Baseball IQ

[ashbury]

Earlier, @Squirrel posted the following in a game recap thread:

I hear this a lot ... 'so and so just doesn't have much of a baseball IQ' ... what exactly does that mean? That they lack knowledge of the game, or are just poor executers or are prone to mistakes? I think it fair to ask 'What was he thinking?' and being disappointed at decisions made in a split second and think you'd have done it differently for a better outcome, but I'm very doubtful that it's because a lack of knowledge of the game and how to play, i.e. IQ, but rather issues of inexperience. 

Seems like a topic worth digging into.

• What do we mean by baseball IQ?
• Is baseball IQ something you're born with or does it increase with experience?
• Do we mean something different between experience and baseball IQ?
• Who are some examples of players whose baseball IQ exceeds their nominal talent?
• Is baseball IQ something that doesn't show up in stats yet contributes to wins?
• Do you have any players you root for even though you question their baseball IQ?

 

[ashbury]

I'll offer my own brief takes on the above.

• I think of baseball IQ as that ability to spot an opportunity and take it, to beat the opponent, any way they can.
• It's something some people just have at an early age, but the behaviors we chalk it up to can be learned.
• So experience and baseball IQ are different, but by a certain age they start to be the same.
• I always thought Kent Hrbek had a great baseball IQ, taking the extra base when the situation demanded.  Byron Buxton's routes to the ball in CF sometimes seem uncanny and indicate something beyond sheer talent in the normal sense.
• I have a hard time believing that anything that contributes to wins can't be teased out in the stats.  If someone has the good baseball IQ, it will show up in the stats some way some how, over and above the nominal talent.
• I think I'd find it hard to root for someone lacking average baseball IQ.

[KirbyDome89]

• I view it mostly as making the right plays at the right time, i.e. situational baseball. 
• Kinesthetic intelligence is real so I'm inclined to think Baseball IQ is predominately inherited but repetition and experience obviously factor in as well. 
• Raw ability vs. learned skills, but I agree, at some point the two are so intertwined it's impossible to tell the difference.
• The first thought that comes to mind are "crafty," vets; those who continue to be productive post prime when IQ > physical ability. Tony Gwynn, dogged by injuries, still hitting into his 40s?
• If we're linking it to skill then no. 
• Maybe Vlad Guerrero's plate approach? Idk, baseball is a tough sport, and if you're consistently making low IQ plays it's incredibly rare that your natural talents are so great you'll stick around long enough to be remembered. 

[FlyingFinn]

It is being able to make a smart baseball play without a coach or teammate telling you to do it. When I grew up it felt like a majority of kids at 12 or 13 years old had good baseball IQ. When I coached the same age, even most players who played on travel teams seemed like robots, only doing what the coach told them - when to take the extra base on a ground ball, when to take the sure out because you had a lead, when to let a deep fly ball drop in foul territory because the guy on third would tag and score, etc.

An example is Chuck Knoblauch faking that he was getting the ball in the World Series and Lonnie Smith (I think) falling for it.

I believe it is mostly learned - watching the game, talking with teammates, listening to coaches or parents. Those that learn it at a young age seem to have an advantage even when they get older.

[Beast]

Baseball is such a reactionary sport, baseball IQ and instincts are interchangeable.

There is a component that can be learned, but some of it can’t.

There was a great example of this in last night’s opening game against the Sox.  The ground ball to Elvis Andrus with a runner on first.  High-end baseball IQ instincts on display by Miranda and Andrus.

Miranda noticed Andrus in position to make a tag and get an easy double play, and stopped dead to delay the tag.  There are a lot of baseball players, even in the MLB, who run into the tag, try to run around it, etc. 

Andrus had the wherewithal to know Miranda stopped far enough away from second to recover, and got the out at first - allowing the first baseman to then get Miranda at second.  I’m not sure there’s many, even in the MLB, that can process that play upstairs like Andrus did.

Fairly non-descript, but that’s baseball IQ in a nutshell.  

You can also find an example of low baseball IQ last night.  Billy Hamilton getting thrown out trying to steal third in a late-inning, tie-game situation after getting himself into scoring position.  A guy we’ve seen tag and score from second on a deep fly ball.

[Vanimal46]

- Baseball IQ makes someone a complete baseball player. Combining their physical skills with a deep understanding of basic and complex situations in a game. 

- It’s not something you’re born with. It comes with repetition, coaching, and individual study. Baseball IQ can click early on with a player, but it takes experience to keep improving this component.

