Article: Do You Need An Ace To Win The World Series?

[Jamie Cameron]

Regardless of how good the rest of their roster is, can a team that lacks a true ace pitcher really win a World Series? Jamie Cameron and John Olson take sides and battle to the death! OK, not really, but the question did generate a great conversation. Make sure to add your take on the debate in the comments.Jamie Cameron here. If you haven’t been reading John Olson’s Four-Six-Three Blog at Twins Daily, get on it. He’s been churning out some really great content. John is also a great Twitter follow (@Four_Six_Three). Recently he posted a thread which caught my attention, essentially attempting to answer the question; does a given team need an ace in order to win the World Series? So I did what any Twitter secret admirer would do, and slid into John’s DMs.

 

"John, you don’t know me, but this thread is super interesting, how would you feel about writing a collaborative piece for Twins Daily?," was my smooth pickup line. John, ever the good sport, agreed, so we came up with a premise; let’s have a debate within an article. Let’s go toe to toe and try to answer the question; do the Twins need an ace to win the World Series? John will argue for, I will argue against. We’d love you to weigh in, and your thoughts on the format. Thanks in advance for reading!

 

Ace up your Sleeve: The necessity of a “true” number one

by John Olson

 

Throughout the past offseason, I have been adamant about the necessity of an ace. If the Twins truly want to take the next step, they need to have a front-line, No. 1, ace starter. Assembling a decent rotation, something stable enough to win you some games in a weak division, maybe secure the second Wild Card – well, that’s all fine and well, I suppose. If the goal is to win the last game, it may be a near impossible task to do it without having a true No. 1 starter.

 

I think we need to get some semantics out of the way first, before we can make any cogent arguments. There isn’t a good way to, non-subjectively, define an ace pitcher. If you simply define an ace as a teams’ number one pitcher in the rotation, their Opening Day starter, then well, every team in the league already has one. This isn’t true; I think we can all agree. Even with the incredible season Ervin Santana had last season, I don’t think he fits the mold, either. Like Justice Stewart said, in 1964 when asked to define the threshold of obscenity: “I know it when I see it.”

 

All right – Get on with it, already

So, what’s the point, right? Laid out plainly, take a look at the last 10 World Series winners. What do all of them, invariably, have in common? They all either had, or acquired at some point during the season, at least one ace in their rotation. This seems like a very “cherry-picked” piece of evidence – not all teams are built the same. Some teams have had the league MVP, others had a league-leading offense, some the best overall pitching staff, others were somewhere in between. What they all did have is the ability to hand the ball, every fifth day, to an established No. 1 starter.

 

Admittedly, having an ace in the rotation doesn’t guarantee any championships – just ask the LA Dodgers – but an ace does seem to be a prerequisite for any team that considers itself a true contender. Plenty of teams, for example the 2014 Oakland A's who added Jon Lester at the deadline, have anted up for the postseason when they felt their window was open.

 

Anything can happen in the MLB Postseason, but...

Bats get hot; bats get cold and the same goes for pitching. Clayton Kershaw, one of the greatest left-handed pitchers in MLB history, has had the label of pitching outstandingly in the regular season but falling flat come October. Some of that’s fair – but push comes to shove, ideally, you’re giving the ball to Kershaw. He’s your Ace. He’s your Stopper. He’s” the guy” that will right the ship. That’s why teams pay out the nose for them in trade, that’s why when they come on the free agent market, they’re a unicorn. If we take a look back in recent history, there isn’t a team which has won it all, without having at least one Ace pitcher.

 

The Astros, ’17 Champions, had Dallas Keuchel (who had a 1.67 ERA pre-All Star break), who was hampered with injuries mid-season, felt the need to add another ace-quality pitcher, Justin Verlander, to the rotation. That seemed to work out. Verlander pitched to the tune of a 1.95 ERA in the second half, was the winning pitcher in Games 1 and 4 in the ALDS, Games 2 and 6 in the ALCS. Verlander was a force in the 2017 postseason, and one of the Astros most potent weapons.

