According to the LA Times, the Tigers offered Lowe more money, btw

The Detroit Tigers are believed to have offered Lowe more money, and the Florida Marlins, Washington Nationals and Baltimore Orioles also had talks with the right-hander.

We can dismiss the Nationals as outbidding the Dodgers, but the Tigers are desperate to get a free agent, and have money to spend.

If Lowe is smart, he'll take LA's offer.

Over at Dodger Thoughts, all the McCort/DePo critics who earlier were lambasting the "fire sale" are suffering whiplash, now complaining the Dodgers are pissing away money.

I don't think it is the Jim Colburn Factor as much as it is the Dodger Stadium Factor. Witness your man Jeff Weaver last year (3.55 ERA at home and 4.46 ERA on the road). Jose Lima is another good example (3.08/5.56). Doesn't Colburn travel with the team, too?

Too many years, too much money. On its face it just doesn't make any sense. I wonder if this is how Daniel felt in the lions den. I guess I should maintain my faith in DePo.

There is a school of thought here that says no, and that we can perfectly evaluate a signing/trade the moment it happens. A lot of these folks chimed in on the recent Millwood/Estrada thread. I have some problems with this line of reasoning.

I disagree, at least partially. I won't say that we can "perfectly" evaluate a deal the moment it happens, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. While you're completely correct that not all of the information used to make most deals is publicly available, the implication seems to be that we shouldn't talk at all about deals when they are made and that we should simply trust the GM (though I'm sure you'd probably agree that it's okay to take a GM's past performance into account when deciding how much to trust his current deals). There are instances where this seems obviously the incorrect stance--for example, I don't care how sophisticated Arizona's data collection and modeling efforts are (please contain your laughter), you'll never convince me that the Russ Ortiz deal was a good idea. He could go and win the Cy Young this year, and you'll never convince me that the Diamondbacks didn't simply get lucky.

Moreover, if we start to speculate and assume that certain teams (A's, Dodgers, Red Sox) have better evaluative tools than do other teams, then it seems that we're far more likely to give GMs of those teams a free pass (not that Primates would ever do such a thing!). And while I certainly won't dispute that they DO have better proprietary evaluative tools than we do in the public domain, I think the right approach is the one taken by MGL in this thread: try to study the deal as best we can given the data that we do have and see if we can figure out what's going on. We shouldn't just give up and say, "Well, they know better than we do. Let's just trust them." (And Kyle, I don't think you would take such an extreme position--my rant here is more against this argument as deployed by the least-common-denominator sportswriters of the world (not you, Rob).)

I think the best way to think of my preferred approach--that deals should be evaluated when they happen with all available information--is to assume that we're in the position of the decisionmakers (accepting the fact that there are information asymmetries between us and at least some GMs). When Paul DePodesta makes a deal, he tries to figure out how much he believes RIGHT NOW that Derek Lowe will be worth over the next four years. He doesn't have the luxury of looking back in 4 years and changing his valuation based on Lowe's performance. And even if Lowe turns out to be a disaster, I also don't think DePodesta should look back in four years and think that he made a bad deal. A GM like him should always put himself in the position to say to himself that he made the best deal possible with the information he had at the time. Now, if Lowe performs poorly, he should certainly go back and re-evaluate his tools to see if the tools were bad or if Lowe was bad luck, but I don't think he should decide that it was a bad deal.

On the flip side, another problem with evaluating deals years later based solely on performance is that you wind up giving GMs credit for what amounts to luck. Theo Epstein, for example, is the first person to tell you that he's blown away by what David Ortiz has turned into and that the Red Sox never expected anything like that. Acquiring him was still a good deal, because he was certainly undervalued at the time, and Epstein should get credit for that. But Epstein *shouldn't* get credit for uncovering one of the elite hitters in the AL--that was something that no one expected.

If anyone wants to defend the extreme version of this position, I'd love to hear it, because I'm curious as to where you disagree. Kyle, as far as I can tell, you would argue that we're at such a huge information disadvantage that it makes the task pointless (whereas I don't see the info gap to be nearly as big), and that's a fair position. But do you think we shouldn't pass judgment on current deals at all?

And even if Lowe turns out to be a disaster, I also don't think DePodesta should look back in four years and think that he made a bad deal. A GM like him should always put himself in the position to say to himself that he made the best deal possible with the information he had at the time.

