Situations like Noesi's last year are exactly why there is more to baseball than stats.

 

I agree. I think if you asked most of us, Noesi definitely passed the "eye test" last season and should be the favorite to win the #5 spot in the rotation.

Also, yes, he made his starts. He gets credit for his 0.8 fWAR over a full season -- which is a bad number. Substantially below average. He gets credit for giving us 200 innings of bad pitcher.

Right, but not "one of the five worst pitchers in baseball."

Right. No question the top three are great, but this is one of the main reasons that the projections/skeptics are further down on the Sox' chances than we want them to be. Most teams get significant innings out of about 8 starters each season, and our top 8 include Danks, Noesi, Brad Penny, Erik Johnson, and like Scott Carroll or something. Certainly we have high hopes for Rodon and he could be difference maker, but he's a still a prospect.

 

excellent, and that is the main unasked question, can those 4-5 + pitchers can put it together, it will really be a very exciting team. then Rodon development, and some of the prospects waiting to make a name for them selves, will add to that excitement.

 

on a side note, do you really think Penny has anything left???

Situations like Noesi's last year are exactly why there is more to baseball than stats.

 

I agree that there is more to baseball than stats, but what do you mean by this in regards to Noesi? That he's a better pitcher than his stats indicate because it "felt" like he gave up fewer runs than he really did?

excellent, and that is the main unasked question, can those 4-5 + pitchers can put it together, it will really be a very exciting team. then Rodon development, and some of the prospects waiting to make a name for them selves, will add to that excitement.

 

on a side note, do you really think Penny has anything left???

 

No

I agree that there is more to baseball than stats, but what do you mean by this in regards to Noesi? That he's a better pitcher than his stats indicate because it "felt" like he gave up fewer runs than he really did?

 

I don't know the stats, but it seemed like when he did start, it was Danks starts last season. When he was good, he was real good, and when he was bad, he was real bad.

I agree. I think if you asked most of us, Noesi definitely passed the "eye test" last season and should be the favorite to win the #5 spot in the rotation.

 

from how the sox acquired him, anything he does is pure gravy.... he has proven to be given an honest chance straight from spring training. so in essence, i agree with you.

Right, but not "one of the five worst pitchers in baseball."

 

Ok, I agree that there are pitchers that are literally worse that are in the minor leagues mostly. But if we agree that "baseball" means Major League baseball, and that "pitchers" means "pitchers who pitched enough to be considered active Major League baseball players in 2014," I think the claim stands.

I agree that there is more to baseball than stats, but what do you mean by this in regards to Noesi? That he's a better pitcher than his stats indicate because it "felt" like he gave up fewer runs than he really did?

 

He was purposefully put into situations where he was made to "fail" from a statistical standpoint in order to build up his arm to become a full time starter. It was truly a unique situation where a former full time reliever was built into a full time starter in mid-season, at the major league level. If the goal had been "winning" or keeping his numbers good, he wouldn't have pitched in many situations last year that he gave up runs in.

I don't know the stats, but it seemed like when he did start, it was Danks starts last season. When he was good, he was real good, and when he was bad, he was real bad.

 

considering he is a yr + from surgery, that is good. he will build on it. like someone said earlier, he has a bulldog mentality. i am incline to hope that he will continue to improve.

I don't know the stats, but it seemed like when he did start, it was Danks starts last season. When he was good, he was real good, and when he was bad, he was real bad.

 

Yeah I agree that it seemed that way. We could test it, but it would require actually doing some math and research instead of just looking it up on Baseball Reference or FanGraphs. I'm not sure it matters much though -- like many have pointed out, everybody looks good on their best days. If we're thinking about what we're going to get from either Noesi or Danks next year, we have to take the bad ones in order to get the good ones.

He was purposefully put into situations where he was made to "fail" from a statistical standpoint in order to build up his arm to become a full time starter. It was truly a unique situation where a former full time reliever was built into a full time starter in mid-season, at the major league level. If the goal had been "winning" or keeping his numbers good, he wouldn't have pitched in many situations last year that he gave up runs in.

