Let’s Define an Ace
Let’s define an ace. Together, I mean, while acknowledging it can’t really be done. Not conclusively, because of the reason leading to this post in the first place — there is no definition, and there never has been. No one has ever been in the presence of a stone tablet inscribed with a divine description of what makes an ace starting pitcher, so there’s plenty of leeway, making this one of the great baseball arguments. No one denies that there are obvious ace starting pitchers, just as no one denies that there are obvious Hall-of-Famers. The difference is where you draw the cut-off. There’s only one definition of, I don’t know, “bookshelf”. There are countless definitions of “ace”. For everyone who thinks about it, it’s a feel thing.
Neatly, though, feel things can be quantified. And that’s the goal of this post, which contains 20 very simple polls. Below, you’ll find the names of 20 starting pitchers, and then for each there’s the yes-or-no question: Is this pitcher an ace? And I want for you to reply based on however you feel. Maybe you have an immediate feeling, or maybe you want to think a little bit, in which case you’ll notice I’ve linked to the player pages. Think however much or little you want, then choose an answer and move on. You might be able to do all of them in less than a minute.
The pitchers were chosen semi-randomly, so not every good pitcher is included. Some names are surely going to get a lot more yes votes than others, and I’m interested in seeing where the support dips below 50%, assuming that it ever does. That’s my own arbitrary cutoff, but I’m keeping things simple — to me, if the majority of this community thinks a guy’s an ace, then he counts as an ace, even if he’s got one vote over half. When the results are in, then we can review them to see what makes a guy an ace, in the eyes of the community, and then why other pitchers fall short. The results won’t be inarguable, because all of this is subjective, but we can at least try to apply some logic to a nebulous idea.
It’s time to crowdsource the definition of an ace. In the end, we’ll have a definition plenty of people still disagree with. So it’s like trying to solve an unsolvable problem, but this should still be an illuminating exercise. Have fun! Or don’t. You’re your own boss.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
I feel like this whole article could have been two words: Clayton Kershaw.
wonder how many people are going to troll that poll!
Just under 2% so far!
I felt voting “No” for Kershaw was my duty to society
You should have included Roger Clemens to get the maximum dumb responses.
Kershaw is NOT “an ace”. He is THE ace.
So you voted “No” then?
You gotta pay the poll troll if you want to get in that boys soul
So the list was arbitrary?? What about Zack Greinke (Yes), Mad Bumgarner (yes) or Felix Hernandez (yes)??
I didn’t include every good pitcher, as noted in the post. That would’ve been too many polls.
But why Wainwright then? Hasn’t pitched in a while, so who knows how he’ll look when he comes back.
OMG ARE WE REALLY HAVING THIS DISCUSSION. Not everyone is included. These are selections of Jeff’s choosing. Lawd.
Wainwright is more interesting. Everybody knows what the answer to Kershaw will be, just like they know the answer to Greinke and Bumgarner and Felix. It’s the borderline guys (due to stuff, injury, youth/age, track record, whatever) that are the interesting cases. Verlander wouldn’t have been an interesting one in this list a few years ago, falling in the Kershawian Obvious camp then, but he’s more interesting question now.
If by “hasn’t pitched in a while” you mean September and October 2015, then yes, like every other MLB pitcher he hasn’t pitched in a while.
Was he limited to just 28 regular-season innings in 2015 due to a non-pitching-related injury? Yes.
Was he a top-3 Cy Young finisher in 2013 and 2014? Yes and yes.
That’s an ace.
Yes, it was arbitrary. That explains why all the other aces aren’t listed.
While he is a good example of an ace, he’s a terrible definition of one. Thus, every other pitcher, like say Roy Halladay, could never be an ace.
I really like this because “perception” is going to end up a defining characteristic of an Ace.
I’m perfectly happy with the Potter Stewart method. It leads to some good baseball conversations.
Yeah, but what does “ace porn” look like?
Pedro Martinez in 1999/2000
I love the perception component. My personal criteria is 2 or more recent seasons of 5ish or more WAR and 200ish or more innings, with the expectation for that level of performance to continue this year. So I did not have many “aces,” but I think there is a difference between a true #1 starter and an ace.
^^I didn’t make this clear above, but I think there are more true #1 starters than aces in baseball, with ace being the clear higher performance bar.
I need that, but I need K rate too. A complete game shutout with 5 K’s isn’t dominant. It’s lucky. I can’t call Sonny or Greinke an Ace, any more than I could call Hellickson an Ace when he was putting up a sub 3 ERA. That ERA was just a mirage. I think Sonny or Greinke go all Tim Lincicum on us soon with those pedestrian K #s.
You have to be more than a weak contact contact pitcher to be an ace in my book. If there are no outs, bases loaded, bottom 9 in game 7 of the World Series, are you calling in Greinke or Sonny out of the bullpen? I’m not.
Greinke has an 8.11 K/9 career rate… how high does it have to be for your consideration? How long does a pitcher have to sustain his success without the K/9 numbers for you to make an exception? Would Greg Maddux have broken that barrier for you?
In this situation, determining whether someone is currently an “Ace”, career K rates for a pitcher who has been in the league since 2004 is worthless to me. I really don’t care how he did when Joe Maddon was still a bench coach.
Greinke was 32nd last year, and is 32nd over the last 3 years for K rate among starters. That’s good, but not ace like. And as far as the Maddux comparison, that’s about as fair as calling every every scrub who can’t get a full time gig, “our Zobrist”. A Maddux and Zobrist are so complicated and rare, comparing others to them, or searching for the next, is really reaching.
I think my do or die, 9th inning situation is fair. Bases loaded, no outs, and anything puts in play probably wins the game. You have Chris Archer and Sonny Gray both warm in the pen. Who you bringing in? Greinke and DeGrom are both warm. Who you bringing in? All 4 of those pitchers are really good, but 2 are dominant.
So, you admit, you don’t NEED a big K rate? That’s a good start.
