How Lowe can we go?

[wordslayer©]

4.5 ERA
K/9 at the lowest rate of his career and down 1.5 from last season
36 year old pitcher
ERA+ less than league average

If we had spent 15 million or so on him, or had signed him to a long term deal, I probably would be a little stressed right now.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were going to spend a f***ing ton of money on something, I would rather not risk it on a depreciating asset.

[ScooterBrave]

I think its important to remember we "settled" for Lowe. The front office would have you believe he's been in their sights for a while, but he was obviously a consolation prize.

[Dreamscape]

I think its important to remember we "settled" for Lowe. The front office would have you believe he's been in their sights for a while, but he was obviously a consolation prize.
And that's a real shame. I would have been happy with Lowe over Burnett, but because they targeted the latter, it may have made the rush to get Lowe under contract a real problem for the front office. So much so that they overspent in both cash and years to keep him from going to the Mets.

He's a pretty good pitcher, but he's not a $16M dollar pitcher. Unfortunately, to just "get a guy," the Braves made him that. Had Lowe been a primary target, maybe the price tag would not have been so high earlier in free agency. Maybe not, but the signing seemed rather desperate to me.

[BarveFanHawaii]

I love how there was almost complete silence on the Lowe topic for the first part of the season.

Honestly, I think Lowe (as he has aged) has become strictly an NL pitcher. In fact, if you take out his starts at AL parks this season I want to bet that he's pretty good...even with the Yankee massacre in his last start. Frankly, the Yankees have beaten better IMO and I'm willing to look the other way over that one. We paid a lot, yes...but we did not overpay. We also gave him a long term, which I was not happy about, but it had to be done to get us a starter who would keep the load off of our bullpen and he has done that too.

I think it was you, slayer...who I had a discussion with in pre-season about the pitching acquisitions. There's still a lot of baseball to be played and what not, but I still believe that Lowe and Vazquez will be very close to one another when things are said and done in 2009. Lowe will get better once we get back into NL-only games and Vazquez will regress slightly from his torrid pace (which is a complete reverse from what we both thought preseason when we thought Lowe would regress and Vazquez would improve).

It's easy to pick on Lowe now that he got beat up by some of the games best offenses, but I feel he'll be worth the investment the remainder of 2009 and at least through the next two years. It's the 4th year that I really worry about...at Lowe's age, it wasn't very smart to give him a term any better than 3 years with a vesting option.

[wordslayer©]

I love how there was almost complete silence on the Lowe topic for the first part of the season.

Honestly, I think Lowe (as he has aged) has become strictly an NL pitcher. In fact, if you take out his starts at AL parks this season I want to bet that he's pretty good...even with the Yankee massacre in his last start. Frankly, the Yankees have beaten better IMO and I'm willing to look the other way over that one. We paid a lot, yes...but we did not overpay. We also gave him a long term, which I was not happy about, but it had to be done to get us a starter who would keep the load off of our bullpen and he has done that too.

I think it was you, slayer...who I had a discussion with in pre-season about the pitching acquisitions. There's still a lot of baseball to be played and what not, but I still believe that Lowe and Vazquez will be very close to one another when things are said and done in 2009. Lowe will get better once we get back into NL-only games and Vazquez will regress slightly from his torrid pace (which is a complete reverse from what we both thought preseason when we thought Lowe would regress and Vazquez would improve).

It's easy to pick on Lowe now that he got beat up by some of the games best offenses, but I feel he'll be worth the investment the remainder of 2009 and at least through the next two years. It's the 4th year that I really worry about...at Lowe's age, it wasn't very smart to give him a term any better than 3 years with a vesting option.

I have been Lowe's biggest critic, but honestly, as much as I hated the signing, I did not think he would be as bad as he has been this year. And I don't mean bad in the really $hitty bad, but bad in the aspect that this is a 16 million dollar pitcher we have here, and he just isn't worth it.

You do have a point that he has been kicked around some lately and that has drug down his numbers a little.

But the thing to me is, BFH. His numbers, across the board, are trending downward. Now, is this a short term thing? I don't know. I don't think so. I've always felt that pitchers of his age and all, just don't have the wiggle room to lose anything, because when they do, they can become mediocre/bad in a hurry.

If I was the guy who soaked that kind of money on him, I know I would be stressed. He still could end up the year as a 16 million dollar pitcher, but if I were the one who signed him, I know I'd be feeling the heat.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Maybe we can trade him for Smoltz... :D

[luvdembravos]

Lowe has been pitching poorly as of late but like BFH said, not many, if any, were complaining about him before June.