- Yes, there is a difference between experience and IQ. You’re placed into lots of difference game situations over time, but that doesn’t mean you learn from it. Example A: Miguel Sano swinging at sliders low and outside his entire career. 

- There are tons of examples of MLB players whose IQ is higher than their talent level. Kyle Hendricks has pitched for 9 years at the MLB level successfully with below average stuff. Drew Butera had a 12 year MLB career swinging a wet pool noodle for a bat. 

- I think we’ve all rooted at some point for a player with a low baseball IQ. There are a lot of athletes that come and go, but very few complete baseball players. Sorry to bring up Sano again but I think he was a supremely talented, low IQ baseball player. 

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

I think that it is mostly related to instincts.  Now, some instincts may come from experience, but in new situations that have never before been encountered is is 100% instinctual.

[Bigfork Twins Guy]

3 hours ago, Beast said:

You can also find an example of low baseball IQ last night.  Billy Hamilton getting thrown out trying to steal third in a late-inning, tie-game situation after getting himself into scoring position.  A guy we’ve seen tag and score from second on a deep fly ball.

That's assuming he has the green light.  When this occurred I thought it was Balldeli calling it and wondered how much is truly gained by moving from second to third.  Maybe a wild pitch or sacrifice but for almost everything else the guy scores from second anyway.  He should not have the green light and if he did not here then it is on Balldeli.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

20 hours ago, ashbury said:

I have a hard time believing that anything that contributes to wins can't be teased out in the stats.  If someone has the good baseball IQ, it will show up in the stats some way some how, over and above the nominal talent.

So this is the bullet that bothers me. How would you know you are seeing baseball IQ by looking at the stat sheet? 

Dan Gladden talks about baseball IQ or instinct a lot. My sense is he thinks it’s more innate and not something easy to learn. I don’t have a sense about what percentage of players he thinks has it. It can’t be many, or else most players would have it and it wouldn’t be a “thing”? Dunno…

Anyway, Gladden led off the 10th inning of Game 7 with a double. Grounder inside the third base bag? Drive into the gap? Nope, broken bat blooper out behind second base. Gladden was running all out, right out of the box. I am convinced that he knew getting to second was possible, over and above the quality of just wanting to hustle hard for it, and am also convinced that he would have slammed on the brakes and dashed back to first safely just in time with a head first slide if necessary, if he saw Atlanta making the right clean play on it. But the ball took a nice hop that the fielders couldn’t corral, and that was a possible break Gladden was looking for, and off he went into second. Imagine the adrenaline rush on that play..

Anyway, Terry Pendleton also doubled in that game—a poster above mentioned Knoblauch’s deke. So my question for you is how do you look at the stat lines and see Gladden’s baseball IQ double as something very different from Pendleton’s double? They both look the same on paper.
 

[ashbury]

43 minutes ago, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

So this is the bullet that bothers me. How would you know you are seeing baseball IQ by looking at the stat sheet? 

Dan Gladden talks about baseball IQ or instinct a lot. My sense is he thinks it’s more innate and not something easy to learn. I don’t have a sense about what percentage of players he thinks has it. It can’t be many, or else most players would have it and it wouldn’t be a “thing”? Dunno…

Anyway, Gladden led off the 10th inning of Game 7 with a double. Grounder inside the third base bag? Drive into the gap? Nope, broken bat blooper out behind second base. Gladden was running all out, right out of the box. I am convinced that he knew getting to second was possible, over and above the quality of just wanting to hustle hard for it, and am also convinced that he would have slammed on the brakes and dashed back to first safely just in time with a head first slide if necessary, if he saw Atlanta making the right clean play on it. But the ball took a nice hop that the fielders couldn’t corral, and that was a possible break Gladden was looking for, and off he went into second. Imagine the adrenaline rush on that play..

Anyway, Terry Pendleton also doubled in that game—a poster above mentioned Knoblauch’s deke. So my question for you is how do you look at the stat lines and see Gladden’s baseball IQ double as something very different from Pendleton’s double? They both look the same on paper.
 

Gladden's double was something I had in mind when I put together the OP.

And I don't know.  The post was meant to provoke thought.

But Gladden by most measures was a very average major leaguer - yet he found it within himself to make the play that arguably won a World Series, when I was yelling at the TV, "no, no, NO.... YES!"  He saw the opportunity and made what turned out to be the right decision.  Baseball IQ, or just rolling the dice with the chance to be remembered instead as the goat?  I don't know.