 

The 2016 Chicago Cubs had a three-headed monster rotation of Jon Lester, Jake Arrieta and Kyle Hendricks. None of those pitchers had an ERA higher than 3.10 during the season, but Lester in particular led that staff in xFIP, K/9 and IP. He pitched Games 1, 5 AND appeared in 3 innings of relief in Game 7 to break the curse in Chicago.

 

The 2015 Royals, perhaps the weakest case for "necessity of an ace" in the last 10 years, wanted to add to their arsenal prior to heading into the playoffs. The Royals traded for Johnny Cueto, who had a 2.73 ERA and 113K’s with the Reds in the first half. Slotting him alongside rising star Yordano Ventura and Edinson Volquez, the Royals poised themselves for a World Series run. Although Cueto pitched poorly in the second half of the regular season, he started (and won) Game 2 of the World Series, pitching nine innings of one-run baseball.

 

Giants ace Madison Bumgarner had the most impressive overall pitching performance, in my opinion, in World Series history in 2014. Jon Lester (again) led the Red Sox as their number one starter in 2013. Bumgarner (again) pitched the Giants to a World Series win with a 0.00 ERA over 7 IP in their 2012 Series sweep. Chris Carpenter in 2011. Tim Lincecum in 2010. CC Sabathia in 2009. Cole Hamels in 2008.

 

All of these pitchers, all aces at that point in their careers. All of them World Series Champions. In fact, 2005 is the last year in recent memory where a group of pitchers – none of whom is considered a true ace – were part of a World Series winner.

 

So, what does this have to do with the Twins, exactly?

In a one game play-in, who do you want to take the ball? Santana was excellent in 2017, but to call him an ace is overselling him. He has a career ERA of 4.02 and a career FIP of 4.24; he has been brilliant in short bursts and he is what he is – a decent No. 2 or 3 starter on a good team. It's wholly unfair to pin last year’s Wild Card loss on Ervin; the entire roster lost that one. I would expect they would say the same. I like Santana; I just don't like him as my No. 1.

 

The Twins are sorely in need of a pitcher who, when handed the ball, can pitch out of a jam reliably. Get the strikeout when you really need it. A starter who knows he can depend on his defense, but can also generate those outs on his own.

 

As I mentioned previously, Santana had a great season, but his Fielding Independent Pitching (FIP) - out of 58 total qualifying pitchers per FanGraphs – was 43rd. That mark lodges him solidly between Ty Blach, Ivan Nova and Dan Straily. His 4.46 FIP, paired next to a 3.28 ERA, gives a 1.18 point discrepancy – or simply put, he depended heavily on the defense behind him.

 

This isn't meant to pick on Erv. He had a good season. He finished seventh in Cy Young voting. But don't be mistaken, he's not an ace.

 

Perhaps the Twins are where the Astros were in 2015. Maybe Jose Berrios will develop into that guy, or Fernando Romero or Stephen Gonsalves or someone else. Maybe our version of Keuchel and Lance McCullers is staring us in the face. Whoever that pitcher is, if we expect to compete in October, we’ll need an established front-line guy. Preferably two.

 

Aces Low: Why You Don’t Need an Ace to be World Champions

By Jamie Cameron

 

Do you need an ace to win the World Series? Absolutely not. Can the Twins win the World Series without a true, legitimate No. 1 starting pitcher? Yes they can. For this half of the debate we’re going to use a team as a case study – the 2015 Kansas City Royals.

 

Who needs an ace when you have a super-bullpen?