So Greinke is 31st out of 152 qualified (only 300 IP it seems) in the last 3 years, so right about the top 1/5 of the league. So he’s well above average in K-rate. Or is there some specific magic number of K/9?
In your lil gimmick of a scenario, your 2 pitchers have what.. about a 4% to 6% higher chance of striking out the current hitter (on average, who the hitter is matters and all)? That season long K-rate means VERY little in your tiny sample size.
And ya know, with the bases loaded less than 2 outs, Sonny Gray’s GB% over Archer’s seems pretty tempting! But more so, why oh why would I want to define an Ace by what he can do in a 9th inning? Mariano Rivera my the all time best Ace ever, then. An Ace is about starting… that’s the entire point of an Ace.
To add to that, Grienke is 34th for career K/9 as a starter (8.08) among those with 1000+ IP, 15th if we up it to 2000 IP.
While I somewhat agree with your general sentiment, I feel like I have to point out that you sort of mentioned two separate measures there (first K rate, then raw Ks when you used as an example a CGSO with 5 Ks). Using K% works just fine. Using raw Ks, not so much… By that measure you would omit Greg Maddux, who could K 5 or 6 with the same K% as a guy who’d have K-ed 9, just because he faced so many fewer batters than most.
As I said above, Maddux was and is just so much different than anyone in the history of basbeall, I can’t compare him to others, or others to him.
Maybe my definition of an “Ace”, is “How likely is he to throw a no hitter today?” If I took last year’s top 5 k/9 leaders in Sale, Kershaw, Scherzer, Archer, Carrasco, and I gave you every one else, I’d bet that one of my guys throws a no hitter before one of your guys. I probably wouldn’t win, because there are a lot of starters other than those 5, but I’d still like my chances.
Tander’s definition is basically what what I went with. Why 5 and not 4.5 or 4.9? Probably for love of round numbers.
Ace to me is someone who you favor to win against other teams #1 pitchers, in part because they do it with regularity and recently. Verlander’s a former ace, but not today. There’s a lot of good young pitchers out there that could be aces, but they’re not there yet.
I’m shocked people say Jose Fernandez is a yes. Kershaw and De Grom are the only yes votes I gave.
Obviously, when one is measuring “feel” it’s hard to argue there are wrong answers, but Jose Fernandez is a beast. Are you docking him for health?
I voted ‘No’ on Fernandez, and yes I docked him for health. Part of my criteria was “would I feel confident going into the season if he was my #1 starter?”. Fernandez doesn’t fit the bill for me.
When it comes to health, I’m not docking many points for TJS. If he came back and finished the season well, I’d feel confident that he’ll be lights out in 2016. But his injury in August caused me to say ‘No’, because I’d go into 2016 worried that an issue would pop up. He obviously has the talent to be a CY contender, but there’s a health risk that makes me hesitate.
On the other hand, there are some young guys that don’t have the history, but I’m bullish on them. I don’t think a pitcher *needs* multiple years of 200 IP to be considered an ace. Someone like Syndergaard, for example. He was a top prospect who seems to be reaching the upper tier of his potential, right off the bat. He has the ‘stuff’ to be an ace. He came to the majors and pitched extremely well. Elite fastball, very good secondary pitches, and most importantly – he can command his pitches. He’s also built like a tank (although, to be fair, other tanks have gotten hurt). There shouldn’t be any restrictions on him next year, so I’m expecting greatness.
Interesting that health risk plays a role for you as far as being an ace goes. I don’t think everyone would consider that a factor, but that is why we are here.
Now if Fernandez had come back from his DL sting in August and been horrendous down the stretch, I might have agreed with you and voted no. But that wasn’t the case.
Like, deGrom has only thrown ~45 more career innings than Fernandez; it’s not like we’re talking a hugely longer track record there.
And if Fernandez were to throw his next 45 innings with an ERA- of 135, he’d wind up with the ERA- that deGrom has now.
So this is evidence for my hypothesis, which is that there will be “Small Hall” and “Big Hall” people for the definition of “ace”, just as much as for the HoF. I’m a Big Hall guy for aces – in my opinion, there are about a dozen aces on this list, as well as a couple aces who are not on the list (e.g. Greinke, Scherzer, Kluber). But I respect that there are people who will argue in response that, e.g., there are 25 “true #1 starters” out there and only 2-3 “aces”.
We’ll see if the rest of the surveys/comments bear it out, but my thought is that a lot of people will take the Big Hall view of 15-20 teams having an ace and some teams (e.g. Mets) having 2+ aces, while others will say that Kershaw, Price, and Sale (or some other list) are the Only True Aces.
That was way too many e.g.s for one post. Sorry guys.
My first thought before looking at any polls was that there should probably be around 15 aces. Basically, that about half of the number 1 starters should be considered a tier above the rest. Seems to bear true for me going through the list.
There aren’t 25 “true #1 starters out there.” There are usually 10-12.
I made an exception for Jose Fernandez, but otherwise if someone doesn’t have at least 400 IP under their belt, with 4.5+ WAR/200 IP over the past three years, they’re not an ace.
If you look at the 2015 WAR leaderboard, I think the first 18 guys are all certainly “true #1 starters”. Then you reach a category of “borderline #1” guys like Cueto and Sonny Gray, where you would be OK with that being your team’s #1 starter but much happier if that was your #2. And there are a couple names down the list, too – like King Felix.
Ross, DeGrom, Archer, Carrasco and Cole had never had a 4 WAR season before 2015.
Additionally, of the five, only Cole and Archer have ever pitched more than 200 innings.
All of these guys have tremendous potential, but they need another season on this level to be people from whom I’d expect 4.5+ WAR.
Quintana fails that test for me, too, but that’s more subjective in that I expect him to go back to being his regular #2, 4-win guy going forward.
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, but I am curious why you view a player with only three full seasons under his belt and an average of approximately 4.5 WAR in each of those seasons as a “regular #2, 4-win guy.” Doesn’t it seem like he’s a 4.5-win guy, then?