And this is DePodesta's stated position. He knows that not every move he makes will work out - but every move he makes is based on the tools that he has developed, in conjunction with scouting reports, etc. Some gambles will fail, others will be bigger successes than expected. A good methodology will tend to produce the best results overall in the long run.

No, SWCM, because you could have paid him less ex ante for the output, and used the rest of the money for something else.

Or better yet, you put the rest of the money in your pocket.

Time to go pay part of MGL's salary.

dks, I agree with most of what you said. My argument is not, and has never been, that no one can pass judgment on a signing until the contract is over. Hell, I pass judgment all the time. And as I've said repeatedly, Lowe's deal as reported was very surprising to me. From the information available to me (and most other primates without their own STATS inc or what have you data), this does not come off as a particularly good signing.

Having said that, several posters above have called this a terrible signing, and some have even intimated that it will remain so no matter what happens next. Maybe they're right. But it's impossible to know right now.

I can't decide whether I agree with you or not that DePodesta shouldn't second-guess himself in 4 years. He obviously thinks that Lowe is worth more than 9 million dollars a year to the Dodgers for the next four years. Say that this judgment is based on his UZR-like defensive metrics that say Valentin and Kent are very good. If those turn out to be wrong, the Dodgers infield is terrible, and Lowe blows up, then he was wrong. I don't think he should beat himself up over it at that point, but he should still know he made a poor decision.

Love to know what you think.

The JCF is very underated I believe. Look at the success of pitchers like Brazobahn, Mota, Weaver, Gagne, Perez, and Lima, to name a few. The stadium being a pitcher's park, is more of a perception - last year it ranked 5th or 6th in most HR's allowed. The pickup of Jim Colborn a few years back may not have been flashy, but it's proved to be very solid.

The question for Depodesta the Daytrader, is how to build on this. I am actually pleased with how things have gone. Kent, Lowe, Valentin, Perez. Depo has handled the pressure cooker quite well.

Wait, the Tigers offered Lowe more money?

Market correction?

Market correction?

Yeah, I get the feeling that very few people around here have come to grips with the fact that the correction is hell and gone from Cartagena.

even if all this is true, even if GB pitchers do great in LA, and the Dodgers have a brilliant infield, and Fenway ripped Lowe to shreds, I still think this contract proposal was accompinied by a vial of crack rocks.

Actually, Lowe's ERA the past three years is 3.20 at Fenway, compared to 4.98 on the road. That might be the most disconcerting thing I've discovered about this deal from the Dodger's perspective.

If the Ortiz signing is bad contract, (and it is) why isnt the Lowe contract a bad signing? Some think it is some think it isnt. But where is the universal condemnation ? Because it is a Depo deal? Please!!

Lowe is 32 years old and will turn 33 during the season. He has had one really good season as a starter in 2002, a mediocre one in 2003, (105 ERA+) and a poor season in 2004 (90 ERA +)

Ortiz is almost exactly one year younger than Lowe, had ERA+ of 109 and 104 the last two seasons, better than Lowe both seasons.

Lowe got 4 years 36 million. Ortiz got 4 years, 33 million.

Sure, I could dig up some reasons statistically to indicate Lowe has a better chance of success in 2005. But come on!!!! There is less and less objectivity on this site, at least when it comes to the d backs, (and also to concerning Depodesta).

The "piling on" because of one really bad season is almost comical. Alot of people have the potential to look pretty silly this year.

If the Ortiz signing is bad contract, (and it is) why isnt the Lowe contract a bad signing? Some think it is some think it isnt. But where is the universal condemnation ? Because it is a Depo deal? Please!!

It's pretty universal. Some of us are just trying to see the deal from Depo's perspective to understand what he was thinking. You're the one lacking objectivity right now.

Oh, and Shoewizard, the reason you're seeing defenses of the deal in scaning through the posts is that Rob Neyer ASKED the board to try to defend it. Read closer and you'll see that almost nobody is really in favor of it, at least at that money.

There is less and less objectivity on this site, at least when it comes to the d backs,

Generally, the lack of objectivity about the D Backs on this site is from you.

Not only is Neyer going with the no-prize, he's apparently also going with the no-answer.

Maybe the answer to Neyer's question is this:

Derek Lowe's wife is bringing Lima-like tangibles.

Generally, the lack of objectivity about the D Backs on this site is from you.

