Article: Is Ervin Santana An Ace?

[Darius]

I would say no. I wouldn't call Porcello an ace either.

 

I think it's just as much based on ability, and stuff, as stats and past performance. The ability to rack up strike outs generally is a common thread with true "aces."

 

I don't think being a #1 on a staff constitutes ace either. I don't think there are more than 5-10 "aces" in the game at a time.

 

They're good pitchers, but to me, an ace is a guy who you want to give the ball to twice in a 7 game series, or be the proverbial "stopper."

 

As good as he's been, I don't think it's sustainable, and wouldn't be real confident going into a playoff series with him as the #1 pitcher, going against a Chris Sale or Max Scherzer type.

 

I guess it all just depends on ones definition of "ace."

[Linus]

Enjoyable discussion however I think how good your 5th starter is probably matters more than your 1st.

[DaveW]

Enjoyable discussion however I think how good your 5th starter is probably matters more than your 1st.

I disagree

[TheLeviathan]

I think the term "ace" is one of the most over-blown, largely empty phrases we use in baseball.

 

He's pitching well right now....that's good and that's about all we can really say.

 

 

[h2oface]

Absolutely not. It takes a couple years of consistent non injury top performance to be an ace. Remember when folks wanted to call Phil Hughes an ace during his one good year? I do. Not then. Not now. It could happen though. Time will tell.

 

Plus.... I don't forget that Santana was caught cheating a little over 2 years ago. That just doesn't go away unless you just ignore it because he is now on your team and doing perhaps as good as he has ever been. I am really surprised his partially torn ACL is still holding up without the juice. It is impressive. I am really happy for his success, and I am all for second chances...... but the past still counts, too. Just ask Roger and Barry and Mark and ..........

[ThejacKmp]

 

I disagree

 

Meh, I can see it. In the regular season, each game means the same so the #5 is at least as important as the #1.

 

Would you rather have an ace, a pretty good guy, two okay guys and a garbage guy or two pretty good guys and three okay guys? I'd likely go the latter (until the playoffs).

 

I think the real point is that we fret over whether or not we have an ace in Santana when the real issue the Twins are facing is "Who is the #5 starter?" Rain may mean we can get by another week or ten days with 4 starters but at some point they need a 5th starter.* If that's a rejuvenated Mejia or Gibson we might be okay but if that's Tepesch or Wilk, uh oh. It's better to go into each game with a chance than feel favored in one and screwed in another.

 

* The scary thing is that after this week, the Twins could have four double headers pending. That means they're potentially going to need a 6th starter for big chunks of July and August. I shudder to think who that might be.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The fifth starter doesn't matter as much as the first. Teams regularly skip the fifth position so the guy in that slot doesn't pitch as often... and the fifth rotation spot is often a revolving door. If your best pitcher gets injured, your replacement automatically slides into the fifth spot. The fifth spot in a rotation is usually pretty fluid.

[jimmer]

 

Meh, I can see it. In the regular season, each game means the same so the #5 is at least as important as the #1.

 

Would you rather have an ace, a pretty good guy, two okay guys and a garbage guy or two pretty good guys and three okay guys? I'd likely go the latter (until the playoffs).

 

I think the real point is that we fret over whether or not we have an ace in Santana when the real issue the Twins are facing is "Who is the #5 starter?" Rain may mean we can get by another week or ten days with 4 starters but at some point they need a 5th starter.* If that's a rejuvenated Mejia or Gibson we might be okay but if that's Tepesch or Wilk, uh oh. It's better to go into each game with a chance than feel favored in one and screwed in another.

 

* The scary thing is that after this week, the Twins could have four double headers pending. That means they're potentially going to need a 6th starter for big chunks of July and August. I shudder to think who that might be.

I think the REAL point is we have too many #5 types.  When the phrase, 'He's not bad for a #5 starter' can be said about the majority of your rotation, THAT is the problem.

[jimmer]

BTW, this year Ervin Santana's FIP is 4.17, his xFIP is 4.49, he has 6.83 K/9 and has a BB/9 of 3.50.

 

And, well, he has a ridiculous 98.4% LOB% along with an incredible .128 BABIP.

 

If people want to think he's an ace because of his ERA, well, he's got a great one.

[Thrylos]

 

 

Here are the pitchers I would consider aces from both leagues (in alphabetical order):
Jake Arrieta, Madison Bumgarner, Zack Greinke, Felix Hernandez, Clayton Kershaw, Corey Kluber, David Price, Chris Sale, Max Scherzer, Justin Verlander
 

 

 

Would love to see the objective criteria that would be used to include Arrieta, Greinke, Kluber and Verlander as Aces, but will exclude players like Syndergaard and Strasburg. 