Let’s dig into what most folks remember about the 2015 Royals: their bullpen. The Royals actually didn’t have the best bullpen in MLB during the regular season. What they did have was four guys who could dominate four consecutive innings in Greg Holland, Wade Davis, Kelvin Herrera and Ryan Madson. The Royals bullpen threw the fifth most innings in the majors during the regular season, trailing only the D-Backs, Rockies, Reds and Phillies (who were all average to terrible teams). In other words, no other good team relied on its bullpen the way the 95-win Royals did. The Royals bullpen ranked 17th in K/9 (8.38), 10th in FIP (3.56), and seventh in WAR (4.8). If you isolate these stats just accounting for their top four guys, they tell a more dominant story. Madson, Herrera, Holland and Davis combined for a 9.2 K/9, a 3.02 FIP, and 4.2 of the bullpen’s entire 4.8 WAR, over 243 regular season innings. There’s a recipe for post-season success if I’ve ever seen one.

 

What about their rotation?

OK, everyone remembers, the bullpen was good, but what about the rotation? KC’s rotation must have at least been solid to support an outstanding bullpen. Not really. Interestingly, 2015 was a record-breaking season. There were 2,006 occasions where starting pitchers did not make it through the sixth inning (Twins fans know all about that, amirite?) There are only 2,430 MLB games in the regular season, that’s just under 83% of games where starters are not making it through six innings. By 2015, the bullpen revolution was well and truly on with teams like the Yankees stacking the back-end of their bullpen. The Royals just did it better than anyone else. The Royals rotation in the regular season was pretty poor. They ranked 23rd in the league in WAR (7.9), 24th in inning pitched (912.2), 26th in K/9 at 6.49, and 29th in xFIP at 4.48. Hardly intimidating numbers going into the post-season. As a frame of reference, the Twins starters combined for an xFIP of 4.92 in 2017 (using 16 starting pitchers), and an absurd number of sub-par arms.

 

The homegrown, high quality offense

The Royals did have a really strong offense in 2015 which was anchored by lots of good hitters and an excellent defense. Looking back, there are some pretty obvious similarities between the 2015 KC offense and the 2017 Twins offense. Both were constructed around a young core of talented players who rose through their teams’ minor league ranks. In the case of KC this group was comprised of Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas, Salvador Perez and Lorenzo Cain. KC was seventh in runs scored with 724. They hit 139 HR, well below the MLB average of 164 that year. The Royals did rank third in the league in doubles (300), sixth in triples (42) and 10th in OPS (.734). Their offense, similarly to the Twins, was built around a terrific outfield anchored by Alex Gordon and Cain (combined 10 WAR). For comparison, the Twins offense in 2017 was one of the best in baseball, finishing seventh in runs scored (815), 13th in doubles (286), 10th in triples (31) and 9th in OPS (.768).

 

An ace in the hole and the story of the 2015 post-season

Let’s address the elephant in the room. The Royals DID have an ace. On July 26th 2015, the Royals traded for Brandon Finnegan, John Lamb and Cody Reed for Johnny Cueto. Royals’ fans must have been beside themselves at the time. In the first half of the season with the Cincinnati Reds, Cueto had been dominant. In 130 IP, he had a 2.62 ERA, 0.93 WHIP, 2.0 BB/9 and 8.3 K/9. After he was traded to KC, he struggled mightily, amassing a 4.76 ERA and 1.45 WHIP the rest of the way. The Royals may have had an ace, but he certainly didn’t perform like one in that portion of the regular season. Luckily for the Royals, they did have strong performers in their rotation, including Edinson Volquez and the late Yordano Ventura.

 

Conclusion

Cueto ultimately played a big role in the Royals postseason. Yet, even in the highest-leverage situations, his results were mixed. In the unbelievable ALDS vs. the Astros he had one excellent start and one awful start. He had another poor start in the ALCS vs. the Blue Jays, and one incredible start in the World Series against a flat New York Mets team. While Cueto was a bonus for Kansas City, he certainly wasn’t the reason they won the World Series.