But deGrom had 140 innings of laying the same brickwork down in 2014, and that’s all he’s done. he’s been a beast for over a season and a half, and that includes his first foray into the majors. I’m buying.
Jose Fernandez isn’t an ace yet because he hasn’t shown he can pitch a full season and he’s struggled on the road. He’s got a career ERA under 2 at home while his road ERA is almost 4.
I don’t really see how there shouldn’t be ~30 number one starters. I mean, it’s silly to call someone like Strasburg (or Sherzer) not a number one starter, but call Julio Teheren one, but if all teams are equal, each should have a best pitcher and that guy is the number one starter. There are plenty of words to describe higher levels, including “ace.”
Quintana once again the most disrespected “ace” in baseball.
Nearly 10 WAR in the past two years and has really only continued to improve.
Quintana has the NINTH best WAR of any starter in baseball the past two years, yet received fewer votes than nearly every pitcher on the list.
I expect Quintana to fly under the radar to the standard fan, but I’ve always expected more from the fangraphs reader base.
Rational Fan, I’m about as big a Quintana fan as there is on this site, but I prefer RA9-WAR, which puts him at 17th over the past two seasons.
I’d put Quintana as an analogue to Alex Smith, where he’s probably the best of the second tier, but isn’t quite a guy I’d put at the same level as a Cole Hamels.
Not that there are any wrong answers (other than any answer that doesn’t include Kershaw) but, given that we’re in an era in which top-end pitchers are more statistically dominant then they’ve been in a generation, it seems strange to limit your ace universe to 2 names.
To me, it’s similar to asking “Who’s an elite NFL QB?” Much like “ace”, I feel that descriptor gets tremendously overused … yet given the chasm between the top guys and replacement level, it would be crazy to argue that only Rodgers and Brady deserve the label.
Shocked that people think a pitcher who’s pitched better than deGrom is an ace?
Yeah, DeGrom’s in the “I guess I could see an argument” category, in terms of ace-dom.
Won the Rookie of the Year his first season and then made the All-Star team in his first full season. His career ERA/FIP/xFIP/WHIP are all historically elite for someone in his first two seasons. He also has two fastballs and multiple secondaries rated as above-average to plus. If you don’t think deGrom’s an ace, you must be basing that on something other than numbers, performance, or scouting.
It actually has everything to do with the numbers.
Specifically, the number “331.1,” which denotes his total career MLB innings.
Yes on deGrom and no on Cole and Archer is a little weird to me.
You could argue that DeGrom has done it 2 years in a row whereas Archer & Cole only really have emerged as #1 starters in the past year.
How about Dallas?
Obviously this assumes health isn’t an issue. When Fernandez is healthy he meets every and all criteria for being an Ace.
IMO one of the most underrated aspects of Aceitude – underrated even by WAR – is a pitcher’s consistent ability to go deep into ballgames. I have a very hard time calling anyone an Ace that doesn’t at least average around 6.5ip/gs, and really that should be closer to 7ip/gs.
I think I agree, an “ace” is generally a guy who leads his rotation, and it’s hard to do that if another pitcher is last longer each time. A guy like Carlos Martinez, if he threw 220 innings at the level he pitched last year, would likely qualify for me, but not with just 180.
My general rule of thumb is top ~15 pitchers in baseball. By WAR, that is usually everyone with 5+ WAR, maybe some guys in the high 4s
It is really interesting to see the differences of opinion between Chris Archer and Carlos Corrasco. Their numbers are very similar. Obviously, people are taking name recognition into consideration.
For me, it’s just that there were too many good pitchers in Cleveland last year. It makes Carrasco seem like one of many, as opposed to Archer, who clearly led his team’s rotation.
Who would have been very interesting in the name recognition department is Felix.
Archer has “ace” hair. And he rocks the stirrups.
They’re also taking “has ever pitched 190 innings” into consideration.
Archer’s flat-out better.
It’s wrong to say Archer is “flat-out better.” It’s perfectly reasonable to think he IS better, but it’s not so cut-and-dry. a 2.66 xFIP and 2.74 SIERA, for example, are strong indicators that Carrasco could be better. The ERA and innings are reasonable reservations, but Archer’s really only been this good for one season and Carrasco for 1.5. Plenty of argument involved.
I think no matter how much we buy into FIP, we are going to want to see that translate into a guy’s ERA at some point. If Carrasco had a 2.70 ERA in 2014, then a year like last year’s with a great FIP and a 3.63 ERA would not threaten his ace status, but I think a guy needs to “initiate” himself into acedom, and at least one good year by ERA I think is usually required.
As an example, Kluber is definitely an ace, and his relatively unexciting 2015 ERA does not threaten that, because he really established himself as one in 2014.
Surprise for me was Syndegaard as a consensus No. Appreciating that he only has 150 MLB IP under his belt, I can’t name 20 pitchers I’d rather have.
Yeah. I said Yes to him as well because he was so darn good this year, but I think he was probably hurt by two things (1) lack of a track record of success and (2) the fact that he was not the best pitcher on his own team. If he had a breakout season on a team that didn’t already have so much press coverage for two other pitchers, I think the polls may have been different.
(1) meant a no for me. Pitched like an ace last year, but I’m not ready to label him an ace without seeing more. If he adds 200 innings to the 150 he pitched last year, my tune will change.
My definition for an Ace is that he should give you both an unusually high chance of winning the current game, as well as having an unusual impact on winning future games (by reducing relief innings pitched). I couldn’t vote for Syndegaard because, while he does improve win probability, he averages only 6.25 innings per start, and, obviously, is too young to have gotten to 200 innings.
Thor was the toughest call for me. My “feel” on Syndergaard is that he is on a trajectory that will break into the Ace realm sometime soon – perhaps by the All-Star break. But I also “feel” he hasn’t proven himself in the big leagues over a long enough time frame to justify the label at this point in time.
To me there is a definite distinction between being an “ace” and current true-talent/projected WAR. Ace implies some track record to me, like it’s a title you earn as much as one you maintain. It kind of still feels right to call Randy Johnson an “ace”. So, if Syndergaard has the year we all expect in 2016, he’ll definitely be one.
