Is/ was Jimmy Nelson an ace?

[docduany]

We seem to be seeking our definition of an ace around here. There are varying opinions popping up on the different threads. What I'm curious about is 2016, and hopefully in the future, Mr. Downhill Thunder. Now the shoulder injury scares the devil out of me. But to my opinion, he was an ace last year. Taking the ball every fifth day and giving good innings and an excellent chance of winning that day. He looked dominant. Dare I say Ben Sheets dominant. I feel like he was a true number one. I liked our chances vs. Kershaw, Madbum, you name them. If he can return to that level at some point next season and beyond, ace material. How do others feel?

[Eye Black]

I have seen those posts as well, and seeking the definition of “What is an Ace?” is a question worth considering all on its own.

 

I think there is a difference between a true “Ace” pitcher and most team’s “number one” starter. In any given year there seems to be somewhere around maybe a dozen pitchers that could be considered a true Ace. I also think the perception is often that to achieve credibility as an Ace, a pitcher needs to perform consistently at a high level over multiple seasons. Right or wrong, I also think pedigree matters as it takes a lot longer for an unheralded young pitcher to achieve Ace status than it does for one receiving hype and praise throughout his early development. It is hard to quantify exact terms, but a different aura surrounds an Ace as compared to a given team’s number one starter. A team’s number one starter is obviously a position that can be acheived by default.

 

Regarding Jimmy Nelson, he was arguably one of the best 15-20 starting pitchers in baseball last year. Given an identical statical performance he would have been the best starter on at least half the teams in baseball in 2017. So I think it is easy to argue he was a number one starter this past season. That being said, if he was on the open market right now I don’t think he would be viewed nationally as an Ace caliber pitcher. To be considered an Ace I think he would need to maintain similar success for at least another season, if not two more.

 

I don’t want to derail the thread from your question about Jimmy Nelson, but I am curious to hear which current major league starters others would consider an Ace?

 

Here is the final version of Roster Resource’s production based MLB Starting Pitcher Rankings for 2017. It also notes where each pitcher was projected to rank coming into the season.

 

Which of those pitchers do you think have current “Ace” status?

[BrewCrewBlueDevil]

Nelson and Anderson are #2's, Davies and Chacin are #3's. A rotation of #2's and #3's is not a bad thing.

[trwi7]

The only ace we've had this century is Chris Capuano, obviously.

[jerichoholicninja]

No. The guy had about half-ish of a really good season after a lot of mediocrity or worse.

[JohnBriggs12]

Nelson and Anderson are #2's, Davies and Chacin are #3's. A rotation of #2's and #3's is not a bad thing.

 

Right now though they have one #2, two #3's, guy who's unproven who could be either a 3, 4 or 5, a guy who in 2016 looked like a #2 but is in his 30's, a former #2 who's barely been passable as a #5 for two years, and a unique lefty who twice through the lineup passes as a #3. The big question is do they make the move and insert the one guy with ace potential into the rotation or deal some of their future for another #2 or #3?

[Warning Track Power]

If Nelson was what he was in 2017, then he is a 1. Ben Sheets 2004 is an ace. Ace to me implies elite of elite. Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale...not sure I would say anyone else right now. You can be a number one and not be an ace. I think of it like a deck of cards...where there are only a handful of Aces but a lot of really excellent other cards.

[MrTPlush]

Jimmy Nelson definitely had the looks of a #1 guy last year. Though to me an Ace and a #1 guy can be different. A #1 to me is one of the Top 32 pitchers or so in baseball. An Ace is a guy who is just filthy dominant even on days where he doesn’t have all his stuff. I’m talking the Kershaw etc. of the world.

[TooLiveBrew]

You can be a number one and not be an ace. I think of it like a deck of cards...where there are only a handful of Aces but a lot of really excellent other cards.

I like this concept. All of this is very subjective, but I definitely agree there's a difference between being one of the 32 best SPs, & that elite tier of SPs that are the real difference-makers come postseason time.

 

For me, prime Nelson isn't close to prime Sheets. And I like Nelson.

[sheetskout]

You can be a number one and not be an ace. I think of it like a deck of cards...where there are only a handful of Aces but a lot of really excellent other cards.

I like this concept. All of this is very subjective, but I definitely agree there's a difference between being one of the 32 best SPs, & that elite tier of SPs that are the real difference-makers come postseason time.

 

For me, prime Nelson isn't close to prime Sheets. And I like Nelson.

 

It's not close. Sheets' 2004 season is a case-in-point. He was an ace that season. It may be the best losing season of any pitcher in history.

 

For me an ace K's 200, pitches 200IP, and keeps his walks down. There are exceptions to this but I differentiate and ace from a #1. There are five or six "aces" in baseball in my opinion.