 

The similarity for me between the '15 Royals and this year's Twins club is their strong offensive lineups and pitching staffs which can keep them in most games. It remains to be seen whether the Twins will have enough depth in their rotation and enough stability in their bullpen to hold as many leads like those '15 Royals. The Royals had an ace by name but not by performance. Their offense and their bullpen was good enough to ameliorate the limitations of their rotation, which was OK, but still better than the Twins rotation. If the Twins want to contend for a World Series, they don’t need an ace, but they absolutely need more depth in their starting rotation. In addition to using the 2015 Royals to argue the case against needing an ace pitcher, for me, they offer the Twins a blueprint. KC's incredible bullpen would be tough to emulate, but the Twins could be on the front end of a trend such as bullpen stacking.

 

The conclusion after the conclusion – from John

We’re in the middle of a paradigm shift in baseball. Teams are tanking, racing to the bottom trying to ensure a high draft spot. Young, controllable talent is the currency of a franchise. The Yankees, Dodgers and other high payroll/large market teams are trimming the fat to get under luxury tax thresholds and the penalties associated with repeat offenders. Raise your hand, and be honest, if you knew about terms like exit velocity, launch angle and heat maps even two years ago.

 

The establishment of an ace pitcher as a staple of a rotation isn’t quite as “new age” as some of these things, but it’s there.

 

Who do you give the ball to in a must-win game? That’s a no-brainer in Dodgertown. Maybe it depends on the matchup with the teams that boast having two or more of these guys (looking at you, Chicago Cubs/Houston Astros). Any way you look at it, you've got to like your odds of winning when you have an ace up your sleeve.

 

What are your thoughts? Is having a true number one pitcher necessary or luxury when it comes to winning a World Series? Let us know!

 

Click here to view the article

[blindeke]

I would settle for winning a single playoff game.

[Dantes929]

Of course having an ace is a positive.   Having one or two increases your odds of making the playoffs to start with so there is already a built in likelihood of being successful in the playoffs with an ace that has nothing to do with the actual performance of an ace in the playoffs.   In other words to be successful in the playoffs you have to make the playoffs and your chances of making the playoffs are better when you have an ace.    Teams without aces are not very well represented and no one is saying an ace vs a non ace does not have an advantage. 

Saying you need an ace and then citing KC as an example to support the case when Cueto pitched like a #5 in the regular season for KC and in the playoffs is really a stretch.  

On the flip side, Santana might not fit your definition of an ace but he and others are certainly capable of pitching like an ace.    The fact that he was not successful in the play in game does not mean he was incapable of being successful.   He just had a very bad game.   Certainly worse pitchers have won many playoff games.    Flip side is true also.   Maybe Gibson would have more success in the WS than Darvish had, or Kershaw.   It would be hard not to.     

Aces wouldn't be aces if they didn't give you a better chance of winning but I think I remember one of the bad Twins teams beating 3 Cy Young winners in a row in one stretch.   SSS says a good pitcher can beat a very good pitcher on any given day.  Get to the playoffs and I would be fine with the chances of magic happening once there.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think some are selling Cueto's 2015 postseason short. Down 1 game to zero in the ALDS, when another loss would have quickly put them on the brink of elimination, he kept them in the game vs Houston for an eventual game 2 win to even the series, and then pitched brilliantly (2 hits in 8 IP) actually facing elimination in game 5 to win the series.

 

He had a clunker vs Toronto in the ALCS, but the Royals were up 2 games to zero at the time (not to sound like a "pitch to the score" guy but that game had perhaps the least urgency of the Royals postseason).

 

Then in the World Series, he picked up his teammates after a marathon 14 inning game 1 with a another 2 hitter, this time a complete game, to give them a 2-0 series lead heading to New York, guaranteeing the Royals couldn't lose the series on the road.

 

Also, those picking on his regular season performance that year -- not to sound like another "pitch to the score" argument -- but remember the Royals had an 8 game lead when they acquired him at the deadline, and 2 of his first 3 starts were pretty dominant as they pushed that lead to 12 games by mid-August, and they finished 12 games up at season's end too. Obviously KC would have preferred good performances to mediocre ones regardless of the context, but Cueto wasn't being asked to pitch big games in the regular season, particularly not outside his first couple weeks with KC.

