The Z Files: OK, I'm SOLD

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of sitting on a panel with Peter Kreutzer and Tim McLeod with Ron Shandler as moderator. It was a breakout at First Pitch Arizona with the topic centering around how fantasy leagues should adjust rules to best reflect the current MLB landscape. To prepare for the session, we all exchanged ideas and Ron consolidated them into a plan. One of the ideas was adding holds as a category, either as saves plus holds, or saves plus half holds. The term SOLDS has been adopted as a name for the category. Hey, it's better than SHAVES.

I've been adamantly against this proposal. Part of the reason for its inclusion was Ron knows this, and disagreements among panelists is great theatre and good for the discussion.

There are a few reasons why I have been against holds. The unofficial nature of the stat bothers me, but it's secondary to other rationales. For those unaware, holds are not recognized as an official stat. There are multiple versions, with slightly different definitions.

My primary issue is how the unpredictable nature of the metric can alter draft strategy to an extreme level. For the record, I'm all about using non-conventional approaches to take advantage of league rules, but my gut feeling is fading the category would be commonplace and not contrarian.

The unpredictability of holds means a plethora of assets will emerge in-season, so why bother expending draft assets on something so freely available? Instead, why not fade the category, then bully the hitting categories or funnel capital to starting pitching?

Truth be told, this is how I approach saves by themselves. I'm not the only one, but it's clear the opposite approach -- investing in a top closer or two -- is just as popular, so there is a good mix of strategies.

My concern is that adding holds would tilt the majority approach towards waiting, which throws off the valuation and ranking of batters and starters. This can be accounted for mathematically, but that's not the point. It's more a feeling than analytical, but almost everyone fading a category isn't the way I want to play. I prefer everyone having to decide on an approach and choosing different plans.

A couple years ago, the Tout Wars governing board, of which I am a member, discussed adding a new league with some non-conventional categories. On the table was switching wins for innings pitched and adding holds to the saves category. I was a huge proponent for the former, but against the latter.

When it became clear the new league would have both, I suggested making it saves plus holds, since adding just half holds wouldn't move the needle that much, and if we're going to make a change, LET'S MAKE A CHANGE. The board agreed; thus, the new league uses innings pitched and saves plus holds.

Circling back to the panel discussion, Ron and Tim argued using saves plus half holds doesn't alter the draft much, if at all. They followed up by suggesting it would have a bigger impact on the free agent pool, since there would be more to identifying value among relievers than just throwing darts at the closer flavor of the week and relying on luck to bullseye the guy who goes on to save 20 games, as opposed to the guy who is back in a setup role and cut loose in two weeks.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what they were saying. I did catch bits and pieces, but my mind was racing as I completely misread the repercussions and didn't think things through. I was so fixated on, "LET'S MAKE A CHANGE", that I completely overlooked the benefits of saves plus half holds.

I'm sure Ron and Tim made these points, but once they convinced me the draft dynamics do not change appreciably with saves plus half holds, I had a series of epiphanies. The first was that the relievers most likely to be among the leaders in holds would be drafted as speculative closers anyway using the current scoring. Maybe the order would be shuffled, but the same names would populate the final rosters.

The most important realization pertains to in-season roster management. As suggested, a lot of free agent efforts are focused on trying to acquire players with a chance to collect saves. Very little heed is given to their skills; it's all about ninth-inning opportunity. Having middle relievers who garner holds among the available inventory adds another dynamic.

Relievers who consistently capture holds are probably more skilled than flavor of the week closers. Furthermore, even though their holds total is cut in half for scoring purposes, they might be adding similar value to the category since many closers who emerge in-season are on non-competitive MLB teams, or have lesser skills, and thus record fewer saves.

The result is incentive to base free agent reliever decisions on a combination of skills and roles, just as is done with every other position. Calling back to the notion of how I prefer the game to be played, this is the way.

Cutting to the chase, I have come around on saves plus half holds as a category. If I had a flux capacitor, I'd set it to just before I proposed Tout Wars use saves plus holds. With my luck, I'd end up in the Wild West.

For kicks, I ran 2022 earnings using saves, saves plus half holds and saves plus holds to get a feel for how the rankings would shift. The results are in a sortable table which is fun to check out. Earnings are for a 15-team, 5x5 mixed league. The ranks are among all pitchers.

There are 57 relievers with positive earnings in the saves pool. Six more are added when half holds are used, with four more jumping into the saves plus holds format.

Fifty-one relievers populate all three draft-worthy pools. Gregory Soto, Josh Hader and Craig Kimbrel didn't make the cut in the saves plus holds format. Alex Lange, Joe Mantiply, Jose Alvarado, Colin Poche, Dylan Coleman, Steven Okert, Robert Suarez and Ryan Tepera only made the saves plus holds list.

A.J. Minter, Brad Boxberger, Cionel Perez, Anthony Bass, Hector Neris and Devin Williams earnings increased the most by adding holds. 

Josh Hader, Kenley Jansen, Liam Hendriks, Ryan Pressly and Gregory Soto decreased the most with holds in the equation.

How the different scoring systems affected A.J. Minter is intriguing. He finished as the fourth-most valuable reliever in saves plus holds. This prompted me to tweet out this poll:

As I'm typing this, only 3.6 percent voted for 4th. The leader is 17th with 41.8 percent followed by 9th with 32.7 percent, while 21.8 percent feel they're all too high.

As you likely surmised, the order is saves, saves plus half holds and saves plus holds. I found it interesting how so many are in favor of saves plus holds, but only 3.6 percent were happy with Minter's No. 4 ranking.

A little while later, I asked:

Curiously, 36.1 percent of the respondents favor saves plus holds. Granted, the same people may not have voted in both polls, but even so, the implication is that those championing saves plus holds aren't fully aware of the repercussions. I don't want to read too much into these polls. I just thought they'd be a fun exercise to close out this discussion.

Where do you stand on the issue? Have I changed your mind, or at least prompted you to think about it?