Who says we don't have an ace?

[Babypowder]

I know Nick's range isn't what it used to be and people say this about him not getting to balls that "average" RF do. I'd love to see this "average" RF that's so much better than Markakis.

Sorry to be a bit obtuse on this matter.

Sure, watch more Giants, Dodgers, or Brewers games. Puig and Pence are both at 0 DRS and Parra is at 1.

[Murray#1]

If he was the ace, what was Andy Petite on those teams? Also wasn't Mussina the third Yankee pitcher to start in the WS? Doesnt' sound like an ace to me.....

In 2001 Pettitte was the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher, 2003 the 3rd best pitcher and 2008 the 2nd best pitcher, but miles behind Mussina on the Yankees. In 2006 Pettitte was the 3rd best pitcher on the Astros.

In 2001 Mussina was the game 1 starter for the Yankees in the world series. In 2003 Mussina started game 3, but David Wells started game 1 and Clemens started game 4. Not really sure why it lined up that way, but I don't think anyone feels David Wells was a better pitcher than Clemens or Mussina.

[Frobby]

This isn't really that hard. Many people consider ACE = Elite level pitcher. I think you could qualify both Sherzer and Price as that at this point. Verlander not so much these days, but he certainly was an ACE imo (and I think most others). So yes, it's possible to have 2 ACEs on one team. The Phillies had 3 for awhile imo.

Maybe you should join forces with calmunderfire in your ACE campaign. I think you two would make a great team.

Everyone has their own definition. I agree with Old#5Fan that Kershaw/Felix is too narrow, and I think the calmunderfire "best pitcher on each team" is both too broad (some teams don't have anyone good enough to deserve to be called an ace) and too narrow (some teams have more than one pitcher I'd consider an ace). I can't define exactly how I draw the line, but roughly, a guy who on a fairly consistent basis is considered one of the top 10-15 pitchers in the league is an ace, by my personal definition. Mike Mussina certainly met that definition while he was an Oriole, and to some extent, while he was a Yankee.

Now to Tillman. I don't think he is currently "considered" an ace by my definition, but perhaps he should be. He ranks 28th in ERA among major league (not just AL) pitchers with at least 400 IP over the last three seasons. He is tied for 26th in wins in that period, even though he wasn't on the Orioles roster for the first three months of 2012. He has a .700 winning percentage in that time (35-15), which looks to me like it is 4th among that group of pitchers (behind Scherzer, Greinke and Cueto). And perhaps most importantly for current purposes, he is on a major roll right now, as mentioned in the OP. Do I put him in a class with Kershaw and King Felix? Of course not. But if John Lester is an ace, you could make a case for Tillman.

[primetime]

Sure, watch more Giants, Dodgers, or Brewers games. Puig and Pence are both at 0 DRS and Parra is at 1.

The thing that's always bugged me about defensive metrics is pertaining to range, range factor and getting to balls. How can that ever be objectively evaluated?

I'd guess that there are credentialed members of say Fangraphs at every MLB park on gameday and they watch fly balls and determine who got to what and where a ball was hit. That said, what if they make a mistake? What if they believe a ball is in the RF "zone" but maybe it isn't?

Also, I don't believe there's any consideration given to OF positioning. Let's say Wayne Kirby tells Markakis to shade towards the right-center gap on a lefty hitter and the pitcher is supposed to throw a middle away fast ball, in the hopes of inducing contact in that area. The pitcher misses in and the hitter pulls a fly ball down the right field line and it drops for a double. Under defensive measures, Markakis is penalize because he "didn't get to" that ball. I have a hard time being ok with that.

Perhaps I'm just being over the top on this but in my mind there are so many things that factor into an OFer playing his position, several of which are well beyond his control, that it's hard for me to look at Nick as a minus defender.

Slightly off subject but thanks for engaging me on this topic in a cool, civilized way. I know things can get ugly on baseball boards when there's a perceived "stats" vs "eye test" argument. It wasn't my intent at all and again, thanks for the input and info.

[Redskins Rick]

My eye test the other night, in the game that Manny got hurt, late in the game and that botched rundown, was the fact that Pearce looked bad at first base, but I thinking Davis at first, probably makes that play.

[Ruzious]

My eye test the other night, in the game that Manny got hurt, late in the game and that botched rundown, was the fact that Pearce looked bad at first base, but I thinking Davis at first, probably makes that play.

Both Manny and Schoop looked worse on that same play. I don't blame Pearce at all on that play, because it's the kind of play you need a fair amount of experience playing the position to do it well.

[Redskins Rick]

Both Manny and Schoop looked worse on that same play. I don't blame Pearce at all on that play, because it's the kind of play you need a fair amount of experience playing the position to do it well.

True.

sometimes defensive metrics dont correctly tell the story.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The thing that's always bugged me about defensive metrics is pertaining to range, range factor and getting to balls. How can that ever be objectively evaluated?

I'd guess that there are credentialed members of say Fangraphs at every MLB park on gameday and they watch fly balls and determine who got to what and where a ball was hit. That said, what if they make a mistake? What if they believe a ball is in the RF "zone" but maybe it isn't?