Not true. I jokingly make homer comments sometimes, and then admit it right afterwards, (like the night I was posting drunk)

But when sober, I have echoed the criticisms of the Ortiz, Clayton and Counsel signings as well as what looks like too much too long for Sean Green. I have said that many many times.

But I also point out the positive things too, which no one else is willing to do.

I read most of the thread. I might have missed a couple of posts. Most. (but clearly not all) people question the Lowe signing, but none of the vitrol and downright condemnation reserved for the D Backs has been evident, and there are sprinklings of support too. That is simply because it id Depodesta and not the D backs.

But Lowe is older, paid more money, and the last 2 years has been worse. By any way of looking at it, he is at least as bad a signing as Ortiz.

Lets look at all of this.

They spend all this money to get Drew, Kent, Lowe and resign Perez, but let Beltre get away?????
Where is the sense in that?

I believe in modern, sabermetric principles of player evaluation, but right now I think that Depodesta is actually going to cause harm and set back the "cause". He received too much praise and not nearly enough criticism for his moves to date, and juxtaposed against the constant drumbeat of criticism that comes from every single poster that has anything to say about the d backs, I find it anything but objective.

but none of the vitrol and downright condemnation reserved for the D Backs has been evident

Most of the vitriol and condemnation against the Dbacks has come from Dback fans (Levski, Robert S., ect.) The rest of us could really give a rip.

Most of the vitriol and condemnation against the Dbacks has come from Dback fans (Levski, Robert S., ect.) The rest of us could really give a rip.

Thats not true, but it is funny. Made me laugh.
I just begged Levski to come in off the ledge a hour or so ago.....

Shoewizard, we cut DePodesta some slack because we assume that his objective analysis is guiding his decision-making, and we have a great deal of faith in DePo's objective analysis. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand. Not that Garagiola's not had success doing things his way . . . but he's also the one who put together that thrilling 111-loss team of a year ago. Track record counts for something (granted, DePo doesn't get full credit for what happened in Oakland).

As for the No-Prize, I'll have to award it to the entire group. Ah, the wisdom of crowds...

If the Ortiz signing is bad contract, (and it is) why isnt the Lowe contract a bad signing?

Lowe's DIPS ERA for 2004 was nearly half a run better than Ortiz's. That's a huge difference, imo. Lowe's also an extreme groundball pitcher, and I think that will work out well for the Dodgers in Dodger Stadium, with their defense and everything else.

I don't like the 4th year in the Lowe deal, but it apparently was necessary to get him signed.

Ortiz isn't the pitcher that Lowe is, at least according to DIPS. DIPS isn't perfect, but I'll look at it well before I look at ERA, if I'm concerned with future production.

So no, it is not true that from any way you look at it, the Lowe signing is worse than the Ortiz signing.

Last year, Boston had a DER of 0.679 when Lowe pitched, compared to the 0.690 league average and 0.716 for Schilling, 0.756 for Foulke, 0.709 for Pedro, 0.711 for Timlin, 0.714 for Arroyo and 0.723 for Wakefield (figures from The Hardball Times). Which is probably just another way of saying Lowe's 2004 was unlucky.

Which is probably just another way of saying Lowe's 2004 was unlucky.

Or that he was getting hammered. I wonder what his line drive % was.

I think it was above league average, Mefisto. I also wonder whether there is a pattern for ground ball pitchers having lower DERs relative to their teammates. Makes sense, but I don't remember reading anything about that.

GB% OF% IF% LD%
League 32 22 4 13
Lowe 48 14 1 13

From THT's Annual

The lack of infield popups should lower DER, I would think. Thanks, Proven Closer.

I don't think Lowe was unlucky. The opposition decided to take what Lowe was giving them and he gave up a ton of groundball singles.

He had trouble missing bats with his 88 MPH stuff so the hitters just crushed the ball on the ground.

Using this article by studes
Type Percent Out% HR%
Groundballs 45% 72% 0%
OF Flyballs 30% 75% 12%
Line Drives 19% 26% 2%
IF Flyballs 6% 97% 0%

The differance in percentages is because the numbers in #29 is the percentage of all outcomes (BB, K included), and this data is as a percentage of BIP. Also, this is only data from half the year, but it is the only data I could find (DIPS Revisited had more categories than THT had for Lowe).

