A Realistic View at 2023: Part I

[notin]

From what I've gathered, most people only consider an ace a guy who's on a Hall of Fame track.

 

That might be 4-5 pitchers per decade..

[notin]

Generally, you have a rotation of five starters. Depending on health , they will all start roughly the same number of games. Assigning a number to each of them is meaningless. And calling one the " ace " means little either.

 

Denny!!! We agree on something related to baseball!!

[moonslav59]

It's not so much what you call them, just get one or two, this winter.

 

It looks like it was a good thing not to go after Montas.

[Bellhorn04]

That might be 4-5 pitchers per decade..

 

That's what I'm saying. And in saying it I realize how silly it is. We used to get in arguments about whether Lester was an ace, or Beckett was an ace, etc. And I finally realized you can only be safe calling guys like Pedro or Verlander aces.

[notin]

That's what I'm saying. And in saying it I realize how silly it is. We used to get in arguments about whether Lester was an ace, or Beckett was an ace, etc. And I finally realized you can only be safe calling guys like Pedro or Verlander aces.

 

I’ve always thought of it as a relative term. Your best pitcher is your ace. As for the “he’s a #1” or a “#2”, that’s all just as subjective. Just get the 5 best pitchers you can get out there. I am 99.9999% certain anyone categorizing pitchers by numbers like that is doing it without actual criteria. While certainly not a horrible practice, it does get tough to defend those labels…

[Bellhorn04]

I’ve always thought of it as a relative term. Your best pitcher is your ace. As for the “he’s a #1” or a “#2”, that’s all just as subjective. Just get the 5 best pitchers you can get out there. I am 99.9999% certain anyone categorizing pitchers by numbers like that is doing it without actual criteria. While certainly not a horrible practice, it does get tough to defend those labels…

 

Let's face it, it's all about "ace" being a cool word...

[moonslav59]

I’ve always thought of it as a relative term. Your best pitcher is your ace. As for the “he’s a #1” or a “#2”, that’s all just as subjective. Just get the 5 best pitchers you can get out there. I am 99.9999% certain anyone categorizing pitchers by numbers like that is doing it without actual criteria. While certainly not a horrible practice, it does get tough to defend those labels…

 

I've always felt it's best to improve your staff from the top, and trying to improve your 5th starter with a better 5th starter type is folly, but take a guy like Wacha. We did not sign him to be our #1 (or ace), or even our #2 or #3. At best we hoped he'd be solid #4 who maybe pitched like many teams' #2 or 3.

 

Even counting the injury, had we signed 3 Wachas instead of 1, we'd be in the playoff hunt, right now.

[Bellhorn04]

I've always felt it's best to improve your staff from the top, and trying to improve your 5th starter with a better 5th starter type is folly, but take a guy like Wacha. We did not sign him to be our #1 (or ace), or even our #2 or #3. At best we hoped he'd be solid #4 who maybe pitched like many teams' #2 or 3.

 

Even counting the injury, had we signed 3 Wachas instead of 1, we'd be in the playoff hunt, right now.

 

It's hit or miss stuff even for a pitching expert like Bloom. For every Wacha there's a Richards.

 

Anyway, it'd be nice to keep Wacha around somehow...

[notin]

Let's face it, it's all about "ace" being a cool word...

 

Can we come up with cool and possibly even alphabetic names for #2 through #5?

 

I’ll throw out Beta for a #2. Although we don’td this turning into Brave New World…

[moonslav59]

It's hit or miss stuff even for a pitching expert like Bloom. For every Wacha there's a Richards.

 

Anyway, it'd be nice to keep Wacha around somehow...

 

The "hit or miss" aspect of it all is proven by the Martin Perez example.

 

Here's a guy Bloom took a chance on two seperate times, while we all scratched our heads think, What can he possibly see in this guys, even if just for $5-6M a year?"

 

Well, the third year would have been a "hit."

 

Two Wachas and a Perez would have put us in the playoffs.

 

Think how bizarre that sounds!

[Bellhorn04]

The "hit or miss" aspect of it all is proven by the Martin Perez example.

 

Here's a guy Bloom took a chance on two seperate times, while we all scratched our heads think, What can he possibly see in this guys, even if just for $5-6M a year?"

 

Well, the third year would have been a "hit."

 

Two Wachas and a Perez would have put us in the playoffs.

 

Think how bizarre that sounds!

 

And the guy who signed Perez this year got fired LOL

[Maxbialystock]

I’ve always thought of it as a relative term. Your best pitcher is your ace. As for the “he’s a #1” or a “#2”, that’s all just as subjective. Just get the 5 best pitchers you can get out there. I am 99.9999% certain anyone categorizing pitchers by numbers like that is doing it without actual criteria. While certainly not a horrible practice, it does get tough to defend those labels…

 

Good discussion on aces. I will offer a different rationale for calling anyone an ace--his freaking salary. Therefore Sale is our ace beyond question.

