Aces Are Great, But There Are No Guarantees
Joe Torre hasn't yet announced his opening day starter, but the Associated Press speculates that Clayton Kershaw just might be in line for that honor. If he does get tabbed for the April 5 start in Pittsburgh, Kershaw would be the third-youngest opening day starter in LA Dodger history:
| Youngest LA Dodger Opening Day Starting Pitchers | ||
| Pitcher | Year | Age |
| Fernando Valenzuela | 1981 | 20 years, 159 days |
| Don Drysdale | 1958 | 21 years, 266 days |
| Clayton Kershaw* | 2010 | 22 years, 17 days |
| *projected | ||
At 22 years old, is Kershaw ready to lead the rotation?
I was listening to ESPN Radio 710 this afternoon at lunch. Hosts Brian Long and Andrew Kamenetzky conducted a reasonable discussion of whether or not the Dodgers needed to acquire an ace to head their rotation. I didn't agree with everything they had to say, but the conversation was free of the usual overly emotional pleas involved in such a discussion. However, A. Martinez said something that got me thinking. I can't remember the exact quote, and the abbreviated podcast of the show doesn't include it, but here is a paraphrasing of what he said:
Look at the teams last year who made the biggest pitching acquisitions: the Yankees with CC Sabathia, and the Phillies with Cliff Lee. They both got to the World Series.
This connection seems logical on the surface, but a deeper look reveals the correlation may not be that simple. Let me start by saying I would have loved for the Dodgers to acquire Cliff Lee or Roy Halladay this offseason, however unlikely it may have been (Halladay and his no-trade clause was set on Philadelphia, and it seems unlikely the Phillies would have traded Lee to their NLCS rivals). Having a great pitcher at the top of your rotation is always a good thing, but it's important people realize there are not only costs for these moves (in both prospects and money) but also alternatives.
Author and baseball historian Eric Enders wrote an article for the Maple Street Press 2010 Dodgers Annual entitled "Aces Are Wild Cards," which explored the mixed results of acquiring an ace. It's a great article, one of many reasons you should buy the annual. Along those same lines, just by looking at the two pitchers identified by Martinez as the top pitching acquisitions of 2009 (Sabathia and Lee), we can clearly see the fickle nature of both ace pitchers and short playoff series.
In 2007, Sabathia won the American League Cy Young award. He won 19 games with a 141 ERA+, and led the majors in innings pitched. By all accounts, he was an ace. The Indians made the playoffs and actually held a 3-1 lead over the Red Sox in the ALCS (leading to the classic Manny Ramirez "it's not like it's the end of the world" quote) before succumbing to Boston. Sabathia made three playoff starts that season, and gave up 15 runs in 15.1 innings.
In 2008, Sabathia was even better. After a midseason trade to Milwaukee, CC lead the Brewers to the playoffs with a superhuman effort -- he was 11-2 with a 1.65 ERA in the National League, a staggering 255 ERA+ -- and he again led the major leagues in innings pitched. Another ace season for Sabathia. In the playoffs, he made one start, giving up five runs in 3.2 innings, and the Brewers lost in round one to the Phillies.
I'm not saying Sabathia isn't a great pitcher, but rather pointing out a true ace pitcher doesn't always lead to automatic postseason success.
Cliff Lee followed Sabathia's footsteps as a Cleveland Indian Cy Young winner turned National League conqueror, joining the Phillies at midseason. Don't get me wrong, Lee was superb after joining Philadelphia. He posted a 3.39 ERA (125 ERA+) in 12 regular season starts, then turned it up in October with a 4-0 record and 1.56 ERA in 40.1 postseason innings. However, if you are going to argue an ace is necessary to take it to the next level, how can you reconcile that the Phillies went farther without Lee (winning the World Series in 2008) than with him (losing the World Series in 2009)?
If anything, Lee's success should be a lesson in patience. If you think Chad Billingsley's second half was bad last season, take a gander at Lee's 2007. Lee sported a 6.29 ERA, 5.48 FIP, and 5.48 x-FIP that season, and was sent to the minors. Heading into 2008, Lee had a career 4.64 ERA, and a 94 ERA+ in 129 career games. He then went 22-3 and won the AL Cy Young award.
