Who says we don't have an ace?

[Old#5fan]

He wasn't as bad as you came when he was pitching for NY.

Your anti-Mussina bias is showing.

Anti- Mussina bias or not, he clearly was NEVER the ace of ANY Yankee staff, but was ALWAYS the O's ace. The point I was trying to make is an ACE is usually the numero uno pitcher on any given team. The Wikipedia definition must have been written by a moron.

[MurphDogg]

Anti- Mussina bias or not, he clearly was NEVER the ace of ANY Yankee staff, but was ALWAYS the O's ace. The point I was trying to make is an ACE is usually the numero uno pitcher on any given team. The Wikipedia definition must have been written by a moron.

He was clearly the best starter his first and last years in NY when he finished top-6 in Cy Young voting and arguably their best starter in a couple other years including 2003. And he started Opening Day 2004 which seems like an indication of number one starter status.

[Frobby]

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?

Wells had the same number of 20 win seasons as Mussina (1). The year he won 20 (which was when he was with the Blue Jays, not the Yankees), he wasn't particularly good, just very fortunate. He posted a 4.11 ERA that year but the Blue Jays scored 5.97 runs/game when he pitched.

In the two seasons when they were both Yankees:

2002: Wells 19-7, 3.75 ERA, Mussina 18-10, 4.05 ERA

2003: Wells 15-7, 4.14 ERA, Mussina 17-8, 3.40 ERA

I think you'd have to give Wells the edge in 2002, Mussina the edge in 2003.

Mussina led the Yankee starters in ERA in 2001 (3.15), 2003 (3.40), 2006 (3.51) and 2008 (3.37). He finished 2nd, 8th, 4th and 6th in the league in ERA in those years. That meets my definition of an ace.

[Old#5fan]

He was clearly the best starter his first and last years in NY when he finished top-6 in Cy Young voting and arguably their best starter in a couple other years including 2003. And he started Opening Day 2004 which seems like an indication of number one starter status.

Actually, you help make my case as to why he was not considered an "ace" as a Yankee, if he started only ONE opening day. A true ace would be starting every opening day in my view, unless injured or something. When he was an Oriole he started every opening day didn't he? I rest my case...as obviously the Yankees had multiple other pitchers they thought better during his tenure there. Pettite, Clemens, probably Wells, and whoever else they were trotting out there on every opening day sans the one!

[Old#5fan]

Wells had the same number of 20 win seasons as Mussina (1). The year he won 20 (which was when he was with the Blue Jays, not the Yankees), he wasn't particularly good, just very fortunate. He posted a 4.11 ERA that year but the Blue Jays scored 5.97 runs/game when he pitched.

In the two seasons when they were both Yankees:

2002: Wells 19-7, 3.75 ERA, Mussina 18-10, 4.05 ERA

2003: Wells 15-7, 4.14 ERA, Mussina 17-8, 3.40 ERA

I think you'd have to give Wells the edge in 2002, Mussina the edge in 2003.

Mussina led the Yankee starters in ERA in 2001 (3.15), 2003 (3.40), 2006 (3.51) and 2008 (3.37). He finished 2nd, 8th, 4th and 6th in the league in ERA in those years. That meets my definition of an ace.

If he was so much of a "ace" as a Yankee how come he made only one opening day start during his tenure there? When he was an Oriole he was the man on opening day. He was second or third fiddle to guys like Pettite, Clemens, and just a #2-#3 starter with them, which is how they treated him. Aces don't watch other pitchers start on opening day. Think about it!

[OFFNY]

o

C.B.S. Sports asserts that the Orioles are World Series contenders, with or without an ace:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24694983/despite-no-ace-orioles-are-absolutely-world-series-title-contender

[OFFNY]

o

C.B.S. Sports asserts that the Orioles are World Series contenders, with or without an ace:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24694983/despite-no-ace-orioles-are-absolutely-world-series-title-contender

Tillman was pretty good last night (1 run, 2 walks, 5 strikeouts), but he only went 5 innings, throwing 108 pitches in the process.