Also, I don't believe there's any consideration given to OF positioning. Let's say Wayne Kirby tells Markakis to shade towards the right-center gap on a lefty hitter and the pitcher is supposed to throw a middle away fast ball, in the hopes of inducing contact in that area. The pitcher misses in and the hitter pulls a fly ball down the right field line and it drops for a double. Under defensive measures, Markakis is penalize because he "didn't get to" that ball. I have a hard time being ok with that.

Perhaps I'm just being over the top on this but in my mind there are so many things that factor into an OFer playing his position, several of which are well beyond his control, that it's hard for me to look at Nick as a minus defender.

Slightly off subject but thanks for engaging me on this topic in a cool, civilized way. I know things can get ugly on baseball boards when there's a perceived "stats" vs "eye test" argument. It wasn't my intent at all and again, thanks for the input and info.

Perhaps I'm being less civilized and I'm sure I'm coming off like a jerk to you, but these things have been discussed in detail hundreds of times on here by now. The basics are also layed out clearly in fangraphs (UZR primer) and the Fielding Bible site. Both of which have also been referenced many times. This is what annoys me about some of you people on this subject.

If you had any real interest in learning this then I'm not sure how you could be so detached as to ask these kind of questions and not have paid attention to the many discussions on here on it.

The site has a search function and/or you can google "UZR primer fangraphs" in addition to "Fielding Bible" site and get your answers to these questions and many more. Maybe after doing some actual research you can ask a semi-intelligent question or voice a reasonably informed objection/opinion on the subject.

I consider myself reasonably informed on this subject and would be happy to discuss this further, but do some basic work first. Laziness is the biggest reason why these become crapping contests instead of discussions/debates.

[MrOrange82]

Everyone has their own definition. I agree with Old#5Fan that Kershaw/Felix is too narrow, and I think the calmunderfire "best pitcher on each team" is both too broad (some teams don't have anyone good enough to deserve to be called an ace) and too narrow (some teams have more than one pitcher I'd consider an ace). I can't define exactly how I draw the line, but roughly, a guy who on a fairly consistent basis is considered one of the top 10-15 pitchers in the league is an ace, by my personal definition. Mike Mussina certainly met that definition while he was an Oriole, and to some extent, while he was a Yankee.

Now to Tillman. I don't think he is currently "considered" an ace by my definition, but perhaps he should be. He ranks 28th in ERA among major league (not just AL) pitchers with at least 400 IP over the last three seasons. He is tied for 26th in wins in that period, even though he wasn't on the Orioles roster for the first three months of 2012. He has a .700 winning percentage in that time (35-15), which looks to me like it is 4th among that group of pitchers (behind Scherzer, Greinke and Cueto). And perhaps most importantly for current purposes, he is on a major roll right now, as mentioned in the OP. Do I put him in a class with Kershaw and King Felix? Of course not. But if John Lester is an ace, you could make a case for Tillman.

Oldfan is the only person who suggested (incorrectly, based on his hyperbolic interpretation of my comments) that "ace" status could be constrained to King Felix and Kershaw...and no one else.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Everyone has their own definition. I agree with Old#5Fan that Kershaw/Felix is too narrow, and I think the calmunderfire "best pitcher on each team" is both too broad (some teams don't have anyone good enough to deserve to be called an ace) and too narrow (some teams have more than one pitcher I'd consider an ace). I can't define exactly how I draw the line, but roughly, a guy who on a fairly consistent basis is considered one of the top 10-15 pitchers in the league is an ace, by my personal definition. Mike Mussina certainly met that definition while he was an Oriole, and to some extent, while he was a Yankee.

Now to Tillman. I don't think he is currently "considered" an ace by my definition, but perhaps he should be. He ranks 28th in ERA among major league (not just AL) pitchers with at least 400 IP over the last three seasons. He is tied for 26th in wins in that period, even though he wasn't on the Orioles roster for the first three months of 2012. He has a .700 winning percentage in that time (35-15), which looks to me like it is 4th among that group of pitchers (behind Scherzer, Greinke and Cueto). And perhaps most importantly for current purposes, he is on a major roll right now, as mentioned in the OP. Do I put him in a class with Kershaw and King Felix? Of course not. But if John Lester is an ace, you could make a case for Tillman.

I think we generally agree. As far as agreeing with oldfan, his point was a made up strawman, so it's not much of an actual point.

'Orange82 and 25nuggets made some lists of ACE's that I generally agreed with. It's of course subjective. I think Tillman is getting into that almost an ACE category, but I'm not sure he ever really will be. Kinda like James Shields maybe. Of course I've heard some people refer to Shields as an ACE (i don't agree). I would definitely consider Lester as being an ACE (or pretty damn close) and a much more dominant pitcher than Tillman despite some down years/inconsistencies ('12 and '13). Of course track record plays into that and pitchers can be pretty fragile.

[primetime]

Perhaps I'm being less civilized and I'm sure I'm coming off like a jerk to you, but these things have been discussed in detail hundreds of times on here by now. The basics are also layed out clearly in fangraphs (UZR primer) and the Fielding Bible site. Both of which have also been referenced many times. This is what annoys me about some of you people on this subject.

