This article is part of our The Z Files series.
Welcome to the shortstop installment of "Tiers of a Clown". I've spent the previous six weeks presenting positional tiers with a twist. If you want to catch up, here are the links:
Conventionally, players are listed in descending order of overall ranking, with a perceived large drop in production delineating the tiers. While this approach is obviously useful, it ignores the more abstract notion of roster construction. To refocus the mindset away from "value" and more on what it takes to build a competitive roster, I'm breaking down each position by a characteristic and then ranking the constituents within each classification.
The key is the groups are subjective. If you choose to apply the process, you may come up with different classes, not to mention a different ordering within each. The idea is choosing a trait intrinsic to roster build. It could be related to risk, or a specific contribution, etc. There's no right or wrong, only what works for you.
With all the previous installments, I've offered a brief overview. Why stop now? Some positions are top-heavy, some deep. Shortstop is both as it's replete with quality and quantity. It's really an embarrassment of riches, with more on the way. What stands out most to me is the stability and reliability of the position. So much so in fact, there are fewer subsets at shortstop than any other group, as the volume of low-risk options dominates
