Is Wang an ace?

[Evangelion]

You are right. Each individual will believe and follow what they wish to trust. But I try to look at things logically. No matter what a pitcher or pitching staffs individual or team stats are, what determines who wins the games is the W. The more W's the better you are.

It's making comments like "I try to look at things logically." that makes you sounds like your view is correct while others' people view is illogical, while you're own view that you consider logical is heavy flawed, it's been pointed out with reasonable points. If you use wins to determine how good a pitcher is, then you aren't thinking that logically since it's easy to see to see the flaw with using that statistic to determine how good a pitcher. By your method Pettitte better pitcher than Kazmir since Pettitte had more wins. If you honestly believe that, then you're not thinking all that logically at all.

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't make comments that makes you come off as condescending and as if you're opinion is fact, which it isn't.

[bigbadwolf]

I posted an opinion on who I, yes I deem the best players are. On the other hand you posted what in my opinion is baloney that makes it seem what you post and how your views are right. You conclude by posting """"""You're welcome to your opinion, but don't make comments that makes you come off as condescending and as if you're opinion is fact, which it isn't."""""" If anything is condescending, it would be your post. I find it very logical to believe that winning is better than losing. Others may find something other logical in their opinion. That is fair.

To conclude, I continue to be saddened by anyones opinion that losing is better than winning. But you are entitled to your opinion.

[Mariano_Rivera]

This is what happens when a lack of understanding of the game clouds judgments. His dependency on ground balls and the fact that he gets a lot of them proves he is very successful at what he does. As long as he is getting ground balls when he wants to and getting some Ks here and there, he is the ace of this Yankee rotation.

There have been players throughout history that did not K a lot of people and were still successful. If he keeps on getting those GBs and keeping his BB total low, expect long term success -- which will drive stat people that think they can explain everything (like they predicted Wang to have a bad 2007) nuts.

I didn't predict Wang to have a bad 2007. I though he`d drop off from 2006 (which he did) but remain an effective pitcher. I underestimated him but I wasn't to far from the truth. He`s the best pitcher on the Yankees but not on the same level as Beckett or Santana. I don't think anyone really honestly thinks Wang is among the very very best pitchers in the game unless you overly simplify things and wins are the only thing that matters.

[Mariano_Rivera]

You are right. Each individual will believe and follow what they wish to trust. But I try to look at things logically. No matter what a pitcher or pitching staffs individual or team stats are, what determines who wins the games is the W. The more W's the better you are.

This very post is illogical. The win is determined by who scores more runs and that is determined by a bunch of other things. Most stats measure those other things. Winning isn't something magical that comes from nowhere. Doing these other things well leads to runs which in turn leads to wins. You are not thinking logically. And so we have another thread diverted....

[bigbadwolf]

This very post is illogical. The win is determined by who scores more runs and that is determined by a bunch of other things. Most stats measure those other things. Winning isn't something magical that comes from nowhere. Doing these other things well leads to runs which in turn leads to wins. You are not thinking logically. And so we have another thread diverted....

An yet again, you are the one diverting it. The thread is Wang an ace. I stated yes, and why I believe he is. Not only the ace of the Yankees, but possibly the best regular season pitcher in MLB over the past two plus years. That is what I stated in an earlier post. However, you are free to believe that losing more and winning less can make a pitcher the best.

I guess all those pitchers in the HOF with 300+ wins aren't any good if one was to believe you.

[Evangelion]

An yet again, you are the one diverting it. The thread is Wang an ace. I stated yes, and why I believe he is. Not only the ace of the Yankees, but possibly the best regular season pitcher in MLB over the past two plus years. That is what I stated in an earlier post. However, you are free to believe that losing more and winning less can make a pitcher the best.

I guess all those pitchers in the HOF with 300+ wins aren't any good if one was to believe you.

Wang must be much better than Santana by your logic. You'll be laughed out of a building by all people in baseball. Even Wang likely doesn't think he's better than Santana, but by your logic, he is.

You have a difficult time telling how your view is illogical? Keep your opinion, but calling it logical not a opinion, it's just a lie.

[DoubleX]

You are right. Each individual will believe and follow what they wish to trust. But I try to look at things logically. No matter what a pitcher or pitching staffs individual or team stats are, what determines who wins the games is the W. The more W's the better you are.