If you had any real interest in learning this then I'm not sure how you could be so detached as to ask these kind of questions and not have paid attention to the many discussions on here on it.

The site has a search function and/or you can google "UZR primer fangraphs" in addition to "Fielding Bible" site and get your answers to these questions and many more. Maybe after doing some actual research you can ask a semi-intelligent question or voice a reasonably informed objection/opinion on the subject.

I consider myself reasonably informed on this subject and would be happy to discuss this further, but do some basic work first. Laziness is the biggest reason why these become crapping contests instead of discussions/debates.

My bad. Misunderstood some things I read, missed some other stuff, that's on me.

The reason for my question about positioning was based on what the Fielding Bible's website says. To quote from FB....

"Whether an outfielder made a routine catch because he was positioned well or he had to sprint twice as hard because he got a poor read on the ball off the bat, the out still counts the same."

When I read that, it says to me positioning is not accounted for...furthermore, I see that as an issue/flaw or at least something to be questioned regarding that metric and it's usefullness for evaluating fielding ability, particularly OFers.

If there was an exception created for balls high off the wall that cannot be caught, is there a way to either reward and/or at minimum not penalize a fielder as it relates to positioning?

[Creamsicle]

SIAP but without going back through all 5 pages of posts I'll just explain that "ace" is a title that comes from WWI fighter pilots, and is a tag earned by achieving a certain level of enemy kills (naturally, without getting killed oneself). Relevance to baseball? Pretty obvious to me. A pitching "ace" is a guy who dominates in the most pressure-packed situations - by beating not only the opposing team's lineup, but by also outperforming the opposing team's best pitcher. So... with that in mind, I think it'd be hard to justify calling someone an ace before he proves himself in the postseason.

I know, let the rotten tomatoes fly; there will be examples of great pitchers on awful teams of the past ... I won't deny their greatness but I won't call them Aces.

[Il BuonO]

That sounds about right.

Speaking of Raork. I don't see how he's doing it. His stuff looks just mediocre. Kluber and Richards however seem legit. Tanaka, I'm just not sure yet.

I'm of the opinion that Tanner Roark is just not a good baseball name. Now, if he was representing me in court maybe. Tanner Roark, Esq. Atty at Law.

Masahiro Tanaka, otoh sounds menacing. Definitely ace-like.

[CA-ORIOLE]

My bad. Misunderstood some things I read, missed some other stuff, that's on me.

The reason for my question about positioning was based on what the Fielding Bible's website says. To quote from FB....

"Whether an outfielder made a routine catch because he was positioned well or he had to sprint twice as hard because he got a poor read on the ball off the bat, the out still counts the same."

When I read that, it says to me positioning is not accounted for...furthermore, I see that as an issue/flaw or at least something to be questioned regarding that metric and it's usefullness for evaluating fielding ability, particularly OFers.

If there was an exception created for balls high off the wall that cannot be caught, is there a way to either reward and/or at minimum not penalize a fielder as it relates to positioning?

Yes, positioning is assumed to be neutral for both UZR and the Fielding Bible (DRS). The theory is if a fielder positions himself well, then he will be rewarded and if he positions himself poorly then he will be penalized. The metrics (as currently designed) don't care. Cal Ripken (who probably had average range) was notoriously lauded for his positioning in making himself an elite defender at SS and much of the positioning these days is controlled by team strategies/analysis. The pitchers play into that and different teams have different strategies on shifting/positioning. Significant shifts (i.e overshifts like the third baseman playing in short RF etc.) are not counted in individual performance ratings.

The outfield is quite a bit different than the IF. Hits to the OF are more random and less predictable than groundballs, hence positioning outfielders is a much more difficult task than positioning infielders (mainly laterally). One of the things you asked about was why Nick was rated below average when it looks to you like he's better than average. All indications are that Nick actually positions himself in most cases and does so quite uniquely at OPACY. Yet, year after year the data shows that more flyballs fall into the green than the average right fielder, even as compared to other fielders playing at OPACY. So my question to you would be: Why is that? Bad luck?

Also, a flyball off the wall that cannot be caught is not counted.

As I don't want to to hijack Frobby's ACE thread, so maybe you can make a Nick's fielding metrics thread or bump one of the scores of old ones we have. If not, we can discuss more via PM.

[Old#5fan]

In 2001 Pettitte was the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher, 2003 the 3rd best pitcher and 2008 the 2nd best pitcher, but miles behind Mussina on the Yankees. In 2006 Pettitte was the 3rd best pitcher on the Astros.

In 2001 Mussina was the game 1 starter for the Yankees in the world series. In 2003 Mussina started game 3, but David Wells started game 1 and Clemens started game 4. Not really sure why it lined up that way, but I don't think anyone feels David Wells was a better pitcher than Clemens or Mussina.

Wells has more perfect games/no hitters and 20 win seasons than ole traitor Mike though. So maybe the Yankee skipper who was no dummy thought so?