[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Loving the boston freefall right now. Hope to see the brewers in the WS.
[/quote]
True or false guys?[/quote]
Hahahah well played. No one expected Crawford to suck like this. Ellsbury’s emergence puts them in an awkward spot, they totally signed Carl to be his replacement.[/quote]
The Rays management were saying before he left that he wouldn’t fit in Boston but would thrive in Anaheim if he signed there. I remember thinking this was an exaggeration, but oh boy spot on, at least the first part of what they wrote and probably the second part as well.
But I’m so happy that Carl Crawford signed with the Red Sox. If he had signed with the Angels, Anaheim would never have traded for Vernon Wells and the Jays would not have taken a risk on Bautista by signing him early for cheap.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.
Well at least the Giants went out with a bang last night…(getting 15 runs slapped up on 'em)
While I’ll still say that we have the World Series Trophy, our fall from grace this year was pretty embarrassing, and provided a pretty clear view into the fact that Sabean isn’t a good GM, he’s just benefited from some great drafting and farming. Most of his actual signings have been pretty horrific.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.[/quote]
While I agree that an ace doesn’t have to strike out a lot of batters, I disagree on the win/loss total of pitchers being the most important stat to determine an ace.
Felix Hernandez went 13-12 last year but anyone who was watching knew he was the best pitcher in the AL. Do you consider this a down year for Tim Lincecum because he went 13-13? His ERA dropped by almost a whole run while pitching the same amount of innings as 2010.
I would say an ace is someone who can be counted on going deep into game consistently and giving up minimal runs. Other than that, I’m unsure how to define it any further.
I wish the pitcher win stat was never created. What an utterly useless way to evalute pitching.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I wish the pitcher win stat was never created. What an utterly useless way to evalute pitching.[/quote]
Totally agree. It would be like tracking wins for a defense in the NFL. It just doesn’t make sense.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.[/quote]
While I agree that an ace doesn’t have to strike out a lot of batters, I disagree on the win/loss total of pitchers being the most important stat to determine an ace.
Felix Hernandez went 13-12 last year but anyone who was watching knew he was the best pitcher in the AL. Do you consider this a down year for Tim Lincecum because he went 13-13? His ERA dropped by almost a whole run while pitching the same amount of innings as 2010.
I would say an ace is someone who can be counted on going deep into game consistently and giving up minimal runs. Other than that, I’m unsure how to define it any further.
[/quote]
You don’t HAVE to have a good win/loss record to be an ace, it’s just the most important stat. If the win/loss record isn’t good for an ace, you can bet that every other statistic is going to be way above average, as in the case of Felix last year and Lincecum this year.
If you have horrible stats everywhere else it’s virtually impossible to have a good win/loss record no matter what kind of team you play on. It’s even harder to have a good winning percentage. The reality is that there’s nothing that automatically pre-qualifies someone to be an ace, no threshold to pass or minimum performance level. The ace is simply the best starting pitcher on the team and you don’t need to look too far into their stats to determine whether or not the pitcher in question would be an ace on most teams.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I wish the pitcher win stat was never created. What an utterly useless way to evalute pitching.[/quote]
Totally agree. It would be like tracking wins for a defense in the NFL. It just doesn’t make sense.[/quote]
You’re such a fucking idiot it boggles the mind. You’re on here ranting and raving about Verlander deserves the MVP award and then you’re going to turn around and say that wins shouldn’t be awarded to pitchers? Verlander’s win total is the basis of your entire argument for him being MVP. So if wins is a useless way to evaluate a pitcher, what other mind-boggling stats has Verlander accumulated to warrant MVP consideration? He isn’t having any different of a year than any of the best seasons from pitchers in the last ten years outside of his win total.
Oh wait, you won’t answer any of these questions because you put me on ignore because you can’t handle having your viewpoint on anything challenged by someone smarter than you.
If the Red Sox can’t put up runs against Burnett today they are the ULTIMATE frauds of the league.
I watched Burnett pitch against the Twins last week and he couldn’t even get through that AAA calibre Twins Lineup.
Oh and bought my tickets to the game 1 NLDS PHI vs ARI game.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.[/quote]
While I agree that an ace doesn’t have to strike out a lot of batters, I disagree on the win/loss total of pitchers being the most important stat to determine an ace.
Felix Hernandez went 13-12 last year but anyone who was watching knew he was the best pitcher in the AL. Do you consider this a down year for Tim Lincecum because he went 13-13? His ERA dropped by almost a whole run while pitching the same amount of innings as 2010.
