Can a Healthy Joe Ryan Elevate to Ace Status in 2025?

[Eric Blonigen]

3 hours ago, arby58 said:

There were 14 pitchers in the major leagues last year that averaged 6.0 or more innings per start. The Phillies and Cubs each had 2, so under this reasoning, only 12 teams had an 'ace' last year. It also means Max Fried is an ace and Sonny Gray is not. Sure, innings pitched is one thing - but not the only thing - to consider.

This is exactly right. I know it’s easy sometimes to compare today’s best pitchers to those from 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but the game has changed. Pitchers throw significantly harder, and throw pitches that are hard on the arm. There’s also significant data that shows decreasing effectiveness third and fourth times through the order. Sometimes, an ace is still an ace even if he doesn’t go deep. It’s about what they do with their innings, and consistency that defines an ace today.

[mikelink45]

No.  I see a Skenes, Wheeler, Ohtani, Skubal, Sale, Lugo, Burnes,  Valdez, Gilbert, Webb, Nola, King, Kirby, Cease, Snell Ragans, Cole, Fried and a few more as aces.  I am content with Lopez/Ryan/Ober all as number 2's.  And I hope that we have some arms coming up that might rise to that - Festa? Raya?

It is a rare and wonderful thing to have an Ace but they only pitch every five days.  I want bevy of good arms even if one does not rise to HOF level which is where I put ACEs today.  

[Eric Blonigen]

44 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

I think we need to put the Rocco has a  “quick hook“ narrative to bed. I’ve been around a while and I remember when you expected every starter to go seven innings. Baseball isn’t played that way anymore, mostly because of the increased injury risk from those extra innings and the cost of starters. Starters did not last as many seasons in the old days because they pitched them so hard. Now we expect starting pitchers to go well into their mid 30s and we pay them so much that is just not worth taking a lot of extra risk, especially during your average midseason game.

The Twins averaged 5.28 innings per start last year. The highest was the Braves at 5.58 innings per start, the average was 5.2. The Twins were tied for 12th Place in MLB for innings per start, so a little above average. Bottom line is that Rocco doesn’t pull starting pitchers any earlier than anybody else or at least didn’t last year. The evidence suggests that it’s unfair to criticize him for having a “quick hook” overall. He’s frankly more patient than many. 

Correct. At this point, the guys getting the quick hook are either unproven rookies being eased into Major League action, or guys who have shown us repeatedly that they can’t produce decent results the third time through. In both of those cases, pulling them early is almost certainly the right move. 

[Eric Blonigen]

4 hours ago, Mark G said:

I love Joe, and we miss him when he is out, that's for sure.  Having said that, I do have an old school idea of what an "ace" is:  a stud; a workhorse.  Averaging just below 6 innings a start tells me he either doesn't have the stamina to be that stud, or the brass doesn't trust him the 4th time through a line up, which is what an ace would do.  

Again, this is not disparaging Joe; I think he is a wonderful #2 or 3 starter, depending on who else is around him.  I hope he is healthy for the full year, and proves me as wrong as I have ever been.  But an ace has to do better than less than 6 innings a game, no matter how good his stats are in those 6 or less innings.  Again, old school, and I can feel the arrows already.  😉  

And Eric, if spring training is the most exciting time of the year to you, what does October do for you?  😇

Great question, Mark. October is about reality, and as a Twins fan…you get it. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work in our favor as fans. In Spring though, it’s World Series or bust!

[h2oface]

3 hours ago, arby58 said:

There were 14 pitchers in the major leagues last year that averaged 6.0 or more innings per start. The Phillies and Cubs each had 2, so under this reasoning, only 12 teams had an 'ace' last year. It also means Max Fried is an ace and Sonny Gray is not. Sure, innings pitched is one thing - but not the only thing - to consider.

All worth considering, for sure. This kinda reminds me of the parenting, "So your friends are all doing it. If your friends all jumped off a cliff, would you do it, too?" Just because baseball has such low standards now for starting pitching, I guess because the whole league sucks as a whole, that that is where the aspirations should be. Grading on the curve just meant the whole class was inadequate in their preperation.

