Carpenter not an ace?

[joey]

Cy Young can be anyone...all they need is a good fluke year. Carp is good, but on a contendor he is a #2

[cardsfan643]

Alright, forget the fact that he was a Cy Young. Look at his stats.

Who the hell is considered an ace if not Carpenter?

Santana, Oswalt, and Halladay are the only pitchers I would say are better.

Am I going crazy or something?

[joey]

Yea I'm lookin at those stats and I puked
He was a #3 with Toronto.

Since he came to the NL he's been a #2. A very good #2 but he's not considered an ace. He had 15 wins and a 3 ERA! Aces have 17+ wins and sub-3 ERAs, thats why their are very few true aces.

[cardsfan643]

VERO BEACH, Fla. -- Relationships are swell, but Jason Schmidt didn't sign with the Dodgers just because he liked Ned Colletti from their days together with the Giants.
Another half-dozen teams were also throwing real money his way, but what helped seal the deal for Schmidt was that he liked what he saw from Colletti after he left the Giants to take over the Dodgers.

"A year ago, after Ned got the job, I watched the moves he was making and how active he was in the market and that was real appealing to me," said Schmidt, who became a free agent after last season.

"You saw what he did. There were guys out there and he didn't go after one of them, he went after all of them. That's pretty cool. Then you saw at the trading deadline, he gets [Greg] Maddux and makes a handful of other deals to give his club the best chance to win. They were going through a transition, but they kept winning. That makes this exciting."

Even though Colletti already had a pair of pitchers who tied for the league lead in victories last year -- Derek Lowe and Brad Penny with 16 each -- he was determined to upgrade the starting rotation and had Schmidt at the top of the shopping list, later adding left-hander Randy Wolf.

"I've seen him work big games and he knows how to pitch," Colletti said of Schmidt. "He's got a great feel for what he can do. He fits the top half of our rotation -- and notice I said top half. He'll make other pitchers better in the roles they're in. Last year our staff started to fray at the end of the year. You get five innings out of a starter, the bullpen pays a price for that. He'll give you 200 innings."

The price for that was $47 million for three years, making Schmidt the highest-paid Dodgers pitcher in history based on annual average salary. Schmidt said Colletti made clear his interest from the very start, successfully employing the same strategy with Schmidt that worked to land Rafael Furcal a year earlier: overpaying based on annual average salary but reducing risk by shortening the term.

Financially for the Dodgers, that made Schmidt more appealing than Barry Zito, who signed for seven years and $126 million to replace Schmidt in San Francisco.

Dodgers starters averaged less than six innings an outing last season and Schmidt is expected to improve that. He had three complete games last year, one more than the entire Dodgers rotation.

The overall resume at age 34 is impressive. He has 11 Major League seasons, double-digits wins in six consecutive seasons, and is 30 games above .500 over the last four.

Skeptics point out that Schmidt hasn't been as dominant the last two seasons (23-16, 3.95 ERA) as he was in 2003-04 (35-12, 2.79), citing elbow surgery following the 2003 season as one possible explanation.

Schmidt said all systems are go with his arm and, with former Giants trainer Stan Conte in the fold, the club knows Schmidt's medical condition well. They also know he's a proven winner, a workhorse and was a Cy Young runner-up to Eric Gagne in 2003. Schmidt is imposing at 6-foot-5 with a fastball still in the mid-90s. Just don't tell him he's the Dodgers' new ace.

"That's not the way I approach it. Anybody can be an ace. When you're on a win streak, you're the ace," said Schmidt. "I try to be like every guy in here. A pitcher is a pitcher. I'd have the same expectations of myself whether I was first, second, third or whatever."

Colletti isn't calling Schmidt the staff ace, nor does manager Grady Little, who is always reluctant to rank his starters and hesitant to name his Opening Day pitcher.

"I feel we have more than one [ace]," Little said when asked to define the term. "It's a guy the opposition doesn't look forward to facing. It's a guy where, if we're in a tailspin, this guy comes to the mound and we look forward to having him pitch and they look forward to not seeing him."

An ace, said Lowe, is someone like his former teammate and a former Dodger, Pedro Martinez.

"In my opinion, there are very few true aces," said Lowe, the Dodgers' Opening Day starter the last two years. "I saw Pedro in his prime and that, to me, is a true ace. A phenomenal dominator of a game. People throw around the word ... that this guy's an ace or that guy's an ace. In reality, there's nothing wrong with not having one.

