The Lowe-down on the Dodgers' Starting Rotation

By Phil Allard

Thursday, February 10, 2005

I envy Charley Steiner, the Dodgers’ new broadcaster, for two reasons: He gets to work with Vin Scully, and he gets to see Derek Lowe pitch.

Schilling did the talking for the Red Sox in the post-season, but D-Lowe was the man who shut the door on the opposition. Despite getting little respect from Boston brass, Lowe turned the ALCS around by calming Yankee bats when they were poised for

a sweep in game #4, and then he sealed the deal by completely silencing the Yanks in Game #7. Add to that a dominant performance against the Cardinals in Game #4 of the World Series and you have a true post-season hero.

But Lowe isn’t thought of as a dominant pitcher by many in Boston, or anywhere else for that matter, despite his 38-15 record in 2002 and 2003 and some long stretches of utter brilliance were he proved to be one of the best pitchers in baseball. After the Sox won Game 6 of the ALCS and forced the deciding Game 7, Lowe was asked by the press if he was going to start the last game and he replied "Why would they start telling me stuff now?"

Now Lowe has landed in Los Angeles, and most articles you’ll read this year about the Dodger pitching staff will tell you that Brad Penny is the key to their success. Granted, Penny needs to come through as well since one man does not a staff make, but the pitcher who has the ability to be consistently lights out is Lowe.

Why do I consider a guy who pitched to a 4.47 ERA in 2003—and a 5.42 ERA in 2004—to be the key, when numbers like that usually give a pitcher a ticket to Triple-A?

The truth lies in the fact that Derek Lowe is either extremely good, or extremely bad—

and more times than not he is extremely good.

If the Dodgers can manifest a situation in which the ‘Good Lowe’ shows up they are in for a pleasant surprise, and the rest of the National League is in for a rude awakening.

To lend credibility to these beliefs, I sought out Eric Van, the online statistical

guru of Red Sox Nation, and the man Gordon Edes of The Boston Globe calls the "Harvard Brainiac.” Van has made an in-depth statistical analysis of Lowe’s performances with the Red Sox, and his findings reveal that Lowe may be the best pitcher in baseball that you don’t know about. (Actually, “in-depth” does not do Eric Van justice; he is more than that; he has charted every pitch of every Red Sox game

this past year and can recite every conceivable stat with machine-like precision.)

Van originally came up with the “Good Lowe/Bad Lowe” observations and he argues

that Lowe excelled as a reliever in 1999, with 109.1 IP, a 2.63 ERA, and 29 RSAA (Runs saved above average*); and in 2000, when he hurled 96 innings with a 2.56 ERA and 24 RSAA.

Lowe’s 2001 relief numbers weren’t as good: 3.53 ERA and 10 RSAA. But in 2002,

the Sox turned him into a starter, and the results were stunning: 21-8, 2.58, and 44 RSAA. Statistically, Lowe was the second best starting pitcher in the A.L. that year.

During the next off-season, Van asserts, Lowe received some little-publicized cancer treatments, and he was unable to workout or do much of any off-season preparations. As a result, he had a poor Spring Training and a 6.53 ERA in his first 8 regular season starts. He regrouped in the next 8 starts with a 2.70 ERA, but reverted back to 6.61 ERA in his next 8. Lowe then see-sawed back to a 2.67 ERA in his last 10 starts, plus 2 relief appearances in the ALDS. For his two ALCS appearances, he sported a poor

a 6.43 ERA.

Let’s repeat those ERA statistics:

2.58 (all of 2002)

6.53 (First 8 starts of 2003)

2.70 (Next 8 starts of 2003)

6.61 (Next 8 starts of 2003)

2.67 (Last 10 starts plus 2 relief appearances in the ALDS)

6.43 (2 appearances in ALCS)

Hence Van’s Good Lowe/Bad Lowe observations: “The irony is that, although Lowe had a 4.47 ERA in 2003, at no point in the season was he a 4.47 pitcher. He was either 2 runs better or 2 runs worse.” That’s an enormous difference, and a very strange anomaly.

2004 was difficult to measure because Lowe’s infield defense kept changing, at times well above average, at times horrible. And the “Good Lowe” wasn't up to the level of 1999, 2000, 2002, or the two stretches of 2003—until the post-season, when the infield defense was solidified, and he delivered the Red Sox their first championship in 86 years.

The point of all this is that Lowe has spent the bulk of his time being a 2.65 ERA pitcher —which is tremendous and worthy of the Cy Young award consideration. He has done this in a superior offensive league with the DH, and he has often done it without a good infield defense.

Now Lowe is going to a pitcher’s park, with a shortstop (Izturis) that has a favorable UZR** (Ultimate Zone Rating), along with a second sacker (Kent) that is slightly above average in UZR according to TangoTiger’s** weighted analysis. That is a sweet recipe for Lowe. Pencil him in for 21-7 this year, with a 3.06 ERA, and I think I am being conservative.

When GM Paul Deposta says: "With the final piece (Lowe) in place, our starting pitching ranks up there with any staff in the game," he is not blowing hot air. He is accurately predicting the future.

What about the other starters on the Dodger staff? Yankee castoff Jeff Weaver flourished last year away from the glare of Gotham, as Southern California home cooking treated him well. He tied the league lead with 13 quality starts and was a work horse with 220 innings. Weaver improved his K/BB ratio and hence his DIPS** (Defensive Independent Pitching Statistics) last year, and his ERA was half a run lower than league average. Weaver has re-established himself as one of baseball’s solid young pitchers

Questions marks abound with the other starters. Take Kaz Ishii for example, his K/BB ratio is 1/1. He walked 98 and struck out 99 in 172 innings last year. That is flat-out horrific. His record of 13-8 proves the relative meaninglessness of judging a pitcher solely by his W/L record.

Ishii had the best run support in the league last year with 6.70 per game.

(Don’t ask me how that was possible with a poor Dodger offense, but it’s true.)

Unless Kaz can find the strike zone, don’t expect too much out of him. Run support doesn’t translate well year-to-year.

Odalis Perez showed flashes of brilliance with an above average K/BB ratio, and a good RSAA of 19 last year. Expect him to shake off last year’s poor playoff performance and improve with more experience.

That leaves us with Brad Penny, who most consider the ace. Is he fully recovered from the nerve injury that plagued his arm in 2004? If so, he may once again be the pitcher that won 14 games in 2003, but his ceiling will never be as high as Lowe’s (no pun intended). Hey, if Penny can’t compete, there is always Scott Erickson. Scott is attempting to land a job as a non-roster Spring Training invitee.

So that's the Lowe-down on the Dodger starters as Spring Training 2005 begins. If all goes right, L.A. can dominate—and I haven't even mentioned that they have the best reliever in baseball closing for them.

* RSAA (Runs Saved Above Average) and K/BB ratios courtesy of the Lee Sinins Baseball Encyclopedia CD.

** UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating), is a sabermetric evaluator of defensive competence. DIPS (Defensive Independent Pitching Statistics)

is a sabermetric evaluator of pitchers. Learn more about them at www.tangotiger.net.

Phil Allard is a columnist for SportsFanMagazine.com, NYYFans.com, and a freelance writer. He can be reached at hardrain@optonline.net.