[nater79a]

I believe you can stay in a playoff race till the July trade deadline if you have these four things:

1.  A bunch of #3 starters (preferably four)

2. A lock-down bullpen

3. Timely hitting

4. Great defense

 

However, at the trade deadline you're going to need to add a top of the rotation pitcher in order to win it all.  Even if it's a rental "ace" .  

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the Twins currently have the #3 type starter depth or bullpen to get it done. They should have the hitting and defense though.

 

[old nurse]

Charlie Morton is not an ACE. If he did not pitch well in game 7 the Astros might have lost the series despite having Verlander and Keuchel. If Springer did not have the series he did, the Astos might have lost. Winning throughout the playoffs is having enough people step forward and perform.

[Dan In Real Life]

"While Cueto was a bonus for Kansas City, he certainly wasn’t the reason they won the World Series."

 

I'd be interested to see some data on whether the mere presence of a bona-fide ace makes a difference. I have a hunch that it does help a team, especially in a playoff series, to know they have an ace waiting on deck. The way a game is managed can be very different if you know your next 2 starters are mediocre, vs when the ace is on deck. You certainly don't wait to give the game to the bullpen when a mediocre starter is struggling in the 4th inning, when you know you've got a stopper tomorrow. Data may prove that theory completely wrong, but I'm interested in an analysis.

 

Either way, I'd feel a lot better about the upcoming season if there was a true #1 in the rotation. Can the Twins win without one? Possibly, but the odds have to go up sharply if they get one.

[VATwinsFan]

Frank Viola, Jack Morris and Tom Kelly might have an interesting take on this question.

[ChiefsKid]

Depends on your definition of "Ace", right?

 

Yu Darvish has shown over his career that his "stuff" is "Ace"-worthy. Whether he can hold up for an entire season and carry the staff leaves some question marks. I was a little disappointed they didn't land him, but understand why.

 

I'm of the belief you need talented depth to win (as are most), whether that means having one "Ace" I don't really know, or particularly care. Overall, I think the Twins added quite a bit of depth to this team over the winter, and at some point you've gotta hope (and plan) that some of your own guys can perform better.

Maybe Berrios becomes our version of Dallas Keuchel, Santana turns in another quality year, Odorizzi returns to his best, and Gibby finally has the year we've been hoping for coming off a very solid second half last year (fingers crossed). Combine that with a significantly improved bullpen and one of the best offenses I've ever seen the Twins field, there's quite a bit of reason to be optimistic.

Maybe none of those things happen and we lose 90 games, but all in all I think the FO made decisions I can get behind, which is pretty refreshing.

[ewen21]

I am so tired of hearing this term.  What does it mean?  The term is so loosely thrown around to the point where people think Yu Darvish or Chris Archer are considered "aces"

Not in my books.  No way.

 

All I can say is take a look that the 2003 Marlins team that won it all.  Look at that staff.  Then go look at what that staff had accomplished before the 2003 season.  Not a hint of an ace going into that season. Not one hint.

 

And they win it all.  IN NY, no less.

 

It all depends on who gets hot and who has the stones at the right time.  This franchise never had the balls, talent or luck to do anything in the post season during the Gardenhire years.  An ace would not have been the panacea for those teams.  We couldn't hit worth a damn.  Go look up what we did in all the post season series during the Gardy years.  We pretty much averaged less than three runs scored a game. I don't care who you have on the mound. You ain't winning jack with that kind of offensive production

Edited March 3, 2018 by ewen21

[jimbo92107]

Verlander, Scherzer, Cueto...guys like that, in their prime are "aces." Lots of teams don't have an ace, but they do have a solid #1. The Twins today have Santana as a fairly solid #1, possibly being supplanted this season by rising star Berrios. Whether Jose Berrios goes on to become an "ace" is another thing. We all hope he does. Meanwhile, having him as a solid #1 would be very nice, as that makes Santana a very solid #2, with Odorizzi the big question mark at #3. Will the Odor be good, bad, or somewhere in between? His ERA rose in 2017, but he was playing hurt, and in the off-season he took up Pilates, which can give you a body like a gymnast. #4 is Kyle Gibson, fresh off a very good late season surge in 2017. If Gibson retains his new stuff, that could give the Twins a very solid group of starters. Last, if Mejia continues to improve, he could crack the rotation, and there's always the Gonzo factor...can the kid show some good stuff this spring?