| Pitcher | Years | Ages | IP | W-L | HR/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | ERA | ERA+ | WHIP |
| Cliff Lee | 2002-07 | 23-28 | 741.2 | 54-36 | 1.3 | 3.1 | 6.7 | 4.64 | 94 | 1.375 |
| Chad Billingsley |
2006-09 | 21-24 | 634.0 | 47-30 | 0.8 | 4.1 | 8.2 | 3.55 | 119 | 1.375 |
As mentioned, the Phillies were somehow able to win the World Series in 2008 without acquiring a much needed ace starter. They did, however, get an ace performance in the postseason from their own product, 24-year old Cole Hamels. He made five starts in October 2008, and the Phillies won them all. Hamels posted a 1.80 ERA, averaging seven innings per start. Might young Clayton Kershaw pull a Hamels this year? It's not out of the question:
| Pitcher | Years | Ages | IP | W-L | HR/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | ERA | ERA+ | WHIP |
| Cole Hamels | 2006-07 | 22-23 | 315.2 | 24-13 | 1.3 | 2.6 | 9.2 | 3.68 | 125 | 1.175 |
| Clayton Kershaw | 2008-09 | 20-21 | 278.2 | 13-13 | 0.6 | 4.6 | 9.2 | 3.36 | 120 | 1.331 |
In 2009, despite being basically the same pitcher as 2008 in the regular season, Hamels struggled mightily in October, posting a 7.58 ERA in 19 postseason innings. Again, this speaks to the fickle nature of pitching, even at its highest level.
All three of these pitchers -- Sabathia, Lee, and Hamels -- demonstrate the up and down nature of pitching. Pitchers, even aces, have their ebbs and flows. Ace pitchers are wonderful to have, and it's perfectly reasonable to want one, or even two. However, even though they improve your hand, they don't guarantee anything -- nothing ever can -- and there's reason to think the Dodgers are holding a pair of aces in Kershaw and Billingsley.
38 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Brent Leach
…looks positively ancient in this photo slideshow. It’s really quite disturbing.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/photogallery/year_2010/month_02/day_25/cf8138912.html
Wow
Old man face there. Probably just a weird angle
by Eric Stephen on Feb 25, 2010 10:49 PM PST up reply actions
Wouldn’t the Phillies have to get to the playoffs first?
Kidding, kidding :)
by Eric Stephen on Feb 25, 2010 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
Bullish on the Fish, are we? I don’t see how anyone could look at the Mets and Marlins and conclude that the Mets are better.
Like the Marlins, like the Braves. But I do think the Phillies will win that division.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 25, 2010 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
Marlins look scary beginning in 2011 when Mike Stanton and Logan Morrison arrive.
by silverwidow on Feb 25, 2010 10:56 PM PST up reply actions
I like how these
“Gotta have an ace” discussions always neglect to mention how many teams are successful without a “proven ace.” 2008 Phillies are a great example; Hamels wasn’t considered an ace coming into that season. The same could probably be said of the 2008 Rays. If the Dodgers had made it to, or won, the WS in 2008 or 2009, one of Kershaw or Bills would already have this label.
Agreed
I think it’s something that gets retroactively labeled. It’s always hard to tell in the moment, or predict going forward I would have loved to have Sabathia in 2007, 2008, or 2009, but only one of those seasons ended positively for him. It just shows how hard it is to win.
There are more examples, too. Johan Santana was the best pitcher in baseball when the Mets gave up nothing to get him, and they haven’t won a thing with him on board.
by Eric Stephen on Feb 25, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder if Alfredo Amezaga – if he ever gets to don it – is the first Dodger to wear uni “0” since Al Oliver.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Oliver is the only Dodger to ever wear 0 (in 1985), dating back to when the Dodgers first put numbers on the unis in 1932 (shocked by this; thanks to Dodgers media guide)
by Eric Stephen on Feb 25, 2010 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
I am still working through my Maple Street Press 2010 Dodgers Annual, but it is awesome, and I agree that you should buy the Annual.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Good points Eric!
Speaking of photo galleries and old, there was a picture of the player formerly known as the “Beard” in one of the latest two days photos and he looks old. Usually shedding a beard makes you look younger. Of course he is a lot older than Leach, but I hope his career arc continues to be shifted far older than the average,. including the peak.
I’m officially geeked for this season. Looking at the photo gallery brings it all alive. Are we writing off Cory Wade too early? Is this the year Martin & Loney bust out? Is McDonald for real? Will Broxton even allow a hit this year? Are Kemp and Ethier already superstars? I like this team.
I totally share your enthusiasm. And I would be so excited if Loney finally breaks out this year, which I think he can!
2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Feb 26, 2010 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
This is off topic
Where is the best seat at a decent price? And when do single game tix go on sale? I’m planning on making the trip down south May 1 vs the Pirates.
by Skunkburner on Feb 26, 2010 8:14 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Loge is always good value, as is lower reserved behind home plate. Single gamers go on sale March 6 (next Saturday).
by Eric Stephen on Feb 26, 2010 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
lower reserved behind home plate
Known in Dodger ticketing parlance as “Infield Reserved”, whether you are at the rail, or backed-up to the concourse. Those tickets at $30 for most games, but they have a Fri/Sat premium now, so they are $32. “Loge Box” – the outer part of Loge, is also $32 for that game.
