Fangraphs: Let's Define an Ace

[shysocks]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-define-an-ace/

 

Fangraphs has a post allowing users to vote on whether 20 different pitchers are "aces" or not. This is certain to ignite some good discussion. Personally I was as reactionary as I could be: see name, vote with first instinct.

 

I thought it would be interesting to talk about it here because not only do we often dispute whether Jose Quintana qualifies for the title, but he is one of the 20 in the poll, and the results surprised me quite a bit. At this point we're all familiar with the concept that Q is wildly underrated. But why do 95% (!!!) of voters not consider him an ace, while 86% voted yes for Gerrit Cole? What does Sonny Gray, for instance, have that Q lacks? The fact that he doesn't share a locker room with Chris Sale?

 

Not posting this to complain that Q doesn't get respect, but because I think the results will be very interesting.

[shysocks]

This is certain to ignite some good discussion.

[bigruss]

I wish they posted at least the last 3 years worth of stats with them, while I'm guessing this is more of a perception thing I just didn't know enough off the top my head to really know for some of these guys.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I think it's hilarious/unfair that so many of the comments say "Quintana seems to be incredibly underrated. The stats and value say he is an ace. I voted no".

 

Ok....so THEN WHY DID YOU VOTE NO? People are idiots.

[Kalapse]

Would have been more fun if they had only provided the last 3 year's stat lines without names.

[Quin]

I think it's hilarious/unfair that so many of the comments say "Quintana seems to be incredibly underrated. The stats and value say he is an ace. I voted no".

 

Ok....so THEN WHY DID YOU VOTE NO? People are idiots.

 

Because Chris Sale is in front of him.

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

I'm always somewhat surprised when people compare pitchers such as defining an ace or the other fangraphs article from last season looking for young starting trios as good as the Mets , how pitching in different leagues isn't brought up more. Put Sale , Q and Rodon in the NL and move DeGron Syndergaard and Harvey to the AL and everything is very different.

[CyAcosta41]

I'm always somewhat surprised when people compare pitchers such as defining an ace or the other fangraphs article from last season looking for young starting trios as good as the Mets , how pitching in different leagues isn't brought up more. Put Sale , Q and Rodon in the NL and move DeGron Syndergaard and Harvey to the AL and everything is very different.

 

I'm with you on that 100%.

 

I've had just this discussion with old baseball teammates (I'm talking VERY old) who follow the game with the same degree of passion that I do. Just as you need a context to compare players from different eras, you've got to consider context when the AL and NL use different rules (9 hitters versus 8) and the dramatically different style of play that flows, in part, from that.

 

Take everybody's favorite Kershaw vs. Sale argument. They're both great pitchers. Clearly. And they're both "aces," no matter how you define that term. But who is better?

 

Generally, whether using the advanced metrics or the simple basics like ERA and WHIP, Kershaw comes out on top. But answer me this, Grasshopper ... if the Dodgers and the Sox traded one for the other, Kershaw now in the AL and pitching at the Cell, Sale in the NL and pitching at Pitcher's Heaven (oh, I'm sorry, Chavez Ravine or Dodgers Stadium, or whatever it's called these days), wouldn't you assume that Kershaw's numbers would inflate while Sales numbers would deflate? And, if so, by how much? By enough that the consensus "better overall pitcher" betwixt the two might change?

 

If the Sox had decided to rebuild in earnest and looked to cash-in by finding the proverbial "haul" for Quintana (and, for a time, it sure seemed there was a strong argument that it might be wise to do just that), I'd have to imagine that the likely haul would have come from an NL team -- where lefties with good stuff and off-the-chart "pitchability" (that's how I'd describe Q) have long succeeded in a very big way. You don't think his already excellent metrics would get even better moving to the NL? And that some NL GM wouldn't realize just that and unload the truck for Quintana (ace or no ace)?

 

As for that ace label. It's a word, man. Means different things to different people. To me, it's always meant someone who would be a #1 on a quality staff, but not every #1 is an ace ... an ace is the best of the best ... in that top tier of #1s. I love Q. I think he's fabulous to have on a staff. I think it's great that advanced pitching metrics show his value. But a lot of his value is tied up in his almost scary, robot-like consistency. He almost never has a bad game. It's also true that he's not as likely as a Kershaw, Sale, or other no doubt about it Aces to throw a one-hit shut out on any given game, or pitch out of his mind all year and throw out a 23 win season with a sub 2.00 ERA and a sub 1 WHIP. To me, he's everything you'd want in a GREAT #2.

 

And why this staff is so intriguing is that young Carlos Rodon might grow into ace, #1, or monster #2 himself. Find #4s and #5s that rank midway in the bell-curve compared to other #4s and #5s and you have one damned good group of starters.

 

Just my opinion. Because "Ace" is just a label and a word.

Edited February 5, 2016 by CyAcosta41

[OmarComing25]

I'm always somewhat surprised when people compare pitchers such as defining an ace or the other fangraphs article from last season looking for young starting trios as good as the Mets , how pitching in different leagues isn't brought up more. Put Sale , Q and Rodon in the NL and move DeGron Syndergaard and Harvey to the AL and everything is very different.

Yes a lot of people forget to properly apply the NL discount when it comes to comparing stats like ERA or strikeouts (though some AL fans do exaggerate the effect). The Mets' rotation is the best and deserves a lot of praise, but I wonder if they'd get near the same amount of hype if they played for the Rangers.

Edited February 5, 2016 by OmarComing25

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

Because Chris Sale is in front of him.

 

If that is really how they feel, then they also must say Zach Grienke was not an ace last season, because Kershaw was in front of him. Or that awesome Phillies rotation from a few years ago with Hamels, Cliff Lee, and Roy Halladay. Only one of them was an ace? Or Mulder/Zito/Hudson. Only 1 of them could be an ace at one time? I consider an ace to basically mean you're a top 10-15 pitcher in the game. Not that you are the best guy on your staff.

[Chicago White Sox]

When I think of an ace, I'm thinking of a guy with such dominant stuff that he can carry a team in October or any other big game. A guy that can be lined up against any other starter in the league and you know you still have a chance that day.

 

There's no arguing Quintana is a #1 starter....the stats don't lie there. He's just not the guy I want starting a must win game and therefore he is not an ace to me.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Chicago White Sox

[OmarComing25]

Follow-up article to this:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-you-defined-an-ace/

 

And that’s interesting, because otherwise the community seems to value being The Guy. There’s a certain segment of the population here that believes an ace ought to also be the staff ace. The belief is that a pitcher can’t really be an ace if he’s overshadowed in his own rotation. I think the best example would be Sonny Gray (72%) vs. Jose Quintana (8%). Gray and Quintana have been awful similar the past season or two, but Gray has been the No. 1 in Oakland, while Quintana has been pitching behind Sale. That’s not the only factor — Quintana just in general is incredibly underrated — but Quintana here is penalized in part because of Sale being better. The same thing is also a contributing factor for Carlos Carrasco‘s results (27%) and Syndergaard’s results (41%). The Indians and Mets have had too many good pitchers, so it’s been tougher for the talent to stand out individually.

 

That’s what I have for now, and I welcome any further input in the comments. Based on your responses, it looks like there are roughly 20 ace starters in the game today. The names shift around over time, but due more to under-performance than to injury. And it appears to help a great deal to be a team’s No. 1, even holding a pitcher’s performance constant. In closing, maybe we need to write more articles about Jose Quintana. Jose Quintana is really good./

 

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by OmarComing25

[Dunt]

Follow-up article to this:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-you-defined-an-ace/

 

Nice