The Mets' ace this season

[Guest iramets]

So far, with under a third of the season gone, I've heard four pitchers being seriously described as the Mets' ace, and presumably there's going to be a fifth when Pedro comes back.

That's a lot of staff aces, no? On Opening Day, it was widely assumed that Glavine was the ace of the Mets' somewhat untested staff. That was a no-brainer.

Then around the end of April, I heard an awful lot of "John Maine has emerged as the Mets' ace" and then about two weeks later it was Ollie Perez who had assumed that role on this team. Last night, I heard several people (I was in a bar for last night's game, a decent spot called the Joshua Tree on 3rd Avenue) assert that Sosa was now the Mets' staff ace. I don't think I've ever heard a term tossed around more indiscriminately. All we need is for El Duque to get hot, and (counting Pedro) this team will have more staff aces than it has starters.

[TransMonk]

iramets wrote: All we need is for El Duque to get hot, and (counting Pedro) this team will have more staff aces than it has starters.

What's not hot about:
51IP 29H 12R 5HR 18BB 35K 3W 1L 0.92WHIP .173BAA 1.94ERA

If I've got 5 guys that are capable of giving me a quality start every time, then you can call whomever you want the ace.

[Guest iramets]

Are you calling Duque the Mets' ace? Cuz if you are, I'm holding five aces, and that usually gets you thrown out of a poker game.

[TransMonk]

Nope...I don't care what you call him, I'm just saying he doesn't need to get hot in order to have his numbers considered with the others.

I don't know what the textbook definition of ace is, but to me, it's the guy on your staff that you feel most confident will give you a quality start. At this point in time, I'm not sure I have more confidence in any of them than the others. And that's a good thing.

If you gave me a scenario where the Mets HAD to win just one game, then I would go with Glavine. I love the way that Maine, Perez, Sosa and even El Duque are pitching right now...but I'm still not past the worry that it may only be temporary for any of them. Glavine has the longest, most consistent resume of pitching quality starts. But I wouldn't kill myself any of them were pitching in that theoretical game tomorrow.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Never mind, I'm in the wrong thread.

[Gwreck]

I don't think we necessarily have an ace, we have 5 #2 or #3 starters. Which seems to be working fine.

[stevejrogers]

Gwreck wrote: I don't think we necessarily have an ace, we have 5 #2 or #3 starters. Which seems to be working fine.

And I don't think we really had an "ace" not named Pedro Martinez in quite a while. Mike Hampton was soild for us, but was he really an "ace" in the true sense of the word? Ditto Leiter, and clearly Glavine's ace days have been behind him for a couple of years now.

If your definition of "ace" is someone who would be a #1 on a great majority of MLB teams for a given period of time when he was with the Mets, then the last one we really had (besides Pedro even now) was the guy iramets played off of for his last handle on here, Bret Saberhagen.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Is Al an Ace?

[stevejrogers]

Edgy DC wrote: Is Al an Ace?

Was Leiter (even at any point in his career) ever that type of pitcher who could be a #1 (apparantly my definition also includes being a #1, not a soild #2) on virtually every team in the league as a Met?

Heck, part of the "excitement" of bringing in Glavine was letting Leiter slide back down to the #2 role where he enjoyed his success in 2000 (and with the 1997 Marlins behind Kevin Brown)

Sure he pitched like and was treated as the best pitcher on the staff for much of his Metly days, but was he a true MLB ace? See Swan, Craig for that answer.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm just referring to how many times we've been down this road. I used to post an annual thread called "Is Al an Ace?"

The definitions of "ace" and "number one" are so nebulous as to be rather useless, in my experience.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

Edgy DC wrote: I'm just referring to how many times we've been down this road. I used to post an annual thread called "Is Al an Ace?" The definitions of "ace" and "number one" are so nebulous as to be rather useless, in my experience.

I tend to agree. "Ace" isn't supposed to be a position that each team must fill, "ace" is just a pitcher who can be counted on to dominate nearly every time he takes the hill. No sense trying to figure out who the ace is on the 2001 Diamondbacks, because they had two.

Also, I don't think there's a sane man alive who'd rather have an ace and 4 chumps than 5 capable, if unspectacular, starters.

[TransMonk]

SteveJRogers wrote: Was Leiter (even at any point in his career) ever that type of pitcher who could be a #1 (apparantly my definition also includes being a #1, not a soild #2) on virtually every team in the league as a Met?