So logically, a player that has say an ERA of 5.00, but wins 18 games because his team gives him 6 runs of support a game, is a better pitcher than the a guy with an ERA of say 3.50, but gets only 3 runs of support a game and thus wins just 14 games?

[bigbadwolf]

So logically, a player that has say an ERA of 5.00, but wins 18 games because his team gives him 6 runs of support a game, is a better pitcher than the a guy with an ERA of say 3.50, but gets only 3 runs of support a game and thus wins just 14 games?

Winning is what determines the best. The more you win, the better you are. Your 6 runs of support is just another meaningless average. The ERA of 5.00 is yet another meaningless average. In winning the 18 games the pitcher may have given up many runs in games his team scored many runs and then gave up 0, 1, or 2 runs in games when his team scored very few runs. Sort of like Matsucka for boston last night. He pitched better than his opponent, pitched five innings and got the win. The key for him and in particular his team is the WIN. But again you divert form the thread Is Wang an ace. Yet again, I think he is the Yankee ace and very possibly the best regular season pitcher in baseball. He wins.

[DoubleX]

Winning is what determines the best. The more you win, the better you are. Your 6 runs of support is just another meaningless average. The ERA of 5.00 is yet another meaningless average. In winning the 18 games the pitcher may have given up many runs in games his team scored many runs and then gave up 0, 1, or 2 runs in games when his team scored very few runs. Sort of like Matsucka for boston last night. He pitched better than his opponent, pitched five innings and got the win. The key for him and in particular his team is the WIN. But again you divert form the thread Is Wang an ace. Yet again, I think he is the Yankee ace and very possibly the best regular season pitcher in baseball. He wins.

I like to use logic, and thus to say that the pitcher that is giving up more runs a game but is winning because his team has the better offense, something completely out of his control, is the better pitcher, is not logical, plain and simple. That pitcher is beneficiary of circumstance.

[bigbadwolf]

I like to use logic, and thus to say that the pitcher that is giving up more runs a game but is winning because his team has the better offense, something completely out of his control, is the better pitcher, is not logical, plain and simple. That pitcher is beneficiary of circumstance.

On the other hand, it is the pitchers prime concern and job to WIN the game. Logically, nothing else matters. The teams success is based on WINS. A pitcher can be great (as shown in my illustration two posts back) as Matsucka was last night. He won, what more can a fan, a boss, a manager want from a guy. I rather win than lose and would not care a lick about my meaningless ERA.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Does anybody have an opinion based on actualy logic that Wang is an ace? If not I would reccomend closing this thread.

[YankeeDJW]

Does anybody have an opinion based on actualy logic that Wang is an ace? If not I would reccomend closing this thread.

All this talk about logic makes no sense. An "ace" doesn't have a set definition. Is it someone with a low ERA and WHIP? Or someone who gets a lot of K's? How about someone who wins a lot of games? Should offenses and parks be taken into account? What about thier FIP? Or inning's pitched? Everyone has a different opinion on what an ace is and whether or not Wang is one, and by their standards, I'm sure their is some logic to it.

[Mariano_Rivera]

All this talk about logic makes no sense. An "ace" doesn't have a set definition. Is it someone with a low ERA and WHIP? Or someone who gets a lot of K's? How about someone who wins a lot of games? Should offenses and parks be taken into account? What about thier FIP? Or inning's pitched? Everyone has a different opinion on what an ace is and whether or not Wang is one, and by their standards, I'm sure their is some logic to it.

Does it make any sense to say that a pitcher should be held responsible for what the offense does? Wins alone just don't make any sense to use

BBW doesn't even talk about any of our problems with it he just repeats himself over and over again.

[Mike27]

Does it make any sense to say that a pitcher should be held responsible for what the offense does? Wins alone just don't make any sense to use

BBW doesn't even talk about any of our problems with it he just repeats himself over and over again.

The guy is a broken record, and I'm still convinced he's messing around with us. I ignore all of his posts, and I pray that eventually the rest of you do the same.

As for Wang being an Ace... He is obviously the Yanks ace. I don't see how anyone can question that. I like to use elite pitchers, rather than aces, and through Wang's first three starts, he's an elite pitcher. I don't really look at K's, I just like to know that when my "ace" goes out there, he gives my team a good chance of staying in the game.