 

So what is this list based on?  Subjective personal preference?

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Thrylos

[DocBauer]

The problem is trying to define what an ACE pitcher really is. Just reading all the well thought out comments here is proff of that. There is a difference, IMO, between a #1 starter and an ACE, though an ACE is obviously a #1 starter. A true ACE is that #1 starter who does his job...being a dominant SP overall...consistently. He doesn't have to win 20 every year for goodness sake, but you know he's capable of it. Along with 30+ starts and 200IP, etc. You get the idea. Transport of the old adage where you know it/him when you see it/him.

 

Santana is, and has been, a largely successful and reliable pitcher for his career. You could argue, for whatever reason(s), he's never been better in his career, overall, than since he joined the Twins. He's a high quality #3 who has often pitched like a quality #2. I think you could make the argument he's been a true #2 since joining the Twins. Right now, and even for a 100 loss team last season, an argument could be made he's pitched like a #1. Not an ACE, but a real #1.

 

What matters most is this is a FA move that paid off for us. And I love the way the Twins have been using him, putting him out there, but also not riding him too hard.

[DaveW]

Results are what matter and what ultimately win games.

 

I don't care with his FIP xFIP etc are

 

The reality is that every game Santana has pitched this year, he has given the Twins a damn good chance to win every single one, and they have won every one (I think) with the exception of the Chris Sale game (which the bullpen blew anyways)

 

Ervin Santana is our ace, until he is not.

Edited May 17, 2017 by DaveW

[goulik]

I'd argue 30 aces total and go with top 30 pitchers... just me.  Probably still a bit higher there, as number 30 on the list may not be a shut down pitcher in the mold that we want..

 

that said, I'd call Santana a #2 at worst, as 2s can have ace seasons (which Santana is having thus far).  No question so far though that he's an ace. If we are out of contention at the deadline, there's a real question as to whether to trade the 1.5 years of Santana for a prospect haul (and I'd have to think he'd get a nice return) or keep him.

 

I've been thinking a lot about this in the past 24 hours so let's use logic. 30 Teams, 30 #1, 30 #2, 30 #3, 30 #4, 30 #5...it's what you have...a rotation. If you have only 10 Aces, then you have to have pitchers you call #1 but not an Ace...no one thinks that way.

 

Logic part dos: An Ace is a card from a deck of cards. Ace in a deck is a number 1.

[The Wise One]

 

Is joe flacco elite?

I heard from an inside source that he does not have good control of his off speed pitches

[Tomj14]

 

BTW, this year Ervin Santana's FIP is 4.17, his xFIP is 4.49, he has 6.83 K/9 and has a BB/9 of 3.50.

 

And, well, he has a ridiculous 98.4% LOB% along with an incredible .128 BABIP.

 

If people want to think he's an ace because of his ERA, well, he's got a great one.

Using those stats are very good at predicting what may be to come or even that a pitcher was a bit lucky or unlucky, but after the game has been played, what matters is the outcome. Those numbers suggest his ERA is going to go up (which I agree with). But as of today he has started 8 games, pitched 54 innings, given up 23 hits, and walked 21 with an ERA of 1.5 (and hasn't given up an unearned run).

Edited May 17, 2017 by Tomj14

[Mike Sixel]

 

I've been thinking a lot about this in the past 24 hours so let's use logic. 30 Teams, 30 #1, 30 #2, 30 #3, 30 #4, 30 #5...it's what you have...a rotation. If you have only 10 Aces, then you have to have pitchers you call #1 but not an Ace...no one thinks that way.

Logic part dos: An Ace is a card from a deck of cards. Ace in a deck is a number 1.

 

Actually, nearly everyone thinks that way.

 

Do you think that Mike Pelfrey was an ace, because he was the Twins' best pitcher one year? A team's number 1 starter is not necessarily even a good pitcher, let alone an ace.

[Doomtints]

Someone named Bill James defined #1 and #2 pitchers over a generation ago, when discussing the 1987 Twins championship season in fact. 

 

His data lead to the following conclusions:

 

Essentially, #4 and #5 pitchers have abysmal W-L records, almost never anywhere near .500.

 

#1 and #2 pitchers tend to have W-L records well over .500 and are where the bulk of team wins credited to the SP come from.

 

#3 pitchers are around .500.  (Bill James went on to say that the Twins pitching staff was typical in 1987 -- the only thing missing was a #3 pitcher. The other pitching roles were normal for WS champion teams).