Kyle, like I said, I didn't figure you'd take the extreme position that we should just trust the GMs and not judge anything. I guess where we still disagree is here:

Say that this judgment is based on his UZR-like defensive metrics that say Valentin and Kent are very good. If those turn out to be wrong, the Dodgers infield is terrible, and Lowe blows up, then he was wrong.

My position on this is that DePodesta needs to go back and re-evaluate his analytical tools if this turns out to be the case. Which I'm sure he does on an ongoing basis, anyway. If in two or three years the Dodgers have developed far better defensive metrics that show them that Kent* and Valentin aren't very good after all, then DePodesta will already know that Lowe isn't going to turn out as well as he initially projected him. In that case, he can go back to the drawing board with his tools, content in the knowledge that he made the best decision that he could have made given the information he had at the time. The alternative is simply not to decide anything until you're 100% certain of the outcome, in which case you'll always be waiting for the next better metric to come along, paralyzed in the face of any deal.

I'm not saying for certain that DePodesta won't have reason for regretting this in a few years. There are certainly scenarios in which he should fault himself:
--He didn't use the information he had properly. For example, perhaps he had far too much confidence in defensive metrics that were really just in their infancy.
--He played a hunch. He gathered the best information he could but then decided on a whim that Lowe was going to be better than what his projections told him, perhaps swayed by Lowe's clutchness in the playoffs.
--He has a huge man-crush on Derek Lowe and wanted to have him for his very own.

But if he made the decision based on the best knowledge available, proprietary or otherwise, then he should have no reason to regret it in the future.

I should make one thing clear: I'm not saying that means that this IS a good deal. Plenty of posters (myself included) look at the information available to us and scratch our heads at the deal. Even in the context of the current market, it looks like too much money to me. We can change our minds later if we become privy to the kinds of proprietary information available to DePodesta, but I don't believe we should change our minds based on future performance. And neither should we with the Millwood/Estrada deal.

BTW, great link posted in #109. I've been thinking a lot about this lately in the context of whether elite stars (e.g. Bonds) should be paid *more* than their marginal win value because of their scarcity (i.e. you can't find any other SINGLE player who will contribute 130 RARP of offense--you can get that with combinations of multiple players but they fill more lineup spots). I need to think about this a bit more, but the Fourth Outfielder blog (along with the GB/FB ideas described by MGL and others) strikes me as putting us on the right track toward figuring out what happened here.

* - Incidentally, I don't thing anyone is claiming that Kent is an elite defender. Even MGL made it clear that his 2004 performance was way out of line with his past (+4 runs/yr from 2000-2003). He still looks like an above-average 2B, but it's likely that his +20 in 2004 was anomalous.

The lack of infield popups should lower DER, I would think.

That makes sense. We know that GB pitchers, in essence, trade extra singles for fewer HRs. In addition, they should have a higher DP ratio, which would mean the lower DER is less important. But all that means an excellent IF defense is essential.

I guess I dont disagree with the premise that Lowe will be a good pitcher next year- I just wonder why the price for him was almost that of Pavano - who else would make a $9M per year offer ? even 3/27 would have been better- Im trying to figure out what the Tigers must have offered for this deal to be worthwhile.

shoewizard, I universally condemned this. I'm so awesome that I can do that.

Also, I need to learn to read the whole discussion.

I'm going to give you a traditional scouting report since any way you parse his numbers, Lowe comes off as brutally bad (forget DiPS. DiPS just doesn't apply to Lowe since even Whistler's mother could put the ball in play off Lowe.).

Isn't the good part of lowe's game that everyone puts the ball in play against him? DIPS takes this into account -- it weighs the positive defense-independent contributions (K) against the negative ones (BB, HR). IF Lowe doesn't get many K's, but also gives up very few BB and HR then he has a good DIPS ERA, and he should.

The "problem" with a high-BIP pitcher is that the DIPS ERA says much less about his likely performance than it would for a low-BIP pitcher. I say "problem" because it's only a "problem" if your defense is bad. If your defense is good, then your pitcher could significantly outperform his DIPS. For a team with a significantly above-average defense, Lowe is a pretty good investment, because he'll provide 200+ innings where ~80% of batters put the ball in play. If you figure players putting the ball in play have a ~.270 obp against your defense, and significantly better on GBs, that's a pretty good pitcher. Lowe's problem last year was that ~half of his non-bip's went for on-base events. If he gets back to his 2002 ratios he'll be scary in LA.

