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

[h2oface]

 

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.

 

 

I have always been an advocate of not pitching your notably worse and inadequate #1 against their ace #1. Giving up the opening matchup to have the advantage on all the others. Maybe not #4, but #3..... Opening day, too. But I have never seen it happen. Some traditions and egos just can't be altered.... or can they?.... now. If you hit lightning in a bottle, and shuck their ace with your bats..... you really have an advantage moving forward. If not, you were supposed to lose anyway.

 

There was a time it was deemed ridiculous to pitch your best reliever in a situation other than the closer. Some of us were calling to do that for years. Now those teams that do it are considered "ground breaking", even though fans were smarter and faster than them.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by h2oface

[h2oface]

 

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.

 

If that is the case.... then why not have the advantage for 3 games in a row, instead of 2?

 

[Mike Sixel]

You don't need a great 2b or superstar CF either. But it sure helps to have great players..... I'm not sure how this is controversial

[h2oface]

 

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

 

Now that is the 20-30 million dollar question.

 

With the FO not getting it done through free agency or trade, it will be a developing question all year.

[h2oface]

 

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".  

 

I certainly don't think that "this board" is anymore of a collective expert than other sources. Many times, with it's homer tendency, and folks liking to assume collective consciousness, I find it just the opposite.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I certainly don't think that "this board" is anymore of a collective expert than other sources. Many times, with it's homer tendency, and folks liking to assume collective consciousness, I find it just the opposite.

I suspect most analysts would refer to Cueto as a #2 as well. This board doesn't form its opinions in a vacuum.

 

Look at Cueto's numbers. Outside of a couple of stellar seasons, he's a full step down from what most people consider "aces": Greinke, Bumgarner, Hernandez, Strasburg, et al. He's simply not in the class of those pitchers, who generally sit with a 3.00-3.50 ERA/FIP, 8-9 K/9, etc.

 

And that's not even mentioning otherworldly pitchers, mainly Kershaw.

[h2oface]

 

I suspect most analysts would refer to Cueto as a #2 as well. This board doesn't form its opinions in a vacuum.

 

Look at Cueto's numbers. Outside of a couple of stellar seasons, he's a full step down from what most people consider "aces": Greinke, Bumgarner, Hernandez, Strasburg, et al. He's simply not in the class of those pitchers, who generally sit with a 3.00-3.50 ERA/FIP, 8-9 K/9, etc.

 

And that's not even mentioning otherworldly pitchers, mainly Kershaw.

 

And the time being referred to was the end of that (more than a) couple of stellar seasons (2011 to pre-trade 2015 with 2.25-2.82 ERAs ,<FIP not looked up>, and 2010 was really the beginning). He had a rough go with KC to end the 2015 season. But he put on his ace shoes for the WS. You can call him whatever you like for the period. Call him a #3 if you like. He had an untouchable run, and not just for one season.

 

But we are heading off topic.........

Edited March 4, 2018 by h2oface

[Otto von Ballpark]

I suspect most analysts would refer to Cueto as a #2 as well. This board doesn't form its opinions in a vacuum.

 

Look at Cueto's numbers. Outside of a couple of stellar seasons, he's a full step down from what most people consider "aces": Greinke, Bumgarner, Hernandez, Strasburg, et al. He's simply not in the class of those pitchers, who generally sit with a 3.00-3.50 ERA/FIP, 8-9 K/9, etc.

 

And that's not even mentioning otherworldly pitchers, mainly Kershaw.

He's probably not an ace now, but prior to last season, Cueto had a six season run with a 2.73 ERA, 145 ERA+ over 166 starts, good for 27 bWAR or 4.5 per season.

 

That's comparable or better than the pitchers you mention.

Edited March 4, 2018 by spycake

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He's probably not an ace now, but prior to last season, Cueto had a six season run with a 2.73 ERA, 145 ERA+ over 166 starts, good for 27 bWAR or 4.5 per season.

That's comparable or better than the pitchers you mention.

True, I always think of him having down years every couple of years but he had a 4-5 year stretch there where he was very good, he just had some injuries mixed in.

