Morrow moved to end of Blue Jays’ rotation

[G-Snarls]

I'm not into durability as a skill or requirement. Strasburg isn't an Ace? Of course he is.

 

Agree

 

Ervin Santana and Mark Buerhle always log 200+ innings. doesn't make them the least bit more ace like.

[G-Snarls]

They go together. The main point is that being the fifth guy in order to start doesn't make you a fifth starter, a team could have four aces and a number two.

 

Braves, Phillies have had such rotations at different times

 

Nice luxury to have

[G-Snarls]

Well, this "ace" label is pretty inconsequential, but ... yes ... it does make them more "ace like" than they otherwise would be ... it just doesn't make them aces, because they lack the other attributes of an "ace."

 

Holy semantics batman

[G-Snarls]

At risk of egging moogy in to a long useless discussion... The term ace is not really defined obviously.

 

Being what people would consider an "ace" is more about ability than durability. Way more. Sure, you want good pitchers to log more innings. Obviously. An ace caliber starting pitcher who is also dependable is the most valued commodity in all of baseball because those guys (Felix, Kershaw, Verlander) are so rare and hence they get the mega bucks. Deservedly.

 

The question for a GM can become what do you want in your rotation - an ace quality starter like Strasburg who has been breaking down a lot - who should pitch really well when there but might give you 80IP or 180IP. Or do you want a reliable mid rotation starter who's a workhorse who never misses time. Both ace talent and dependability have value. You might not want 5 Strasburgs in the rotation if the backups are all terrible. And no one can afford 5 Kershaws. So you mix and match and you need depth, more so if you have fragile guys like Morrow.

[Abomination]

I'm not into durability as a skill or requirement. Strasburg isn't an Ace? Of course he is.

 

In general I think a person with the Ace label should have the durability as well, in addition to an elite track record. I would label only a handful of guys as Aces around the league, and would consider them to be different than a #1 starter. I would consider Strasburg to be a #1 starter who could prove himself to be an ace.

 

It's all just semantics though, and since there is no set definition everyone has their own opinion.

[NorthOf49]

Durability definitely matters. Strasburg is a good #2. The Nats have four #2s in fact.

 

My Ace has to be a horse. A guy who has premium per-inning stats that I also know will take the ball every five days and go deep into the game.

[G-Snarls]

Over the last five years Josh Johnson and Brett Anderson have a better xFIP- than James Shields and Jon Lester. Who do you take on your team?

 

Touche

 

That's the GM's dilemma. and why guys like JJ and Anderson are living year to year rather than longer extensions. You want a guy with high end potential. You just don't want to give injury prone guys 4-5 years at a time.

[bendera3]

For me it isn't so much about labeling guys as injury prone as it is taking notice when a guy has shown he can go out and throw 200+ innings year after year. Someone like Scott Kazmir may be at least as talented as Shields and Lester, and I'd love him in my rotation, but all else being equal I'll take the arms that go 200 innings every year.

 

I agree with you on this. I would love to have a ton of guys who have electric arms but if they can only stay on the mound for 10 starts it really puts a damper on the rest of your roster. It's the reason why you have to have good depth. Having someone (or a couple) like Buehrle who have shown to routinely go 200 innings with decent numbers is incredibly important for the consistency of the team.

[G-Snarls]

I agree with you on this. I would love to have a ton of guys who have electric arms but if they can only stay on the mound for 10 starts it really puts a damper on the rest of your roster. It's the reason why you have to have good depth. Having someone (or a couple) like Buehrle who have shown to routinely go 200 innings with decent numbers is incredibly important for the consistency of the team.

 

Yep. If you have 3 Morrows in the rotation you probably need 5 backups.

 

If you have 3 Buehles in the rotation you can probably get by with 3 backups.

 

(Gross numbers grossly guestimated)

[G-Snarls]

Now that I type that we have too many question marks both in the rotation AND among the backups. It's not good.

[bendera3]

Yep. If you have 3 Morrows in the rotation you probably need 5 backups.

 

If you have 3 Buehles in the rotation you can probably get by with 3 backups.

 

(Gross numbers grossly guestimated)

 

Exactly, and what's the probability that you can find those guys and be able to stick them in the minors?

[G-Snarls]

He speaks the truth in this regard.

 

The more I think about it There is definitely some truth to his point. when I think "ace" I think killer stuff and dependable. Not the frustrating guys who show flashes of brilliance but keep breaking down. Slide me part way to moogy's point that dependability is part of what makes an ace an ace. But you need killer stuff and results first before I'll even consider you might be an ace.

[G-Snarls]

Oh I am!!!

 

High end talent and dependable? That's you in a nutshell bro. LOL.