"Another way to look at it, if you go into Spring Training and you can pretty well predict what you're going to get in terms of wins, innings, ERA, year in and year out, that's an ace. That was Pedro, that was Maddux, Randy Johnson. Nowadays, it's Roy Halladay, Johan Santana, Chris Carpenter.

"Our strength here, now with Schmidt, is that we're going to have five good starters, so when any team looks at the series matchups, we're throwing three or four solid pitchers no matter how the rotation falls, and that should keep the losing streaks to a minimum."

The last time the Dodgers had four starters win 10 or more games in the same season was 1997 -- Hideo Nomo, Chan Ho Park, Ismael Valdes and Ramon Martinez. The last time the Dodgers had five starters win 10 or more games in the same season was 1978 -- Burt Hooton, Tommy John, Don Sutton, Doug Rau and Rick Rhoden.

[cardsfan643]

He battled injuries in Toronto, and he was young. Not to mention he didn't have Dave Duncan.

Chris Carpenter is Dave Duncan's calling card. Carpenter is his best reclaimation project ever.

Any scout will tell you that he is a #1.

[seaver41]

cardsfan643 said:

What constitutes a dominating aurora? Hm... let's think...

Aura. Not auroroa.

1) Pitching at high speeds?
Consistently hits 95-97mph

He's losing speed. And there are guys who throw harder.

2) High strikeout totals?
184

He was 6th in the league and 10th in the majors. Last year he was much better.

3) Low Batting Average Against?
.235

He had a better one last year

4) Low Earned Run Average?
3.09

A good ERA but considering he pitches in a weak division, doesn't mean so much.

5) Steps it up during playoffs?
Game 2 vs. NYM: 5 INN, 6 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 4 BB, 1 K, 92 pitches
Game 6 vs. NYM: 6 INN, 7 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 72 pitches

He gave up 5 runs in a pitcher's park and got a no decision. He lost in Game 6 to Maine.

There aren't even 10 good pitchers today let alone 10 who are better than Carpenter.

What does that even mean?

Ten good pitchers...

1)Santana
2)Halladay
3)Oswalt
4)Carpenter
5)Webb
6)Zambrano
7)Sabathia
8)Wang
9)Bonderman
10)Schilling[/quote]

It means that there are not many dominant pitchers today.

I'd argue with 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 on being dominant. And Zito isn't even on my list.


Even though I hate Derek Lowe, look what he says here:

"In my opinion, there are very few true aces," said Lowe, the Dodgers' Opening Day starter the last two years. "I saw Pedro in his prime and that, to me, is a true ace. A phenomenal dominator of a game. "

Here were Pedro's numbers from his peak years. Look at 1997 to 2003.



Also take into consideration that from 98 to 2003 he was in the AL East in a hitter's park. Whereas Carpenter is in one of the weakest divisions in baseball in a much more neutral ballpark (it still favors hitters more, but not so much as Fenway).

When Carp gets numbers like those for several contiguous seasons, I will call him an ace.

[cardsfan643]

Carpenter is as dominate as they come. Just because he isn't a little pr*ck like Pedro used to be and throw high and inside, it doesn't mean he isn't dominate. Webb is a groundball pitcher. He has good movement mixed with velocity, and is definately an ace in my book. Pretty much Wang is the same as Webb. Bonderman has electric stuff. Schilling is getting up there in age, so I guess he could be lose the title of being "dominate."

[seaver41]

Who cares if he throws high and inside or down and low, the numbers tell it all.

Webb and Wang are groundball pitchers who use sinkers. You know what happens to sinker ball pitchers? Ask Derek Lowe. Batters locate them and they become long fly balls. Bonderman is still young and is a few years from being a true ace. Schilling isn't even an ace on his staff.

[cardsfan643]

seaver41 said:

Aura. Not auroroa.

Feel better now?

He's losing speed. And there are guys who throw harder.

Wow, there are guys that throw harder. Compelling argument. Of course there are guys that throw harder, that doesn't make him less of an ace because he still throws above average speed.

He was 6th in the league and 10th in the majors. Last year he was much better.

I agree. He was much better last year.

He had a better one last year

Alright, I agree again. But how does this make him a #2, because he had a slightly worse year?

A good ERA but considering he pitches in a weak division, doesn't mean so much.

It's not like he's sitting there beating up on teams like the Pirates and Cubs over and over again.

Game 2 vs. NYM: 5 INN, 6 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 4 BB, 1 K, 92 pitches
Game 6 vs. NYM: 6 INN, 7 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 0 BB, 4 K, 72 pitches

He gave up 5 runs in a pitcher's park and got a no decision. He lost in Game 6 to Maine.