 

I'm on the side saying you don't really need an ace to dominate, but you do need at least solid pitching, and then everything else to back it up. 

[Broker]

An Ace is a luxury. I'd much rather have a good solid rotation than an Ace. Aces win about 20 games a year and lose a few. That leaves about 140 games for the other guys to win or loose.

[DocBauer]

Not going to repeat everything I wrote in response in the original blog, but in short, I still believe winning in the season to get the opportunity for playoffs and a WS still comes down to the kveral6depth and quality of the TEAM, offense, defense, bullpen, solid and deep rotation. There's a lot of factors, and a lot of ways to win.

 

And as I mentioned in the other thread, what if 2 really good, sound teams meet in a series and team A has the proverbial ACE, but a group of #3/4 starters behind him, but team B has 3 #2 quality SP? I think I'd go with team B. Now, I'm not saying the Twins have that at this time. But a healthy Santana and still improving Berrios gets you pretty close! Odorizzi is a wild card. He's better than he showed last season when hurt, and finished the season strong. Still only 27 there's reason for optimism with upside potential. And as Thrylos stated above, a half season of the new mechanics, new attitude and new "pitch mix" Gibson we saw last season could be a real deal maker.

 

So the answer is you'd really, really lime to have that ACE to lead your staff, but you don't need it with the other pieces in place and a really nice, sound SP staff overall.

[h2oface]

Does this team need an ace to win? In the playoffs?

 

Absolutely.

Edited March 4, 2018 by h2oface

[gunnarthor]

A team can win the World Series without a true ace. Many have.

[h2oface]

 

A team can win the World Series without a true ace. Many have.

 

But this team needs one!

[gunnarthor]

 

But this team needs one!

Depends on what an ace is but they have a strong offense. They can win without one.

[dgwills]

The Royals were an aberration.   Asking if you need an ace is pretty much the same as asking if you need good pitching. Sure the Royals won with only Cueto, but they also had elite relievers and defense. Most years that would still not be enough.

Good article though.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think ace = good pitching.

 

You can have an ace and four terrible pitchers and not have a good staff.  

 

I'm a big believer that depth and luck wins World Series. 

[Thrylos]

 

A team can win the World Series without a true ace. Many have.

 

Do tell.  Name names please

(this side of the millennium preferably)

Edited March 4, 2018 by Thrylos

[gocgo]

If you don't have an ace, then you need your 2,3,4 to be better than the other teams 2,3,4.  So, in that case, you could consider moving your 4 to pitch against their ace and then have your 1,2,3 against their 2,3,4....in theory.

 

The problem is that with off days, you can and will face their ace 3 times.  I think one of the issues with the World Series is that it really doesn't mimic the series of the regular season due to television scheduling and travel considerations.  You might have the best team in the regular season, but if you aren't set up for the playoffs with an ace, you don't get crowned the champs.  If MLB wanted to truly crown the best team in baseball, the World Series would be set up to play 7 games in 7 (maybe 8) days, thus taking away pitching the ace 3 times by utilizing only 3 days rest.  That's just my two cents.  It's bothered me for some time.  I feel better now with that off my chest.

[Thrylos]

 

If you don't have an ace, then you need your 2,3,4 to be better than the other teams 2,3,4.  So, in that case, you could consider moving your 4 to pitch against their ace and then have your 1,2,3 against their 2,3,4....in theory.

 

Nah

 

you just need your 2 and 3 to be better than the other teams' (in the LDS and LCS  and WS).  And this assumes that you are not in a wildcard situation because then you need your number 1 to be better than their number 1...