 

Having read some good comments above, I am inclined to agree "ace" doesn't have much meaning these days because a real ace should be a stopper. Think Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez or Tom Seaver. The problem is that few teams really have that kind of starter these days. The Yankees, for example, are paying Gerrit Cole $36M/year. Unlike Chris Sale, he's healthy, and last year he was their guy in the wild card game--and got beat, lasting just 2 innings and giving up 3 runs on 7 days rest.

[Bellhorn04]

Good discussion on aces. I will offer a different rationale for calling anyone an ace--his freaking salary. Therefore Sale is our ace beyond question.

 

Having read some good comments above, I am inclined to agree "ace" doesn't have much meaning these days because a real ace should be a stopper. Think Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez or Tom Seaver. The problem is that few teams really have that kind of starter these days.

 

Few teams ever do. That's why I'm saying the only guys everyone agrees are aces are in the Hall of Fame, or on that path.

[Bellhorn04]

No pitcher is infallible. Bob Gibson was one of the greatest ever, obviously, and he was phenomenal in the 3 World Series he appeared in. And yet it sticks in my mind that in his last WS game, the 7th game in 1968, he took the loss, out-dueled by Mickey Lolich.

[moonslav59]

I've always used the term "ace" to mean the best pitcher on a team, but even that is not a firm position I hold, since c learly some teams seem to have 2-3 aces while others none.

 

I've often used the best 30 SP'ers in a given season or time period to roughly view them all as "aces," but clearly others view the term differently, and that's fine with me.

[notin]

No pitcher is infallible. Bob Gibson was one of the greatest ever, obviously, and he was phenomenal in the 3 World Series he appeared in. And yet it sticks in my mind that in his last WS game, the 7th game in 1968, he took the loss, out-dueled by Mickey Lolich.

 

No shame in losing to Lolich. It’s not hard to make an argument he belongs in Cooperstown as well…

[notin]

Good discussion on aces. I will offer a different rationale for calling anyone an ace--his freaking salary. Therefore Sale is our ace beyond question.

 

Having read some good comments above, I am inclined to agree "ace" doesn't have much meaning these days because a real ace should be a stopper. Think Sandy Koufax or Pedro Martinez or Tom Seaver. The problem is that few teams really have that kind of starter these days. The Yankees, for example, are paying Gerrit Cole $36M/year. Unlike Chris Sale, he's healthy, and last year he was their guy in the wild card game--and got beat, lasting just 2 innings and giving up 3 runs on 7 days rest.

 

I never thought about using salary as a differentiator. There is merit to that notion for multiple reasons…

[Bellhorn04]

No shame in losing to Lolich. It’s not hard to make an argument he belongs in Cooperstown as well…

 

Plus if I recall correctly, Gibson was victimized by a bad play in the outfield that game.

[notin]

Plus if I recall correctly, Gibson was victimized by a bad play in the outfield that game.

 

It was Brock. Right?

[Bellhorn04]

It was Brock. Right?

 

I think it was Curt Flood. B-R shows Northrup hit a 2-run triple to center. That was the play.

 

That was my introduction to the concept that a fielder can mess up and still not get charged with an error...

[moonslav59]

I think it was Curt Flood. B-R shows Northrup hit a 2-run triple to center. That was the play.

 

That was my introduction to the concept that a fielder can mess up and still not get charged with an error...

 

Check it out:

 

 

There is a 3-2, 2 out bloop hit at about the 1:46 mark by Norm Cash.

 

Soft GB hit at about 1:46.45 by Willie Horton.

 

1:47:45 Jim Northrup hits a liner to CF, where Curt Flood gates a poor jump, stumbles and then just misses catching the ball as it sails over his head and rolls to the CF wall. Another hit follows by Bill Freehan that may have been catchable. Gibson pitched very well, that inning. Tough break.

[moonslav59]

BTV called this a "Moderate Overpay" by the Sox:

 

12.1 Yorke

7.2 Duran

6.6 Gonzalez

5.6 Walter

5.6 Lugo

(37.1 Total)

 

FOR

 

35.0 Lopez (2 yrs of control)

19.3 Luzardo (3 yrs)

-0.8 Stallings (2 yrs- the catcher we tried to trade for last winter)

-23.1 A Garcia RF/DH (3 yrs at $17M each) Salary dump to lessen the return and maybe fill a need.

(30.4 Total)

 

Also, accepted as minor Sox overpay:

 

Casas, Yorke, Gonzalez & Seabold

for

Lopez, Luzardo & Stallings (No Garcia salary dump)

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by moonslav59

[oldtimer]

BTV called this a "Moderate Overpay" by the Sox:

 

12.1 Yorke

7.2 Duran

6.6 Gonzalez

5.6 Walter

5.6 Lugo

(37.1 Total)

 

FOR

 

35.0 Lopez (2 yrs of control)

19.3 Luzardo (3 yrs)

-0.8 Stallings (2 yrs- the catcher we tried to trade for last winter)

-23.1 A Garcia RF/DH (3 yrs at $17M each) Salary dump to lessen the return and maybe fill a need.