I would say an ace is someone who can be counted on going deep into game consistently and giving up minimal runs. Other than that, I’m unsure how to define it any further.
[/quote]
You don’t HAVE to have a good win/loss record to be an ace, it’s just the most important stat. If the win/loss record isn’t good for an ace, you can bet that every other statistic is going to be way above average, as in the case of Felix last year and Lincecum this year.
If you have horrible stats everywhere else it’s virtually impossible to have a good win/loss record no matter what kind of team you play on. It’s even harder to have a good winning percentage. The reality is that there’s nothing that automatically pre-qualifies someone to be an ace, no threshold to pass or minimum performance level. The ace is simply the best starting pitcher on the team and you don’t need to look too far into their stats to determine whether or not the pitcher in question would be an ace on most teams. [/quote]
Rick Porcello has a record of 14-9 with an ERA of 4.76
I remember Gustavo Chacin kept winning even though he pitched like shit a few years ago. Just looked it up and in 2006 he went 9-4 with a 5.05 ERA.
The #1 Starter is not the same thing as an ace. Every team has a #1 starter but not every team has an ace. There is no threshold performance level but I’m sure most baseball fans have in mind what pitchers they would consider an ace and who they wouldn’t. That’s why I started this discussion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.[/quote]
While I agree that an ace doesn’t have to strike out a lot of batters, I disagree on the win/loss total of pitchers being the most important stat to determine an ace.
Felix Hernandez went 13-12 last year but anyone who was watching knew he was the best pitcher in the AL. Do you consider this a down year for Tim Lincecum because he went 13-13? His ERA dropped by almost a whole run while pitching the same amount of innings as 2010.
I would say an ace is someone who can be counted on going deep into game consistently and giving up minimal runs. Other than that, I’m unsure how to define it any further.
[/quote]
You don’t HAVE to have a good win/loss record to be an ace, it’s just the most important stat. If the win/loss record isn’t good for an ace, you can bet that every other statistic is going to be way above average, as in the case of Felix last year and Lincecum this year.
If you have horrible stats everywhere else it’s virtually impossible to have a good win/loss record no matter what kind of team you play on. It’s even harder to have a good winning percentage. The reality is that there’s nothing that automatically pre-qualifies someone to be an ace, no threshold to pass or minimum performance level. The ace is simply the best starting pitcher on the team and you don’t need to look too far into their stats to determine whether or not the pitcher in question would be an ace on most teams. [/quote]
Rick Porcello has a record of 14-9 with an ERA of 4.76
I remember Gustavo Chacin kept winning even though he pitched like shit a few years ago. Just looked it up and in 2006 he went 9-4 with a 5.05 ERA.
The #1 Starter is not the same thing as an ace. Every team has a #1 starter but not every team has an ace. There is no threshold performance level but I’m sure most baseball fans have in mind what pitchers they would consider an ace and who they wouldn’t. That’s why I started this discussion.
[/quote]
14-9 or 9-6 aren’t good records. I’m talking about someone who goes like 20-15. The win TOTAL means something as well. What an “ace” is is way too subjective. I know one when I see one, that’s about it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So how good does a pitcher have to be before they are considered a true ace?
Ricky Romero’s season totals minus his last start (hasn’t been updated yet)
2.98 ERA 217.1 IP 1.141 WHIP Averaging 7 IP/Start 2.22 SO/BB
How much must Ricky Romero improve to be considered a true ace?[/quote]
He’s under a 3.00 ERA by two points. 3.00ERA and 2.22 K/BB aren’t ace numbers sorry broseph.
edited - in my book you need bare minimum 3.0 K/BB to be an ace.[/quote]
If your team wins most of your starts and they win most of them because the starter always pitches well enough to win, then he’s an ace. A 1 to 1 k to bb ratio doesn’t even prevent someone from being an ace. You look to the ace to win, not to strike out a lot of batters without walking many, so the most important stat to look at when determining whether a guy is an ace or not is his win/loss total and winning percentage.[/quote]
While I agree that an ace doesn’t have to strike out a lot of batters, I disagree on the win/loss total of pitchers being the most important stat to determine an ace.
Felix Hernandez went 13-12 last year but anyone who was watching knew he was the best pitcher in the AL. Do you consider this a down year for Tim Lincecum because he went 13-13? His ERA dropped by almost a whole run while pitching the same amount of innings as 2010.