His numbers overall last year weren’t ace-level. If he stays healthy, he’ll get there, though. His splits before and after the ASB are telling.
“Appreciating that he only has 150 MLB IP under his belt”
This is exactly why Syndergaard was a consensus no.
Syndegaard doesn’t have the history for being an ace to me. He could well be an ace some day. He’d be a great asset for teams especially when you make salary cap considerations.
Aces to me are a tier above #1 starters, and he’s not there yet.
We’re collectively undervaluing Carrasco and Quintana, it looks like.
Was admittedly taken aback at Quintana’s player page. Much better than I had him pegged in my head.
Quintana’s a textbook No. 2.
Only on, like, 9 teams in baseball. Everywhere else he’d be the #1. Yet I still voted “no”, and I’m a Sox fan…
How so?
9th best WAR in baseball over two years, in a league with 30 teams, is somehow a #2? That makes absolutely no sense.
17th by RA9-WAR. That’s in the top tier of #2s for me.
Quintana is good, but the presence of a clearly better pitcher in the same rotation (Sale) makes him seem like “not the ace”.
Those 1.3% that said “no” to Clayton Kershaw.
Y’all need to educate yourselves on Tyson Ross.
Isn’t he the guy who has exactly 0 200-inning seasons?
He’s a very good pitcher but, to me, an ace has thrown 200+ innings in at least 1 season and his best season is better than 4.4 WAR.
I’d love to him on my team, but he’s not an ace.
He’s averaged 196 innings each of the past two seasons. Four more innings per season would really make a difference?
Maybe he’s not an ace, but he’s close. Much closer than most people think, based on 92% of people voting “No.”
For reference, Jacob deGrom has never reached 200 innings and is sitting at 77% yes.
I did this entirely by gut and I voted yes on Ross and No on Degrom! but its been 20 years since I finished lower than 2nd in any fantasy baseball league.
If you factoring postseason innings, then Degrom surpasses 200 innings.
“but its been 20 years since I finished lower than 2nd in any fantasy baseball league.”
This is the most glaring humblebrag I’ve seen in a looooong time. “Don’t worry guys, you can listen to me, what do I know, I just win fantasy baseball every year, I would be an awesome GM, that’s all…”
That’s not a humblebrag, it’s an annoyingashellbrag
He’s more Francisco Liriano than ace. A guy who is a fantastic pitcher but who I wouldn’t be surprised to see him have a blow up game on any given night.
Even though it isn’t the most useful stat being 20 games under .500 for his career sure hurts his case. I don’t think an ace leads the Majors in walks last season either.
Stroman and deGrom are the biggest surprises to me so far.
Some of these are tough because I voted no because they were aces in the past (Verlander), while others are emerging as potential true aces, but I’m just not quite ready to click “yes” (Archer & possibly Stroman).
Syndergaard is another example of the latter for me, personally.
I sorta think the longer you pitch to an elite level, the more leeway you get on the way down. That said, Verlander is out of leeway.
I understand the argument against Verlander, but I think if you allow for any “leeway” he has to still be considered an ace. Everyone knows the injury history the last couple years, but look at his 2nd half numbers. say what you will about WAR, but he had the highest 2nd half WAR in the AL in ’15 and behind only Arietta and Kershaw in the game. Given track record, seems like a guy i would give the benefit of the doubt to…
Fair enough, but he’s on a very, very short leash.
Thank you for this! I’ve always thought the lack of consensus surrounding the term ace was interesting. The word “Ace” to me seems to have two sub components that are in tension with each other. One is the notion that the pitcher is a stud and among the best in the league. This is the “fighter pilot” component. It doesn’t necessarily mean the guy is the best person on his own team, it just means he is in elite company. Of course the question there is how elite and reasonable minds will disagree. The other notion is that the pitcher is an “Ace” in the sense that he is the best on his team. Sometimes you’ll hear commentators or other folks refer to a pitcher as “staff ace” which is basically a way of saying he is an Ace on his team, but not a “true ace” in the sense that he may be a #2 or #3 on the other team.
I think the gestalt determination of whether a pitcher is an Ace or not for most people invariably includes some combination of both components. My guess is that fangraphs readers are going to be more drawn towards the fighter pilot component, but the fact that, as of this writing, Syndergaard was not a consensus ace to me shows that even we enlightened stat heads include some component of the “best pitcher on the team” notion when picking our aces. I would bet that Syndergaard would have been a consensus ace if he had pitched for a team without as top heavy of a rotation this year that generated more press. Say the Yankees.
Some years a team has no Ace. They just have a #1 starter. Syndergaard is not an Ace in my mind mainly because of inning restrictions.
This is by far the best written description of my definition of an ace. Heck, I’d say the Mets have the chance to have 4 aces by the end of next year (Harvey, deGrom, Thor, Wheeler). I have multiple other components. I want them to go deep into games (6+ IP consistently); have the ability to punch guys out when the need to (don’t have to have a high K-rate, just the ability to sit them down if they need to); and generally give up very few baserunners per 9. But they sure don’t need to be the best pitcher on their team. If they hit most (preferably all) of the above criteria, I’ll put them on the Ace list.
You’re forgetting Matz.
More likely, he just doesn’t believe Matz can be an ace. He hasn’t historically been expected to be and his numbers, both in the minors relative to age and in his MLB SSS, don’t scream clear ace.
I voted ‘NO’ for Quintana, although his results and value contradict that.
I definitely have a high threshold for “ace” status, and one of my qualifiers is that you have to be indisputably the best pitcher on your team in addition to being a recently dominant talent. Maybe dumb to some of you guys, but like Jeff said, it’s very subjective.
FWIW, I voted for Archer, Kershaw, Keuchel, and Cole. Though I waffled a lot on Wainwright, I’m too jaded by his age and injuries last year.