The man works hard and has a solid track record. I'm not worried about Lowe bouncing back ...unless we later discover that he's injured.

[quick]

Lowe is a sinkerballer. I have a personal theory (relatively untested) that the best teams beat up sinkerballers because these teams don't swing at low pitches out of the zone. These better teams make sinkerballers get the ball up, and when that happens, a sinkerballer is very hittable because they typically don't have much velocity or left-to-right movement. So, against a good hitting team like the Yanks or the Sox, a sinkerballer is going to struggle. Against the light hitting teams in the NL that chase bad balls and have a lower OBP than the Sox or Yanks (with a few notable exceptions), Lowe should do much better.

Your thoughts?

[IkeWagner]

Lowe is a sinkerballer. I have a personal theory (relatively untested) that the best teams beat up sinkerballers because these teams don't swing at low pitches out of the zone. These better teams make sinkerballers get the ball up, and when that happens, a sinkerballer is very hittable because they typically don't have much velocity or left-to-right movement. So, against a good hitting team like the Yanks or the Sox, a sinkerballer is going to struggle. Against the light hitting teams in the NL that chase bad balls and have a lower OBP than the Sox or Yanks (with a few notable exceptions), Lowe should do much better.

Your thoughts?

Of course, the same thing is the case for pitchers of all kinds. Good hitters just plain don't swing at as many balls out of the strikezone, so every pitcher (sinkerballer or no) has to start to come into them more. But perhaps the effect you are describing is more pronounced with the sinkerballers, which I take to be your point. Not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is something to it.

[Wahoo]

I was just thinking last night, wondering if we gave him any kind of no-trade protection in that contract. Does anyone know? I know the history has been strictly no trade, but given how desperately we threw the money at him, I figure it's not out of the realm of possibility that we gave him some no trade protection. If not, then honestly, as we are attempting to build for next year, HE is the guy we should be looking to unload to help build for next year. Keep Vasquez and Hudson. Ship this guy out, eat some of the money, and get some major league ready parts. I would have to think that we may be in a pretty good position to get a bidding war going at the deadline for his services.

[Hobbes]

Given the overall aversion the Braves have to no-trade clauses, and the amount we overpaid for his services in both salary and term, I can't imagine the Braves gave him a no-trade.

[quick]

I was just thinking last night, wondering if we gave him any kind of no-trade protection in that contract. Does anyone know? I know the history has been strictly no trade, but given how desperately we threw the money at him, I figure it's not out of the realm of possibility that we gave him some no trade protection. If not, then honestly, as we are attempting to build for next year, HE is the guy we should be looking to unload to help build for next year. Keep Vasquez and Hudson. Ship this guy out, eat some of the money, and get some major league ready parts. I would have to think that we may be in a pretty good position to get a bidding war going at the deadline for his services.

He might have trade approval under the 10-5 rule. How long has he been in the big leagues?

[Wahoo]

He might have trade approval under the 10-5 rule. How long has he been in the big leagues?

I don't think he falls under that because he hasn't been with us for 5 years. I say trade his ass.

[quick]

I don't think he falls under that because he hasn't been with us for 5 years. I say trade his ass.

I see--10 and 5. I think Lowe is the best man to trade if another team wants a starter from our staff. If he could get us a good bat, I say do it.

[Wahoo]

I see--10 and 5. I think Lowe is the best man to trade if another team wants a starter from our staff. If he could get us a good bat, I say do it.

Out of he, Vasquez and Hudson, he would be my first choice. He's older, had arguably the worst stuff of the three, and well, I'd just prefer to have the other two next year. It'll never happen, because, well...it makes too much sense, but even if we have to eat some of his contract, I think it gives us the best chance to be competitive tomorrow.

[jamminHANES]

11 quality starts in 16 is pretty solid.

[Wahoo]

11 quality starts in 16 is pretty solid.


Except that I, personally, don't place much value in the "quality start" statistic, basically because a) I don't really agree with the established criteria and b) I think it's about a subjective a stat as there is. Personally, I don't think a 6 inning, 3 ER run start is quality.

[Freddy_Ballgame]

I agree, Wahoo. Where's the quality in a 4.50 ERA? Gimme somethin' more like 2 earned runs over 7 innings. I can see some quality there....

