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

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.

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.  

34 minutes ago, ashbury said:

Pick a lane.  😀

Door number three.  🤭

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.

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.

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. 

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.  

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?  

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.

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 😀

21 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.

Totally agree. If the Twins can get through the whole season and not have Lopez, Ryan and Ober miss more than 2 starts it’s gonna be a good year. This staff will keep them in games even if the offense goes on its up and down trajectory like last year. There’s also enough rotation depth to weather a few storms but overall it’s not the rotation I worry about. Regardless of whether the horses can make it through 6 innings. This season will be how good is the bullpen actually? And will this offense simply be consistent?