[Parfigliano]

7 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

No.  I see a Skenes, Wheeler, Ohtani, Skubal, Sale, Lugo, Burnes,  Valdez, Gilbert, Webb, Nola, King, Kirby, Cease, Snell Ragans, Cole, Fried and a few more as aces.  I am content with Lopez/Ryan/Ober all as number 2's.  And I hope that we have some arms coming up that might rise to that - Festa? Raya?

It is a rare and wonderful thing to have an Ace but they only pitch every five days.  I want bevy of good arms even if one does not rise to HOF level which is where I put ACEs today.  

I will take having a team with three (Lopez, Ober, Ryan) #2 starters over a team with one ace.

[Eric Blonigen]

10 minutes ago, mikelink45 said:

No.  I see a Skenes, Wheeler, Ohtani, Skubal, Sale, Lugo, Burnes,  Valdez, Gilbert, Webb, Nola, King, Kirby, Cease, Snell Ragans, Cole, Fried and a few more as aces.  I am content with Lopez/Ryan/Ober all as number 2's.  And I hope that we have some arms coming up that might rise to that - Festa? Raya?

It is a rare and wonderful thing to have an Ace but they only pitch every five days.  I want bevy of good arms even if one does not rise to HOF level which is where I put ACEs today.  

But, that’s the point. When healthy, on a per-start basis, Joe Ryan’s results are in the general vicinity of that group. Agreed on the bevy of good arms point though, it takes both high-end pitching and good depth.

[Karbo]

1 hour ago, tarheeltwinsfan said:

A quick hook also can indicate faith in the bullpen, backed up by excellent performances from the relief pitchers, which the Twins had in 2024 and will have again this year. 

The Twins had a pretty good "back end" of the pen, but when you take Duran and Jax out, an ERA around 4.5 or so isn't so great. So they are counting on a couple of guys to bridge the gap each game. Those guys were a bit of a crap shoot coming in for guys much more talented that quite often had another inning in them it seemed to me.

[h2oface]

2 hours ago, PatPfund said:

Love Ryan, and his health/performance is key to our season. But when you build a big chunk of an article about statistical data, "fuzzy" math really isn't acceptable. Baseball's regular season is a 6 month marathon, and picking out premium stretches of one player's year, then comparing that to other players' full seasons (with all the ups and downs) isn't valid methodology. Ace potential is there, but Lopez and Ober have been better over the past two years (number of games pitched matters). If Ryan pushes a (knock on wood) healthy Ober and Lopez in IP this year, I love our playoff chances.

Better? Only the homers think so, it seems. The overall individual actual stats don't, and the projections from most of the  prognosticators outside the home team sphere don't. Lopez tanks a good portion of the season yearly, and an ACE is never a 4.00+ ERA pitcher (even over 3.5 is not really top notch). I guess you might be ignoring the downs that gets him over 4. And he was healthy. I hope Lopez can actually perform better, and deserve the opening day starts. Lopez is always talked about how his "advanced metrics" show him better than the stat line he actually earns. Personally, I like the final stat lines' story better than the hopeful projections.

[ashbury]

25 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Grading on the curve just meant the whole class was inadequate in their preperation.

The Tigers had the fewest innings pitched by starters in the entire majors in 2024, and they made the post-season.  I think that amounts to a passing grade whether on a curve or not.  Innings per start just isn't a way to judge anything.

[h2oface]

9 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Innings per start just isn't a way to judge anything.

Anything? Amazing anyone even keeps track of it. Such misguided fans.

[Squirrel]

Ace status in 2025 ... hmm ... I guess my thought is that it's possible for many to have 'that year' in their career. I don't see him as a career ace, though, and I think it would be a real leap for him to even be an ace for a single season. I think Lopez (if he can stay away from stretches of bad) and Ober have that potential more than Ryan. But I do hope Ryan can have a great year and remain healthy. 

[Danchat]

3 hours ago, Karbo said:

Starter's IP has been an issue ever since Rocco arrived. Granted, a few of the seasons was because they had sub par pitchers, but the last couple of years it seems they have been awful quick with the hook. Rocco is going by the stats and charts, and he's probably correct to pull them at least 1/2 the time. This is what you get when a guy doesn't believe or trust his gut.