By that argument, Kershaw doesn’t fit your criteria. I don’t think it’s indisputable that Kershaw is better than Greinke. Remember Greinke finished ahead of Kershaw in Cy Young voting.
You really don’t believe the Dodgers had two aces last year?
Having a lower ERA does not make Greinke the better pitcher. Greinke was great, but Kershaw was completely dominant. I know the voters disagreed, but that was due to Greinke’s black ink, not because he was an objectively better pitcher.
it is indisputable that Kershaw is better than Greinke. In fact, it’s not at all close. Presumably you go on this site a decent amount, have you ever compared their stats? since greinke joined the dodgers, i’m sure kershaw has him beat in every category.
as for them both being aces, definitely.
The latter is really the issue. It’s completely unfair and incorrect to say Greinke wasn’t an ace last year because Kershaw was on his team.
A bunch of the comments seem to be about Quintana/Carrasco/Salazar have put up ace-like stats but are getting consensus no’s. I was on the no side for these guys and I think my determinant isn’t just putting up ace-stats, but being the ace. Quintana has great stats, but would he put them up if he was the #1 on the team and knew he had to carry the ace load and other teams were gunning to take down an ace. Maybe/maybe not. Until a guy proves that, I can’t call him an ace. A few teams have multiple aces but they have had to distinguish themselves. The Mets, who have Degrom and Harvey and Syndengard are interesting. I called DeGrom an ace, and I would call Harvey an ace too. They have been the #1 at different times. Even though Thor pitched like one, he hasn’t been the #1 so I said no. This is very much an older/scout based opinion, but i can’t shake it.
I would love to hear why Strasburg is an Ace. I get that he is supposed to be an Ace and has games with Ace stuff, but he wasn’t one last year – he averaged 5.5 innings/start. I guess he gets do-over for injury and for being young? He’s not the best pitcher on his team, and he seems fragile. (Ace=Horse+Stuff)
Perception is reality. I do agree with you though. People confuse the past, present and future. Lot of guys were past or may be future aces, but not quite there now. Wainright was injured so I just went by what he did before, not sure what he will be though, so thats a debatable choice. Only Kershaw, Archer and Keuchel made my list, and Kershaw is really the only slam dunk on this list
I voted “yes” for Strasburg because I’m a Nats fan.
………
…………..
…..SIGH…….
Well the first problem with your statement is that you take what YOU think makes an ace as the true definition. Many feel differently and some may not factor in the innings count so heavily, or perhaps they forgive injury more. Statistically he is a clear-cut ace, other than the quantity concerns, and some people may focus on that.
Is Jake Arrieta a boss? I vote yes….
Mine fell in line with the concensus on all but Richards….because I’m a homer.
Ace to me is a multifaceted thing.
1. Does he have the stats to back it up?
2. Does he have a track record of at least five years to back it up?
3. Does he cause opponents to approach their coach and say “Coach, Got a little tightness in my leg” (or other ‘sudden injury’ to avoid facing the pitcher).
If he has 1, and 2, he may be an ace. If he gets some 3, ohyeah, he is an ace. An ace is more than just stats. He is a person that the other team doesnt want to face. He has a track record. He dominates (not necessarily Randy Johnson dominate, but may be Greg Maddux dominate). But, that track record is important. Anybody can be good for one year. Then the film shows tendencies, habits, etc. The pitcher has had to make adjustments and still dominate to be an ace. Might be age, lowering his fastball. Might be film showing he likes to get people out a certain way. Does he adapt.
At least five years?! So you have like 1-2 aces at any given time?
to me, an ace is special.. rare, not merely the top guy on the staff. So, if that translates to 1-2 at a time, then perhaps.
I don’t think “ace” is actually all that difficult to define. Two words: Reliable dominance. You need to have both. And it’s the former, “reliable” that differentiates “ace” from “#1”.
Yes.
That was how I voted: an Ace is expected to dominate each and every time regardless of who he faces. No pitching well enough to win or racking up big stats against poor lineups.
Do you expect Kershaw to dominate every single outing? Yes. He’ll glitch from time to time but that’s rare.
Do you expect Carrasco to dominate every single time? Not yet. He hasn’t built up the record to that level. He’s shown the stuff but the reliability isn’t there yet.
Conversely Fernandez has shown that if he’s breathing he’s dominating.
It isn’t enough to have the stuff (power or command) to dominate any opposing lineup on a given day but also a track record of doing it over and over and over to the point he is *expected* to do it.
The expectation of dominance is the difference between a True Ace and a “Staff Ace”.
Number one pitcher? That’s just the guy who pitches on opening day. Could be an Ace. Could be the guy with the big contract. Could be just the best the team can trot out.
You say “ace” isn’t difficult to define but then proceed to define it with two subjective terms…
“Reliable” and “dominance” don’t mean anything specific. Therefore, you haven’t defined “ace.”
You say, ‘You say “ace” isn’t difficult to define but then proceed to define it with two subjective terms…
“Reliable” and “dominance” don’t mean anything specific. Therefore, you haven’t defined “ace.”’.
Yet, ‘You say “ace” isn’t difficult to define but then proceed to define it with two subjective terms…
“Reliable” and “dominance” don’t mean anything specific. Therefore, you haven’t defined “ace.”’ doesn’t specifically mean anything . Therefore, you really haven’t said anything of meaning.
Waino
Kershaw,the others need a stronger body of work.
Knee jerk response to the Ace question,they pitch,you win.
I’m biased, but the voters will be proven very wrong when they said Syndergaard is not an ace…
At least from your user name we can see that this is a totally impartial comment…
Let’s let him prove it for more than 2/3-3/4 of a season in the MLB before we call him an ace without even a sub 3.00 ERA or FIP. The xFIP was just below 3.00, so that’s good, but let’s wait for the results to catch up to the potential before we start calling people aces.
I am with the majority for all of my picks ! But I guess the odds of that happening is not that small since they are all majority picks !
