In the past couple of days, I've listened to and read some pretty intense (and asinine) arguments over what truly constitutes an "ace" in baseball. The dictionary definition of an ace as it applies here is someone who excels in an activity, or to put it mildy in baseball terms, a pitcher who consistently excels and dominates his position.
To me, there are only a handful of aces in baseball, and the list, in my opinion is a very exclusive one: Johan Santana, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, John Lackey, Roy Halladay, and CC Sabathia. At least two guys are on their way up to becoming aces: Tim Lincecum and James Shields. And yet a few more could be aces if they could either cut back on their walks, or stay healthy: Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden, AJ Burnett and Josh Beckett. And still to be determined: Chad Billingsley.
There are other names that could be mentioned as pitchers who excel at their position, but are they really even aces? To me, an ace is someone who doesnt give up a lot of runs (keeps his ERA way down - 3.25 is pushing it), doesn't allow many base runners (low WHIP - below 1.10), has the ability to dominate a game with strikeouts on any given night, and consistently pitches at least 180-200 innings every year. There aren't very many guys who can do that consistently, but each of the pitchers mentioned above qualify as either an ace or close to it.
A lot of people use the argument that an ace has to win a lot of games. While that may be true, wins are a more team dependent stat that is also credited to a pitcher as an individual stat. A lot has to happen for a pitcher to get a win. You could have one of the most dominant pitchers in the game who gives up 2 runs a night, and on most nights, that pitcher is bound to get a win. But there are some occasions where the pitcher doesn't have a very good offensive team to give him any run support, or his team's bullpen isn't very reliable which could result in fewer wins for the pitcher. While none of the above pitchers have really fallen into that category in recent years, it has happened (Santana this past season with the Mets comes to mind). Thus to me, wins are more of a team stat than an individual stat.
The other argument, and this one could become a whole separate argument in itself for any player, is the rings factor. Earlier today, I read someone say that Johan Santana wasn't an ace because he had never won any World Series rings. Well, if you used that argument, only two of the pitchers I mentioned above would then be considered aces, even though they consistently dominate their position.
Johan Santana has won two Cy Young Awards, and in his last four or five years in Minnesota through 2007, his aggregate second half stats were out of this world. In fact, if you take out the second half of his 2007 season in Minnesota, the second half numbers he amassed between 2004 and 2006 define what an ace really is. In those three years in the second half, Santana posted a combined 32-3 record with an ERA of 1.96 and a WHIP of 0.87 while striking out 331 hitters. That's what an ace does. And don't let those numbers discount what he's done overall. In his career, and mind you his first two seasons in 2000 and 2001 he was mainly a reliever, Santana is 209-109, with an ERA of 3.11 and a 1.10 WHIP. He has averaged nearly 239 strikeouts as a starter in the last five years alone. And yet, with all of this that he has accomplished, he has never won a World Series ring, let alone been in one, and yet some mongoloid had the balls to say he wasn't an ace.
Part of this "ace" argument also led to another argument for starting pitchers. The argument was generally focused on Mike Pelfrey and John Maine of the Mets, but prompted other names to come up such as Derek Lowe, Phil Hughes, Chin Ming Wang, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester, and even Joba Chamberlain, just to name a few. (You can tell already who was involved in this part of the argument.) This side argument was, "Where in a rotation would these pitchers qualify?" By that I mean, are any of these guys an ace, a number two guy in a rotation, a three, four, or five?
Mike Pelfrey is a fine young pitcher. In his first full season in the Mets rotation this past season, Pelfrey went a respectable 13-11 with a 3.72 ERA with a fairly high WHIP of 1.36 while striking out just 110 hitters in just a hair over 200 innings. Not ace numbers to me. But the jury is still out on him. He'll be 25 next week, and is expected to be a major part of the Mets rotation for 2009. But if he doesn't improve on those numbers by getting the ERA and WHIP down, and then keeping them down, he should never be considered as an ace, for the Mets, or anyone else. He shouldn't even be considered as the number two guy in any rotation either. The same goes for John Maine, who's three years older, with worse numbers.
The jury is still out on Hughes, Lester and Chamberlain, as well. Hughes has had two stints in the Majors, but an injury-plagued 2008 kept him out most of the season. But there is a lot of potential and upside here. Jon Lester had a fantastic first full season in Boston's rotation. If he can cut down on the walks a little and continue to do everything else he's been doing, he should be considered an ace in no time. And Joba Chamberlain has shown signs of greatness in his short time in the Majors, as well. The question with him is, are the Yankees going to keep in the pen and keep limiting how often he pitches, or they going to put out in the rotation full time? If he gets into the rotation full time and dominates like he has in relief, he'll be an ace in no time, as well.
There's no need to go into detail on all the names above, but I think my point is made. There are a lot of pitchers who excel at their position, and perhaps in time they could become aces, but to be labeled an ace is a very exclusive group and pitchers have to earn that right.