So by your definition, an ace has to be an ace on "virtually" every other team in the league? By that reasoning, that would limit the number of aces in the league to only a few pitchers? Every staff has an ace.

You can debate which pitchers in which years or eras were the staff ace, but all teams have them. I would call Al the Mets ace in 2002.

[stevejrogers]

Edgy DC wrote: I'm just referring to how many times we've been down this road. I used to post an annual thread called "Is Al an Ace?" The definitions of "ace" and "number one" are so nebulous as to be rather useless, in my experience.

I see your point.

BTW, I'm pretty sure I agreed with you when I mentioned I didn't consider Hampton an ace, and yet we went on to the 2000 WS, and conversley if you really want to use the "Saberhagen was the last "ace/number one" we had, well we all know how THOSE years ended up! So while it would be nice to have someone who I would consider one of the top, eh, 5 starters in the game, it isn't neccessary for a pennant winning ballclub.

Ira's OP about the number of aces that have been "named" by various sources this season I think hammers home your point as well. So basically an ace according to those "labeling" all the Met starters as such is whomever has the hot hand at that moment in time.

Therefore, is Tyler Clippard an ace?

[Willets Point]

Glavine, clearly not an ace.

[Guest iramets]

My original intent in starting this thread was to point out how all you have to do to get anointed this team's ace, it seems, was to pitch well for three or four straight games, which seems a pretty low standard for ace-dom.

If there were an equivalent for batters, that would mean anyone who had a 10-game hitting streak would be it, meaning that at some point in the year, pretty much everyone on the team would be your ace.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

TransMonk wrote: ="SteveJRogers"] Was Leiter (even at any point in his career) ever that type of pitcher who could be a #1 (apparantly my definition also includes being a #1, not a soild #2) on virtually every team in the league as a Met? So by your definition, an ace has to be an ace on "virtually" every other team in the league? By that reasoning, that would limit the number of aces in the league to only a few pitchers? Every staff has an ace. You can debate which pitchers in which years or eras were the staff ace, but all teams have them. I would call Al the Mets ace in 2002.

I wouldn't say that all staffs have an ace. What if they're all similar? Hell, what if they all suck? Mark Redman was the best pitcher on the 2006 Royals. To give him a title that's meant to invoke the image of a guy like Johan Santana (aside from "Major League pitcher," though you can't even say that about Redman anymore) is kind of silly.

[TransMonk]

OlerudOwned wrote: I wouldn't say that all staffs have an ace. What if they're all similar? Hell, what if they all suck? Mark Redman was the best pitcher on the 2006 Royals. To give him a title that's meant to invoke the image of a guy like Johan Santana (aside from "Major League pitcher," though you can't even say that about Redman anymore) is kind of silly.

I agree that its a meaningless label that pertains mostly to mediocre teams for marketing purposes. But it's hard to find a team that at any given time hasn't put that label on one of their guys.

I wouldn't care at all if the Mets didn't have an ace all season...as long as they continue to pitch well. I'm much happier with a dependable staff than a dependable guy.

[stevejrogers]

OlerudOwned wrote: ="TransMonk"] ="SteveJRogers"] Was Leiter (even at any point in his career) ever that type of pitcher who could be a #1 (apparantly my definition also includes being a #1, not a soild #2) on virtually every team in the league as a Met? So by your definition, an ace has to be an ace on "virtually" every other team in the league? By that reasoning, that would limit the number of aces in the league to only a few pitchers? Every staff has an ace. You can debate which pitchers in which years or eras were the staff ace, but all teams have them. I would call Al the Mets ace in 2002. I wouldn't say that all staffs have an ace. What if they're all similar? Hell, what if they all suck? Mark Redman was the best pitcher on the 2006 Royals. To give him a title that's meant to invoke the image of a guy like Johan Santana (aside from "Major League pitcher," though you can't even say that about Redman anymore) is kind of silly.

What OO said! All staffs do have a best pitcher for a given year but does that mean that pitcher was among the best in the game that given year? Craig Swan won the 1978 NL ERA title. Do you think the Phillies would rather have had him instead of Carlton? Reds and Seaver? Astros and Richard? Padres and Perry (who won the NL Cy Young that year)? I would think the answer to those would be a simple No. Just because a guy is the best pitcher on a team doesn't mean those pitchers comprise the top 15 in their respective leagues or the top 30 in MLB for a given year.

