White Sox claim P Hector Noesi off waivers

[LDF]

Only starting pitcher Sox can depend on? What?

 

yeah you are right and i was wrong, i should have said, outside the top 4 pitchers the sox may have going north.

 

 

[caulfield12]

Is he banned currently?

 

You might want to read his "interests" under the profile page.

 

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

You might want to read his "interests" under the profile page.

 

Lol. That guy.

[Kyyle23]

Is he banned currently?

 

Nope, just MIA

[Y2Jimmy0]

Noesi probably still sucks.

 

 

Well he didn't suck for the White Sox last year but alright.

[Dick Allen]

Well he didn't suck for the White Sox last year but alright.

Do you think John Danks sucked last year? Noesi's White Sox ERA was 0.05 lower, and his FIP was higher.

 

The emergence of Hector Noesi is very overblown.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Do you think John Danks sucked last year? Noesi's White Sox ERA was 0.05 lower, and his FIP was higher.

 

The emergence of Hector Noesi is very overblown.

 

 

No I don't think John Danks sucks either. He just makes too much money and was way better before.

[Dick Allen]

No I don't think John Danks sucks either. He just makes too much money and was way better before.

The fact remains, Noesi wasn't very good with the White Sox last year. He was better than he had been, but so was Leury Garcia and Adam Dunn when they took the mound. Hopefully he turns out to be good, but to think he is legit at this point is a reach.

[caulfield12]

Do you think John Danks sucked last year? Noesi's White Sox ERA was 0.05 lower, and his FIP was higher.

 

The emergence of Hector Noesi is very overblown.

 

 

How much did the White Sox pay Noesi last year? And by how much did he exceed relatively modest expectations?

 

To use Hector Noesi, a guy released twice in one month...as a bar/benchmark/standard for comparing to John Danks is a bit beside the point.

 

If both of those guys produce between the levels of last season and what Rienzo/Carroll produced, the White Sox will have a tough time competing unless Rodon takes the world by storm starting in May.

 

Neither one were very good, but factoring in salary and performance, Noesi was 100% adequate as a 5th starter. It was the ineffective trio of Danks/Carroll/Rienzo that pulled the rotation down the most.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Do you think John Danks sucked last year? Noesi's White Sox ERA was 0.05 lower, and his FIP was higher.

 

The emergence of Hector Noesi is very overblown.

 

4.39 vs 4.74 is not a difference of .05.

 

He also had a better WHIP, ERA+, BB/9, K/9, H/9, K/BB ratio

 

Making up one stat and cherry picking another does not make a good comp

[Eminor3rd]

Well he didn't suck for the White Sox last year but alright.

 

No I don't think John Danks sucks either. He just makes too much money and was way better before.

 

Of those that qualified for the ERA title last year:

 

By ERA, the fourth worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The fifth worst was John Danks.

 

By FIP, the third worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The fourth worst was John Danks.

 

By xFIP, the second worst pitcher in the majors was John Danks. The tenth was Hector Noesi.

 

By fWAR, the sixth worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The ninth was John Danks.

 

TL;DR No matter how you slice it, both sabermetrically and traditionally, John Danks and Hector Noesi were among the bottom ten pitchers in the entire major leagues last year.

[flavum]

Danks had 20 quality starts last year. Where was he ranked in the league on that?

 

No question his bad was really bad, but with a better offense behind him, he'll be better.

 

I have no problem with Danks and Noesi at 4 and 5 right now.

[witesoxfan]

Of those that qualified for the ERA title last year:

 

By ERA, the fourth worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The fifth worst was John Danks.

 

By FIP, the third worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The fourth worst was John Danks.

 

By xFIP, the second worst pitcher in the majors was John Danks. The tenth was Hector Noesi.

 

By fWAR, the sixth worst pitcher in the majors was Hector Noesi. The ninth was John Danks.

 

TL;DR No matter how you slice it, both sabermetrically and traditionally, John Danks and Hector Noesi were among the bottom ten pitchers in the entire major leagues last year.

 

I'm guessing that much of this is spring training fluff pieces, so I'm not reading too much into it, but the quotes say that they believe in Noesi. The numbers indicate that there's nothing special about him, and that's how I feel about him, but perhaps there's genuine talent change on the way. Noesi was a fairly well regarded prospect so I wouldn't completely rule out the idea of him turning a new leaf over and being a legitimately good pitcher, but I'm not holding my breath and he's a replaceable piece at the moment.

[Eminor3rd]

Danks had 20 quality starts last year. Where was he ranked in the league on that?

 

Lol, I don't know. Why?

 

EDIT: I found a site that measures it! The answer is 41st.

 

Of course, by QS, Alfredo Simon was better than Chris Sale. So if QS makes John Danks NOT terrible, then maybe we have no hope against the Tigers.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

I'm guessing that much of this is spring training fluff pieces, so I'm not reading too much into it, but the quotes say that they believe in Noesi. The numbers indicate that there's nothing special about him, and that's how I feel about him, but perhaps there's genuine talent change on the way. Noesi was a fairly well regarded prospect so I wouldn't completely rule out the idea of him turning a new leaf over and being a legitimately good pitcher, but I'm not holding my breath and he's a replaceable piece at the moment.

 

I think it's true that Noesi could have some upside left, and I've always liked him, even when he was on the Yankees. He was a long-time favorite sleeper of mine.

 

But let's stop pretending that he's been a good pitcher so far, haha. That's all I'm saying.

[shysocks]

TL;DR No matter how you slice it, both sabermetrically and traditionally, John Danks and Hector Noesi were among the bottom ten pitchers in the entire major leagues last year.

