Define "Ace"

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

Ehh, I think this is a poor argument.  The better pitchers were still over 200 IP.

Right now, there is no need to re-think anything.  Now, maybe after 2020 and 2021, teams will re-evaluate how they do things but for right now, the thresholds are still there imo.

I agree that for right now 200 IP is probably a reasonable threshold.   At a minimum, you’d want a pitcher to have achieved that a few times to be an ace.   I’m just saying that over the next decade that criterion may not hold.   

I note that Kershaw has thrown 200 IP five times, but not since 2015.   I still would have a hard time removing his ace label considering that he’s gone 64-22 with a 165 ERA+ since then.   

 

[scOtt]

6 hours ago, jamalshw said:

In a world (particularly baseball world) where we try and quantify everything. An "ace" isn't as easily quantifiable to me as top 5, 10 or even 15 pitchers based on any metric be it ERA, WHIP, FIP, etc. 

For me, an ace is someone that you can start and feel good about your chances regardless about what team you are facing and who is pitching for that team. That needs to be established over a sizeable timeframe, however, one season is usually too short. It's someone that can completely dominate hitters. Right now, Jacob deGrom is obviously an ace. Shane Bieber, Gerrit Cole, and Max Scherzer are aces. Joe Musgrove, Corbin Burnes, Brandon Woodruff are all pitching likes aces and on their way, but need to prove it over a bit more to get into that category.   

A stopper. Someone to stop losing streaks. Or keep winning streaks alive,

[spiritof66]

On 4/26/2021 at 12:21 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

Brainard was not only the primary starter for the famous 1869 Red Stockings, but also a starter on the 1873-74 Baltimore Canaries of the National Association. That was the first league side to represent Baltimore. 

His 1874 pitching line is physically unrealizable today - 240 innings, 405 hits, 329 runs, 99 earned, 27 walks, eight strikeouts, and 19 wild pitches.  Was 5-22.  Also... strange accounting here 30 games pitched, 27 starts, 4 games finished, and 25 complete games.  The only way that math works out is if he left a game, moved to the field, then went back and finished the game.  In 99.999% of the cases games pitched <= starts plus games finished.

From Tom Gilbert's recent (2020) book How Baseball Happened: The True Story Revealed (page 346): "Incidentally, the common story that the baseball term 'ace,' meaning  star pitcher, comes from Brainard's first name is false. Like other baseball terminology, it comes from card playing." Gilbert is among the most respected and indefatigable -- though frequently controversial and contrarian -- researchers of nineteenth-century baseball.

[Redskins Rick]

On 4/26/2021 at 6:39 PM, Frobby said:

I agree that for right now 200 IP is probably a reasonable threshold.   At a minimum, you’d want a pitcher to have achieved that a few times to be an ace.   I’m just saying that over the next decade that criterion may not hold.   

I note that Kershaw has thrown 200 IP five times, but not since 2015.   I still would have a hard time removing his ace label considering that he’s gone 64-22 with a 165 ERA+ since then.   

 

As much as he is an Ace, Kershaw flat out stank in post season, until his last playoff season, where he finally earned some redemption.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

From Tom Gilbert's recent (2020) book How Baseball Happened: The True Story Revealed (page 346): "Incidentally, the common story that the baseball term 'ace,' meaning  star pitcher, comes from Brainard's first name is false. Like other baseball terminology, it comes from card playing." Gilbert is among the most respected and indefatigable -- though frequently controversial and contrarian -- researchers of nineteenth-century baseball.

Thanks, I haven't read that yet. Does he actually have references to back that up, or just states it as fact?

[Redskins Rick]

8 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Thanks, I haven't read that yet. Does he actually have references to back that up, or just states it as fact?

I did stumble across this definition:

Quote

For example, the April 27, 1981, Sports Illustrated cover was captioned "The Amazing A's and Their Five Aces" to describe the starting rotation of the 1981 Oakland Athletics.^[6]

 

[Bahama O's Fan]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

From Tom Gilbert's recent (2020) book How Baseball Happened: The True Story Revealed (page 346): "Incidentally, the common story that the baseball term 'ace,' meaning  star pitcher, comes from Brainard's first name is false. Like other baseball terminology, it comes from card playing." Gilbert is among the most respected and indefatigable -- though frequently controversial and contrarian -- researchers of nineteenth-century baseball.

Does he state where the term comes from?

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Bahama O's Fan said:

Does he state where the term comes from?

He doesn't spell it out, but his point is either that the ace is the top card in the deck, or that if you have an ace in your hand that is your highest card.

I just happened on the Gilbert quote yesterday, but the Brainard story doesn't make sense to me since Brainard did his pitching when one guy did almost all of the pitching, and to me "ace" is an odd concept in those circumstances.

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Thanks, I haven't read that yet. Does he actually have references to back that up, or just states it as fact?