 

I think I see what you're saying -- if your claim is that our expectations of Noesi's performance this year should be based on more than his performance last year because he was often fatigued from being "stretched out," then I think that's a plausible/reasonable argument. You could strengthen it if you found some evidence that he wore down later in the season or, if you wanted to argue that he'll improve in 2015, that he was bad after the fourth or fifth inning early on but began to show signs of greater endurance as the season progressed.

Ok, I agree that there are pitchers that are literally worse that are in the minor leagues mostly. But if we agree that "baseball" means Major League baseball, and that "pitchers" means "pitchers who pitched enough to be considered active Major League baseball players in 2014," I think the claim stands.

And I think it's a claim that ignores the value of being a pitcher who pitched enough to be considered an active Major League baseball player in 2014 so the team doesn't have to go to the pitchers who are literally worse who are in the minor leagues mostly. It's like saying, "That guy is one of the least wealthy billionaires." It might be true, but the fact that you're taking from a certain exclusive subset weakens the claim. Which is why I originally said...

 

"You mentioned that they both qualified but then discarded the inherent value of that. If you're on the qualifying list and your WAR is higher than 0, then there are probably at least ten guys I'd take after you." And I think that claim still stands.

 

Note: I am aware it's probably more impressive to be a billionaire than qualify for the ERA title one year. It's an example.

I think I see what you're saying -- if your claim is that our expectations of Noesi's performance this year should be based on more than his performance last year because he was often fatigued from being "stretched out," then I think that's a plausible/reasonable argument. You could strengthen it if you found some evidence that he wore down later in the season or, if you wanted to argue that he'll improve in 2015, that he was bad after the fourth or fifth inning early on but began to show signs of greater endurance as the season progressed.

 

Not even later in the season, but his last inning of work would be the key point for me, especially in the earliest starts.

And I think it's a claim that ignores the value of being a pitcher who pitched enough to be considered an active Major League baseball player in 2014 so the team doesn't have to go to the pitchers who are literally worse who are in the minor leagues mostly. It's like saying, "That guy is one of the least wealthy billionaires." It might be true, but the fact that you're taking from a certain exclusive subset weakens the claim. Which is why I originally said...

 

"You mentioned that they both qualified but then discarded the inherent value of that. If you're on the qualifying list and your WAR is higher than 0, then there are probably at least ten guys I'd take after you." And I think that claim still stands.

 

Note: I am aware it's probably more impressive to be a billionaire than qualify for the ERA title one year. It's an example.

 

Right, but no matter where you set the bar, Danks is among the absolute worst of the people who will be pitching a bunch of innings for baseball teams. Therefore, we have a competitive disadvantage. So he represents a massive weakness in the rotation.

Right, but no matter where you set the bar, Danks is among the absolute worst of the people who will be pitching a bunch of innings for baseball teams. Therefore, we have a competitive disadvantage. So he represents a massive weakness in the rotation.

But the alternative is splitting up his starts with pitchers who are worse than him. There were several hundred of starts made last season by pitchers who even you wouldn't consider as good as John Danks.

Right, but no matter where you set the bar, Danks is among the absolute worst of the people who will be pitching a bunch of innings for baseball teams. Therefore, we have a competitive disadvantage. So he represents a massive weakness in the rotation.

Weakness is one thing, but based on Joe Aiello's research from a year ago, which included only innings qualifiers, I'm not sure I'd call him a competitive disadvantage. Depends where you think he belongs in the rotation (I think 4), how you project him (I don't know here, but I happen to think the -0.4 WAR from ZiPS is horse****), and whether salary is part of this debate. Really I'm just replying to share this link, because it's good stuff. You can stop reading after the second chart because it gets all Cubby.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...in-terms-of-war

Weakness is one thing, but based on Joe Aiello's research from a year ago, which included only innings qualifiers, I'm not sure I'd call him a competitive disadvantage. Depends where you think he belongs in the rotation (I think 4), how you project him (I don't know here, but I happen to think the -0.4 WAR from ZiPS is horse****), and whether salary is part of this debate. Really I'm just replying to share this link, because it's good stuff. You can stop reading after the second chart because it gets all Cubby.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/i...in-terms-of-war

One big thing I took from those numbers is that the average 4-5 starters together come up with about 2.0 WAR, and less in recent years. Together last year, Danks and Noesi put up 1.3 and if Noesi does nothing else but pitch more innings, they come close to that number together.