I was pretty loud about Lowe being a bad option for Boston, but that has nothing/little to do with whether he'd be a good option for another team...

BTW, I suspect the tigers were the big competition for Lowe, and may have driven up the dodgers' eventual price.

I would think that in the old Dodger Stadium, Lowe ought to have a better-than-average era; in the 2005 NL, maybe around 4.1-4.2. The problem is, it's not the old Dodger Stadium anymore. The lack of foul territory will push it a lot closer to neutral, though it will still be a slight pitchers park with the heavy air. UZR had just better be right about Kent, that's all I can say.

o no, it is not true that from any way you look at it, the Lowe signing is worse than the Ortiz signing.

I did not say it was worse. I said it was at least as bad. Please don't edit my posts for me.

Lowe has better DIPS era, I am aware of that. Were you aware that Ortiz has significantly better OPS against with RISP, RISP W/2 outs, and Bases Loaded situations, than in all other situations? The guys has the ability to bear down and get guys out in tough spots, and refuses to give in to hitters. The numbers bear that out. Sure he has had some luck too, but guys that look at his peripherals and DIPS era and just conclude that he has always been lucky are not looking hard enough or deep enough.

Through July 31, Ortiz was 12-6 with a 3.26 ERA I believe. He had two really bad months in August and September, and it blew up his season. Hopefully he is not hiding an injury.

There is no evidence out there, when all taken together, that is convincing that will tell you that Lowe is a better pitcher than Ortiz. You can't rely on DIPS alone in this case.

And since Lowe is a year older, and getting paid 3 million more over the same amount of years, it is at least as bad a signing as the Ortiz signing.

Anyway, time will tell.

GB% OF% IF% LD%
League 32 22 4 13
Lowe 48 14 1 13

That makes this a better signing than I thought.

I would think that in the old Dodger Stadium, Lowe ought to have a better-than-average era; in the 2005 NL, maybe around 4.1-4.2. The problem is, it's not the old Dodger Stadium anymore. The lack of foul territory will push it a lot closer to neutral, though it will still be a slight pitchers park with the heavy air. UZR had just better be right about Kent, that's all I can say.

If the only change effecting run production is smaller foul territory, that should help lowe relative to environment. The big concern I'd have would be the change in OF seating. If that improves the batter's eye there, the HR rate at dodger stadium could increase substantially... That would help Lowe relative to environment. It would also cut the K rate of the park, which would be good for Lowe relative to environment. The only bad effect it would have on lowe would be on his BB rate, which is already a problem, IMO.

As for this deal relative to Ortiz, you must remember that Ortiz was signed when these guys were still available, while after these two and Millwood, the free agent market is pretty much dried up. These two (Lowe, Perez) are arguably significantly better than Ortiz, are better fits for their new parks/clubs, were the last even remotely acceptable options, and still signed for less than Ortiz (ortiz signed for 5 years at 9m per, right?)

These two (Lowe, Perez) are arguably significantly better than Ortiz,

Argue away. I don't see it. You can make a case for any of them being a little better or a little worse than the other guy. (Well, I could, anyway) But significantly????? No way.

Ortiz was signed for 4 yrs 33 million, lowe for 4 years 36 million. Lowe is more expensive. And a full year older.

The part that MIGHT be true, and has not been proved conclusively is suitability to ballpark. And since no one knows what the changes will mean in L.A., I don't think that is a valid arguing point.

Were you aware that Ortiz has significantly better OPS against with RISP, RISP W/2 outs, and Bases Loaded situations, than in all other situations?

But I don't care about those. Those are accidents, related to the defense. You keep relying on non-DIPS info, even though they don't have the predictive ability of future performance that DIPS does.

DIPS isn't perfect, but all the other stats you mention are very heavily dependent on things that don't appear to be under the pitcher's control.

As soon as contracts are for past performance, then Ortiz might not be a worse contract than Lowe. But since the better predictors of future performance favor Lowe, I still maintain that Ortiz was a worse signing, and rather significantly so.

He had two really bad months in August and September, and it blew up his season. Hopefully he is not hiding an injury.

Lowe was pitching better at the very end of his season. So now you're saying that there's a chance that Ortiz is hurt, and you still want to say that his contract is no worse than Lowe's?

