Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:08 pm
by Tavish
RJCarrot wrote:Couldnt you get the same effect out of taking a handfull of mediocre pitchers and switching them each week to play the best bets.


Thats the advantage of having an ace. Much less playing hunches and second guessing yourself the next day. Sure you can win without an ace, much the same as you can win without an elite hitter. It just makes things easier if you have one.

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:18 pm
by Laean
i always think of an ace as an "anchor." like, if you have at least 2 aces (i think one's not enough), you always have that anchor to keep your pitching staff #s locked within a certain range (as in ERA will rarely ever go over 4 and whip never over 1.30, etc) every week (i usually play only h2h).

if you have a bunch of #3 starters, you don't have an anchor to keep your team ERA WHIP and etc from fluctuating too much. 2 or 3 of your pitchers might get blown up that week, and you won't have the 2 aces who got their usual 8K 1 ER games to hold your ERA down to reasonable levels. i don't like that randomness.

my aces are carlos zambrano and roy halladay. i know they are more like 2nd tier aces, but i put an emphasis on drafting hitting first so that's about the best i can expect each year.

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:42 pm
by bceagles04
is it benificial to trade, say RJ for to #2 guys, or a #2, and a #3?

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:46 pm
by Laean
bceagles04 wrote:is it benificial to trade, say RJ for to #2 guys, or a #2, and a #3?


i'd need names before i can say.

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:21 pm
by RynMan
Laean wrote:
bceagles04 wrote:is it benificial to trade, say RJ for to #2 guys, or a #2, and a #3?


i'd need names before i can say.


Exactly. Also depends on what your staff is like. If you can split an Ace for more depth overall then it may be a good idea. I think you just need to look at your rotation as a whole really....

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:41 pm
by Rowand
it depends. I like to get top closers. I got Peavy in the 5th round. Bargain aces are the way to go. ofcourse a Santana cant hurt

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:52 pm
by bceagles04
the rest of my staff isnt so good

RJ
Odalis
CC
Marquis
Lawrence
Loazia
DOug DAvis

12 team league

What do you think? Keep RJ or trade?

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 9:53 pm
by beltrans_boy
bceagles04 wrote:the rest of my staff isnt so good

RJ
Odalis
CC
Marquis
Lawrence
Loazia
DOug DAvis

12 team league

What do you think? Keep RJ or trade?


Who would you be getting in return?

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:20 pm
by gws226
Im an ace horder :)

I have combos of RJ/ Pedro or Pedro/santanna in pretty much all my leagues. I used mid first rounders for Santana, late first rounders on RJ and llate second rounders/ early 3rds on pedro unless a top notch batter slipped too far down to avoid.

For me having an 'ace' on my roster always seems to have more of an impact throughout the season. Your pitchers play less often (once, maybe twice a week) so the impact of their start is more profound then the 8 batters you put in your lineup every night.

The need for an 'ace' is exlimified in the fact that pitcher matchups aren't always equal compared to batters in FB. Batters are pretty even during the FB week. (generally you and your opponent get a comparable amount of starts for each position) Pitchers, you have the leathal 1 week starter vs the 2..... and lots of fantasy playoff rounds have been lost simply because one team had more 2 start weekly pitchers vs. the other.

I've always seen this as a need to have a better staff..... maybe your oponent has 1 average starter putting up 5K's a game playing twice. Those 10Ks he puts up can often be offset with just one quality start from your ace.

people talk about getting burned with drafted pitchers high, well yes you can..... Anyone here scratching their heads over wondering why they cashed in their #1 & #2 on Chavez, Bonds, crawfords, Texieras, and Rolens?

Good pitching is just that much harder to find vs. Batters. In baseball, they always say you can bat your way into the playoffs but your not gonna win it all without pitching, I believe it holds true to an extent in FB.

In years past for me I found it much easier to find 100/30/100 outfielders with my 5th-7ths then it was to find 15-20game winners with 200+ks.

I don't think anyone anticipated this much of swing of #'s in pitchers favors with the steriod free baseball this year, so maybe it was best to refrain doing the mad grab for top notch pitchers next year.

I think the injury risk and loss of any player drafted in the first rounds in about the same.

PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:26 pm
by The Jury
jpbusta wrote:An ace is someone you could start all the time without any hesitation even if it's bad matchup or bad field(coors). For me, it's Hudson and Halladay. Aces usually have more wins than normal pitchers, better ERA, more Ks, and better whip.

Does that answer your question? :-b


Agreed. I'm not a fan of sticking the "ace" tag on a lot of tier 2 pitchers like Burnett, Willis, etc. Those guys are beginning their journey into solidifying themselves as future aces in baseball, but they are not there yet. Guys like RJ, Huddy, Schilling - those guy are aces as they have the track records to back up the reliability. It takes at least one killer season to enter "ace-dom," as Santana showed.