[brewcrewdue80]

No, Id put Nelson as a New #2 not an Ace. I go by performance/perception on the mound. If you would name off a dozen guys as Aces how many would you put money on against in 1 game? Nelson isnt in that category and while he may have been getting closer to consideration, his Shoulder injury reduces that feeling for quite some time.

There are names of Aces in past who didnt carry that title last season or hold an Ace profile very long. Johnny Cueto, Grienke, and Price as examples. Verlander was once and flashed that skill again in moments.

I'd take an Ace as someone who consistently achieves Cy Young votes. How many did Nelson get this year?

Pitchers have great single seasons. Take the Cubs rebuild with Garza and Hammel. Samardzija even. Perfectly landed at trade away season values And brougjt back a number of either current (Russell) or pieces traded away recently from those deals.

[Dean Machine]

No, Id put Nelson as a New #2 not an Ace. I go by performance/perception on the mound. If you would name off a dozen guys as Aces how many would you put money on against in 1 game? Nelson isnt in that category and while he may have been getting closer to consideration, his Shoulder injury reduces that feeling for quite some time.

There are names of Aces in past who didnt carry that title last season or hold an Ace profile very long. Johnny Cueto, Grienke, and Price as examples. Verlander was once and flashed that skill again in moments.

I'd take an Ace as someone who consistently achieves Cy Young votes. How many did Nelson get this year?

Pitchers have great single seasons. Take the Cubs rebuild with Garza and Hammel. Samardzija even. Perfectly landed at trade away season values And brougjt back a number of either current (Russell) or pieces traded away recently from those deals.

 

I think he finished 9th in the Cy Young award and he missed the end of the season.

[AKCheesehead]

To me, an ace, as implied by the term itself, is a guy that you figure you are likely to win the games he pitches.

 

On the days when he "has it," opponents' runs are few and far between, and he pitches deep into the game. No pitcher has it every time out, but he does more often than not. When he's really on, he's pretty much untouchable. On the days when he doesn't have his A game, he has enough tools, savvy, and mental makeup to give you a QS and a good shot at the win. When an ace is in a jam, he has the ability to bear down on a hitter, make tough pitches in tough situations, and get out of trouble. On the rare days when he just doesn't have it, even if he gets lit up early, he probably still finds a way to get through 5 innings and save some wear on the bullpen.

 

Also, an ace has stamina. He's still pitching well as the pitch count gets into the 90s and even over 100.

 

That's my take on what an ace is, and I think Jimmy met the criteria in 2017.

[Outlander]

All aces are #1 pitchers but not all #1 pitchers are aces. I think Nelson pitched like an ace for a period of time last year but wouldn't call him an ace. After his injury I wouldn't label him anything until he shows what kind of pitcher he is.

[Baldkin]

The only ace we've had this century is Chris Capuano, obviously.

 

What about the important question though, is Joe Flacco an elite quarterback?

[TJseven7]

He's was a 1 but not an ace. Ace i think sheets 2004... CC Grienke when it comes to our history.

 

That being said Anderson was also a 1. Its also hard to see Davies on the cusp of 200 ip at sub 4 as less than a borderline 2 on a results basis. There are very few 200ip sub 4 pitchers these days. Im hopeful Davies mitigates his slow issues and is an uninspiring 2 this year. With health chacin can be a 3. Anderson pitches like last year and hes a 1.

 

I think thats something many overlook. Last year we had 2 1s and a borderline 2. 3 of 5 giving quality starts over and over and eating innings. If our BP wasn't knebel Hughes and +4 garbage most of the year I think it would have become more obvious. (Wins)

 

Quality... solid quantity... but no we haven't had an ace for awhile. I'd be extatic just to have nelson anderson davies chacin and woodruff or burnes going strong all at once.

[coolhandluke121]

To me an ace has not just the numbers, but also has dominant stuff when you watch him pitch. I think Nelson was trending in the right direction and I when I watched him pitched, I thought I detected that kind of potential. He obviously took a long time to develop any sort of consistency, but I think he was capable of having 3-4 really good years.

 

One thing we can all agree on is that it really sucked to lose him in the heat of a pennant race. I hope he can still effective but I have my doubts.

[reillymcshane]

Looking at the responses, I think most people have a feel for what an ace is.

 

There's an 'ace' of a staff and there's an 'ace.' They can be two different things. The former is simply the best former on any given team. The latter is an elite pitcher in the league who has displayed dominance over an extended period. Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, Greinke - those are the kinds of guys that I think are aces.

 

I do think showing extended success contributes to being classified as an ace. A good pitcher can put up ace-like numbers one year - but that doesn't make him one of baseball's best. Same goes for a young player. Also, an ace can have a poor year - but it won't knock him out of ace status (at least not yet).

