Originally Posted by redsmetz
I think often there is a need to pigeonhole players in certain named roles. And yet, how often does a club have a flat out, no doubt "ace"?
Obviously there are limits to any conceptual category -- and I'm not arguing that the word "ace" is an ironclad term by any means. What does interest me, though, is the extent to which sports writing tends to skew terms for the sake of a good story. The idea of an ace, IMO, loses substantial meaning when we start throwing it around whenever a pitcher has a few good games in a row. To me, that's what Cueto is right now -- a good story, to be sure, but not yet at the level to where we need to be throwing around superlatives. He's what we want the Reds farm system to produce, of course. He's even fulfilled a large part of his promise. But to me, an "ace" should be a clear-cut member of the top tier of pitchers in baseball -- and he's not there yet, certainly not statistically and probably not even anecdotally.