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/ballpark/la_seating_pricing.jsp
For a Pirates game, even for Saturday, the best deal might be third-party. It’s Saturday but the Pirates are hardly a draw.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
By third party you mean craigslist or something? $30 sounds good. Does a 3 yr old need her own tix.
by Skunkburner on Feb 26, 2010 2:38 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yes, craigslist, ebay, whatever. You should probably call the Dodgers (1-866-DODGERS) about the 3yr old to be sure, but there is this footnote on the page linked above:
Discount tickets available to Military Personnel, Seniors and Children 4-12, $7 for Top Deck and $10 for Left Field Pavilion, on the day of the game only, 1 1/2 hours prior to start of the game.That sort of implies that children under 4 could get in without a ticket and be expected to sit a lap.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
i’d try StubHub as well. A kid here in my office gets great deals all the time. And you have to figure even for a Sat night, it’s the Pirates so lots of folks won’t be going (unless it’s a good giveaway).
I’m also w/Eric; i like the loge. More pricey but you can get some great seats.
by KellyStephen on Feb 26, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions
I think the only Sat promotionals are On-field photo day on 7/10 and Team Photo Calendar on 10/2.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
Side note: mMy guy at work uses Stubhub so much that when he bought a ticket to one of the Phillies playoff games last year (upper deck), a stub hub guy came up in the 1st inning and told him he was going to receive a “good customer upgrade”. He went from upperdeck to 5th row yellow seats behind home plate on the field level! He actually showed me the ticket stub when i got back into the office the following week. Very sweet.
by KellyStephen on Feb 26, 2010 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
Thank you!
I called and they told me 4 and older need a tix. So that frees up more $ for better seats. Thank you everyone.
by Skunkburner on Feb 26, 2010 8:18 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Best deal I have found
Is the RF pavillion. All your food(minus beer) is included and the tickets are at max $35. Now, if you are trying to scout, they are horrible seats, but to watch a game and maybe get a ball, it’s a great deal…
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Feb 26, 2010 5:23 PM PST up reply actions
They actually reduced the prices out there
For 2010 it’s $30 in advance, $32 for Friday or Saturday. If you consider it a $10 ticket, you probably sort of break even at two Dodger Dogs, one bag of peanuts and a couple water bottles. Plus a young guy like you can try and flirt with the young ladies that are hootin’ and hollerin’ at Ethier’s backside, although you might not be putting your best foot forward when your puking up all those Dodger Dogs, nachos and peanuts that you ate.
The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.
oh, nice
tickets are cheaper :). It was a good deal when it was more expensive.. very good way to spend a night
But the dodger dog/nachos/other stuff combo isnt the best food combo when trying to meet people
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Feb 26, 2010 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
I forgot that the view
is one of the best I have ever had at dodger stadium. I’ve sat right behind home plate, both pavilions, the inner/outer reserve, loge, etc. The RF pavilion is one of the best views(although the loge is a close 2nd)… The fact that you can get a ball no matter where you sit, and it’s cheaper, even with the food included, I think the pavilion is the best
by lakersdodgersyankees4life on Feb 26, 2010 8:31 PM PST up reply actions
Although I'm itching to purchase now,
I think I can wait until April to buy via 3rd party. I’m think I’m gonna go loge. Or down the base line, as close as i can get to the field. The boy is finally fitting into his Dodger gear. I can’t wait. It’s gonna be feakin’ awesome. My 3 yr old was talking about Matt kemp and how he runs fast and hits the ball “pow” home run!
by Skunkburner on Feb 27, 2010 5:44 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
However, if you are going to argue an ace is necessary to take it to the next level, how can you reconcile that the Phillies went farther without Lee (winning the World Series in 2008) than with him (losing the World Series in 2009)?
I guess you could reconcile this by saying that the team who had acquired 1 ace (Lee) during the season got beat by the team who acquired 2 aces at the beginning of the season (Sabathia & Burnett). Ace^2 trumps Ace^1.
2009-10 Kings Hockey: Delivering Milk Steaks from the Meat Train at an arena near you!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Feb 26, 2010 11:30 AM PST reply actions
That would lead you down a path that requires labeling A.J. Burnett an ace.
Which would mean both Billingsley and Kershaw are already aces. Ta da!!!
by Eric Stephen on Feb 26, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
I didn’t help them win in the playoff but the Brewers really badly needed Sabathia in 2008.
If we yield now, all is over; but if we fight, there is yet a hope that we may stand upright

by 