Alright, pick out the two mediocre games and completely disregard the other dominate ones. The name of the opposing pitcher has nothing to do with it.

[cardsfan643]

seaver41 said:

Who cares if he throws high and inside or down and low, the numbers tell it all.

Webb and Wang are groundball pitchers who use sinkers. You know what happens to sinker ball pitchers? Ask Derek Lowe. Batters locate them and they become long fly balls. Bonderman is still young and is a few years from being a true ace. Schilling isn't even an ace on his staff.

I was mainly referring to your "dominant aura" concept. He doesn't have to pitch like Bob Gibson to be considered dominant. Just because Derek Lowe happens to be a sinkerballer that gets rocked, it doesn't mean that's what will happen with Wang and Webb. Bonderman isn't really an ace, but definitely will be. Schilling is just as much of an ace as Glavine or Pedro are going to be. They were all great in their day though.

[seaver41]

cardsfan643 said:

I was mainly referring to your "dominant aura" concept. He doesn't have to pitch like Bob Gibson to be considered dominant. Just because Derek Lowe happens to be a sinkerballer that gets rocked, it doesn't mean that's what will happen with Wang and Webb. Bonderman isn't really an ace, but definitely will be. Schilling is just as much of an ace as Glavine or Pedro are going to be. They were all great in their day though.

I wouldn't call Wang or Webb dominant to begin with and the fact that they use a sinkerball is not very promising for them to continue their dominance. Bonderman will be an ace if he keeps improving. I wouldn't call Schilling or Glavine aces now. Schilling isn't the best in his staff. Glavine is only because of his consistency. Pedro if he had not been pitching with 2 calf injuries and a torn rotator cuff.

[cardsfan643]

seaver41 said:

I wouldn't call Wang or Webb dominant to begin with and the fact that they use a sinkerball is not very promising for them to continue their dominance. Bonderman will be an ace if he keeps improving. I wouldn't call Schilling or Glavine aces now. Schilling isn't the best in his staff. Glavine is only because of his consistency. Pedro if he had not been pitching with 2 calf injuries and a torn rotator cuff.

Maybe in the future Wang and Webb will stop being dominant. But they sure as hell are pretty dominant now. My point was that you don't have to throw hard to be dominant. Look at what Suppan did to your beloved Mets during the NLCS. Look what Maddux and Glavine made a career out of.

It seems like we agree on Bonderman.

If Glavine is an ace by default because of consistency, I'd put Schilling in that category along with him. Schilling was a rock for Boston when the rest of their rotation struggled. Maybe Matsuzaka or Beckett will step up an be their ace.

Pedro will probably never regain "ace" form.

[seaver41]

cardsfan643 said:

Maybe in the future Wang and Webb will stop being dominant. But they sure as hell are pretty dominant now. My point was that you don't have to throw hard to be dominant. Look at what Suppan did to your beloved Mets during the NLCS. Look what Maddux and Glavine made a career out of.

This was really their first break out years. Please, don't even say Suppan's name when discussing aces. The guy is a one damn lucky bum who took advantage of an over-eager lineup. Maddux could ring up K's, how else could he get 3,000. Glavine was an ace for only a few seasons. After which he became the lesser of the Big Three.

If Glavine is an ace by default because of consistency, I'd put Schilling in that category along with him. Schilling was a rock for Boston when the rest of their rotation struggled. Maybe Matsuzaka or Beckett will step up an be their ace.

Pedro will probably never regain "ace" form.

Schilling has Beckett and Dice K on his staff with him. They have far more potential to be dominant. Glavine is a different story. There's El Duque (who's not been a SP for as long), Perez (a project), Maine (still in development), and Pedro (recovering).


I wouldn't say never. He's expected to come back stronger. I don't see him having another Cy Young season in him, but if he could put up something like a 14-8 3.30 ERA in 2007, I'd still consider that pretty good for a guy who went through what he did.

[Fish Troll]

joey said:

Cy Young can be anyone...all they need is a good fluke year. Carp is good, but on a contendor he is a #2

Then according to this theory about 27 other teams rotation are horrible ewith no real #1 starter.

[Fish Troll]

joey said:

Yea I'm lookin at those stats and I puked
He was a #3 with Toronto.

Since he came to the NL he's been a #2. A very good #2 but he's not considered an ace. He had 15 wins and a 3 ERA! Aces have 17+ wins and sub-3 ERAs, thats why their are very few true aces.

The guy has been dominating the last 3 years. Didn't he already proven that you can trust him to have a good season.