Sonny Gray's 2 years before becoming a Twin: 5.16 innings pitched per game

Gray's Twins career: 5.75 innings per start

Gray with the Cardinals: 5.94 innings per start

Jose Berrios last 3.5 years with the Twins: 6.01 innings per start

Berrios' career as a Blue Jay: 5.78 innings per start

Pablo Lopez previous 3 years in Miami: 5.4 innings per start

Lopez as a Twin: 5.93 innings per start

 

Rocco doesn't pull his starters any quicker than other managers in baseball, it may seem like it but when he has his better starters in the game he keeps them pitching at a similar rate to the rest of the league. Innings pitched are going down league-wide, that's just a reality, likely one that will continue once Rocco is done managing this team.

 

[ashbury]

40 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Anything? Amazing anyone even keeps track of it. Such misguided fans.

Amazing rebuttal.  So you have no particular explanation for how a team can finish dead last in something and still make the post-season?  I mean, and still have that "something" be of importance?

[Mark G]

5 hours ago, arby58 said:

There were 14 pitchers in the major leagues last year that averaged 6.0 or more innings per start. The Phillies and Cubs each had 2, so under this reasoning, only 12 teams had an 'ace' last year. It also means Max Fried is an ace and Sonny Gray is not. Sure, innings pitched is one thing - but not the only thing - to consider.

You are right, it is definitely not the only thing to consider.  But, in this mans extremely humble opinion, it is one thing that makes or breaks the definition.  

I guess, to me, it boils down to what an "ace" is.  Is it just the best pitcher on each teams staff, or is there a finite criteria to meet?  There is no right or wrong answer on that question, just each persons opinion.

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, ashbury said:

The Tigers had the fewest innings pitched by starters in the entire majors in 2024, and they made the post-season.  I think that amounts to a passing grade whether on a curve or not.  Innings per start just isn't a way to judge anything.

Anything?  Or everything?  Don't confuse the two.  It definitely is not everything, or the only thing, but it sure is anything.  

[ashbury]

1 minute ago, Mark G said:

Anything?  Or everything?  Don't confuse the two.  It definitely is not everything, or the only thing, but it sure is anything.  

Pick a lane.  😀

[Mark G]

34 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Pick a lane.  😀

Door number three.  🤭

[PatPfund]

2 hours ago, h2oface said:

Better? Only the homers think so, it seems. The overall individual actual stats don't, and the projections from most of the  prognosticators outside the home team sphere don't. Lopez tanks a good portion of the season yearly, and an ACE is never a 4.00+ ERA pitcher (even over 3.5 is not really top notch). I guess you might be ignoring the downs that gets him over 4. And he was healthy. I hope Lopez can actually perform better, and deserve the opening day starts. Lopez is always talked about how his "advanced metrics" show him better than the stat line he actually earns. Personally, I like the final stat lines' story better than the hopeful projections.

In 2024, Ober and Lopez started more games, struck out more batters, got more outs in general and were major impacts in more games than Ryan (Lopez pitched 50 more innings; Ober, 43). Ryan was good when he was there, but there was a big stretch where he wasn't. (And FYI, I didn't say any of them was an Ace by some goofy and arbitrary standard, I simply said Lopez and Ober were better. Which they were unless you think individual stat lines are more important than how you affect team success for the season.

Though if you want to go that route, Ober and Lopez were both much better than Ryan in 2023 (where Ryan's unfuzzy math ERA was 4.51 while Ober's and Lopez's were both under 3.70, and Lopez was dominant in the playoffs as a true Ace should be).

[Wizard11]

I love all the folks touting the “good old days” of pitchers going deeper into games and piling up more innings.  If you are going to make this comparison it can only be complete if you consider how much harder pitchers throw now.  30 years ago a guy who threw 90 mph was a hard thrower.  Now he is a soft tosser.  There have been so many studies of the correlation of velocity, the resulting higher torque, and the greater incidents of serious arm injuries.  
 