[ND-Fan]

You don't need to have one of the top 10 pitchers in Mlb but you need Two pitchers that are performing like top 10 pitcher at the end of the season. Also along with this you need bull pen that can dominate last 2 innings of the ball game or even the last 3 if necessary. The Twins 3 appearances in World series they had that in pitching. The 65 series they had Jim Kaat and Mud Cat Grant with respectable bull pen but the Dodgers had Two of the top 10 pitchers in MLB so the series was close but Kaat was out pitched by Kolfax in last game really close series. 87 world series the Twins had Viola and Blyleven two pitchers one was top 10 pitcher and other one who had been and was playing there at end of year with dominate 8 and 9 inning relievers. they won the series. 91 world series very similar to 87 with Morris and Erickson and good closing relief also had good third pitcher Tapani.  I look at Washington, LA, Cleveland and Boston having some of the top pitchers but they haven't won world series pitching is important but overall team construction is important too to win a world series.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I certainly don't think that "this board" is anymore of a collective expert than other sources. Many times, with it's homer tendency, and folks liking to assume collective consciousness, I find it just the opposite.

 

Well, after years of being here I feel pretty confident saying that is the consensus.  We just had people taking issue with Darvish being called an "ace" a few weeks ago.  (Darvish is a much better pitcher and did it in the AL no less)  Of course our definitions all vary to degrees, but we seem to be consistently high in our expectations for what each slot in a rotation should look like.  

 

We did this for years when we called Scott Baker a #4 and Radke a #3.  We don't have any damn clue what a #1 is or a #5 is.  We all arbitrarily come up with definitions and the vast majority of them are in a fantasy land of expectations.

 

For me this question comes down to the way it was phrased:

 

Do we want an ace to help win a WS?  Absolutely.  And there is ample evidence to support it.

 

Do we need (implying we cannot win a WS without one) an ace to win?  Absolutely not.  And there is ample evidence for that too.  

 

Best to add as many good to great players as you can.  Which is why LoMo and Odorizzi were great moves.  And why the Twins should make Lynn or Cobb happen tomorrow if they can.

Edited March 4, 2018 by TheLeviathan

[tarheeltwinsfan]

Why is there no mention of defense in this discussion? Is defense not an important aspect of winning and losing?

[ashbury]

Why is there no mention of defense in this discussion? Is defense not an important aspect of winning and losing?

League-wide, the batting average when the ball is put in play (BABIP) hovers around .300 every year. I suppose a perfect defense would turn everything except a fly ball over the fence into an out, for a BABIP of .000. Even achieving a team-wide BABIP of .200 against you would be stellar beyond belief. Last season's Twins squad had a pretty good defense by most measures. The pitching staff's BABIP was nevertheless .298. So acquiring an Ace who strikes out a lot of guys and doesn't surrender many walks and limits the HR would be worth doing anyway.

[DocBauer]

I was curious today about the ACE/#1 debate and decided to look at some numbers. I actually thought about a second thread with my "research" and decided it might get lost in the shuffle and decided it was better to post here.

 

I chose to look at 5 very specific and well known players, and chose them for reasons that I will explain in a moment. With that being said, and keeping it basic without going in to advanced metrics, here is what I found for your consideration.

 

Starting with career numbers:

 

PITCHER ERA AVG WHIP K/9 BB/9 K/BB

 

A 3.36 .221 1.17 8.54 2.73 3.04

B 4.02 .251 1.27 7.19 2.79 2.58

C 3.42 .219 1.18 11.04 3.32 3.33

D 3.76 .313 1.55 7.10 2.48 2.34

E 3.78 .248 1.20 8.94 2.07 3.81

 

The last three seasons:

 

PITCHER ERA AVG WHIP K/9 BB/9 K/BB

 

A 3.26 .219 1.09 9.08 2.52 3.68

B 3.55 .241 1.22 7.11 2.74 2.61

C 3.44 .228 1.18 11.09 2.88 3.86

D 4.87 .287 1.37 6.25 2.15 3.03

E 3.41 .234 1.11 9.99 2.09 4.78

 

Now the curtain is pulled aside for the reveal:

 

PITCHER

 

A: Verlander, 35yo

B: Santana, 35yo

C: Darvish, 31yo

D: Zimmermann, 31yo

E: Carrasco, 30yo

 

Why these 5 in a SSS compared to the league? Santana is obvious. Really, the others are also. Verlander has been in the same league and division for years, and there was much debate as to whether or not the Twins should make a move before Houston did. (Note: after an outstanding 2016, his 2017 numbers were slightly skewed with a strong end of 2017 with Houston). The Darvish connection is too obvious to even comment on. Zimmermann was much debated 3 years ago concern being a target for the Twins, and again, is within the league and division the past 3 season's. (Note: His career began in the NO so career stats can be a bit misleading, and I don't believe anyone saw him as a true #1 starter). Carrasco is in the league, same division, and would rank as the Indian's #2, and #1 vs #2 status is something we've been debating.

