Well, I forgot to send out the question until this afternoon, so that’s why this is so late…
This week’s question:
Is Johan Santana still an ace in your mind?
Not at all. He is a very good and very smart pitcher who can look like an ace against a horrible offensive team.
Still valuable but certainly not an ace.
First of all, what is an ace? Is it just a # 1 pitcher? Is it a top 10 pitcher in the game? At this point his 2.75 ERA would rank him 15th in the NL for starters. That certainly wouldn’t be top ten but it’s who is around him that makes you wonder. Coming in at #14 is Stephen Strasburg , at #16 is Cliff Lee* . Trailing him also are guys like Halladay, Grenkie, Garza, Wainwright and Lincecum. Keeping that in mind he does in my mind pass the ERA test. His WHIP of 1.102 places him at #14. Again trailed by names such as Bumgarner, Halladay, Garza, and Grenkie. Just a quick look he is 7th in K/9, and 8th in strikeouts overall. To me what we have is a top 10-15 pitcher who has pitched very well to start the season. Does that make him an “ace”, that’s up to the individual but on any given night he can leave no doubt.
I don’t think he’s a true ace, but I think he’s become the de facto ace of the Mets this year, which is something they really need. That being said, I think on his best days he can still resemble something close to an ace.
Without a doubt. The ERA (as TRS mentioned earlier) isn’t fantastic, but that may be because of that one bad start in Atlanta back in mid-April. He still has the ability to dominate, even with the decreased velocity. Him not being able to throw 95 MPH anymore made him make adjustments to his game and in my opinion, make him just as effective as before. He is still an ace, and will likely stay an ace for a few more years.
Authors, if you’d still like yours to be put in, shoot me an e-mail.