When it comes to The Deke, if I'm not misremembering, Lonnie did not have a good reputation for what this thread is about - the nickname Skates was not complimentary.   Pendleton, though, I think was well-regarded that way.  But he had an above-average career.  It's hard to look statistically at one at bat - but if in a given game two players have two-base hits in the box score, maybe the one with the poorer overall stats more likely needed to "do more" to make that one double happen?  I Don't Know.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I also agree with you on Hrbek. For example, especially on those bases loaded situations, I think he had a knack for knowing when to place a tag and which bases to throw to. There was the 3-2-3 double play late in that game as well. He also could see an opportunity — Maybe like when he pulled Ron Gant off first in Game 2, something none of us are too proud of, at least I’m not. But in real time I really did think Gant had lost his balance. Similar was AJ Pierzynski (by then with the White Sox) running to first base after striking out in the 2005 ALCS—another sketchy use of Baseball IQ but still an example of a player who is able to do an instant risk/reward and seize an opportunity. Throw in a little bit of acting like Hrbek did.

Many of the players on those Twins teams of the late 90s early 2000s all seemed to have the Good version of Baseball IQ: AJ, Torii, Dougie, others. Joe Mauer had it in spades but rarely used it (behind the back catch of that foul ball careening back to him, hello?) and Eddie Rosario also had it in spades, but was also pretty reckless too.

The current Twins team? Yeah I agree Buxton. Arraez probably. Not sure, who else? Any other particular play stand out? 

[Twins_Fan_For_Life]

Interesting discussion.  Bad baseball IQ = Gordon goes into home run trot on his double, then tries to stretch it into a triple. Makes the third out at third base in the late inning of a one-run game 

[mnfireman]

42 minutes ago, Twins_Fan_For_Life said:

Interesting discussion.  Bad baseball IQ = Gordon goes into home run trot on his double, then tries to stretch it into a triple. Makes the third out at third base in the late inning of a one-run game 

Not bad baseball IQ - just bad baseball. Correa did it a few games earlier. Too much show boating in MLB. High baseball IQ would be to just put your head down and run until the coach tells you stop.

[h2oface]

Intelligence Quotient. IQ. By definition, it is a measeure of intelligence, not necessarily instinct. (Granted, it is now felt to be not very accurate or perhaps fair). If a someone is 23,24 years old, and has been playing baseball since a child..... and they still are making bad decisions as to the rules of the game and what to do from any base in any situation on the basepaths or in the field, then they just haven't been paying attention. They are not inexperienced just because they are now playing against the best players instead of not as good players at others levels. The rules and moves haven't changed. If they haven't learned the game by that age, they must have a low baseball IQ. They are doing the best they can, they just don't have the brain power to do what is needed in the split second without even more repetition. Some learn with one or two repetions. High IQ. Some it takes a lot more. Lower IQ. Some make the same mistake over and over, Low IQ. Same with learning music and the difference between a great "player" and a mediocre player. Some can learn the piece a lot quicker than others, and memorize it quicker and get it from the left side of the brain to the right side of the brain and free themselves to really play the music instead of read the music and have to think about it. High IQ. Some always just read instead of play. That works fine in an orchestra, where your always have sheet music in front of you. All can perhaps get there, but some get there with less repetition. Great jazz guitarist, John Abercrombie, said that the more he played, the quicker it was to learn a new piece and get it from the left to the right side of the brain, where he no longer needed to think and it was just there to add all the emotion and nuance to, or "play". The more he did it, the faster the process got for the next piece he learned - the faster he was able to get it to the right side where he didn't have to think. Doctors, especially surgeons, pilots, we hope they all have high IQ, and can make decisions innately in high stress situations that may require creative action (right brain) and summon the vast accumulated knowledge (left brain) to be, literally, at ones fingertips. You can get by without being the smartest on the baseball field, but you may have to have more repetitions. It might not make you smarter, but it will make you able to not think and still know what to do fast enough to excel.

 

[USAFChief]

20 hours ago, mnfireman said:

Not bad baseball IQ - just bad baseball. Correa did it a few games earlier. Too much show boating in MLB. High baseball IQ would be to just put your head down and run until the coach tells you stop.

Disagree. First, the decision to try to stretch a double into a triple is 100 percent on the player. The third base coach has zero input into that.

Second, "showboating" isn't related to baseball IQ.

Baseball IQ lets a player instinctively know whether or not he's likely to make 3rd safely as he approaches 2nd, and further, whether that gamble makes sense.

 

[USAFChief]

Baseball IQ in general, to me, is knowing the correct play. Some is instinctual, some is learned.