(30.4 Total)

 

Also, accepted as minor Sox overpay:

 

Casas, Yorke, Gonzalez & Seabold

for

Lopez, Luzardo & Stallings (No Garcia salary dump)

 

 

Why suggest Casas as an option when 1st base is a position of great need?

[moonslav59]

Current Sox Values on BTV

 

Red: Drafted in 2022

Blue: Acquired at deadline

 

55.4 Mayer

43.4 Devers

39.7 Casas

26.9 Bello

21.8 Houck

21.3 Whitlock

15.1 Rafaela

14.4 Verdugo

12.1 Taylor

12.1 Yorke

10.1 Schreiber

8.7 Bleis

8.7 Romero

7.4 Crawford

7.2 Duran

6.6 Gonzalez

6.5 Coffey

6.5 Hosmer

5.6 Lugo, Walter

5.0 Jordan

3.8 Pivetta, Mata

3.3 Murphy, Winckowski

3.1 Paxton

3.0 Paulino

2.9 Seabold

2.7 McDonough

2.6 Bonaci

2.5 RHernandez

2.4 McGuire

2.2 Jimenez

2.1 WAbreu, Anthony, Dalbec

1.8 Rosier

1.7 Drohan, Hickey, Rodriguez-Cruz

1.6 Chacon, Hamilton, Wong

Notables under 1.5:

1.3 Kavadas

1.2 Ferguson, Perales, EValdez

1.1 Downs, TWard

1.0 NSong

0.5 German

-0.3 Sawamura

-1.5 Pham

-13.6 Barnes

-26.3 Sale

-40.3 Story

(Refsnyder not listed for some reason)

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Why suggest Casas as an option when 1st base is a position of great need?

 

1. You have to give something very good to get something very good.

2. Good pitching is harder to find than good 1Bmen.

3. Maybe Kavadas can move up quickly, otherwise, Hosmer is a good placeholder, if we decide to spend elsewhere.

[oldtimer]

We have had two years of so-so to bad fielding 1st basemen until we lucked out in signing Hosmer. None of our 1st basemen have been reliable hitters, when 1st is usually considered a position that generates offense. It appears that Bloom has had difficulty finding a 1st baseman so I would get a look at Casas now with the hope he is the future for us at the position and at low cost at that.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Current Sox Values on BTV

 

Red: Drafted in 2022

Blue: Acquired at deadline

 

55.4 Mayer

43.4 Devers

39.7 Casas

26.9 Bello

21.8 Houck

21.3 Whitlock

15.1 Rafaela

14.4 Verdugo

12.1 Taylor

12.1 Yorke

10.1 Schreiber

8.7 Bleis

8.7 Romero

7.4 Crawford

7.2 Duran

6.6 Gonzalez

6.5 Coffey

6.5 Hosmer

5.6 Lugo, Walter

5.0 Jordan

3.8 Pivetta, Mata

3.3 Murphy, Winckowski

3.1 Paxton

3.0 Paulino

2.9 Seabold

2.7 McDonough

2.6 Bonaci

2.5 RHernandez

2.4 McGuire

2.2 Jimenez

2.1 WAbreu, Anthony, Dalbec

1.8 Rosier

1.7 Drohan, Hickey, Rodriguez-Cruz

1.6 Chacon, Hamilton, Wong

Notables under 1.5:

1.3 Kavadas

1.2 Ferguson, Perales, EValdez

1.1 Downs, TWard

1.0 NSong

0.5 German

-0.3 Sawamura

-1.5 Pham

-13.6 Barnes

-26.3 Sale

-40.3 Story

(Refsnyder not listed for some reason)

 

 

 

 

 

Based on recent reports, the Red Sox and the industry may place Bleis' value a lot higher on this list. How much trade value does someone literally have who is deemed "untouchable"?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Regarding aces, assigning numbers to starters in a rotation isn't really useless. Your #1 starter is the guy you want to start Game One in a postseason series -- not only to set the tone, but to make your best pitcher available to throw as many games as possible (like Games 1, 4 and 7, if necessary).

 

Of course, increasingly multiple rounds of modern playoffs make it harder to line up aces in subsequent series.

[Bellhorn04]

Regarding aces, assigning numbers to starters in a rotation isn't really useless. Your #1 starter is the guy you want to start Game One in a postseason series -- not only to set the tone, but to make your best pitcher available to throw as many games as possible (like Games 1, 4 and 7, if necessary).

 

#1 starter isn't really a confusing concept.

 

But is the #1 starter necessarily an "ace", is the question. See 2015 Red Sox.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

#1 starter isn't really a confusing concept.

 

But is the #1 starter necessarily an "ace", is the question. See 2015 Red Sox.

 

The '15 Sox had a lot of jokers. A last place team doesn't always have an ace for obvious reasons; there aren't many '72 Steve Carltons, who led the majors in WAR on the last-place Phillies.

 

But is it even debatable that most legit contenders that advance in the postseason ride aces to glory? As to the question if a club can have more than one ace, what about the '02 Red Sox, who had two 20-game winners but didn't even make the playoffs? Pedro led the league in ERA, Ks, WHIP and FIP... and yet, Derek Lowe led all AL pitchers in WAR.