There is no evidence out there, when all taken together, that is convincing that will tell you that Lowe is a better pitcher than Ortiz. You can't rely on DIPS alone in this case.


Why not? If we know that pitchers have little control over BABIP statistics, why should we give equal (or even any) weight to statistics that rely on that?

Age related concerns are legitimate. Concerns about his k rate are (although they are accompanied by things that lessen the concern). But pretending that stats that we have too much evidence aren't under the pitcher's control are what we should judge a pitcher's future on, is like judging hitters on RBI totals. You know better than to do that, and you should know better than to judge pitchers on situational stats that are dependent on BABIP.

I would think that in the old Dodger Stadium, Lowe ought to have a better-than-average era; in the 2005 NL, maybe around 4.1-4.2. The problem is, it's not the old Dodger Stadium anymore. The lack of foul territory will push it a lot closer to neutral, though it will still be a slight pitchers park with the heavy air.

The reduction in foul groud should make Lowe more valuable. It might hurt him slightly, but it will hurt every other pitcher in baseball much more, thereby making him relatively more valuable. The point is not that Dodger Stadium is a pitcher's park, the point is what kind of pitcher's park it is.

Im sure this has already been suggested, but maybe Depo just wont feel like a real Dogers GM unless he gives out a really bad contract to a big name pitcher. As a giants fan, i think this is an important tradition. Keep up the good work.

What happened to the days when we believed that low-K pitchers didn't age well?

I don't like this signing.

In addition to the K and K/BB, I'm concerned that he's pitched 5.5 and 6 IP per start the last two years. If he does a better job of getting people out and with the advantage of no DH, obvioulsy that could go up ... but I wouldn't pay $9 M to find out.

The best justification I see for this signing is that I don't see much else they could have done. And I can't call it worse than the Wright, Benson, Ortiz, or Milton signings (though I'm not sure it's better than the Ortiz and Benson signings either).

But I don't care about those. Those are accidents, related to the defense. You keep relying on non-DIPS info, even though they don't have the predictive ability of future performance that DIPS does.

So did you go figure his DIPS in all situations? You say you don't care about something significant. That Ortiz gives up less when it counts the most. I was looking at 3 year splits, so I am not talking about one year .

Basically you have one thing, and one thing only, that indicates that Lowe is better, and that is 2004 DIPS, so of course you don't care about anything else.

How about VORP for pitchers for 2004 ??

Ortiz 33.1
Lowe -11.5

hmmmm......





Lowe was pitching better at the very end of his season. So now you're saying that there's a chance that Ortiz is hurt, and you still want to say that his contract is no worse than Lowe's?

Thats not what I am saying. Stop with the creative editing. It does not enhance your points. I'm just saying that as long as it's not because of injury, the two month slump is not that big a deal. Lord knows Lowe must have been slumping for alot longer period to put up such worse numbers.

So,

The idea is that Lowe doesn't give up alot of Home Runs, and his problem is Doubles/Triples. Chavez Ravine will eat up all of Lowe's Doubles/Triples and he will not give up any homeruns. A tag team super-pitcher. The only thing i have questions about that is, since Fenway is doubles heaven wouldn't lowe perform better on the road than at home? Lowe has given up around the same amount of doubles in a similar (close enough) amount of Innings. Also his SLG% is alot higher on the road, and we havent even begin to discuss the 70+ walks you have to expect.

Don't really have much analysis of my own, just trying to figure out what Depo saw and you guys are helping.

Thanks

dks, again I agree with you. I don't think we ever started out that far apart. I would put "Depodesta later realizing he put too much faith into his defensive metrics" in a category of behavior that he should regret later. I don't think he can say, "Oh well, I did the best I could," if it becomes apparent his metrics were garbage.

But again, I'm not an absolutist here. If he had signed Carlos Beltran to a 6 year, 60 million dollar deal (or something similar that seemed well below a player's market value) and Beltran hits .210 with no power the remainder of the deal, you're absolutely right - he can't blame himself. I just don't think this instance is one of those situations.

I just read the 4th Outfielder post, and it's great. He's exactly right - if the Dodgers don't spend the money on these guys, who are they going to get? I'm not quite sure why Lowe is worth more money than Matt Clement, and suspect that Millwood could have been a good candidate for the Dodgers too - but again, I'm going to wait and see how it turns out. Paul's a bright guy.