Which base to throw to. Knowing when you can stretch for an extra base. Understanding when a ball is hit, where you'll end up being needed for a cutoff and where the play is going to likely occur. When is it likely the other team will have a play on, and what to do about it. Reading opposing hitters' swings to position yourself a little better. Anticipating various possibilities so you're not surprised when they occur.

These things make a difference. But they're like porn....hard to codify, easier to recognize when seen.

 

 

[Nine of twelve]

On 9/3/2022 at 4:57 PM, Hosken Bombo Disco said:

Maybe like when he pulled Ron Gant off first in Game 2, something none of us are too proud of, at least I’m not.

Geez I hate having to say this at all, but Gant was out before Hrbek lifted him. It was a good clean baseball play.

Watch the video at 0:45, and you'll see that as Gant's leg comes off the base Hrbek's glove and left arm are not under Gant's leg. Gant wound up in an awkward position because he didn't slide and lost his balance to the point where his foot came off the base while Hrbek continued to apply the tag. Gant was out at that moment. Did Hrbek lift up Gant's leg after the out was made? Yes, absolutely, but that didn't matter one iota. The play and the inning were already over.

As an aside, I was at Back Channel Brewing in Spring Park a couple weeks back. They have a mighty tasty double IPA on the menu there called Gant Lifter.

[Nine of twelve]

As confounding as Eddie Rosario could be at times, this is an example of high baseball IQ.

The pitcher had engaged the rubber but hadn't quite started his routine of getting set, and Eddie timed his move exquisitely to induce that tiny little flinch. I think it's highly unlikely that this play could have been taught. Among other things, the extreme shift that the Brewers were using had only recently become commonplace at that time. Only someone with a nuanced sense of the game could make such a play.

[peterb18]

On 9/3/2022 at 10:54 AM, Bigfork Twins Guy said:

I think that it is mostly related to instincts.  Now, some instincts may come from experience, but in new situations that have never before been encountered is is 100% instinctual.

Paul Molitor was probably one of the most instinctive players that I have witnessed in my lifetime. But he combined that with tremendous ability. Run, hit, throw.

[Trov]

First, great question and topic to dive into.  

What do we mean by baseball IQ?

I believe baseball IQ is about ones ability to understand situations and make the best call based on that decision.  It is very nuanced kind of thing.  Examples would be seeing when a pitch or fielders are paying no attention and stealing bags, despite being poor runner.  Taking the extra bases when fielder make wrong decisions on throws.  Reducing runners extra bases by making right decisions.  But even more in depth is hitters knowing what pitches would be coming and looking for them.  Rounding first base knowing no one is behind you so you can go extra off the base.  Tagging up on clear foul balls than to play part way.

Is baseball IQ something you're born with or does it increase with experience?

I do not think anyone is born with it, but it takes time to think through many different situations.  The more you play, but actually think about situations is where the IQ will increase.  Sometimes players should do something not common or expected and you do not realize how smart it was until after it is done.

Do we mean something different between experience and baseball IQ?

Yes, I believe experience does not mean the same as IQ.  I think experience helps increase the IQ, but IQ will lead to those few times where you do something that is not the normal play, because in the moment you realize it was the right play.  One example, is the Derek Jeter relay in the playoffs, Denny Hocking had similar play during regular game prior to that play, but it is not common for the SS to run across the field for a relay like that, but in the moment the run was so important that you see the ball may be off line or will not get there in time so you do something like that to help get the out.  To me that is IQ, and not just experience, but they are close. 

Who are some examples of players whose baseball IQ exceeds their nominal talent?

This is tough one for me but one player who had great talent, but in one area he was very well known for his IQ was Paul Molitor as a base runner.  He was never a speedster, not super slow either, but he was great at stealing bases because he knew when to steal, or he would see the pitch would be in the dirt and take off before it kicked away, knowing the catcher would rarely pick it clean to throw him out.  He stole at nearly 80% success rate, for his career and at age 37 stole 20 bases without being caught 1 time.  He did it with his IQ not his overall speed, because he just knew the best time to do it. 

Is baseball IQ something that doesn't show up in stats yet contributes to wins?

I think it shows up in both stats and sometimes not show up in stats.  For example, some runners will take the extra base to keep out of double plays, or get into run downs to save double plays or get into run downs to make sure a run scores.  None of those show up in stats but will all contribute to wins.  On the other hand as mentioned in Paul Molitor base stealing that does show up in stats. That is just one example.  However, I do feel we think of it more as a non stat producing thing.