 

Conclusions?

 

Despite some down years, and 35, Verlander has been a career stud. He had a bit of a re-surgance in 2016 and with Houston last year. The Twins may have dodged a bullet with Zimmermann. Sorry to say it, but the Twins may have blown it with Darvish! (Though there remains the debate if he truly ever wanted to come here). And last, but not least, and most prevalent to OUR favorite team, Santana shows a very steady career, and a very fine 3 year span, with our beloved Twins. His numbers also compare somewhat favorably to Carrasco, who is probably a #1 on most staffs, and would be with the Twins for certain.

 

The debate is there, the floor is open. I think we really missed on Darvish, though there are a lot of unknowns. Santana is not a true #1, but he appears to be a real #2, and it would "appear" his injury is not serious. Berrios should improve this season. At least for 2018, we could conceivably have 2 #2 quality SP.

[Old Twins Cap]

You don't need an Ace, but, you do need pitchers who are pitching well.

 

And, how a team gets there often involves happenstance and good fortune.

 

So, roll the dice.

 

[jkcarew]

You need good pitchers to get there.  Once in the post-season, and offense can carry you...it's been done.  But, I'll still take the 'ace'.

 

BTW...Ervin Santana's ERA+ last year:

 

better than Morris's in '91 (also, Morris had been considerably below-average the 3 previous seasons);

way better than Blyleven's in '87;

not nearly as good as Frank Viola in '87;

not as good as Kevin Tapani's in '91.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

BTW...Ervin Santana's ERA+ last year:

 

better than Morris's in '91 (also, Morris had been considerably below-average the 3 previous seasons);

way better than Blyleven's in '87;

not nearly as good as Frank Viola in '87;

not as good as Kevin Tapani's in '91.

Also better than any of Ervin's 12 previous MLB seasons.

[nicksaviking]

I've been saying this team needs an ace to win the world series and that adding the likes of Cobb or Lynn do nothing to achieve that goal, however I can acknowledge that nothing is absolute.

 

Obviously it's possible to win without one, but why handicap yourself to such a degree? Go get an ace. Go get the best players, don't handicap yourself, tilt the odds in your favor. Being in a mid-market does not mean you MUST be the underdog every post season.

[Doomtints]

"You don't need an ace to win a WS/win in the playoffs/make the postseason" is sour grapes. Maybe 5% of champions didn't have an ace, so this doesn't mean a team without an ace is "built to win." It means the opposite -- it means the odds are against them.

 

Most of the successful managers -- if not all of them -- in the history of baseball who have written or been quoted about their experiences have all said the same thing: it's all about the pitching.

 

The Twins spent a nice chunk of cash on pitching this offseason, but they didn't pick up anyone elite. We'll soon find out if they got their money's worth. (It looks to me more like they grabbed 2 more pitchers than they need, and 2 won't make it through spring training...so they're doing a little bit of 'throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.' I'm not sure this is the best plan, but hey it might work out.)

Edited March 5, 2018 by Doomtints

[jkcarew]

 

Also better than any of Ervin's 12 previous MLB seasons.

True.  Reputation matters...and in that regard, not many around the league would consider Santana an ace, even an the heals of his 2017 performance.

 

And Jack Morris started game 1 of the ALCS and of the WS...not Kevin Tapani

[Doomtints]

 

True.  Reputation matters...and in that regard, not many around the league would consider Santana an ace, even an the heals of his 2017 performance.

 

1) Santana is proof you should never go with the herd when evaluating anything. Make your own decisions and judgments.

 

2) You say reputation matters ... but then you say people have Santana wrong. Santana has never thrown a tantrum, he has always helped out his team, and he has always performed well. If anyone has an issue with his "reputation" the problem is THEM. Historically, Santana is an ace, it's only in people's minds where he is a #3. Forget that.

 

I was always high on Santana and I'm not at all surprised by his tenure as a Twin. I'm disappointed others chose to see something other than Ervin when judging him -- and still do. Forget the herd. Do you want to surround yourself with the best, or do you want to be the most popular? This is the question around Santana. The Twins, for once, gave the right answer (albeit for probably the wrong reason -- $$).

