Ace in the Hole
By Joe

Throughout the baseball season we always hear players, managers, commentators and fans talking about the importance of having a truly dominant pitcher, a guy who simply controls the opposition nearly every time on the mound. A kind of player who stops losing streaks and wins playoff series. A special pitcher otherwise known as an ace.

But what makes a pitcher an ace? What criteria should we set to determine this answer? These are two critical questions to ask because being considered an ace is extremely important for a pitcher. When you're the ace, you command a higher salary and better trade value. You are expected to produce every time out. You are, for all intents and purposes, "The Man."

If we are going to figure out just who is an ace and who isn't, we need a test sample. I can't think of anyone better than New York Yankee pitcher Chien-Ming Wang, who won 19 games in 2006 with a 3.63 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP. He also finished the season with 51 votes in the Cy Young voting, good enough for a second-place finish.

Now that we have our sample, we need criteria for determining an ace. Which are the most important numbers to analyze and which aren't?

From participating in fantasy baseball, I have learned how unimportant wins are in assessing a pitcher's ability. A great example of the deficiencies of the win category occurred this afternoon when Kansas City played Detroit. The Tigers' Jeremy Bonderman threw seven innings, walked zero, allowed just four hits and one earned run. He left the game with a 3-1 lead and turned it over to the Tigers' bullpen. For all intents and purposes, he threw a gem. But when Detroit's closer, Todd Jones, yielded two runs in the top of the ninth, Bonderman's win went down the toilet.

If we are judging pitchers on their ability to win, Bonderman isn't very good. He's 0-0 through four starts. But in reality, he could win the Cy Young if it was given out today. He has four quality starts (defined by going at least six innings and allowing three runs or less), his ERA is 2.25 and his WHIP is under 1.00. Bonderman is a top five pitcher in the majors so far this season.

Another great example is Philadelphia's Cole Hamels. In his first two starts, Hamels went 13 innings, allowed just 10 hits, two earned runs, walked four and struck out 15. For his efforts, he earned zero victories thanks to a horrendous Phillies bullpen.

In his last start, Hamels wasn't very good at all. He got smoked for five earned in just six innings. But he also got something else from that start -- a win.

As you can see, Bonderman and Hamels prove that wins are overrated. Too many outside factors affect whether a pitcher gets a win or not. If a team has an excellent offense, there is a higher chance a pitcher's poor performance will be offset. If a team has a stellar defense, it will make fewer errors and thus increase the chances for a pitcher to gain victory.

In 2006, Wang was tied with Johan Santana for the Major League lead in wins. This tells us that Wang was, at the least, a good, consistent pitcher. You don't win 19 games in the first few months of the season. You must earns Ws in August and September to reach such a high mark. Wang obviously did many things well. But wins alone doesn't convince me he's an ace.

A better indication of a pitcher's performance is his ERA. Generally, an ERA under 4.00 is considered good and an ERA between 3.25 and 3.00 is excellent. Obviously, a pitcher with a good ERA has been effective in limiting runners from scoring. It also proves the pitcher stays out of the dreaded "big inning."

But ERA can also be misleading. For example, if a pitcher leaves a game with a man on third base and two outs, he is still responsible for that runner. If the ensuing relief pitcher yields a single and the runner from third scores, the starter is tagged with the earned run. Therefore, a pitcher's ERA is very much a product of the effectiveness of his team's bullpen. A team with a bad bullpen could cost a pitcher half a run on his ERA by season's end, maybe more.

There are several pitchers in the league who are generally considered aces without much debate and coincidentally have very solid ERAs. In 2006 Santana (2.77), Houston's Roy Oswalt (2.89), Toronto's Roy Halladay (3.19), St. Louis' Chris Carpenter (3.09) and Roger Clemens' (2.30). You could throw in a couple others, like Arizona's Brandon Webb or Chicago's Carlos Zambrano (although I think he's on the very edge of this discussion). Either way, its obvious that to be considered an ace, you need an ERA well below 3.50, and closer to the 3.25 to 3.00 range discussed earlier.

Wang's ERA was a very respectable 3.63. He is not yet in the low 3.00 range, but he is far above the league average. Staying around this mark will ensure a productive career and makes him a strong no. 2 starter on almost every team. However, Wang's ERA is still nearly half a run away from being deemed a "dominant" pitcher and in the same company as the very best starters in the league.

For me, the best indicator of pitching performance is walks plus hits per innings pitched or WHIP. A pitcher's WHIP is the best choice to determine whether a pitcher is an ace because it eliminates the outside variables that factored into wins and ERA. A team's offensive ability is completely independent of a pitcher's WHIP. A team's bullpen is a non-factor in determining WHIP. And a team's defense has only minimal impact on WHIP.

Therefore, I argue that a pitcher with a low WHIP and high ERA is better than a pitcher with a high WHIP and low ERA. This is why I feel guys like Chicago's Carlos Zambrano and Cleveland's C.C. Sabathia aren't aces. They are good, front-end starters, but they don't belong in the same category as Oswalt, Santana or Carpenter. Zambrano has a career WHIP of 1.29, while Sabathia's is 1.28. I'm not saying these two aren't good ,but I wouldn't consider them aces.

To compare, Randy Johnson, a definite ace during most of his career, has a lifetime WHIP of 1.16. Santana's is 1.09, John Smoltz's is 1.17 and Oswalt's is 1.18. You get the point.

Perhaps my criteria is high, but shouldn't there be just a few aces in the league each year? If we start saying that everyone with an ERA under 4.00 and 17 wins is considered an ace, doesn't that dilute the title? Shouldn't an ace be known as one of the very best at his job?

Let's go back to our buddy, Mr. Wang. His 19 wins definitely put him in the ace category. His 3.63 ERA is good, but well past the threshold of 3.25 and his WHIP is a commendable 1.31, but again not within the 1.19-1.10 range.

From this analysis, I certainly don't consider Wang an ace for the Yankees. In addition to wins, ERA and WHIP, ace pitchers usually have high strikeout numbers so they rely less on defense and more on themselves. Wang is quite the opposite, striking out just 76 in 218 innings of work. This likely means he doesn't have a dominant pitch to rely on when he needs that third strike. Hitters have little trouble getting wood on the ball against Wang (pun?). With hitters getting a second chance to face Wang this season, I believe they will convert many of those putouts to hits.

Wang allows opponents' to bat .277 against him. This is also too high to put him in the ace category. In contrast, Oswalt's career BAA is .253 and Halladay's is .255. For Wang to be in Oswalt and Halladay's level, he'll need to significantly drop his BAA number. Again, I think you'll see that be about the same, if not higher in 2007 because hitters have more tape and experience against him.

So, what have we learned? To determine a pitcher's worth, wins don't mean much, ERA helps and WHIP is critical. Winning 18 games doesn't mean you're an ace or a Cy Young candidate.

Just ask Jon Garland.