[Hobbes]

To be fair, a pitcher with all quality starts would only have a 4.50 ERA if he only went exactly 6 innings each time. For the most part pitchers with a lot of quality starts will likely have many of them being more than 6 IP.

It's not a particularly great stat, but I do think it can tell you something about a pitcher.

[Wahoo]

To be fair, a pitcher with all quality starts would only have a 4.50 ERA if he only went exactly 6 innings each time. For the most part pitchers with a lot of quality starts will likely have many of them being more than 6 IP.

It's not a particularly great stat, but I do think it can tell you something about a pitcher.

I don't know...I mean look at Lowe. He has a crap ton of quality starts, and is averaging less than 6 innings per start and his numbers are pretty average across the board. I think it's pretty easy to be pretty average and still mount a good number of quality starts. When I think average, I don't think "quality." I just don't think that the bar is high enough, but again, this is why the stat is subjective, some people may view that as a quality start. IMO, not much of value can be inferred about the stat.

[wordslayer©]

Lowe is a sinkerballer. I have a personal theory (relatively untested) that the best teams beat up sinkerballers because these teams don't swing at low pitches out of the zone. These better teams make sinkerballers get the ball up, and when that happens, a sinkerballer is very hittable because they typically don't have much velocity or left-to-right movement. So, against a good hitting team like the Yanks or the Sox, a sinkerballer is going to struggle. Against the light hitting teams in the NL that chase bad balls and have a lower OBP than the Sox or Yanks (with a few notable exceptions), Lowe should do much better.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts?

My first thought is, don't be stupid enough to sign old players, because the risk is through the roof high.

My second thought is, if you do find yourself stupid enough to sign old players, then don't pay them 16 million dollars a year.

My third thought is, if you are stupid enough to sign old players, and if you are stupid enough to pay them 16 million a year, then don't be stupid enough to sign them to a long term deal.

My fourth thought is, I don't really hate the quality start stat. It's not a bad stat.

My fifth thought is, his strike outs are dropping fast. And they are dropping significantly. This is not a surprise when you sign old players. When a pitcher is unable to make the hitter miss, then bad things are going to happen.

My sixth thought is, his ground balls are becoming less and less of ground balls.

My seventh thought is, if he can't beat american league (potential playoff teams), then why in the hell are we paying him 16 million dollars a year for being our ace?

My eighth thought is, I have a slight fear that he is becoming an average pitcher. My real fear is that he may be becoming worse than that.

My ninth thought is, I keep a little hope that he may turn it around and end up being a sub 4.00 ERA pitcher.

[KB 34]

Remember when Buddy Carlyle was the #3 starting pitcher? The Braves could expect quality starts out of Smoltz and Hudson and if they were really lucky, one other pitcher. A qulaity start means the team has a chance to win if the offense and bullpen are any good. It doesn't kill the bullpen either. With the Braves lineup this bad it is easy to forget how many wins consistent quality starts can bring.

With Lowe at $15 million a year I do expect more than just quality starts. He isn't doing well enough for his money if you ask me, and at his age I don't expect him to be a top of the order starting pitcher past next season. I would love to see him dealt but it isn't going to happen seeing no one wanted to pay him that kind of money to start with.

[Andy G.]

I don't know...I mean look at Lowe. He has a crap ton of quality starts, and is averaging less than 6 innings per start and his numbers are pretty average across the board. I think it's pretty easy to be pretty average and still mount a good number of quality starts. When I think average, I don't think "quality." I just don't think that the bar is high enough, but again, this is why the stat is subjective, some people may view that as a quality start. IMO, not much of value can be inferred about the stat.
In his 14 starts that weren't against the Orioles or Yankees, he is averaging over 6 innings per start. In his thirteen starts that weren't against the Orioles or Yankees, and weren't cut short because of an injury, he's averaging 6.58 innings per start. Take out those two horrendous games, and he has a 1.19 WHIP. His numbers will come back down.

[Dreamscape]

I think there is valid concern about Lowe. I tend to like ratio stats when comparing years for a player. As wordslayer has pointed out a few times, his K rate has gone south. 4.81 K/9 to be exact after living above 6 K/9 the past two seasons. His walk rate has gone up, which scares me because it pushes me to think he's not getting the same bite on his sinker and hitters are letting it go more than they did in the past. Now, true, he's had off years in K/9 and BB/9 before, but when you've celebrated your 35th birthday already, it becomes worrisome.