Edited March 5, 2018 by Doomtints

[nicksaviking]

1) Santana is proof you should never go with the herd when evaluating anything. Make your own decisions and judgments.

 

2) You say reputation matters ... but then you say people have Santana wrong. Santana has never thrown a tantrum, he has always helped out his team, and he has always performed well. If anyone has an issue with his "reputation" the problem is THEM. Historically, Santana is an ace, it's only in people's minds where he is a #3. Forget that.

 

I was always high on Santana and I'm not at all surprised by his tenure as a Twin. I'm disappointed others chose to see something other than Ervin when judging him -- and still do. Forget the herd. Do you want to surround yourself with the best, or do you want to be the most popular? This is the question around Santana. The Twins, for once, gave the right answer (albeit for probably the wrong reason -- $$).

In game 7 do you want to run Santana out to face Kluber, Sale, Keuchel or Kershaw?

 

I don't, why does this team always have to be the underdog?

[h2oface]

 

1) Santana is proof you should never go with the herd when evaluating anything. Make your own decisions and judgments.

 

2) You say reputation matters ... but then you say people have Santana wrong. Santana has never thrown a tantrum, he has always helped out his team, and he has always performed well. If anyone has an issue with his "reputation" the problem is THEM. Historically, Santana is an ace, it's only in people's minds where he is a #3. Forget that.

 

I was always high on Santana and I'm not at all surprised by his tenure as a Twin. I'm disappointed others chose to see something other than Ervin when judging him -- and still do. Forget the herd. Do you want to surround yourself with the best, or do you want to be the most popular? This is the question around Santana. The Twins, for once, gave the right answer (albeit for probably the wrong reason -- $$).

 

I don't know where or how being suspended for however much time it was for roiding fits in your assessment and reputation problem, but that is on HIM as far as I am concerned. And once a roider, it is impossible to tell how long he was. They all have a story, and it usually involves it was a mistake, and it was the only time. Sure. Sure it was, right?

Edited March 6, 2018 by h2oface

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: Let's don't turn "do you need an ace" into a protracted steroid discussion.

[TheLeviathan]

 

"You don't need an ace to win a WS/win in the playoffs/make the postseason" is sour grapes. Maybe 5% of champions didn't have an ace, so this doesn't mean a team without an ace is "built to win." It means the opposite -- it means the odds are against them.

 

Most of the successful managers -- if not all of them -- in the history of baseball who have written or been quoted about their experiences have all said the same thing: it's all about the pitching.

 

The Twins spent a nice chunk of cash on pitching this offseason, but they didn't pick up anyone elite. We'll soon find out if they got their money's worth. (It looks to me more like they grabbed 2 more pitchers than they need, and 2 won't make it through spring training...so they're doing a little bit of 'throwing it against the wall to see what sticks.' I'm not sure this is the best plan, but hey it might work out.)

 

Of course it's all about the pitching.  But you don't need your "ace" to be the one that pitches that way.  For as great as Kershaw has been, he's largely been a playoff dud.  Whereas other, lesser, pitchers have thrived.  And from year to year things are pretty erratic.  

 

5%?  C'mon.  50% of the teams in the last 6 years haven't had an ace.  That's just the last 6, your 5% is sort of silly on the face of it.  Even if taken as hyperbole.  

 

And much of your point is unrealistic about how available and plentiful actual aces are.  I believe we missed a chance at one this offseason (and was highly critical of it), but there aren't enough aces to go around.  And those that have them rarely let them go.  And sometimes when you have one you still get beat.  (See: Johan Santana's run here.  Or Chris Sale last year.  Or, again, pretty much every time Kershaw has pitched)

 

You should always go get great players when you can.  But you don't need an "ace" any more than you need "at least 40 homeruns" from your 1B.  You need as many good or great players you can get and you need them to show up when the small sample kicks in.

[Doctor Wu]

I don't think you absolutely "Need" to have that ace, but it certainly provides a great deal of comfort and gives the team more confidence. I think the Astros showed that last year after they picked up Verlander. All of a sudden they looked unbeatable. And that proved to be true.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I don't think you absolutely "Need" to have that ace, but it certainly provides a great deal of comfort and gives the team more confidence. I think the Astros showed that last year after they picked up Verlander. All of a sudden they looked unbeatable. And that proved to be true.

I think that has more to do with a 97-98 win team picking up another very good pitcher to add to an already-stacked roster than anything to do with an "ace".