 

number 2 and number 3 will pitch 4 games between them.  4 wins are enough.

[ewen21]

 

Does this team need an ace to win? In the playoffs?

 

Absolutely.

Who is going to be an "ace" I'm 2018?

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Do tell.  Name names please

(this side of the millennium preferably)

The 2005 White Sox had Buerhle - a pretty fringy ace - and a bunch of guys who pitched way out of their depth that season or were in the middle of a decent two year stretch of pitching.

 

And Buerhle was pretty bad in the 2005 postseason, posting an ERA close to 5.00.

 

Dunno if that team really qualifies as not having an ace but their only legit "ace" candidate didn't help them win the World Series that season.

[TheLeviathan]

What you need is for guys to pitch like aces.  And that isn't always your ace.

 

The 2015 Royals did not have an ace.  (I guarantee you this board would have called Cueto a "good number 2 despite what any numbers he posted say)

 

2013 the Red Sox "ace" was Jon Lester

 

2011 the "ace" was the husk of Chris Carpenter

 

Those are three examples in just the last handful of years.  None of those pitchers would have satisfied people here as "aces".  

 

[USAFChief]

Need? No.

 

But you’d certainly WANT one, because you’re better off having one than not.

 

That’s the important question.

[gunnarthor]

 

What you need is for guys to pitch like aces.  And that isn't always your ace.

 

The 2015 Royals did not have an ace.  (I guarantee you this board would have called Cueto a "good number 2 despite what any numbers he posted say)

 

2013 the Red Sox "ace" was Jon Lester

 

2011 the "ace" was the husk of Chris Carpenter

 

Those are three examples in just the last handful of years.  None of those pitchers would have satisfied people here as "aces".  

Yep, the Giant's also had some solid pitchers but never one worth more than 4.5 WAR in their WS seasons. If Ervin wasn't an ace last year (top 10 in ERA+, IP, WHIP, WAR, era) than those guys weren't aces either. Jon Lester has had some up and down years where he sometimes pitches like an ace and sometimes not. His 2013 season was a down year as well.

[highlander]

I believe there are multiple components to a championship rotation. The higher the quality of each component the better the teams chances of winning the last game of the year. A big, bad, bull in the back of the pen would be my #1. An Ace to set the tone is my #2. 3 quality arms to bridge from starter to closer, two right and one left, is #3 on my list. At least one other high end starter, preferably two, to cover any hiccups is my 4th option.

 

Making my case is Reardon and Aguilera, followed by "Sweet Music" and Morris. Blyleven was the quality second starter bordering on ace.

[Riverbrian]

Having an ace is very helpful but you don't need an "Ace" to win the world series. 

 

What you need is a guy or two who step up to be "Ace" like for a 20 game stretch. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yep, the Giant's also had some solid pitchers but never one worth more than 4.5 WAR in their WS seasons. If Ervin wasn't an ace last year (top 10 in ERA+, IP, WHIP, WAR, era) than those guys weren't aces either. Jon Lester has had some up and down years where he sometimes pitches like an ace and sometimes not. His 2013 season was a down year as well.

 

I guess SF depends on how you feel about MadBum.  I think he's clearly an ace and pitched that way in the playoffs, so I wouldn't count them.

 

But when you can point to 3 of the last 6 teams and say "no ace", the whole idea you need one gets thrown out real quick.

 

Personally, I view Cueto as an ace and maybe even Lester as well.  My standard for "ace" is a bit more reflective of what you posted and I'd say Ervin did pitch like an ace last year.  But I believe what people mean by "ace" is a level of dominance the vast majority of teams simply don't have.  And the ones that do don't win the World Series every year.  Multiple teams of recent note have shown how depth and surprise performances are far more important than the names you pencil in to start.

 

And really.....is that surprising?  The playoffs are nothing more than a glorified small sample size - we should expect a great deal of randomness.  You insulate yourself from that from getting as many good and great players on your roster as you can.