I agree with C.B.S. Sports ...... the Orioles are contenders, with or without an ace.

[Redskins Rick]

No "true" Ace on this staff.

But, I think the combo of Tilly & Chen and the first 1-2 punch, would clearly keep the team in the game for the post season run.

[theobird]

As I said early in the season, Miguel Gonzalez is at least our #2 starter, and right now he is looking like our ACE. I am very comfortable with Gonzo, Tillman and Chen in the playoffs and Bud Norris just seams to be a step up kind of guy. I feel real good about that group

[Redskins Rick]

If he was so much of a "ace" as a Yankee how come he made only one opening day start during his tenure there? When he was an Oriole he was the man on opening day. He was second or third fiddle to guys like Pettite, Clemens, and just a #2-#3 starter with them, which is how they treated him. Aces don't watch other pitchers start on opening day. Think about it!

Really, is this your best shot? Seriously.

In 64, Koufax was the opening day pitcher, does that make Drysdale a lesser pitcher, since he didn't start opening day? I think you might check and find Drysdale was a HOF pitcher.

In 69, there was 4 twenty game winners on the Orioles, but only 1 of them could pitch opening day for 1970, so the others were just 2nd, third and 4th bananas?

Again, it's clear you have an anti-Mussina basis.

[Pheasants]

Virtually every contending team for a playoff spot has a"better" #1 starter(although the Angels pitching is suspect), but Im willing to bet that a combination of Tillman, Chen, Miguel, Norris, with a quick bullpen appearance from Gausman could be quite formidable. Im not saying the Orioles have better SP , but I think these guys are quickly dismissed by the so called "experts". I know the bullpen is as solid as it gets. Especially if every member of the bullpen is sound going into the playoffs.

To me the question is how long a period does "better" refer to. Every team has more big names than we do, but are those names currently better pitchers? The Angels have the name in Weaver, but Shoemaker (2.02 ERA/0.84 WHIP since All-Star break) is currently doing best. Are the big names whose current ERAs are above 3.5 still "aces"? Do we assume when the post season starts that everyone reverts to their three year average? When I hear national figures talk about the O's, they'll mention Tillman, Chen and Norris as being good and Gonzo is left to hang though ERA/WHIP says he's easily our 1 or 2 currently.

[larrytt]

Again, Mike Mussina was an ace on the Orioles staff. He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees. That is BEYOND dispute.

Sorry, but I will loudly dispute this as it shows complete ignorance of the facts. For example, look at Mussina's 2008 season with the Yankees. Here are the top five starters for the Yankees that year:

Mike Mussina, 20-9, 3.37 ERA, 33 starts

Andy Pettitte, 14-14, 4.54 ERA, 34 starts

Darrell Rainer, 5-10, 5.40 ERA, 24 starts

Chien-Ming Wang, 8-2, 4.07 ERA, 15 starts

Sidney Ponson, 4-4, 5.85 ERA, 15 starts

Mussina finished 6th in Cy Young voting that year; no other Yankees starter got a vote.

So . . . who was the ace and #1 starter for the Yankees that year? Obviously Mussina, and that is beyond dispute from any reasonable person. And remember, you claimed he wasn't even top two. There were two other years where Mussina was arguably the ace of the staff (not to mention top two), 2003 and, by most stats, 2001, but it wasn't as clear as it was for 2008. But to say "He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees" is willful ignorance of the facts.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sorry, but I will loudly dispute this as it shows complete ignorance of the facts. For example, look at Mussina's 2008 season with the Yankees. Here are the top five starters for the Yankees that year:

Mike Mussina, 20-9, 3.37 ERA, 33 starts

Andy Pettitte, 14-14, 4.54 ERA, 34 starts

Darrell Rainer, 5-10, 5.40 ERA, 24 starts

Chien-Ming Wang, 8-2, 4.07 ERA, 15 starts

Sidney Ponson, 4-4, 5.85 ERA, 15 starts

Mussina finished 6th in Cy Young voting that year; no other Yankees starter got a vote.