IMO, what could make this poll even more fit for purpose, is to only vote for guys that are on the fence, rather than clear YESs or NOs. but the down side with that will be too many guys will hover around 50% and makes it hard to identify the difference maker …
Actually, the odds are less than you think. If there’s 10 people to vote on, and let’s say to make things simple that 80% of people voted yes, then approximately, the odds you went with the majority on all 10 is (.8)^10, or 10.7%. But there were more than 10 guys to vote on, and many of them were around 80% or LESS, so your odds of being with the majority for EVERY pick is slim indeed!
For my own edification when the results are posted:
Aces: Kershaw, Strasburg, Fernandez, DeGrom, Cole, Keuchel, Carrasco, Archer
I didn’t know what to do with injury guys – Darvish and Wainwright. But easily voted for Strasburg and Fernandez.
Archer and Salazar were my bubble-est guys.
Kershaw was my least bubble guy.
Checking Steamer projections after the fact, my Aces were all projected for 4 FIP-WAR and 4 RA9-WAR except DeGrom and Cole (less than 4 RA9-WAR). Ross was the only 4 FIP-WAR guy I didn’t pick (he has the lowest projected RA9-WAR)
Here’s an article by John Sickels on the subject: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/8/7/3226335/defining-1-2-3-4-5-starters
In WAR terms, here’s a rough breakdown of the tiers (xWAR=Expected WAR):
Ace: 4.5+ xWAR
2: 3.5-4.5 xWAR
3: 2.5-3.5 xWAR
4: 1.5-2.5 xWAR
5: 0.5-1.5 xWAR
The Cubs, Dodgers and arguably the Mets have two aces. The Cardinals have four #2s.
So a guy with 4.5 WAR is both simultaneously an Ace and a #2?
This is why I hate tiers. “Ace” is a superlative. Superlatives in the English language are not meant to be subjected to gradation.
Like some have posted, you know an ace when you see it. You can’t quantify it, unless you hate the English language.
I only had 4 aces in that group. Some future aces maybe, some past aces, but nobody beyond Kershaw, Archer, Wainwright and Keuchel. I am a bit harsh on NL pitchers though due to the lack of a DH and weaker league (although I suspect the gap has closed and I may be too harsh)
I’m curious to know what the voting for Arrieta would have looked like.
This is really interesting. Any chance you can release the results data? I’d be interested to delve into it.
I just consider guys under the 80 ERA- (or FIP-) threshold aces.
I asked this exact question of a very famous MLB writer, his answer was that it’s “nebulous”. Some of you might be able to guess whom would answer like that. 😉 To me, it’s simple: it’s a guy you want taking the ball in a winner-take-all situation. PS. Chris Sale IS one of those guys. #GoSox
I feel like this has to be done:
fWAR the past 2 years (yes I know, why not 3 years? Why not 4?) and polling data as of this post
Kershaw 16.3 99% yes
Keuchel 9.9 83% yes
Quintana 9.9 92% no
DeGrom 8.7 76% yes
Cueto 8.7 61% no
Archer 8.5 77% yes
Darvish 8.3 76% yes
Carrasco 8 69% no
Strasburg 7.8 57% yes
Cole 7.7 81% yes
Ross 7.6 91% no
Richards 6.8 91% no
Gray 6.1 69% yes
Verlander 5.7 85% no
Wainwright 5.7 68% yes
Salazar 4.8 95% no
Martinez 4.4 95% no
Fernandez 3.7 90% yes
Stroman 3.5 84% no
Syndergaard 3.1 62% no
I voted no on Quintana, but it seems like we are really, really, underrating him.
How much we’re underrating Quintana depends on how closely you hew to FIP and fWAR; he hasn’t been as dominant by ERA and just about every other estimator (xFIP, SIERA, bbWAR).
The White Sox have had the worst defense in MLB the past two years so of course it would make more sense to use FIP than ERA in someone like Quintana’s case.
As I mentioned in my post above. An ace also requires a track record of dominance. One or two years arent sufficient to say ‘ace’. To be an ace, you need to have a track record that says at least four, if not five or more years at ace-number performance. This says that he can adapt to the batters adapting to him, and still keeping dominant levels of performance. “ace in the making” for under four, sure. But, true ace, five or more years.
Quintana is very underrated, but an ace? He’s not IMO. Peripherals are fantastic, but run prevention matters to. Over the last 3 season’s he’s been around the 3.3-3.4 mark and steamer has him projected for a 3.7 ERA. He also gives up a hit an inning, has an average k rate, and average stuff.
He’s a good #2, definitely not an ace IMO.
Right.
You’re not dominating if they score on you consistently.
(Unless your team has a historically bad defense like Kluber in 2014 or Prime Friedlander. And even there, Aces just buckle down and get five outs in the inning if they have to.)
Prime Verlander.
(Stupid autocorrect.)
Uh, the White Sox defense is worse than the Tigers.
Quintana has been one of the most unlikely pitchers in baseball history to start his career.
Great post, I was going to post a long winded response with exactly the same info, but you did it short and sweet. Nicely done.
I nailed EVERY one of those.
Except Syndergaard. I voted yes. The last one I missed. How dare you. lol
My perception of an ace is based heavily on the perception in my circles of “our” ace (Felix Hernandez). He’s called the King. “Felix Day” is a thing. If we’re on a losing streak (which happens way too often), we feel confident Felix will stop it (whether he does or not is irrelevant, and I have no idea). Some lucky teams may have the luxury of two of these guys. Some don’t have any.
Jeff, I’ve learned a lot from you over the years about stuff I likely wouldn’t have even thought to think about, and wouldn’t have been able to manage with your insight and good humor if I had.
Would you put the punctuation inside the quotation marks, as opposed to the following examples:
“bookshelf”. There are countless definitions of “ace”.
I’ll keep reading regardless, and I know it’s the internet, but it’s baseball, man. Only American English will do.
“lame”.
This is how I figured this would go. See what he does.
Is Bruce Chen an ace?
Cole was the only one thought of as an ace that blew my mind.
For me an ace is long term high inning dominance. As in 3 consecutive yrs of near 200 inning top 15 performance.