What part of pointing out that you said "Hopefully he is not hiding an injury." is creative editing?

You keep not being willing to support what you write. It's tiresome. First you offer up the chance that Ortiz is injured, and then you object when I point that out.

Don't blame me for Garagiola Jr making a bunch of stupid moves. He's done it. He signed a guy who has horrible DIPS stats. You asked how anybody could point to Lowe not being as bad a signing, and I answered. Statistics independent of BABIP have Lowe as better. Since then your responses have been to accuse me of creative editing and to offer counter-arguments that rely on situational stats that are BABIP dependent. Since you know by this stage that I won't accept BABIP dependent stats, your responses are wasted bandwidth, and your original question is answered.

Go ahead and reject DIPS, or apply it inconsistently, or whatever. Just don't pretend that it isn't possible to consistently believe that there are good reasons to think that Lowe is the better signing. Which is what you asked. And which all of your complaints have yet to address.

At least, if you're going to argue on it, don't rely on stats that are BABIP dependent, while trying to convince me that there is no consistent standard to value Lowe more than Ortiz - since the standard you asked for and I provided rejects BABIP dependent stats.

2003 DIPS ERA Ortiz 4.27, Lowe 4.40

Were you aware that Ortiz has significantly better OPS against with RISP, RISP W/2 outs, and Bases Loaded situations, than in all other situations? The guys has the ability to bear down and get guys out in tough spots, and refuses to give in to hitters. The numbers bear that out.

This is like saying that Lowe is clutch because he "had the ability to bear down in the postseason" or that some hitter (how about Jeter) hits well with RiSP or with 2 outs because he "has the ability to bear down" blah blah...

Why not bear down all the time then? Bear down all the time and you won't suck as much. This effect is either luck or the player's fault. This especially rankles me with "RBI" guys who are somehow clutch enough to drive in runs but make no effort actually to get on base with no one out.

How about VORP for pitchers for 2004 ??


I can make up a stat that makes Ortiz look better than Randy Johnson, but that wouldn't make it right. DIPS may not be perfect, but it is a much better predictive stat for pitchers than VORP from the previous year. Plus, the discussion here mostly centers on whether there exist conditions that would vastly improve Lowe's performance. Ortiz is going to walk 90-120 guys barring a miracle - he does that EVERY year. He will likely give up more HRs than he usually does, because of the BOB.

Ortiz is pretty consistently slightly better than mediocre. There isn't much to figure out. Lowe is much more interesting, partially because a large part of his game is out of his control. Lowe can walk a guy and then get a grounder that either goes for a hit or a DP depending on the defense. When Ortiz walks a guy and then gives up a bomb, there is nothing the defense can do.

Finally, can you blame people for trying to figure out why DePo would do this? After all, he is Google Boy. Joe G Jr? Has he ever, ever, provided any rationale for his decisions beside trite GM nonsense? "Oh, Proven Winner Veteran blah blah."

Finally, can you blame people for trying to figure out why DePo would do this? After all, he is Google Boy. Joe G Jr? Has he ever, ever, provided any rationale for his decisions beside trite GM nonsense? "Oh, Proven Winner Veteran blah blah."

What's funny is that Depo spouts the same nonsense whenever he picks up a player. I don't think he actually believes any of it, but he probably says it to placate the masses and hide his real rationale.

I never used the word clutch. I don't believe in it.

I think it is more a matter of approach. Look, I was a pitcher in high school and the first two years of college. (Arm trouble, plus not very good) There IS such a thing as bearing down.
It is hard to maintain peak level of focus and intensity on every pitch. And physically, I am not just talking about rearing back and finding that extra 2 MPH, although sometimes that comes into it as well. Sometimes it is getting just a little harder snap on the elbow, making that curve or slider bend a little more.

I know Ortiz walks too many guys. But consistently year after year he figures a way out of trouble. The fact that refuses to give in to hitters, and would rather walk the guy than give up the big hit (or big fly) is just how he pitches. He is rare in that he can get away with his approach. Maybe it has been all luck, but then he has been very lucky for over 6 years. Everyone says it is because he plays on good teams, but in fact his win percentages are MUCH higher than the teams win % without him.