So . . . who was the ace and #1 starter for the Yankees that year? Obviously Mussina, and that is beyond dispute from any reasonable person. And remember, you claimed he wasn't even top two. There were two other years where Mussina was arguably the ace of the staff (not to mention top two), 2003 and, by most stats, 2001, but it wasn't as clear as it was for 2008. But to say "He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees" is willful ignorance of the facts.

Yes, but where do those "facts" come from? People. And do people make mistakes? All the time. So it's possible that Mussina was 4-33 or 5-19 those years and your "facts" are mere transcription errors by flawed human beings. Who are you going to believe, so-called facts off of some site on the internet or some guy who knows he knows better? I know where I stand.

[larrytt]

Sorry, but I will loudly dispute this as it shows complete ignorance of the facts. For example, look at Mussina's 2008 season with the Yankees. Here are the top five starters for the Yankees that year:

Mike Mussina, 20-9, 3.37 ERA, 33 starts

Andy Pettitte, 14-14, 4.54 ERA, 34 starts

Darrell Rainer, 5-10, 5.40 ERA, 24 starts

Chien-Ming Wang, 8-2, 4.07 ERA, 15 starts

Sidney Ponson, 4-4, 5.85 ERA, 15 starts

Mussina finished 6th in Cy Young voting that year; no other Yankees starter got a vote.

So . . . who was the ace and #1 starter for the Yankees that year? Obviously Mussina, and that is beyond dispute from any reasonable person. And remember, you claimed he wasn't even top two. There were two other years where Mussina was arguably the ace of the staff (not to mention top two), 2003 and, by most stats, 2001, but it wasn't as clear as it was for 2008. But to say "He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees" is willful ignorance of the facts.

Old#5fan, the silence from you is deafening. You wrote, "Again, Mike Mussina was an ace on the Orioles staff. He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees. That is BEYOND dispute."

It was not only disputed, but shown to be completely wrong, unless of course you are going to look at the stats above and claim Mussina not only wasn't the Yankee's ace that year, but wasn't in their top two. (The same argument could be made for two other years, but we'll keep it simple and stick with 2008 for now.)

So you have the following choices:

A) "Sorry, I should have looked at Mussina's stats before posting false info about them. I was mistaken."

B) "I stand by my statement. I don't care about facts."

C) "It's a conspiracy! Mussina is no good! He's a member of ISIS and Al Qaeda, and kicks puppys!"

D) [DEAFENING SILENCE.]

On a side note, you made a big deal about how Mussina was the opening day starter only once for the Yankees. Well, duh! Even if Mussina had better stats some years, they had Roger Clemens on their team much of that time, and he's almost always going to be the opening day starter even though he was clearly no longer a real ace some of those years. For example, in 2002 Mussina went 18-10 with a 4.05 ERA to Clemens 13-6, 4.35 ERA, and was better on essentially every important cyberstat - but Clemens was still the opening day starter in 2003. Then Mussina retired after his great 2008 season, or he likely would have been the opening day starter in 2009.

[Redskins Rick]

Old#5fan, the silence from you is deafening. You wrote, "Again, Mike Mussina was an ace on the Orioles staff. He wasnt even a number two starter on the Yankees. That is BEYOND dispute."

On a side note, you made a big deal about how Mussina was the opening day starter only twice for the Yankees. Well, duh! Even if Mussina had better stats some years, they had Roger Clemens on their team much of that time, and he's almost always going to be the opening day starter even though he was clearly no longer a real ace some of those years. For example, in 2002 Mussina went 18-10 with a 4.05 ERA to Clemens 13-6, 4.35 ERA, and was better on essentially every important cyberstat - but Clemens was still the opening day starter in 2003. Then Mussina retired after his great 2008 season, or he likely would have been the opening day starter in 2009.

Which is why I pointed out to him, examples like Drysdale on the 64 Dodgers, HOF, but Koufax another future HOFer got the opening day nod.

And least of not, our own 69 Orioles with 4 twenty game winners, and only one gets to pitch opening day.

And there are many many other examples which disproves his theory about only an Ace pitches on opening day.