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. Here's a handful of them, for example:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d

[witesoxfan]

I think it's true that Noesi could have some upside left, and I've always liked him, even when he was on the Yankees. He was a long-time favorite sleeper of mine.

 

But let's stop pretending that he's been a good pitcher so far, haha. That's all I'm saying.

 

I definitely agree. And to go back to flavum's point, I have no problem starting the season with Danks and Noesi in the 4 and 5 spots. It's true that you don't want to get out to a start so rough that you can't climb out of the hole, but it's still a long season and giving those guys anywhere from 3 to 7 starts to see if anything has changed is perfectly fine.

 

However, if they receive >20 starts and they pitch like they did last year, I do not believe the White Sox will be contenders.

[Eminor3rd]

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. Here's a handful of them, for example:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d

 

But all that really mean is that they threw a lot of innings. That's both where the "qualified" comes into play, AND it's an input of fWAR. The ONLY reason John Danks "qualified," for example, was because of his massive contract. I don't think he deserves credit for that.

[Dick Allen]

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. Here's a handful of them, for example:

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=...0&sort=17,d

I agree with you there definitely is some value from a guy who qualified, but the Hector Noesi, Coop has fixed him love isn't coming from reality. There are probably going to be players that dissappoint this season. He is a prime candidate if you are expecting much. The other guy I would be careful to put too high is Zach Putnam. He had a lot of shoulder issues last year. He was really good, but it wouldn't be very surprising to me he turns into the Zach Putnam that has bounced from team to team the past several seasons.

[flavum]

When Danks had a quality start:

20 games, 130.2 innings, 2.48 ERA (team record 10-10, 1-6 in no decisions)

 

Without quality starts:

12 games, 63 innings, 9.43 ERA

 

#1 positive--he made his starts. No DL time.

#2 positive--he's another year away from surgery, which could help him

#3 positive--he's playing with a better offense to support him

 

He'll be fine.

 

 

[shysocks]

But all that really mean is that they threw a lot of innings. That's both where the "qualified" comes into play, AND it's an input of fWAR. The ONLY reason John Danks "qualified," for example, was because of his massive contract. I don't think he deserves credit for that.

If that were true, then why did Noesi qualify? He's got no big contract, we could have tossed him away at any time.

 

The reason is because they'd have to be replaced. Danks qualified because if he weren't throwing those innings, somebody like the guys on that list would have been doing it instead. He may not deserve credit for having a big contract, but he deserves credit for putting up .8 WAR in those innings instead of 0 or less.

[shysocks]

When Danks had a quality start:

20 games, 130.2 innings, 2.48 ERA (team record 10-10, 1-6 in no decisions)

 

Without quality starts:

12 games, 63 innings, 9.43 ERA

I hate this argument for about 100 reasons, but the main one is that most guys will look awesome if you only take the best 63% of their season.

[witesoxfan]

I agree with you there definitely is some value from a guy who qualified, but the Hector Noesi, Coop has fixed him love isn't coming from reality. There are probably going to be players that dissappoint this season. He is a prime candidate if you are expecting much. The other guy I would be careful to put too high is Zach Putnam. He had a lot of shoulder issues last year. He was really good, but it wouldn't be very surprising to me he turns into the Zach Putnam that has bounced from team to team the past several seasons.

 

I agree that he could, but there was a distinct change in Putnam's pitch selection. Previously, he'd been a fastball/splitter guy, with the occasional slider (approximate usages were 60% FB, 35% SF, 5% SL). With the Sox this past year, he was splitter/"slider"/fastball, and the "slider" itself changed to the point where it's identified as a slider but I think it's a cutter. Its velocity was previously around 80 MPH but with the Sox, it was at 87, while his fastball topped out at 90. Beyond that his usages were crazy - 55% splitter usage, 20% four seam fastball, and then you get some goofy disagreements in the pitch recognition types - Pitch Types classifies them all as a slider and they say it was 25% usage, while PITCHf/x says it was 13% two-seamers, 6% cutters, and 4% sliders (I'm rounding and the numbers aren't perfect, but they paint a decent enough picture), and the PITCHf/x data is what leads me to believe that he's throwing a cutter now.

 

In short, no, I'm not counting on him, and perhaps the increased splitter usage is what's hurting the shoulder, which makes him incredibly unreliable anyways, but he was a really good pitcher last year after a change in approach and talent, so maybe that is his true level talent now.

[Dick Allen]

I hate this argument for about 100 reasons, but the main one is that most guys will look awesome if you only take the best 63% of their season.

Danks has always been prone to horrendous outings, even when he was at his peak. There are just more of them now.

[glangon]

When Danks had a quality start:

20 games, 130.2 innings, 2.48 ERA (team record 10-10, 1-6 in no decisions)

 

Without quality starts:

12 games, 63 innings, 9.43 ERA

 

#1 positive--he made his starts. No DL time.

#2 positive--he's another year away from surgery, which could help him

#3 positive--he's playing with a better offense to support him

 

He'll be fine.

 

It's all very well to say he'll be fine but the only way to deal with this is to look at what went wrong in the 12 games where he gave up the runs.

 

Was his arm tired? was he on short rest? Did Robin leave him in too long and not go to the pen quickly enough.

 

If Coops can work with him and reduce either the number of games where he is terrible or the amount of runs that he gives up when he is not pitching well, then he has a chance of becoming much better, however if Coops can't "fix" some of those 12 games, then he will remain what he is, an overpaid 4th starter.