He's been an extreme groundball pitcher throughout his career, routinely over 60%. He's at 55% this year, which is good, but again tells me his sinker doesn't have the same bite. And keep in mind that Lowe is essentially a one-trick pony. It's been a great trick over the years, but if he loses anything on that sinker, we're looking at a different Derek Lowe than we thought the Braves had signed.

I haven't been all that impressed with him this year, but there's that sense, what KB elluded to, that at least he's something, an actual major league pitcher, after a couple of years of wishing we had just one more. But his contract and his worrisome numbers have me very concerned.

[Chris_Moderato]

I haven't ever really cared for his contract, but after this year, he isn't going to be viewed the way he was prior to this season- as our ace. If we bring Huddy back next year, Lowe drops a spot in the rotation (for whatever that's worth). Plus, with the continued emergence of JJ and the continued development of Tommy Hanson, Lowe's role in the rotation will be less "important".

At that point, he'll probably be a solid innings-eater who keeps us in a majority of the games he pitches. He'll still be overpaid, no doubt. Who knows? Maybe by then he'll be closing for us. Ha ha ha.

[RiknTN]

I don't have the figures (maybe one of you stat guys can do the math) but I would be willing to bet if you add up the salary of our starting 5 it would be middle of the pack as a whole. Lowe, Kawahisi, Vazquez, Jurrjen, and Hanson can't be way up there compared to some other teams (vs. production).

[jamminHANES]

He throws his secondary pitches too often in my opinion.

[luvdembravos]

Braves' fans complaining about Lowe tells me we have pretty much exhausted the negative things we can throw at Francoeur, KJ, and G.A.

[absintheofmalaise]

I don't have the figures (maybe one of you stat guys can do the math) but I would be willing to bet if you add up the salary of our starting 5 it would be middle of the pack as a whole. Lowe, Kawahisi, Vazquez, Jurrjen, and Hanson can't be way up there compared to some other teams (vs. production).
The contract info is on Cot's.

[quick]

My thoughts?

My first thought is, don't be stupid enough to sign old players, because the risk is through the roof high.

My second thought is, if you do find yourself stupid enough to sign old players, then don't pay them 16 million dollars a year.

My third thought is, if you are stupid enough to sign old players, and if you are stupid enough to pay them 16 million a year, then don't be stupid enough to sign them to a long term deal.

My fourth thought is, I don't really hate the quality start stat. It's not a bad stat.

My fifth thought is, his strike outs are dropping fast. And they are dropping significantly. This is not a surprise when you sign old players. When a pitcher is unable to make the hitter miss, then bad things are going to happen.

My sixth thought is, his ground balls are becoming less and less of ground balls.

My seventh thought is, if he can't beat american league (potential playoff teams), then why in the hell are we paying him 16 million dollars a year for being our ace?

My eighth thought is, I have a slight fear that he is becoming an average pitcher. My real fear is that he may be becoming worse than that.

My ninth thought is, I keep a little hope that he may turn it around and end up being a sub 4.00 ERA pitcher.

Man, you had some thoughts, bro.

Leo said on the radio today Lowe would be fine if he started coming more over the top with his sinker. For what it's worth....

[RiknTN]

The contract info is on Cot's.




Yea...well thanks....I know where the info is.........I simply don't have the time to look all that up as apparently many of you do. I just thought it might make for interesting conversation........If no one else is interested then fine.

[Wahoo]

In his 14 starts that weren't against the Orioles or Yankees, he is averaging over 6 innings per start. In his thirteen starts that weren't against the Orioles or Yankees, and weren't cut short because of an injury, he's averaging 6.58 innings per start. Take out those two horrendous games, and he has a 1.19 WHIP. His numbers will come back down.

He's been an average pitcher, and the stats support that. At the very least he's very clearly not be an ace, and I choose not to ignore certain stats. I'm not taking out any starts, because that creates a significant bias. I choose to look at the larger sample size, which indicates that he's mediocre, and I standby that assessment. You can feel to believe what you wish, and can manipulate the stats however you need to make your argument, but it will not change my mind.

And if his numbers come back down, which, I agree, they likely will, I still doubt that they will support his current compensation level, which is my main argument for getting rid of him, if possible.

[wordslayer©]

Let's not get carried away here. I'm not saying to trade him. He is what he is now. I just wouldn't have signed him. I'm just saying that there are some concerns. I would not be surprised if he pitched the next couple of ballgames and did very well. It's the trend that bothers me.