To me, there are only a handful of aces in baseball, and the list, in my opinion is a very exclusive one: Johan Santana, Cole Hamels, Roy Oswalt, Jake Peavy, Brandon Webb, Dan Haren, John Lackey, Roy Halladay, and CC Sabathia. At least two guys are on their way up to becoming aces: Tim Lincecum and James Shields. And yet a few more could be aces if they could either cut back on their walks, or stay healthy: Carlos Zambrano, Rich Harden, AJ Burnett and Josh Beckett. And still to be determined: Chad Billingsley.
There are other names that could be mentioned as pitchers who excel at their position, but are they really even aces? To me, an ace is someone who doesnt give up a lot of runs (keeps his ERA way down - 3.25 is pushing it), doesn't allow many base runners (low WHIP - below 1.10), has the ability to dominate a game with strikeouts on any given night, and consistently pitches at least 180-200 innings every year. There aren't very many guys who can do that consistently, but each of the pitchers mentioned above qualify as either an ace or close to it.
A lot of people use the argument that an ace has to win a lot of games. While that may be true, wins are a more team dependent stat that is also credited to a pitcher as an individual stat. A lot has to happen for a pitcher to get a win. You could have one of the most dominant pitchers in the game who gives up 2 runs a night, and on most nights, that pitcher is bound to get a win. But there are some occasions where the pitcher doesn't have a very good offensive team to give him any run support, or his team's bullpen isn't very reliable which could result in fewer wins for the pitcher. While none of the above pitchers have really fallen into that category in recent years, it has happened (Santana this past season with the Mets comes to mind). Thus to me, wins are more of a team stat than an individual stat.
The other argument, and this one could become a whole separate argument in itself for any player, is the rings factor. Earlier today, I read someone say that Johan Santana wasn't an ace because he had never won any World Series rings. Well, if you used that argument, only two of the pitchers I mentioned above would then be considered aces, even though they consistently dominate their position.
Johan Santana has won two Cy Young Awards, and in his last four or five years in Minnesota through 2007, his aggregate second half stats were out of this world. In fact, if you take out the second half of his 2007 season in Minnesota, the second half numbers he amassed between 2004 and 2006 define what an ace really is. In those three years in the second half, Santana posted a combined 32-3 record with an ERA of 1.96 and a WHIP of 0.87 while striking out 331 hitters. That's what an ace does. And don't let those numbers discount what he's done overall. In his career, and mind you his first two seasons in 2000 and 2001 he was mainly a reliever, Santana is 209-109, with an ERA of 3.11 and a 1.10 WHIP. He has averaged nearly 239 strikeouts as a starter in the last five years alone. And yet, with all of this that he has accomplished, he has never won a World Series ring, let alone been in one, and yet some mongoloid had the balls to say he wasn't an ace.
Part of this "ace" argument also led to another argument for starting pitchers. The argument was generally focused on Mike Pelfrey and John Maine of the Mets, but prompted other names to come up such as Derek Lowe, Phil Hughes, Chin Ming Wang, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester, and even Joba Chamberlain, just to name a few. (You can tell already who was involved in this part of the argument.) This side argument was, "Where in a rotation would these pitchers qualify?" By that I mean, are any of these guys an ace, a number two guy in a rotation, a three, four, or five?
Mike Pelfrey is a fine young pitcher. In his first full season in the Mets rotation this past season, Pelfrey went a respectable 13-11 with a 3.72 ERA with a fairly high WHIP of 1.36 while striking out just 110 hitters in just a hair over 200 innings. Not ace numbers to me. But the jury is still out on him. He'll be 25 next week, and is expected to be a major part of the Mets rotation for 2009. But if he doesn't improve on those numbers by getting the ERA and WHIP down, and then keeping them down, he should never be considered as an ace, for the Mets, or anyone else. He shouldn't even be considered as the number two guy in any rotation either. The same goes for John Maine, who's three years older, with worse numbers.
The jury is still out on Hughes, Lester and Chamberlain, as well. Hughes has had two stints in the Majors, but an injury-plagued 2008 kept him out most of the season. But there is a lot of potential and upside here. Jon Lester had a fantastic first full season in Boston's rotation. If he can cut down on the walks a little and continue to do everything else he's been doing, he should be considered an ace in no time. And Joba Chamberlain has shown signs of greatness in his short time in the Majors, as well. The question with him is, are the Yankees going to keep in the pen and keep limiting how often he pitches, or they going to put out in the rotation full time? If he gets into the rotation full time and dominates like he has in relief, he'll be an ace in no time, as well.
There's no need to go into detail on all the names above, but I think my point is made. There are a lot of pitchers who excel at their position, and perhaps in time they could become aces, but to be labeled an ace is a very exclusive group and pitchers have to earn that right.
No comments:
Post a Comment