I would say an ace is someone who can be counted on going deep into game consistently and giving up minimal runs. Other than that, I’m unsure how to define it any further.
[/quote]
You don’t HAVE to have a good win/loss record to be an ace, it’s just the most important stat. If the win/loss record isn’t good for an ace, you can bet that every other statistic is going to be way above average, as in the case of Felix last year and Lincecum this year.
If you have horrible stats everywhere else it’s virtually impossible to have a good win/loss record no matter what kind of team you play on. It’s even harder to have a good winning percentage. The reality is that there’s nothing that automatically pre-qualifies someone to be an ace, no threshold to pass or minimum performance level. The ace is simply the best starting pitcher on the team and you don’t need to look too far into their stats to determine whether or not the pitcher in question would be an ace on most teams. [/quote]
Rick Porcello has a record of 14-9 with an ERA of 4.76
I remember Gustavo Chacin kept winning even though he pitched like shit a few years ago. Just looked it up and in 2006 he went 9-4 with a 5.05 ERA.
The #1 Starter is not the same thing as an ace. Every team has a #1 starter but not every team has an ace. There is no threshold performance level but I’m sure most baseball fans have in mind what pitchers they would consider an ace and who they wouldn’t. That’s why I started this discussion.
[/quote]
14-9 or 9-6 aren’t good records. I’m talking about someone who goes like 20-15. The win TOTAL means something as well. What an “ace” is is way too subjective. I know one when I see one, that’s about it.[/quote]
Fair enough. I wanted to share this with you.
LOL
Lincecum would have been considered a legit ace on any team this year. If all his stats were the same but his win/loss record was below .500 he’d still be an ace. It’s more indicative of how pathetic the Giants’ offense and ability to stay healthy was this year.
I suppose there’s all sorts of criteria for determining what an “ace” is. But really, you have to look at what a team expects from their ace, in much the same way you have to look at what a team expects from its cleanup hitter. THAT is where the value comes from.
Teams expect their aces to pitch deep into ballgames on a consistent basis while allowing very few runs, thereby maximizing the team’s chances of winning. It doesn’t matter how you tend to get that done, whether you give up a lot of hits but pitch well with runners on base or you just dominate everyone or you don’t give up a lot of hits, but you don’t strike anyone out either. K/BB ratio means NOTHING! It’s just a way to quantify what I already know about a pitcher from his other stats, mainly his WHIP and his ERA. So really, if you want to be an ace you have to give your team a chance to win pretty much every time out, regardless of how you do this.
Same thing with hitters. Teams look to their cleanup hitters to drive runs in, to knock in the guys who are already on base and to knock themselves in when no one is on. They don’t look to their cleanup hitter to get on base and set the table for others. There’s value in getting on base, don’t get me wrong, but it isn’t the same value from hitter to hitter.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Lincecum would have been considered a legit ace on any team this year. If all his stats were the same but his win/loss record was below .500 he’d still be an ace. It’s more indicative of how pathetic the Giants’ offense and ability to stay healthy was this year.
[/quote]
Yes pitchers can have great seasons and have below a .500 record, thanks for makign my point for me
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Lincecum would have been considered a legit ace on any team this year. If all his stats were the same but his win/loss record was below .500 he’d still be an ace. It’s more indicative of how pathetic the Giants’ offense and ability to stay healthy was this year.
[/quote]
Yes pitchers can have great seasons and have below a .500 record, thanks for makign my point for me[/quote]
My point is that there isn’t some magical combination of stats that automatically makes someone an “ace”. Saying a pitcher isn’t an ace because his k/bb ratio isn’t good enough is asinine. You can have great numbers and a bad record and be an “ace” and you can have decent/average numbers with a great w/l record and be an ace. The most important thing that matters here is whether or not the pitcher in question gives his team a consistent chance to win. K/BB ratio isn’t nearly as indicative of this ability as ERA and W/L record is.
Wrong. Well, I much prefer to rate someone based on K/9 and BB/9 as two seperate stats because striking guys out and not walking guys are two distinct skill sets, but K/BB does tell you how many more batters you are putting away without giving your fielders a chance to make/miss a play versus how many you are adding on plays that don’t involve fielders.
Basically I’m saying defense is what makes an out every time a ball is put on play. Strikeouts walks are the only things controlled 100% by the pitcher.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Lincecum would have been considered a legit ace on any team this year. If all his stats were the same but his win/loss record was below .500 he’d still be an ace. It’s more indicative of how pathetic the Giants’ offense and ability to stay healthy was this year.