 

In other words, both Danks and Noesi are below average #4 starters right now and above average #5 starters, leaving us surprisingly close to an "Average 4-5" in the rotation behind a stellar 1-3.

One big thing I took from those numbers is that the average 4-5 starters together come up with about 2.0 WAR, and less in recent years. Together last year, Danks and Noesi put up 1.3 and if Noesi does nothing else but pitch more innings, they come close to that number together.

 

In other words, both Danks and Noesi are below average #4 starters right now and above average #5 starters, leaving us surprisingly close to an "Average 4-5" in the rotation behind a stellar 1-3.

 

An average 4 or 5 is still a below average pitcher.

 

There are many ways for the Sox to make the postseason, but some of those seem inherently more possible and attainable than others. C, 2B, 3B, and RF could all be weaknesses at this point and there's not a ton of depth offensively. However, those are sometimes difficult to fill, even in season. However, finding an average or above average pitcher will take less work and would still signify a drastic upgrade.

 

Again, I have no problem with Noesi/Danks to start the season, but if they're the same pitchers as before, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then replacing them becomes inherently easier.

 

Two guys I think the Sox may have interest in, depending on output, are Victorino and Utley, but that will likely be tepid interest for now.

An average 4 or 5 is still a below average pitcher.

 

There are many ways for the Sox to make the postseason, but some of those seem inherently more possible and attainable than others. C, 2B, 3B, and RF could all be weaknesses at this point and there's not a ton of depth offensively. However, those are sometimes difficult to fill, even in season. However, finding an average or above average pitcher will take less work and would still signify a drastic upgrade.

 

Again, I have no problem with Noesi/Danks to start the season, but if they're the same pitchers as before, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then replacing them becomes inherently easier.

 

Two guys I think the Sox may have interest in, depending on output, are Victorino and Utley, but that will likely be tepid interest for now.

Having an above average pitcher int he #4 slot though could also be viewed as diminishing marginal returns given that, for example, the playoffs you're not likely to use the #4 slot very often except in the full 7 game series.

Having an above average pitcher int he #4 slot though could also be viewed as diminishing marginal returns given that, for example, the playoffs you're not likely to use the #4 slot very often except in the full 7 game series.

 

I think you'd more likely see diminishing marginal returns at 3B or C, where for the cost of getting an upgrade you have to give up an arm and a leg. For the #4, I don't think you see nearly the diminishing returns overall.

Having an above average pitcher int he #4 slot though could also be viewed as diminishing marginal returns given that, for example, the playoffs you're not likely to use the #4 slot very often except in the full 7 game series.

 

The problem is first getting to the playoffs.

The problem is first getting to the playoffs.

 

last yr was an all screw up yr except for the emergence of Jose A, eaton, conor and of course sale and Q. trying to use last yr to project this yr is, for me, kind of hard to do. there was a lot of doubt in a lot of things and in the talent.

 

this spring, and looking into the season, i am looking at danks and hector with fresh eyes and no opinion formed. i will let them separate themselves from the naysayers and those who have a negative outlook. i believe most on this board are looking in the positive way towards them.

 

come toward the end of spring, i wonder who will emerge as the #4 and 5 pitchers.

I think you'd more likely see diminishing marginal returns at 3B or C, where for the cost of getting an upgrade you have to give up an arm and a leg. For the #4, I don't think you see nearly the diminishing returns overall.

I agree with you on diminishing returns; for C or 3B. I'd put another top of the rotation starter in that category as well.

The thing about any starter is that our best products are largely starters. Help should be on the way fairly soon