Is Phil Hughes an ace? He had a lower FIP than Lester and Hamels, and most people consider them aces.

 

Also, how much could we get for him in a trade?

He sure as hell was last year.  He actually pitched better than many of his statistics show.  (Thank you very much defense)

 

Will he continue to be?  That's a tough one.

No. People throw the word "Ace" around very loosely. Ace of the Twins pitching staff? Yes, but that's not saying much. 

 

You go ask a fan of any other team if Phil Hughes is an Ace and you would get laughed at. One good to great year doesn't make him an Ace. 

 

As far as Lester goes he's not an ace either imo. Hamels was but he's a good number 2 now.

No, but at this point, the Ace of the Twins' staff. Not an Ace in general. One very good year (last) followed by an equally good or better year, and he is on his way, but not yet. Time will tell. All #1's are not Aces. Phil should prepare for the start of the year better, and try a different prep. If you always start bad, why not try something else?

 

No. People throw the word "Ace" around very loosely. Ace of the Twins pitching staff? Yes, but that's not saying much. 

 

You go ask a fan of any other team if Phil Hughes is an Ace and you would get laughed at. One good to great year doesn't make him an Ace. 

 

As far as Lester goes he's not an ace either imo. Hamels was but he's a good number 2 now.

 

What makes someone an "ace" then?  I have trouble rationalizing a definition that doesn't include how ridiculously good Hughes was last year.

 

What makes someone an "ace" then?  I have trouble rationalizing a definition that doesn't include how ridiculously good Hughes was last year.

 

One good year doesn't make an Ace. You need consistency not just a good year here or there.  Is Corey Kluber an Ace? I would lead towards yes because he was flat out dominate this past year and is showing the same again this year. He was on a different level completely then Hughes was last year that's for sure.

 

If you had to pick (let's just say 15 current pitchers) to pitch game 7 of the World Series, would Phil Hughes be among them? I'm not even sure there is 15 true aces in the game. I'll compile a list and be right back.

Edited April 19, 201511 yr by drock2190

 

One good year doesn't make an Ace. You need consistency not just a good year here or there.  Is Corey Kluber an Ace? I would lead towards yes....

 

Well...you lost me right there.

Man, I would say yes but only by defining "ace" as one of the top 30 starters in baseball. But he's not in the same league as Kluber or Salazar IMO.

1. Felix Hernandez

2. Clayton Kershaw

3. David Price

4. Chris Sale

5. Max Scherzer

6. Corey Kluber

7. Madison Bumgardner

8. Johnny Cueto

9. Stephen Strasburg

10. Adam Wainwright

 

Those are 10 guys that are "Aces." Everyone that knows anything about baseball is familiar with those names. 

 

Then we hit the next tier that can be number 1's on their respective team and you wouldn't mind them pitching in a must win game. 

 

Zach Grienke

Cole Hamels

Jon Lester

Matt Harvey

Jordan Zimmerman

 

There is 15 pitchers and I wouldn't think anyone with a neutral mind would pick Phil Hughes over any of them. And if you consider them all Aces then maybe there is another handful of aces in the league but then we start hit number #2 category which I think Hughes can fill in if he shows he can come close to last year.

 

Well...you lost me right there.

 

Well that was worded a bit funny but I knew Corey Kluber would come up so I dealt with it right off the bat. He was flat out dominate. Hughes was good but Kluber was on another level. 

The idea of an "ace" comes up every so often so before you go 15 rounds realize that everyone defines the term differently. If you asked 10 people you'd get 10 different answers as to who are the "aces" in baseball.

 

Limiting walks is a big component of success and Hughes has been elite or near elite for many years.

 

I do wish Hughes had a better swing and miss offering though.

 

The idea of an "ace" comes up every so often so before you go 15 rounds realize that everyone defines the term differently. If you asked 10 people you'd get 10 different answers as to who are the "aces" in baseball.

 

Limiting walks is a big component of success and Hughes has been elite or near elite for many years.

 

I do wish Hughes had a better swing and miss offering though.

 

An Ace has swing and miss stuff though. They can control the game that instead of relying on their fielders. I wish I could honestly say Hughes is an Ace but he's not. Why was he so affordable over a year ago? Heck, Porcello got a bigger payday then Hughes and he's a 3 at best. 

No

 

but let me put it this way:  I am (slightly) more comfortable with Hughes as the Twins' "Ace" than Diamond or Worley.

 

Hughes is a good number 3 guy in a competitive team.

 

The idea of an "ace" comes up every so often so before you go 15 rounds realize that everyone defines the term differently. If you asked 10 people you'd get 10 different answers as to who are the "aces" in baseball.

 

Limiting walks is a big component of success and Hughes has been elite or near elite for many years.

 

I do wish Hughes had a better swing and miss offering though.

 

Right and I often feel like the definition of "ace" shifts to fit whatever argument one wants to make.  It's also rarely factored in that many of the NL pitcher look more ace-like than the AL ones because they have the benefit of a free out every nine guys and a generally easier time in their league.

 

For me, if you were a top 20 pitcher the previous year, you pitched like an ace.  Hughes did that last year, but I have my doubts that he can sustain that.

No he's not an ace.  Not many teams have an ace, period.  We haven't had an ace since Johan.

And Harvey is absolutely an ace, so is Jose Fernandez, who is recovering but is absolutely a stud.  If I had to pick between those two and Kluber in the next three years I'll take Harvey and Fernandez over Kluber.

Kluber might not be a CYA winner in 3 yaers but he'll age well I think, provided he stays healthy. All of his secondary offerings are amazing. Harvey's too. Fernandez is going to need to throw hard to be effective (and he should for a few more years, probably).

So Radke was not an Ace. Nor Scott Baker. At all?!?