 

Of course, in this era we are told by some very loud people that W-L for pitchers is irrelevant. Bear in mind that I am just putting this definition out there for everyone to digest and not defending it. Nevertheless, using this definition, yes, Ervin Santana is a #1 or #2 pitcher. Probably a #2 but this year, so far, a #1.

I prefer using my own stat to determine the worthiness of a starting pitcher -- the "meltdown ratio" which is the opposite of a quality start -- lasting less than 6 innings or allowing 3+ runs. Most of you will be surprised to learn that the best pitchers in the game still have "meltdowns" 40% of the time, with the worst having them 60% of the time. When the Twins picked up Santana, I ran this for him and he was at the top -- right around 40%. Take this as you will.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Doomtints

[ashbury]

I prefer using my own stat to determine the worthiness of a starting pitcher -- the "meltdown ratio" which is the opposite of a quality start -- lasting less than 6 innings or allowing 3+ runs.

Unless there is more to this, won't a ranked list of pitchers be in the same order under either metric, except reversed? Isn't every start either quality or meltdown?

 

Ted Williams led the league in outs-not-made with a .594 average in 1941.

[Doomtints]

 

Unless there is more to this, won't a ranked list of pitchers be in the same order under either metric, except reversed? Isn't every start either quality or meltdown?

 

Ted Williams led the league in outs-not-made with a .594 average in 1941.

 

Not exactly, but close.

[goulik]

Actually, nearly everyone thinks that way.

 

Do you think that Mike Pelfrey was an ace, because he was the Twins' best pitcher one year? A team's number 1 starter is not necessarily even a good pitcher, let alone an ace.

No people do not talk about prospects and pitchers coming up and say they are a #1 but not a potential "Ace". They are "Aces" or they are #2, #3 or whatever when we talk about them on here and in other media.

 

And, No, I don't think Pelfrey when he was on our team was considered a number one nor an "Ace" And, That is not what I was saying. The best guy on a team isn't necessarily good. But what I'm saying is that maybe we need to expand our thinking. Maybe we should even ditch using a subjective term like "Ace"

 

There should be more guys we consider #1s and recognize that some teams have a couple number ones pitching for them. To say there are only 5-10 number one pitchers isn't realistic or logical but there are maybe only 5-10 SuperStars doing it year in and year out. The term "Ace" therefore is a deceptive and, always will be, a subjective unmeasurable term used in a game known for its numbers and statistics.

[Doomtints]

 

No people do not talk about prospects and pitchers coming up and say they are a #1 but not a potential "Ace". They are "Aces" or they are #2, #3 or whatever when we talk about them on here and in other media.

And, No, I don't think Pelfrey when he was on our team was considered a number one nor an "Ace" And, That is not what I was saying. The best guy on a team isn't necessarily good. But what I'm saying is that maybe we need to expand our thinking. Maybe we should even ditch using a subjective term like "Ace"

There should be more guys we consider #1s and recognize that some teams have a couple number ones pitching for them. To say there are only 5-10 number one pitchers isn't realistic or logical but there are maybe only 5-10 SuperStars doing it year in and year out. The term "Ace" therefore is a deceptive and, always will be, a subjective unmeasurable term used in a game known for its numbers and statistics.

 

Ace comment.

[h2oface]

Hey! Is Berrios an ace? He's had 2 ace games!

[Loosey]

I think defining an Ace is more of an Art than Science. You can argue about the true meaning and we will never agree. You know an Ace when you see one but can't really explain the reasons why. If it was a science we would never have this argument. Unless you dont believe in science...

[Willihammer]

One thing we can all agree I think is an ace needs to be able to log big IP totals. Santana has 70 IP in 10 starts. That's ace-level innings eating I'd say. Oh and the last pitch of his CGSO tonight was a fastball at 95 mph.

[drjim]

One thing we can all agree I think is an ace needs to be able to log big IP totals. Santana has 70 IP in 10 starts. That's ace-level innings eating I'd say. Oh and the last pitch of his CGSO tonight was a fastball at 95 mph.

He's also pitched as part of a 4 man rotation for a while. He might pull off 35 starts, 230-235 ip. Might not be an ace, but that's a horse.

[laloesch]

 

He's also pitched as part of a 4 man rotation for a while. He might pull off 35 starts, 230-235 ip. Might not be an ace, but that's a horse.

 

I would take two or three more of these in a heart beat.  Doesn't have to be an official "ace" to make this team a world series winner (although it does help).