[TransMonk]

SteveJRogers wrote: All staffs do have a best pitcher for a given year but does that mean that pitcher was among the best in the game that given year? Craig Swan won the 1978 NL ERA title. Do you think the Phillies would rather have had him instead of Carlton? Reds and Seaver? Astros and Richard? Padres and Perry (who won the NL Cy Young that year)? I would think the answer to those would be a simple No. Just because a guy is the best pitcher on a team doesn't mean those pitchers comprise the top 15 in their respective leagues or the top 30 in MLB for a given year.

So an ace is one of the best 15 pitchers in the league? I thought it was the best pitcher on your team. Thus the term "ace." Meaning the best you got...who's your number one?

[stevejrogers]

TransMonk wrote: ="SteveJRogers"]All staffs do have a best pitcher for a given year but does that mean that pitcher was among the best in the game that given year? Craig Swan won the 1978 NL ERA title. Do you think the Phillies would rather have had him instead of Carlton? Reds and Seaver? Astros and Richard? Padres and Perry (who won the NL Cy Young that year)? I would think the answer to those would be a simple No. Just because a guy is the best pitcher on a team doesn't mean those pitchers comprise the top 15 in their respective leagues or the top 30 in MLB for a given year. So an ace is one of the best 15 pitchers in the league? I thought it was the best pitcher on your team. Thus the term "ace." Meaning the best you got...who's your number one?

.

???? No I said "Just because a guy is the best pitcher on a team doesn't mean those pitchers comprise the top 15 in their respective leagues or the top 30 in MLB for a given year."

The list of aces in the NL in 1978 includes Gaylord Perry, J.R. Richard, Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton, and maybe a couple of others but it does not include the best pitcher on the Mets staff, Craig Swan

[Guest Edgy DC]

SteveJRogers wrote: BTW, I'm pretty sure I agreed with you when I mentioned I didn't consider Hampton an ace, and yet we went on to the 2000 WS

I don't think you did.

SteveJRogers wrote: , and conversley if you really want to use the "Saberhagen was the last "ace/number one" we had, well we all know how THOSE years ended up!

What would make you think I'd want to say such a thing?

Until we come up with a hard mathematical definition, this is smoke.

[TransMonk]

SteveJRogers wrote: ???? No I said "Just because a guy is the best pitcher on a team doesn't mean those pitchers comprise the top 15 in their respective leagues or the top 30 in MLB for a given year." The list of aces in the NL in 1978 includes Gaylord Perry, J.R. Richard, Tom Seaver and Steve Carlton, and maybe a couple of others but it does not include the best pitcher on the Mets staff, Craig Swan

I'm saying I disagree..that's all. I think of an ace as a team thing and not a league thing. And I care so little about the term that I'm going to stop defending it's power like I started out this thread doing..

Here's an online knucklehead who supports your theory and provides some numbers for Edgy, too.

[Guest cleonjones11]

It aint Glavine..watch him miss 300 this year and come back doing those commercials in the hardhat for citifield next year

[Guest Edgy DC]

I'm guessing that's one of those predictions you're unwilling to bet on.

[Guest cleonjones11]

correct..but his commercial for the labor unions cracks me up

[Benjamin Grimm]

The ace is the best pitcher on the staff, whether it's Tom Seaver or Mark Bomback.

If there are five candidates for the title of "ace" then that can be a very good thing, if all five have merit, or a very bad thing, if none of them do.

Let's put it this way, though: You have tickets to a Mets game three weeks from now. (To far out to map out the rotation.)

Who are you hoping is the pitcher?

I asked myself this question just now and my answer was Oliver Perez.

A week from now I might feel differently.

[Willets Point]

I like Ollie. I don't know if he gives the Mets the best chance to win, but I just like him.

[metirish]

cleonjones11 wrote: correct..but his commercial for the labor unions cracks me up

I like those commercials ,helps show the importance of a unionized work force,especially on construction sites.

Last week the Daily News had articles on many sites in the City that exploit workers and don't give a damn about safety,having worked on Union sites and Non Union I can tell you the Union sites are a whole lot safer.

[Benjamin Grimm]

That may be, but Glavine in a hardhat reminds me of Dukakis in an army tank.

And his referring to Citi Field as "our new home" rings false as well, because it's pretty unlikely that he'll still be with the Mets in 2009.

[Willets Point]

Yancy Street Gang wrote: And his referring to Citi Field as "our new home" rings false as well, because it's pretty unlikely that he'll still be with the Mets in 2009.

From your mouth to god's ears!