Do we even need one is the best question I think. If we could get 4-5 guys putting up similar results and numbers to what Woodruff and Davies have done, that would be pretty great. Now if by "ace" you mean a guy with the confidence to take the ball in Game 7 of the NLCS and give you a chance to win ... I don't know. I'd like to think so. History would tell you, yes....yes we do. Look it up, past World Series winners have aces. It hasn't happened since 2005 that a team really had no one considered an ace...that is pretty bad and a long time ago. The 2015 Royals might have a weak case as one of those teams, but they had Cueto. He may have pitched poorly at times, but when it came to the World Series he threw a gem in Game 2 for the win. You pretty much have to hope and be an exception like the 2015 Royals...who had an absolutely ridiculous pen. One of which, sorry, we aren't even close to having. Wade Davis had a sub 1 ERA....almost impossible to fathom. Obviously having an ace makes your team better over the course of a season and a team with an ace is more likely to get to the playoffs but I wonder how much aces matter to WIN a world series? I guess it would mean looking at all the world series winners and seeing how their aces did. Last year, for example, Chris Sale didn't really pitch all that great in the World Series yet Boston still won. Houston's ace was Keuchel I guess. He wasn't very good in the WS either. Cubs had a great staff overall. Hendricks and Lester were sort of co-aces and pitched well in the world series. I'm not disagreeing with you just sort of thinking out loud. My theory is that you can't have any black holes on your staff more than you need a true ace but I could be wrong about that. Would need to look.