Do you have any players you root for even though you question their baseball IQ?

Off the top of my head Nick Gordon is one that I question is baseball IQ, but root for.  One example I can think of is the other day against the Sox he was up 1st and 3rd 0 outs.  Hamilton pinch ran at first.  Gordon swung at first pitch despite Hamilton running, fouling the ball off.  Not sure Hamilton would have stolen, but as the at bat played out, Gordon drove in the run, and Hamilton ended up on 2nd with 1 out, but if Hamilton steals 2nd, it is possible that Gordon gets the run in and then Hamilton is on 3rd with 1 out, increasing the chance of a second run scoring that inning.  We lost that game when gave up the 1 run lead, but could have worked 2 runs.  He also has made poor decisions to come off the 2nd base to field bad throw on steal attempt when he had no chance to get out. 

[Squirrel]

1 hour ago, peterb18 said:

Paul Molitor was probably one of the most instinctive players that I have witnessed in my lifetime. But he combined that with tremendous ability. Run, hit, throw.

Plus, plus talent plus IQ ... that's the definition of a HoFer.

 

[SkyBlueWaters]

On 9/2/2022 at 9:01 PM, FlyingFinn said:

An example is Chuck Knoblauch faking that he was getting the ball in the World Series and Lonnie Smith (I think) falling for it.

 Knobby and Greg Gagne deking Lonnie Smith, excellent example.

At the other end of the IQ spectrum, Disco Dan Ford after a homerun dancing home from third, getting passed by another baserunner. Purportedly Gene Mauch (whose baseball IQ was high,) was so enraged he sent Ford to the lockerroom and on home (but the nickname was born).

 

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, SkyBlueWaters said:

 Knobby and Greg Gagne deking Lonnie Smith, excellent example.

At the other end of the IQ spectrum, Disco Dan Ford after a homerun dancing home from third, getting passed by another baserunner.

 

Which Twin passed him?  I'm not inclined to assign that runner too many IQ points either - he's got the "play" right there in front of him.

"Out of my way, Ice Wagon, I’m coming home! "    — Ty Cobb

/ Ty's exact words may have been cleaned up a little, for the public

[bean5302]

To me, it's the ability to have a feel for the game. Intuition about in game action, observation through methodical focus and knowledge gained through study. It's all about the application of knowledge to situations or being "wise" about the game. Some people just seem to have a 6th sense about things which makes it seem almost pre-cognition like.

Instinct is a little different in my opinion.

[SkyBlueWaters]

2 hours ago, ashbury said:

Which Twin passed him?  I'm not inclined to assign that runner too many IQ points either - he's got the "play" right there in front of him.

"Out of my way, Ice Wagon, I’m coming home! "    — Ty Cobb

/ Ty's exact words may have been cleaned up a little, for the public

 

I don't know. Pretty sure it was the '78 season though.  I was trying to think of a way to run a search to figure it out. Maybe look at Ford's game log and see when Mauch began using him less. (I think the rule is that the trailing runner is out, right? So Ford's run, when he got through strutting for some pretty fan, would have counted.)

Yeah, the guy who passed him wasn't too clear on the concept, either. 

[Riverbrian]

To me - Baseball IQ is the ability to quickly assess the baseball dimensions of time and space correctly. 

The game is truly a game of inches and the right decision happens fast. Knowing if you indeed have time to get the lead runner with a throw at the risk of getting nobody out or a trailing runner advancing is one example of that IQ. 

 

[Squirrel]

On 9/5/2022 at 6:19 PM, Riverbrian said:

To me - Baseball IQ is the ability to quickly assess the baseball dimensions of time and space correctly. 

The game is truly a game of inches and the right decision happens fast. Knowing if you indeed have time to get the lead runner with a throw at the risk of getting nobody out or a trailing runner advancing is one example of that IQ. 

 

This is as good a definition as possible. But, as something I asked was the basis of this thread, I still find it used so contextually different and wonder if we all have as many different thoughts as to what this actually is as we do when asked ‘What is an ace?’ And when/how do we factor in human error? Even the best baseball minds or those with the ‘highest IQs’ must make a mistake from time to time, so, is age/experience then a factor, too? Or an inability to adapt to the changing game?

I’m still uncertain of its meaning and think its meaning is just different from user to user and there is no right or wrong usage, only how individual posters mean it. In other words, ‘This player, coach and/or manager didn’t do something I think to be correct or instinctive from my perspective, therefore, that player/coach and/or manager doesn’t have a high baseball IQ.’ I’m going back to my thought that it’s not something that can be known, unless a ‘very special’ player/coach/manager or until careers are over and it can be measured over the course of time. Or, only a very few people out there have a baseball IQ.

yes, I’m still as confused as my post. ?