Sale and Kershaw are the guys that pop jnto my head when I hear “ace”.
I think there is a notable difference between being an Ace and simply pitching like an Ace for a single season. Pitching like one for a season might carry the expectations moving forward, but the title shouldn’t come until you meet/exceed such expectations and show that it wasn’t a mere outlier season.
As a Nats fan, Strasburg is a very good pitcher, but he has not been an ACE since he blew out his arm. Last season he was 11-7 with a 3.46 ERA. hardly ACE numbers! sure his FIP is great, but his ERA being much higher than his FIP is deserved. He has a knack for giving up big hits in close games far to often than an ACE should and he struggles with men on base more than you would think.
I voted hesitatingly no on DeGrom cause he only dominated for one season and even then was only 14-8 for a world series team. But, mostly because he always feels beatable to me. Syndergarrd I voted yes cause he felt tougher than his stats say he was last year.
Wins as the measure of true acedom? Interesting…
These polls were a great idea. Fun just to see where your opinions stand in comparison to everyone else’s. (I agreed with the masses on everyone but Cueto and Cole – and the latter was personal.)
For me an ace needs multiple things
-Needs to have elite periperals/skill related stats (that means Sonny Gray is not an ace)
-Needs to have elite run prevention results (that means Carlos Carrasco is not an ace)
-Needs to have at least a 2 year track record of being elite (that means Syndergaard and Stroman are not aces)
For me, the no doubt aces in baseball are Kershaw, Madbum, Greinke, Price, Kluber, Sale, Harvey, Degrom, Felix, Scherzer, Keuchel, and Arrieta.
Lester, Gray, Fernandez, Syndergaard, Carrasco, Waino, Hamels, Strasburg, and Archer are all guys you can make cases for being an ace.
I think its extremely dumb that people are using a 4 year thredhold for acedom, to pitchers that started late degrom, arrietta, kluber. Those guys cant be considered aces until they are 30 and on the downswing of their careers? An ace is a guy you are confiden will get you 200 innings, go deep in games, has k capabilities to dominate a game without relying on defense behind him and you are 99% certain he will go out and do this next year. So remove anyone on an innings restriction or a k rate under 8k/9 ip.
The multiple years (usually around four) is there for a reason. Can the pitcher adapt after the batters do. Can he reliably go forward when he doesn’t have his best stuff thru minor injuries, dead-arm periods, or other times when ‘it just isn’t happening. Once the batters identify his tendencies, can he still get them out. Can he work with a iffy defense behind him. All these can be identified thru time. Not usually in a single magical season where it all comes together. How bout the next season or two when nothing comes together. What will he do then? An ace will find a way, a top of the staff pitcher may or may not.
I wish FanGraphs readers ran a team and I ran a team so I could trade them Sonny Gray for Carlos Carrasco.
You missed the point.
Fundamental disconnect in relying on crowd wisdom: Sites like FanGraphs EXIST to rise above “perception” and “popular opinion” and combat certain false narratives and fallacious opinions, no matter how commonly held they are.
Now, in theory, FanGraphs readers should be a savvier group than “baseball fans in America,” so you might think their wisdom is reliable. But any poll that spits out Sonny Gray as a clear ace and Carlos Carrasco as a clear not-ace is a poll that is clearly plagued by the same kind of “popular perception” myths that plague the very mainstream thinking analytics are supposed to rebut.
So, nice try, but these results prove that this isn’t a reliable way to define ace. I went into it optimistic.
Ok smartypants, so define “ace”!
I appreciate your post because I think it points to a level of blindness among the “savvier group” you place yourself in. While it’s undoubtedly true that FIP is a better general measure of pitching performance than ERA, some people like you make the mistake of taking that a step further and substituting FIP for real performance for each individual pitcher. That leads your “savvier group” to overrate guys like Carrasco and Rick Porcello who consistently underperform their FIP. ERA can be “unfair” to a pitcher with a bad defense, tough park, unlucky sequencing, etc., yet stripping away those things entirely sometimes means missing on genuine skill deficiencies. For a generic pitcher X, I will assume that an ERA much better or worse than his FIP will regress, but when a pitcher has demonstrated a consistent pattern of remaining above or below that FIP, then you have to at least raise the possibility that something else is at work.
As an A’s fan my objective opinion on an ace, would require:
1) Dominance
2) Command of craft
3) Ability to adjust or refine
Dominance doesn’t imply just how many strike outs he can throw but more a sense that through a 30 start minimum season he can in a large majority of start be almost impossible for hitters to dictate terms, this should in theory involve a good blend of strike outs, inducing bad contact and keeping away from free passes.
Skillsets and command of craft to me suggests a pitcher should be at the stage in his career where he can utilize all his pitches well, this requires command/control as well as a workable knowledge of what he is doing on the mound, sometimes this changes through a start where pitching for contact is the lesser evil than trying to strike out hitters, allowing deeper starts, it may also require adjustments to pitches in his arsenal, maybe taking a little more off the off speed or adding a bit more to it for subtle deception, adjusting the arc on the breaking ball, more bite or sink in the fast ball.
The last is more can a pitcher develop as the competition learns more about him, can he show up with new tools, does he show up with other modifications to delivery and necessary mechanics that adds mystery and deception however slight or radical development as a pitcher is key to being good or being a great.