[/quote]
Yes pitchers can have great seasons and have below a .500 record, thanks for makign my point for me[/quote]
My point is that there isn’t some magical combination of stats that automatically makes someone an “ace”. Saying a pitcher isn’t an ace because his k/bb ratio isn’t good enough is asinine [/quote]
Correct, and I worded it too strongly. It would be more accurate to say that I’ve noticed a trend that 90% of the pitchers I consider extremely good happen to have a K/BB above 3. It’s a correlation that I noticed after the fact, NOT a single definition of “ace” as my post may have implied. My bad.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
Wrong. Well, I much prefer to rate someone based on K/9 and BB/9 as two seperate stats because striking guys out and not walking guys are two distinct skill sets, but K/BB does tell you how many more batters you are putting away without giving your fielders a chance to make/miss a play versus how many you are adding on plays that don’t involve fielders.
Basically I’m saying defense is what makes an out every time a ball is put on play. Strikeouts walks are the only things controlled 100% by the pitcher.[/quote]
The pitcher doesn’t control 100% of anything out on the mound and only someone who has never pitched would think otherwise. A pitcher can only control where he throws the ball and how he throws it. After that, it’s cross your fingers and hope for the best. Many times, the defense is able to make the play because the pitcher got the hitter off-balance. Strikeouts really don’t mean anything and NO pitcher who pitches with the mindset that he has to strike batters out in order to minimize the chances his defense makes an error isn’t going to be pitching in the bigs very long. Some pitchers have such good pure stuff that they can consistently come right after hitters and still end up with high K totals, but they are rare and usually end up not only as aces but as Hall of Famers.
A sinkerballer would automatically be removed from any conversation regarding aces. Pitchers who throw sinkers primarily actually depend on the other 8 players. They are around the strike zone a lot and don’t walk guys as a result. They typically also aren’t going to overpower anyone so they won’t rack up big strikeout totals either. Now, there aren’t many aces out there who have a 1 to 1 K/BB ratio and there are a lot who have a 3 to 1 ratio, but that ratio isn’t what makes them an ace. It’s the ability to keep a team in the ballgame that matters most and the K/BB ratio simply isn’t an indicator of this ability at all.
Take a look at Matt Cain in 2009 or Billy Swift in 1992. Cain would have been an ace on most teams, given his 2.89 ERA, 14-8 record (for an anemic offense), a WHIP of 1.18 and 217.2 innings pitched over 33 starts. Yet his K/BB ratio was 2.34. This year his ERA is slightly lower, over more innings, his WHIP is 1.08 and his K/BB rate is almost identical. Why is he still considered an ace by most standards? Because he’s one of the best in the majors in pitching with runners on base.
Look at Billy Swift in 1992. He led the NL in ERA at 2.08 over 160+ innings with a record of 10-4. He would have had more innings and wins but he missed the beginning of the season due to injury. In all other respects, he was an ace that year (and the next). Yet his K/BB ratio was only 1.79 that year.
My point is that while it IS rare for a true “ace” by most people’s standards to have a K/BB rate significantly lower than about 3, it IS possible. There are few things a pitcher HAS to do, statistically-speaking, to be considered an ace. A K/BB ratio of 3 or better simply isn’t one of them. Shit, Lincecum is an ace by anyone’s measure and his K/BB ratio was actually 2.5 this year as opposed to 3.04 last year, and yet he lowered his ERA by about 2/3 of a run between this year and last. So it just goes to show that there really isn’t much of a correlation between the K/BB ratio and “ace” status.
There are too many different ways that VERY good pitchers can get hitters out to tie their “ace” status to strikeouts. Roy Halladay has less K’s per 9 innings than several pitchers in the bigs that he is heads and shoulders above. I think there are several pitchers in each league who have higher K rates per 9 innings than Verlander as well. Lincecum has struck out WAY more batters per 9 innings over the last several years than Halladay has, but Halladay is clearly the better pitcher of the two. The same thing with Verlander. Compare him to say, Zack Greinke, the ace of the Brewers, a Cy Young Winner and an All-Star in both leagues. Greinke’s K rate is way higher than Verlander’s, as is his K/BB ratio. But he clearly isn’t as good as Verlander. Greinke’s strikeout rates are much better than Matt Cain’s as well, yet Cain has an ERA a full run lower and Verlander’s is more than a full run better. So there’s no correlation.