[Riverbrian]

7 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

This is as good a definition as possible. But, as something I asked was the basis of this thread, I still find it used so contextually different and wonder if we all have as many different thoughts as to what this actually is as we do when asked ‘What is an ace?’ And when/how do we factor in human error? Even the best baseball minds or those with the ‘highest IQs’ must make a mistake from time to time, so, is age/experience then a factor, too? Or an inability to adapt to the changing game?

I’m still uncertain of its meaning and think its meaning is just different from user to user and there is no right or wrong usage, only how individual posters mean it. In other words, ‘This player, coach and/or manager didn’t do something I think to be correct or instinctive from my perspective, therefore, that player/coach and/or manager doesn’t have a high baseball IQ.’ I’m going back to my thought that it’s not something that can be known, unless a ‘special’ player/coach/manager until their careers are over and it can be measured over the course of time. Or, only a very few people out there have a baseball IQ.

yes, I’m still as confused as my post. ?

I believe that I understand your post and If I do I agree 100%. 

How often does that nearly impossible to quantify, know it when I see it "Baseball IQ" actually come into play over the course of a game, a week, a season. It is something that can manifest itself in many ways, A player can take an extra base because he noticed the OF wasn't set up correctly for a throw and gain a base and get credit for a high baseball IQ and that would be correct in my view point. The next day he can run into the same situation only to have the OF make a great throw to nail him and the player is deemed an idiot for attempting such a thing. Same scenerio different result based on the opponent performance. 

You are right... Definitions are going to individualized to every single person watching and making assessments from their living room or even in the dugouts and they are based upon their own experiences and influences over the course of their lifetime and in the end it collectively adds up to everything being expected of everyone... every time.

This same thing is the very cross that managers and front offices must bear. A manager can have two people wanting him fired. One because he pulls pitchers too quickly and the other because he leaves them in to long. It's two down votes at the opposite ends and the manager can't really do much about it. 

What is an Ace? It's a pitcher that makes people feel better... that would be my definition. Calling a pitcher an Ace or a 1 or 2 or 3, 4, 5 or Quad A. I don't personally do that... I reject such designations out of hand because the margins are so incredibly thin. 

In a nutshell. There is no correct answer so therefore... your personal definition is the correct answer.  

[Squirrel]

4 minutes ago, Riverbrian said:

I believe that I understand your post and If I do I agree 100%. 

How often does that nearly impossible to quantify, know it when I see it "Baseball IQ" actually come into play over the course of a game, a week, a season. It is something that can manifest itself in many ways, A player can take an extra base because he noticed the OF wasn't set up correctly for a throw and gain a base and get credit for a high baseball IQ and that would be correct in my view point. The next day he can run into the same situation only to have the OF make a great throw to nail him and the player is deemed an idiot for attempting such a thing. Same scenerio different result based on the opponent performance. 

You are right... Definitions are going to individualized to every single person watching and making assessments from their living room or even in the dugouts and they are based upon their own experiences and influences over the course of their lifetime and in the end it collectively adds up to everything being expected of everyone... every time.

This same thing is the very cross that managers and front offices must bear. A manager can have two people wanting him fired. One because he pulls pitchers too quickly and the other because he leaves them in to long. It's two down votes at the opposite ends and the manager can't really do much about it. 

What is an Ace? It's a pitcher that makes people feel better... that would be my definition. Calling a pitcher an Ace or a 1 or 2 or 3, 4, 5 or Quad A. I don't personally do that... I reject such designations out of hand because the margins are so incredibly thin. 

In a nutshell. There is no correct answer so therefore... your personal definition is the correct answer.  

I only laughed at that because, believe it or not, I actually understood it ?

And yes, there is no true definition to these things, only what people think they are.

Therefore, I will have to ignore everyone’s assessments on who is/isn’t an ace, who does/doesn’t have a high/low baseball IQ, including, or maybe especially, my own ?

(Of course, I have often said I don’t really know that much, only have opinions)

[ashbury]

As the one who started this thread (inspired by the discussion on another), I had no expectation of actually arriving at a definition.  I just hoped to get some concrete thoughts from people.  It's a fuzzy term, just like almost everything else that gets argued about here. 

And no, I'm not going to bother defining precisely what I mean by "fuzzy".