Funny, I don't recall ever trying to sell Royals fans on anything. In fact, I didn't watch a single pitch of the WS last year and if you are trying to argue against the Mets having 4 aces last year, then your and idiot. And it was the Mets bullpen that did them in, not their starters.

You're right. You didn't watch a single pitch of the World Series, because otherwise you may have seen that impressive 4.20 ERA the Mets (aces) managed against our lineup.

Do you rush to call all pitchers aces after a single start or do you wait for them to have six whole outings like Mr. Matz?

As it turns out, it required a team experienced to take professional at bats turn their starters aggression against, move runners over, and make contact, none of which your young Cubs could manage last year.

Luckily, you are all more experienced and the clear favorites for this October. I predicted the Cubs to take the title from the Indians in 6 this year and I see no reason to adjust that prediction.

As much as we hate the Blue Jays, how on earth can you say their offense isn't loaded? The middle of their lineup is about as scary as it gets. They have about 6 or 7 guys who can plant one in the 3rd deck in any AB.

Hilarious that you chose to pick out Matz when he was the 2nd best pitcher in the WS for the Mets. I guess you can't really throw out deGrom or Syndergaard as questionable aces with a straight face.

Matz has all the talent to be an ace, unfortunately he can't stay healthy, such is life.

Are you just going to ignore everything else I said then?

If that's the way you roll, let's talk about Matz' brilliant performance. He managed 5 innings, gave up 2 runs, had a 1.4 WHIP and gave up hard contact throughout the game.

Clearly, the man was a bonafide ace and pitched as such in the series.

WOW!

Smoked his ass.

Holy cannoli. You are a master of ignoring those inconvenient facts that don't fit your world view, eh? Do you know what advanced statistics are or would I be wasting my time?

Well, I don't care to waste my time with people who don't have the ability to turn off their senseless homerism. But it's pretty hilarious to me that you continue to masquerade that a staff of young, overextended arms, none of whom who ever managed to pitch 200 innings in a season were a set of unstoppable aces. I'm sorry the Cubs got wiped out by taking terrible at bats, playing terrible defense, and by deciding to pitch Daniel Murphy nothing but pitches down the chute, but let's be real - they weren't playing a set of MadBums here (as many claimed before the WS).

Your team simply wasn't championship caliber last year, but this year they are - and they have a great shot to go all the way.

What advanced statistic did you even use? ROFL

Which one is advanced? Innings, Runs, or WHIP?

You get 2 runs off a guy that didn't give up a hit until the 5th inning after the leadoff batter to start the game.

Matz came up through the system carrying a 1 or lower WHIP with a 95 MPH sinker, a plus change up, and an above average curveball, all from the left side. His only issue is medical.

I did not use any advanced statistics. I asked you a question, as indicated by the question mark. Since you're either too snockered or being too much of a shitheel to actually read my posts, I'll ask again.

Could I use any advanced statistics or would I be wasting my time?

Go ahead and parade your advanced statistics to prove that the Mets didn't have 4 aces.

I'd love to hear this. Any argument against 2015 Harvey, deGrom, or Syndergaard makes you a ****ing idiot. So your only shot is Matz, who you scored a whopping 2 runs off of.

Here's a simple non-advanced statistic to follow, of the 5 games played in the 2015 WS, the Mets starters left the game exactly 1 time without the lead (deGrom - Game 2).

Sounds good. Let's first agree on a definition of an ace.

I consider an ace to be a starter who has pitched among the top 30 MLB pitchers over an entire season. Is that fair?

Pretty advanced stuff. I'm going to bed. You are boring me now.

This is false. It happened in two of their four losses. (Harvey - Game 1)

In Game 5, the game tying run was also charged to Harvey. He had a brilliant start, but if we're just gonna just start spouting off non-advanced statistics, then it's worth pointing out that their starters the Mets starters either left losing, or were responsible for the game tying run in three of their losses - and in the Matz start - he only managed to make it five innings and let the tying run on base before being pulled.

My argument, as it was in 2015, was that the Mets were relying on overextended arms that had been wearing down towards the end of the season. I never doubted for a moment that they had the talent to be "aces", but results are often much different than potential in baseball.

You say that the only thing holding these pitchers back are injuries, but a big part of being an ace is simply durability. You can have the best stuff in the world but if you can't stay healthy (as no one but Syndergaard seems to be able to), then talent can only take you so far. Only two of their pitchers had pitched the entire season, and I didn't buy the argument that the four of them should be considered among the Top 30 pitchers in the league.

Why I asked for your definition of an ace was because of their youth, Harvey, Degrom and Matz were showing real signs of wear and tear heading into the World Series. Since Degrom passed his previous high of 175 innings, he was showing undeniable signs of inconsistency. While teams weren't always tagging him for runs (because luck is never a factor in baseball), he had shown a substantial drop in his vertical release point and had the lowest strike zone percentage of his career since passing his career mark in innings pitched.

Degrom wasn't the only pitcher in this type of trend. Matz and Harvey were also hitting walls. Harvey had his lowest fastball velocity in his career in a start against the Nats in October, and overall velocity was a mile and half per hour lower than it was at his peak. Like Degrom, Harvey's zone percentage had also fallen considerably, and as the fangraphs article I'm posting below points out, Matt Harvey had the worst stuff of his career in his Game 1 start against the Royals.

Matz also showed signs of fatigue, dipping into conventional statistics, Matz had posted a WHIP of over 1.4, had an elevated line drive percentage, and never pitched more than 5 innings in any of his starts. I had a feeling the Royals would be able to get him out of the game by the 6th, and they didn't let me down.

What it comes down to is that I thought and still believe it was premature to say the Mets had 4 aces in the 2015 postseason when none of them had showed that they could maintain their dominant performances through 200 innings. While Syndergaard's start became the stuff of legend, we battered him through the third inning - and it even got the point that Terry Collins said he would have pulled him had the Royals inning had not been cut short after Gordo got thrown out at third. They all may well still become bonafide aces - but in the 2015 playoffs I thought this was premature, as they were overextended and demonstrated signs of hitting a wall heading into a series, a trend they continued as a staff (by leaving pitches up, missing pitches, etc) in their series against the Royals.

Fangraphs on Degrom's late 2015 performance: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jacob...ting-the-wall/

Fangraphs on Harvey's late 2015 performance: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/matt-...r-worst-stuff/

Heat maps on 0-2 counts as a staff: http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/i...fgdownload.png

Let's go CUBS!