No. One of the occasionally annoying things about the book is that he meticulously footnotes many of his factual statements (and, I think, every quotation), but others he just asserts. Nonetheless, I highly recommend it.

[GuidoSarducci]

I always thought of it as the teams best pitcher, qualified by the ERA+ being reasonably high - like maybe > 110, though there is some wiggle room here.  They should also regularly go 6+ innings.  In any given year, a team may or may not have an ace, but they only have one max.  I sometimes use the phrase "Our/their ace is on the mound" which has the implication the ace is unique per team. 

This is who I think are the staff aces for Orioles year by year since 2010.

2010 Guthrie ERA 3.83 ERA+ 108 IP 209.1, despite the low ERA+, I'll give Guthrie the nod here because of high IP

2011 None

2012 None 

2013 Tillman ERA 3.71 ERA + 110 IP 206.1

2014 Tillman ERA 3.34 ERA+ 118 IP 207.1

2015 Chen ERA 3.34 ERA+ 123 IP 191.1 (31 GS) 

2016 Gausman ERA 3.61 ERA+ 119 IP 179.2 (30 GS) 

2017 None 

2018 None

2019 Means ERA 3.60 ERA+ 130 IP 155.0 (31 GP, 27 GS)

2020 None

2021 Means obviously (so far, though I doubt this changes) 

Edited April 29, 2021 by GuidoSarducci

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

He doesn't spell it out, but his point is either that the ace is the top card in the deck, or that if you have an ace in your hand that is your highest card.

I just happened on the Gilbert quote yesterday, but the Brainard story doesn't make sense to me since Brainard did his pitching when one guy did almost all of the pitching, and to me "ace" is an odd concept in those circumstances.

No. One of the occasionally annoying things about the book is that he meticulously footnotes many of his factual statements (and, I think, every quotation), but others he just asserts. Nonetheless, I highly recommend it.

I think it's plausible that ace could mean just a very good pitcher in general, not the ace of the staff.  Since in the 1860s a pitching staff was one main guy, and your right fielder or someone like that who'd pitch when the main guy had typhoid.

On the card playing reference it would be nice to know his source for that, otherwise he's just a guy saying its true.  If it was John Thorn maybe, but I don't know this guy from Adam.

[Redskins Rick]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it's plausible that ace could mean just a very good pitcher in general, not the ace of the staff.  Since in the 1860s a pitching staff was one main guy, and your right fielder or someone like that who'd pitch when the main guy had typhoid.

On the card playing reference it would be nice to know his source for that, otherwise he's just a guy saying its true.  If it was John Thorn maybe, but I don't know this guy from Adam.

ASA was Brainard's first name, and most people called him Ace. Which is why a lot of people believe he is the origin for the term. Its a talked about in wiki, of course, wiki is 100% authenticate.

I think the Orioles throwing 4 twenty game winners, had 4 aces that season.

To me the ace, is the stopper, the guy, you count on, that will have a good chance to win the game, before he even tosses the first pitch. You got a 1 to 4 game losing streak, you need your Ace to come out and put a end to the Ls.

 

 

 

[spiritof66]

59 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think it's plausible that ace could mean just a very good pitcher in general, not the ace of the staff.  Since in the 1860s a pitching staff was one main guy, and your right fielder or someone like that who'd pitch when the main guy had typhoid.

On the card playing reference it would be nice to know his source for that, otherwise he's just a guy saying its true.  If it was John Thorn maybe, but I don't know this guy from Adam.

I agree it would be nice to know his source, and maybe I'll ask him if I can fund an email address.

But it's unfair to say that Gilbert is "just a guy." He is a prominent and, I believe, highly respected figure in the Nineteenth-Century Committee of SABR, and John Thorn wrote the introduction to his book, calling it "a brilliant new approach to our game and its author tells a hundred stories you haven't heard before. It is my honor to invite you to enter into his world." Gilbert probably has researched pre-1871 baseball as much as anyone other than Thorn, and his emphasis is on Brooklyn and New York clubs during this period. (Brainard pitched for the Excelsior Club of Brooklyn from 1859 through 1866; he did not serve in the war.) Of course, Gilbert still could be dead wrong.

[DrungoHazewood]

42 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

I agree it would be nice to know his source, and maybe I'll ask him if I can fund an email address.

But it's unfair to say that Gilbert is "just a guy." He is a prominent and, I believe, highly respected figure in the Nineteenth-Century Committee of SABR, and John Thorn wrote the introduction to his book, calling it "a brilliant new approach to our game and its author tells a hundred stories you haven't heard before. It is my honor to invite you to enter into his world." Gilbert probably has researched pre-1871 baseball as much as anyone other than Thorn, and his emphasis is on Brooklyn and New York clubs during this period. (Brainard pitched for the Excelsior Club of Brooklyn from 1859 through 1866; he did not serve in the war.) Of course, Gilbert still could be dead wrong.

That's better, but would still like to know how he "knows" this fact to be true.