Expecting the same number of “old time ace” innings from a starter at modern velocities is ridiculous.  This is without even addressing the overwhelming data indicating the greatly reduced effectiveness of third and fourth times thru a lineup.  Old school pitchers did not have to face batters armed with anywhere near the amount of real time info that today’s hitters have. The speed of adjustments in today’s game greatly eclipses that of 30 years ago.  

The game has evolved.  The 80’s and 90’s “Tom Kelly” baseball is gone because it doesn’t work any more except in the imagination of fans stuck in the past.

 

[dxpavelka]

2 hours ago, Eric Blonigen said:

This is exactly right. I know it’s easy sometimes to compare today’s best pitchers to those from 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but the game has changed. Pitchers throw significantly harder, and throw pitches that are hard on the arm. There’s also significant data that shows decreasing effectiveness third and fourth times through the order. Sometimes, an ace is still an ace even if he doesn’t go deep. It’s about what they do with their innings, and consistency that defines an ace today.

And sometimes a manager has to trust his pitcher and at least give a guy a chance to go thru that third time.  The top guys did it for a hundred years.  No reason to believe that some can't do it now.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

8 hours ago, Mark G said:

I love Joe, and we miss him when he is out, that's for sure.  Having said that, I do have an old school idea of what an "ace" is:  a stud; a workhorse.  Averaging just below 6 innings a start tells me he either doesn't have the stamina to be that stud, or the brass doesn't trust him the 4th time through a line up, which is what an ace would do.  

Again, this is not disparaging Joe; I think he is a wonderful #2 or 3 starter, depending on who else is around him.  I hope he is healthy for the full year, and proves me as wrong as I have ever been.  But an ace has to do better than less than 6 innings a game, no matter how good his stats are in those 6 or less innings.  Again, old school, and I can feel the arrows already.  😉  

And Eric, if spring training is the most exciting time of the year to you, what does October do for you?  😇

If you’ve stopped watching baseball in 1993, what are we even doing here? How can we have a meaningful discussion about 2025 Joe Ryan when the benchmark is 35 years ago?

[Mahoning]

8 hours ago, Otaknam said:

Ryan’s lack of innings is about Rocco dogmatically following analytics and not trusting his starters to go through the lineup a third time, Rocco took Ryan out after the second inning in a playoff game in 2023, a game they eventually lost by a low score. Two innings! Talk about lack of trust! 

One of the things analytics does is deprive pitchers of the opportunities to be full competitors. For, say, Bert Blyleven, a complete game was proof of doing his job. Now it is what? Five-and-a-third?  That's not much of a goal or, really, much of an accomplishment. 

[Eric Blonigen]

17 minutes ago, Mahoning said:

One of the things analytics does is deprive pitchers of the opportunities to be full competitors. For, say, Bert Blyleven, a complete game was proof of doing his job. Now it is what? Five-and-a-third?  That's not much of a goal or, really, much of an accomplishment. 

It’s easier to go complete game when you throw 82 miles an hour and are facing guys without data-driven workout routines, batting plans, and visualizations designed to optimize swing paths for maximum damage. The game today is pitch 6 great innings and that’s a good day at the office.

[Mark G]

9 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

If you’ve stopped watching baseball in 1993, what are we even doing here? How can we have a meaningful discussion about 2025 Joe Ryan when the benchmark is 35 years ago?

I am a little lost about the 1993 and stopping watching.......anyway, that is on me; I am probably just not reading it properly.  

As for the benchmark, the benchmark for me began in 1965 when I first fell in love with baseball and started to listen to games with a transistor radio under my pillow at night (I went through a crap ton of batteries every summer).  We were comparing pitchers then to decades past, and we still are with each generation (talk to my 31 year old son about pitching).  🤭

Pitching today seems to rely on velocity and movement; throw the ball hard enough for the movement to miss the bat, and count on the hitter to swing at pitches out of the zone.  The problem is that hitters figure this out pretty quick, so you are out of the game just as quick as they figure it out.  I go back to my original question:  is an ace simply the best pitcher in any given rotation, or is there a finite criteria.  If it is the former, then every team has an ace.  If it is the latter, then we have to compare every pitcher to that criteria, and why would that change over the years?  Like I said before, there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

4 hours ago, Mark G said:

I am a little lost about the 1993 and stopping watching.......anyway, that is on me; I am probably just not reading it properly.  