[Tinyballer]

Wang is developing in to a true ace. In the Rays game he threw a lot of office speed and breaking pitches mixing things up a lot more since the rays have speed and he does not like the hitters to get on base. Against the Sox he was back to a more sinker oriented repertoire. This could mean two things he is not yet comfortable using his off speed and breaking pitches at all times or he simply only uses those pitches in times of need, since he wants to be pitch efficient. I believe this development is going to make him a true ace. One that can win the games we need him to win.

[bigbadwolf]

Lets see now. The HOF is loaded with pitchers that have won 300+ games. But some here, in their infinite wisdom, say that means nothing and is a poor way to judge these men. They wouldn't have won those games if their team didn't produce runs enough for them to win.

Your problems with wins is you think individual meaningless stats are more important. I can't do anything about that. You are surely entitled to believe what you wish, but so am I. You think a pitcher who gives up 10 unearned runs in a game and loses is great because his ERA is 0.00. You are welcome to you choice.

YankeeDJW, who I have agreed with, makes the most sense and is correct in his post. It depends on what each individual person considers most important, on how they will rate a pitcher. I and most of the baseball world who put pitchers who win a lot of games into the HOF think wins are important. I hope none of you ERA guys hold your breath for a starter than wins 150 games and has a 1.00 ERA to get into the HOF.

And to top it all off, you have poster here who wants to close the thread because he doesn't think it logical that a pitcher would be considered best, because he wins the most games. How utterly absurd.

[Mariano_Rivera]

The guy is a broken record, and I'm still convinced he's messing around with us. I ignore all of his posts, and I pray that eventually the rest of you do the same.

As for Wang being an Ace... He is obviously the Yanks ace. I don't see how anyone can question that. I like to use elite pitchers, rather than aces, and through Wang's first three starts, he's an elite pitcher. I don't really look at K's, I just like to know that when my "ace" goes out there, he gives my team a good chance of staying in the game.

Will do Mike

[P1NSTR1PES]

No he is not an ace, he is a solid 2 but in our case he is our number 1 pitcher. But by no means is he an ace. Your ace is a dominant pitcher that has heat and can put everyone away. Wang relies on his sinker and ground balls. Josh Beckett is an ace, Brandon Webb is an ace, Johan Santana is an ace...see the difference

[bigbadwolf]

No he is not an ace, he is a solid 2 but in our case he is our number 1 pitcher. But by no means is he an ace. Your ace is a dominant pitcher that has heat and can put everyone away. Wang relies on his sinker and ground balls. Josh Beckett is an ace, Brandon Webb is an ace, Johan Santana is an ace...see the difference

Those are your definitions of an ace. My definition is WINS, the reason the games are played and the reason who is best. Wang over the past 2+ years in MLB has won more games than any other pitcher, he is the ace of aces.

[soberdennis]

Probably the most sensible thing said here is that different people have different definitions of the word "ace". I think it is silly to argue with someone just because you don't like their definition of a word.
Personally, I think some of you have a too narrow definition of the word,requiring too many factors to be able to call but a few pitchers aces.
On the other hand, I think BBW thinks only wins should be considered. I think that may be going too much to the other extreme. My definition would probably fall somewhere in beween.
What I look for is consistency. Wang has been our most consistent starter over the past 3 years. I would consider him our ace.

[Evangelion]

All this talk about logic makes no sense. An "ace" doesn't have a set definition. Is it someone with a low ERA and WHIP? Or someone who gets a lot of K's? How about someone who wins a lot of games? Should offenses and parks be taken into account? What about thier FIP? Or inning's pitched? Everyone has a different opinion on what an ace is and whether or not Wang is one, and by their standards, I'm sure their is some logic to it.

An ace is the best pitcher of that current staff. At least, that's what I believe.

The difference in opinion comes on whether an ace should have dominating stuff, like Santana, or simply be effective while posting the same results, except without the flash and large strikeout total, in this case Wang. I'm sure there should be no debate that Wang currently the best pitcher on the Yankee staff, no?

[bigbadwolf]

The last two posters have voiced logical common sense in their views. Just let me add one fact to the equation. Wang has won more games then anyone in baseball over the past 2+ seasons. Isn't winning the reason the games are played, and the most important and helpful outcome for any team?