So on the Sonny Gray topic, I think he does have two boxes checked, Gray is a very smart pitcher and his skillset is honed towards bad contact, keeping it on the deck and has enough in him to still step up his K rate to around the 10k/9 mark. I also feel Gray is always adapting, he spent time at Vandy with a couple pitchers and I have the feeling that if he comes back with better control and feeling for his change up this would certainly improve the Dominance chance. I think a really good change up is all that is missing from his game which would be a second put away pitch to add to the FB, Slider/Curve combination
Not an attempt to define an ace but I’ve noticed that the rough cut off point from the top 30 starters in a seasons in terms of ERA- and FIP- is usually right around 85. Looking at the last three seasons and restricting it to seasons where starters have thrown 150 or more innings there are only 15 pitchers who were better than 85 in at least 3 of the 6 possible instances (ERA- and FIP- for 2013-2015)
Clayton Kershaw
Chris Sale
Max Scherzer
Zack Greinke
Jake Arrieta
Felix Hernandez
Matt Harvey
Adam Wainwright
David Price
Dallas Keuchel
Corey Kluber
Jon Lester
Madison Bumgarner
Francisco Liriano
Jose Quintana
Lets write a new article Mr. Sullivan and title it why Clayton Kershaw is not an ace and we’ll interview the person who didn’t vote for Kershaw. Kind of annoying when there is a point to these polls yet people can’t be mature enough to respect your career.
I think 99.5% is effectively the same as 100% in polling science. No reason to get bent out of shape about something that truly doesn’t matter.
I voted for 3: Kershaw, DeGrom, and Fernandez.
My main criteria was multiple recent high-level seasons. There were a lot of guys on this list that made a big leap, but hadn’t been at that level previously.
Yes, Fernandez doesn’t qualify under that notion, but he’s so sick-nasty dirty that I couldn’t leave him off. When he’s healthy, there’s no doubt he’s a legit #1.
Wait, so 1/3 of your guys didn’t mean your own criteria, and neither did deGrom really since he has essentially 1 1/2 seasons under his belt. So…you just picked the ones you wanted and then made up some criteria after the fact? =)
(Which is fine! You can vote for whoever you want of course! There are no wrong answers! But you can’t say “here are my criteria” when 1-2 of your 3 (or 33-66%) don’t meet your own criteria that you just stated.)
I said ‘yes’ to any guy I thought was ‘elite’ (I didn’t have time to check stats) and a clear-cut no. 1 starter in their team- I said no to DeGrom because I kept telling myself that he had competition for the no. 1 spot. Not sure why. Said no toe Cueto because MadBum is the ace in San Fran.
Was Greg Maddux an ace?
yes. While lacking overpowering stuff (fastball in the 80’s) he did dominate with precision. He met my criteria. Dominance, Dominance over time, and ability to adapt (to declining speed), as well as had the effect of having other batters come up with reasons to not play “Coach, I have a sore hammy, i cant play today” as they knew they were quite likely to end the day with an 0-4.
“Ace” is like pornography; I can’t necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it. Teams can have multiple aces (see, “1990’s Atlanta Braves”), so it appears that the NY national leaguers have potentially three aces. By that measure, an ace need not be “the best starter on his team” in such a rare circumstance.
On this poll, the word “is” caused some consternation for me. I called Verlander an ace, because clearly he WAS one. Not any more. So I guess I got that one wrong…
It’s definitely a perception thing. I didn’t look at the stats, I just asked myself if I would crap my pants in the batter’s box.
Is Bartolo Colon an ace? How about Shirtless Bartolo Colon?
Once was, and still is.
Someone who can consistently control the game. Usually high K/9, great command, repeatability.
The only arguable exception to this is Keuchel. I voted “no” for him, but I was in the minority. If he can repeat that contact management this year, I would change my vote to yes.
In a one game playoff, an “ace” is a guy that won’t be questioned as the starter.
Kershaw over Greinke? No question. So, Kershaw is the “ace” and Greinke is just a “true #1.”
Even last year we saw people discussing Arrieta vs Lester, with some people feeling Lester should have been the starter, right? Therefore, Arrieta not an “ace.”
What if kershaw and chris sale are on the same team? You still go kershaw. So this just isn’t a valid argument. Lester does have an excellent playoff history, so those se people might have argued for him over kershaw because kershaw hasn’t pitched well in the playoffs.
So Kyle Lohse is an “ace”. Got it.
“Kershaw over Greinke? No question.”
So, since Greinke pitched on the same team as the single best pitcher of the past decade, he can’t be an ace? Got it.
Too bad Curt Schilling when he was with Randy Johnson, or Glavine/Smoltz when they pitched with Maddux, or any of the Mets’ current starters (as none is a “clear-cut” #1 over the rest).
Would definitely suck to be the 2nd best starter in the league and have the unfortunate luck to be paired with the best on the same team! Likewise if you had a 4.00 ERA but the rest of your teammates had 5.00 ERAs, you are now an ACE!
This…this is poor logic.
What I think would be fun on a poll like this is to have each poller identify themselves for internal tracking, and then give this same poll a month later (still before the season, where our estimation of these pitchers cannot have changed based on performance) and see how often people’s own answers change. For one like this with such a grey area, that might give an even better idea where the line is: it is where a person cannot even draw his or her own.
Was the pitcher an ace last season?
– check if pitcher in question was within the top 30 in WAR
Will the pitcher be an ace next year?
– if you have a 95% certainty that said pitcher in question will be within the top 30 in WAR, then yes; otherwise it’s a no.
It’s quite simple to me.
Of the pitchers listed here there may have been a few close exceptions, but if the pitcher has had two seasons in his last three of over 200 innings, under a 3.00 era (or close, 3.06 for Darvish I counted), and over 9 K/9 I ended up considering them an ace.
This would have ended up covering Felix and Bumgarner, but not Greinke, so maybe making an exception for K/BB ratios over 4 would work too.
One interesting point in Wainwright. He has yet to prove that he isn’t really an ace anymore but he’s been hinting at it. The strikeouts dropped to only 19.9% in 2014, but a drop in HR/FB rate to a measly 5.3% helped cover that up. Wainwright always controls home runs but not to that extent – if he started pitching to a 3.34 ERA (matching his 2014 xFIP), would he be an ace? This year the sample was tiny and the strikeouts fell even further, but no home runs and a career-best walk rate kept the numbers pristine.
I’m surprised how positive the response was considering the missed year and the huge K loss, but I suppose for a guy with Waino’s track record he’s an ace until he sucks.
This is much like King Felix, whose numbers were nowhere near ace-level this year but would presumably do well in the vote anyway because he has earned that leeway.