As for the benchmark, the benchmark for me began in 1965 when I first fell in love with baseball and started to listen to games with a transistor radio under my pillow at night (I went through a crap ton of batteries every summer).  We were comparing pitchers then to decades past, and we still are with each generation (talk to my 31 year old son about pitching).  🤭

Pitching today seems to rely on velocity and movement; throw the ball hard enough for the movement to miss the bat, and count on the hitter to swing at pitches out of the zone.  The problem is that hitters figure this out pretty quick, so you are out of the game just as quick as they figure it out.  I go back to my original question:  is an ace simply the best pitcher in any given rotation, or is there a finite criteria.  If it is the former, then every team has an ace.  If it is the latter, then we have to compare every pitcher to that criteria, and why would that change over the years?  Like I said before, there is no right or wrong answer, just opinions.  

Should the definition of “ACE” be static, or relevant to the era that the pitcher pitched in?

[Mark G]

40 minutes ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Should the definition of “ACE” be static, or relevant to the era that the pitcher pitched in?

Again, just my opinion, but how can the word have any meaning at all if the definition changes every generation or two?  

[Richie the Rally Goat]

1 minute ago, Mark G said:

Again, just my opinion, but how can the word have any meaning at all if the definition changes every generation or two?  

The English language changes constantly. For instance, Ace 

[jmlease1]

46 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Again, just my opinion, but how can the word have any meaning at all if the definition changes every generation or two?  

It is a big part of the problem in this kind of a conversation, because the definition of "ace" varies wildly. Some people define it as a potential Cy Young candidate. Some people even define it as a potential hall of fame pitcher. Others are more like "best pitcher on a playoff caliber team" or something similar. If you asked people on this board how many "aces" are in MLB right now, you'd get a pretty big spread of numbers, ranging as low as single digits to 20 or more.

I'm a big fan of Ryan, and I think he has the tools and talent to be the best pitcher on this team. We'll see whether he gets there and can stay healthy enough to maximize his talent, but i think he can do it. I look at his peripherals last season and there's so much to like: the WHIP of 0.985 is dominant. The K/BB ratio is excellent. He's keeping the ball in the park effectively, he can handle LH and RH hitters. Ryan put up a Game Score over 60 in 11 out of his 23 starts last season and only had 2 under 40. (I like Game Score as a way to quickly categorize the quality of starts; Ryan had a lot of very good to great ones and very few stinkers)

I think if Ryan is healthy all season, he's going to be one of the better pitchers in the AL. Whether you call that an ace or not doesn't matter much to me.

[Linus]

22 minutes ago, jmlease1 said:

It is a big part of the problem in this kind of a conversation, because the definition of "ace" varies wildly. Some people define it as a potential Cy Young candidate. Some people even define it as a potential hall of fame pitcher. Others are more like "best pitcher on a playoff caliber team" or something similar. If you asked people on this board how many "aces" are in MLB right now, you'd get a pretty big spread of numbers, ranging as low as single digits to 20 or more.

I'm a big fan of Ryan, and I think he has the tools and talent to be the best pitcher on this team. We'll see whether he gets there and can stay healthy enough to maximize his talent, but i think he can do it. I look at his peripherals last season and there's so much to like: the WHIP of 0.985 is dominant. The K/BB ratio is excellent. He's keeping the ball in the park effectively, he can handle LH and RH hitters. Ryan put up a Game Score over 60 in 11 out of his 23 starts last season and only had 2 under 40. (I like Game Score as a way to quickly categorize the quality of starts; Ryan had a lot of very good to great ones and very few stinkers)

I think if Ryan is healthy all season, he's going to be one of the better pitchers in the AL. Whether you call that an ace or not doesn't matter much to me.

I like this.  It’s amazing how many endless debates there have been on these boards over who is an ace or who is a number 12345 starter and never once has anybody cared to define what the debate was about 😀