 

I think it's fine to debate who is an ace and who is just very good. There's nothing wrong with that. Some guys just need more time to establish their status as one of the best in the league. Others have to stay healthy. Others have to simply get a little bit better.

 

As for the Brewers - I loved Sheets - but I don't think he ever stepped into the role of an 'ace'. He had one brilliant season, but after that, he was just very good.

 

Teddy Higuera was probably the closest the Crew ever had to a true ace. He was pretty amazing for about four years before injuries ruined his career. Guys like Greinke and Sutton weren't with us that long - and not that dominant when they were here.

[Boomer5]

Looking at the responses, I think most people have a feel for what an ace is.

 

There's an 'ace' of a staff and there's an 'ace.' They can be two different things. The former is simply the best former on any given team. The latter is an elite pitcher in the league who has displayed dominance over an extended period. Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, Greinke - those are the kinds of guys that I think are aces.

 

I do think showing extended success contributes to being classified as an ace. A good pitcher can put up ace-like numbers one year - but that doesn't make him one of baseball's best. Same goes for a young player. Also, an ace can have a poor year - but it won't knock him out of ace status (at least not yet).

 

I think it's fine to debate who is an ace and who is just very good. There's nothing wrong with that. Some guys just need more time to establish their status as one of the best in the league. Others have to stay healthy. Others have to simply get a little bit better.

 

As for the Brewers - I loved Sheets - but I don't think he ever stepped into the role of an 'ace'. He had one brilliant season, but after that, he was just very good.

 

Teddy Higuera was probably the closest the Crew ever had to a true ace. He was pretty amazing for about four years before injuries ruined his career. Guys like Greinke and Sutton weren't with us that long - and not that dominant when they were here.

 

In 1978 Mike Caldwell was absolutely an ace.

[FVBrewerFan]

I have seen those posts as well, and seeking the definition of “What is an Ace?” is a question worth considering all on its own.

 

I think there is a difference between a true “Ace” pitcher and most team’s “number one” starter. In any given year there seems to be somewhere around maybe a dozen pitchers that could be considered a true Ace.

 

Yea, this is how I see it and have posted something similar in the past. There's probably even less than a dozen of them. Nelson pitched like a #1" this year, and for that matter so did Anderson.

 

But an Ace (to me) is someone you throw out on the mound for a playoff game with high confidence they will win regardless of whom they're up against.

[KeithStone53151]

I'd say Nelson has shown glimpses of being in that Gallardo in his prime tier. Gallardo was never an ace in my opinion, he was always more of a very good #2 starter or a #1b type guy. Nelson was very good this year and had glimpses of getting to that caliber in other years, but was not consistent enough at that level to establish himself in that tier. And agreed with many other posters that even on his best day, he was never as good as Ben Sheets.

[reillymcshane]

Looking at the responses, I think most people have a feel for what an ace is.

 

There's an 'ace' of a staff and there's an 'ace.' They can be two different things. The former is simply the best former on any given team. The latter is an elite pitcher in the league who has displayed dominance over an extended period. Kershaw, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, Greinke - those are the kinds of guys that I think are aces.

 

I do think showing extended success contributes to being classified as an ace. A good pitcher can put up ace-like numbers one year - but that doesn't make him one of baseball's best. Same goes for a young player. Also, an ace can have a poor year - but it won't knock him out of ace status (at least not yet).

 

I think it's fine to debate who is an ace and who is just very good. There's nothing wrong with that. Some guys just need more time to establish their status as one of the best in the league. Others have to stay healthy. Others have to simply get a little bit better.

 

As for the Brewers - I loved Sheets - but I don't think he ever stepped into the role of an 'ace'. He had one brilliant season, but after that, he was just very good.

 

Teddy Higuera was probably the closest the Crew ever had to a true ace. He was pretty amazing for about four years before injuries ruined his career. Guys like Greinke and Sutton weren't with us that long - and not that dominant when they were here.

 

In 1978 Mike Caldwell was absolutely an ace.

Caldwell is a good example of a guy who was brilliant for one season - then merely good for several others. He's a guy I would say had an 'ace-like' performance - but I wouldn't call him an ace. He just never reproduced his 1978 season. He was a good player for a few years after 1978 - but not even close to great.

[wallus]

How do you answer a question where the definition is so widely different from person to person?

[TJseven7]

You find an appropriate definition.

[NievesNoNO]

I think I have a more broad view of what an ace is. More along the lines of a staff ace, not an MLB ace. So for me it falls along the lines of a really good pitcher who more often than not gives you a great chance to win. The back of my mind says 200 ip, 180-200 K sort of guy but those guys are few and far between these days.

 

Yes, I think Nelson was an ace last season. Unfortunately with the injury we may never see that guy again but he was awfully good. Not Kershaw/Scherzer/Bumgarner good but the next tier.