end game either. That is, there are other quality players available (at all positions) in this player's range
• AARP – Aging, but still roster worthy
• Kiddie Corps – Young, on the rise
• Sample Size – Something about their recent performance is quirky
• Solid – Really don't fit in another group but are roster worthy
• Meh – Players I suspect the market ranks higher than I do

75% Club

I'm not averse to paying up for someone in this group if the room is either hesitant to invest in a top catcher or is mispricing them. I especially favor this group in best-ball formats but shy away in draft and hold, unless they're discounted from my ranking.

Playing Time Upside

Historically, this group is more populated. Supply and demand economics dictate that with fewer options, the price will be higher than normal for players of like caliber. This is usually one of my target groups, so laying out the inventory in this manner alerts me to the paucity of candidates, so I'm not blindsided in the draft and have to develop alternate plans on the spot.

Risky Business

To make this group, the player's upside is so high you keep him in your lineup even when they're struggling, for fear of missing out. The draft capital isn't exorbitant, so it isn't a matter of being pot committed, but you're afraid as soon as you cut them loose, someone else will pick them up and reap the benefits. Varsho is safer than Sanchez since Arizona will send him down (as intimated) if he doesn't hit. I know Twitter wants the Yankees to sit Sanchez when he's in a rut, but I'm not so sure Aaron Boone does -- for fear of missing out. I have already drafted Sanchez on an NFBC team I share with Derek VanRiper. I suspect that's all the shares my risk-averse nature can handle.

AARP

Perhaps not coincidentally, there are several free agents in this group. As such, the ranking within the group could change based on eventual team context. The risk with any aging player is they take longer to recover from injuries, as well as accelerated skills erosion. This is intuitive, but these factors are more damning for catchers as years of squatting and catching foul tips with their mask have likely taken their toll. To say a discount is necessary ignores that everyone needs a discount for this group. Usually, I unearth one or two older catchers I still trust more than the market. As alluded to, until Ramos, Suzuki, Molina, Flowers and Castro find homes, the market hasn't been properly set.

Kiddie Corps

I'm not a big fan of trusting rookies, let alone those that crouch for a living, but there are exceptions. It doesn't happen a lot, but occasionally there will be a young catcher I feel will play more than most expect. It's not that I'm high on their skills, It's more about the volume, figuring if they do struggle, they'll be send down so I'm not absorbing the poor numbers. Stephenson, Huff and Kirk fall into that category this season. In early drafts, I'm likely to take a shot, before they get some February and March helium. The cost is such I'll be able to replace them with someone I would have drafted anyway if necessary.

Sample Size

How everyone handles 2020 outliers will be fascinating. There are some players who display extremes in other groups, but I felt it was secondary to the chosen classification. As is always the case, interest depends on cost. The key with this group is added risk. The 50th percentile projection is only part of the story. These guys probably have a larger variance. 

Solid

Four seems scary small for a group designated as solid, but there are several others worthy of the classification who possessed a more relevant trait, at least as it pertains to my draft process. It's probably apparent to long-time readers, but this is a place I like to hang.

Meh

There are 34 names listed before this tier, so in a 15-team mixed, I'm not venturing into this group. I still list them since others may disagree and draft them. By taking the time to identify players of this nature, I can eliminate some of the options listed in the other groups. This is especially relevant in auctions as that increases the odds of grabbing a $5 guy for a buck.

The scary thing is I'm still about 10 names short of having enough for AL and NL-only formats. Let's imagine another group called Blech, with everyone else listed.

Who did I miss? Who belongs in another group? Is there a general classification you like more? Let's talk about it in the discussion section.

NEXT WEEK: First basemen