 

An Ace is a dominant pitcher who keeps you in the game (used to be for at least 7 innings or more) and even though might pitch to a Blyleven or Morris W-L record, has a good chance of winning any game they are put against another team's ace.

 

Hughes is not there. He could be. But is he better than Ervin? Or Nolasco circa 2013?

 

Man, I would say yes but only by defining "ace" as one of the top 30 starters in baseball. But he's not in the same league as Kluber or Salazar IMO.

I think that Kluber is better, but Salazar is too wild.

 

So Radke was not an Ace. Nor Scott Baker. At all?!?

 

An Ace is a dominant pitcher who keeps you in the game (used to be for at least 7 innings or more) and even though might pitch to a Blyleven or Morris W-L record, has a good chance of winning any game they are put against another team's ace.

 

Hughes is not there. He could be. But is he better than Ervin? Or Nolasco circa 2013?

As long as Hughes is on the mound we have always been in ballgames. Phil Hughes never beat himself during the past year.

 

Did Hughes perform as an ace last year?  Absolutely.  Whether or not random fans think he was doesn't really matter.  Random fans look at ERA at the #1 stat followed by wins and loses.

 

Now, is he actually a real ace or was last year well out of his norm.  I'm thinking the latter, but let's see how it works out.  Maybe he's somewhere in between last year and his norm.

I look at FIP and pitch value. And using most sabermetrics I believe Hughes is a top ten pitcher.

 

An Ace has swing and miss stuff though. They can control the game that instead of relying on their fielders. I wish I could honestly say Hughes is an Ace but he's not. Why was he so affordable over a year ago? Heck, Porcello got a bigger payday then Hughes and he's a 3 at best. 

The Red Sox throw money away; the Twins don't.

 

So Radke was not an Ace. Nor Scott Baker. At all?!?

 

An Ace is a dominant pitcher who keeps you in the game (used to be for at least 7 innings or more) and even though might pitch to a Blyleven or Morris W-L record, has a good chance of winning any game they are put against another team's ace.

 

Hughes is not there. He could be. But is he better than Ervin? Or Nolasco circa 2013?

 

I'm not sure anyone would confuse Radke and especially Baker as a dominant pitchers. Good? Yes but Baker sure fell off fast.

As long as Hughes is on the mound we have always been in ballgames. Phil Hughes never beat himself during the past year.

 

I look at FIP and pitch value. And using most sabermetrics I believe Hughes is a top ten pitcher.

 

So a pitcher that keeps you in games, is an ace? Once again, I say a good pitcher. Mark Buerhle keeps his teams in games and hes not an ace. 

 

And for advanced stastics go look at the previous 4 years for Hughes, all in the 4's. He has to prove himself more. As for top 10 go back to the first page and tell me out of the fifteen who you would take after Hughes?

Edited April 19, 201511 yr by drock2190

I hold the opinion that there are two different kinds of "Ace" pitchers.

 

Is he the "Ace" of the Twins staff...yes. He is the guy I would want out there to get a win in a Game 163 situation.

 

He is an overall "Ace" ... not in my book. I think of an Ace pitcher as one of those guy where you see his name and its strikes fear in you. Clayton Kershaw now, mid 2000s Johan, late 90s early 2000s Pedro Martinez, etc.

 

An "Ace" can consistantly shut down even a great line-up.

 

Hughes is not an "Ace" in that regard, but he is good enough pitcher to keep a decent team in the game. No heroics needed.

in 2014 Hughes ranked 4th in the AL in Wins, 10th in innings pitched, 7th in Strikeouts, 1st in Walks surrendered by qualifying starting pitchers. 

That looks like a Hughes was a borderline Ace in 2014 to me. 

What his stats will look like at the end of the year, is anyone's guess. 

Is Phil Hughes an ace? He had a lower FIP than Lester and Hamels, and most people consider them aces.

 

Also, how much could we get for him in a trade?

. He is the Twins Ace. Of course that makes you the Ace of the maybe the worst pitching staff in baseball. There is no doubt Hughes pitched very well last year, and would have pitched even better if he had played with a better defense. But keep In mind the term "last year"! An Ace needs to be repetitive. He also needs to be able to pick up a K in a tight situation, and that is not a Hughes talent. Lastly, while I think the topic is interesting, it again shows the talent level that we have adjusted to. The simple fact that we discuss whether Hughes is a MLB Ace, attests to that.

The Red Sox throw money away; the Twins don't.

. Nolasco? Hunter? Corriea?

Hughes was an ace last year. He was one of the top 15 pitchers in baseball. That much, I think we agree on. I'd say right now, he's a good number 2. Number 2s can have ace like seasons from time to time. If he has another stellar year this year (and so far, he's not) we can revisit that.

 

I look at FIP and pitch value. And using most sabermetrics I believe Hughes is a top ten pitcher.

I agree.  Like I said, he was an ace last year.  Absolutely.  Really the question is whether or not he can repeat last year because last year was way out of his norm.  I, personally, think he's somewhere between what he was prior to last year and what he was last year.  He was a very good sign by Terry Ryan.  Not sure about the extension (I might have flipped him if I could get a GM to buy on his career year or just let his contract ride), but the original sign was a good move.  

 

In regards to last year, sometimes when a player does really well on a bad team his performance gets overlooked by fans of other teams. So, assuming the Twins got much attention by the casual fan to begin with (based on how we've played the last few years), some might just look at a standard stat listing and not see how good he was.  They may not see how some numbers might have been affected by things outside of his control.  If Hughes had performed the way he did last year on a good team, he would have gotten much more attention. If he had performed the way he did for us on a team with a defense like the Royals, I think he finishes higher than 7th in the CY Young voting.

Edited April 19, 201511 yr by jimmer