We are, no matter what he does or doesn't do, stuck with him. I just hope that he doesn't keep following the trend line, because if he does, then it will get ugly.

[Wahoo]

Let's not get carried away here. I'm not saying to trade him. He is what he is now. I just wouldn't have signed him. I'm just saying that there are some concerns. I would not be surprised if he pitched the next couple of ballgames and did very well. It's the trend that bothers me.

We are, no matter what he does or doesn't do, stuck with him. I just hope that he doesn't keep following the trend line, because if he does, then it will get ugly.


Why not trade him if we can? Trading him would make our team no worse off next year...at least in my opinion.

[Andy G.]

He's been an average pitcher, and the stats support that. At the very least he's very clearly not be an ace, and I choose not to ignore certain stats. I'm not taking out any starts, because that creates a significant bias. I choose to look at the larger sample size, which indicates that he's mediocre, and I standby that assessment. You can feel to believe what you wish, and can manipulate the stats however you need to make your argument, but it will not change my mind.

And if his numbers come back down, which, I agree, they likely will, I still doubt that they will support his current compensation level, which is my main argument for getting rid of him, if possible.
I'm not manipulating stats. If the sample size were large enough, those two awful starts wouldn't take certain numbers and make them look a hell of a lot worse than they were prior to those starts. That's not creating a bias, or manipulating stats, or shortening the sample size to support my argument. That's looking at how he's pitched this season, and acknowledging that his numbers are less indicative of how he's pitched all year, and more indicative of how awful two of his most recent starts were.

It's easy to get caught up in that 'the numbers don't lie' mentality. I'm not saying they do lie. Over the course of a season, if you look at all of the numbers which measure his production, they will tell you exactly how well he's pitched. At the end of June, however, with only 16 starts to look at, you'd have more of a biased if you didn't consider that only two starts are messing up his numbers quite a bit, than if you did what I did. You said he's not averaging over six innings per start. Do you think he won't average that many innings at the end of the year? Do you think he was pitching over his head before those two starts, and that him having such bad games was inevitable as his numbers were better than they should be? I don't think so. He's an innings eater, and he still doesn't put that many guys on base.

I agree that there's something to worry about. His strikeouts are down, and the numbers Dream pointed do make you worry if his sinker has lost a little bite. But it's still just the beginning of July. He's made about half of his starts for '09. The second half could easily be much better than the first.

[hoosjon]

That's not creating a bias, or manipulating stats, or shortening the sample size to support my argument.

To be fair, leaving off two starts is EXACTLY "shortening the sample size". That said, I feel the D-Low will certainly do better over the course of the season, barring injury or unnatural disaster.

[Andy G.]

To be fair, leaving off two starts is EXACTLY "shortening the sample size". That said, I feel the D-Low will certainly do better over the course of the season, barring injury or unnatural disaster.
Yeah, I am, but it's not the same as sifting through his game log and picking out his worst games in order to find some numbers that support my argument. Those two games happened very close to one another, and they were obvious aberrations. His numbers after those two starts, since he'd only made sixteen at the point of my post, could not accurately show how well he's pitched. Those two starts were just that bad. It's only fair to acknowledge how well he's pitched in his other fourteen(now fifteen) starts, especially since those starts were much closer to what we're used to seeing from D-Lowe.

[RiknTN]

To be fair.....you guys get out in the real world, corporate world, and make a presentation with these 16 starts to your company and the company was going to make an important, and maybe costly, decision based off the presentation, you would get crucified if you didn't give them both stats to ponder. If a money spending decision were to be made it would remiss NOT to exclude the obvious 2 aberations out of 16. But you would be remiss to not present ALL 16 starts too. I know in your clsses they say to NOT manipulate stats to get an answer. But in the real world you want things looked at from EVERY angle and opinion. So I would say, all of you are correct to some degree.

[Wahoo]

Yeah, I am, but it's not the same as sifting through his game log and picking out his worst games in order to find some numbers that support my argument. Those two games happened very close to one another, and they were obvious aberrations. His numbers after those two starts, since he'd only made sixteen at the point of my post, could not accurately show how well he's pitched. Those two starts were just that bad. It's only fair to acknowledge how well he's pitched in his other fourteen(now fifteen) starts, especially since those starts were much closer to what we're used to seeing from D-Lowe.

I get what you are saying, I really do, and I do think he will rebound, but to suggest he's any better than average simply be ignoring 13% of the sample is not something I agree with.