His approach could bite him in the ass in the BOB, I realize that. Look, guys, I am not a dummy, OK.
I fully understanding that defending Ortiz is a losing proposition. There is a very good chance he could really struggle this year in the Bob. But they say that about him every year, and every year he confounds, so maybe he can do it again. Is that a safe bet, 4 years, 33 million? Of course not.

All I am saying is the Lowe signing isnt any better. You could argue Lowe might be a little better than Ortiz, but by any objective standards, DIPS included, Lowe should not have gotten 4 years 36 million. So.......DEPO should get blown just as much #### for a bad signing as Kendrick/Moorad?Joe Jr get. Thats all. Don't make excuses for him. Don't excuse a bad signing because he is "one of us". Thats B.S. Call it what it is. Just as bad a signing as the Ortiz signing. Too Long. Too much money. One he will soon regret.

shoewizard, I think you may have a good point in that a pitcher can consistently pitch better with runners on base as opposed to the bases empty. I have one player in mind who most likely exhibits this characteristic.

I am almost certain that Tom Glavine is better with runners on base than with the bases empty.
Here is my evidence. In his long career, here are some of his situational stats:

Bases Empty 1844.1 IP 200HR 575BB/1348K
Runners On 1515.0 IP 88HR 701BB/897K

The difference is too big to be explained by luck in my opinion. In addition, I believe this explains why Glavine has consistently beaten his DIPS over the course of his career.

It seems to me that Glavine changes his pitching style in such a way with runners on base that it diminishes the home runs given up. Glavine is the only pitcher that I am certain has this ability. However, there maybe others. Russ Ortiz may be such a pitcher or his success with runners on base may be due to luck.

Here are his career numbers:


Bases empty: 720.1IP 80HR 343BB/583K
Runners on 621.1IP 51HR 339BB/421K

As you can see, his HR rate is lower with runners on. However, the HR is not lower to nearly the same extent as Glavine's. He may have Glavine's ability only not to the same extent or the HR difference with runners on could be due to luck.

2003 DIPS ERA Ortiz 4.27, Lowe 4.40

2002 DIPS ERA Ortiz 4.08, Lowe 3.68

So for two of the past three seasons Lowe was significantly better, in one season Ortiz was somewhat better - although the difference was less than half of either of the surrounding seasons. And the most recent season (the most relevant season) the difference between Lowe and Ortiz was the greatest of the sample.

So my point stands. DIPS data justifies believing that Lowe will be better going forward.

akrasian, I agree with you that Lowe is a better pitcher than Ortiz going forward. However, I think Ortiz may be a little better than DIPS suggests based on what I said in my previous post.

This signing begins to make me doubt Depo's ability to be successful without Billy Beane. Maybe he panicked under the weight of newspaper vitriol and the hypnotic spell of Boras. I'm sure Billy Beane made all of the final decisions in Oakland. Maybe Depo is on those guys who is a good assistant GM but not a good GM. Similar to football coaches who are good coordinators, but bad head coaches.

Although I would have initially considered this unlikely, I think it is more plausible than proposing that Depo has a propietary analysis system that makes Derek Lowe a 4 yr./36 million dollar pitcher. Given depo's limited stint as a GM I don't think he deserves "Depo did it so it must be OK" status. Maybe Beane does, but not depo.

Rob: Derek Lowe has compromising pictures of Paulie D. That's the only rational explanation.

Jordan, thank you for fleshing out my point and making it clearer, (most of all to me!) I noticed the lower home run rate when looking at the splits, but did not add it up, and of course that is why his OPS against is lower in those situations.

Ortiz was signed for 4 yrs 33 million, lowe for 4 years 36 million. Lowe is more expensive.

Actually, because of the differences in state income tax rates, the after-tax earnings of Ortiz's contract are about the same as Lowe's. If one were to factor in cost-of-living adjustments, then Ortiz's contract is clearly more expensive.

If we accept basic microeconomic assumptions about the labor market, then one understands that workers consider after-tax, cost-of-living adjusted earnings to determine employment decisions, not gross salary.

Lowe's deal is supposedly backloaded as well. Don't know if that would bring it under Ortiz in real value.

In all this talk about how Fenway adversely affected Lowe and how Dodgers stadium might benefit Lowe, is that Lowe, despite pitching in the same rueful Fenway, was a damn good pitcher two years ago. Only gave up two UER that year, only 65 runs in total, few hits, was durable, meaning, if Lowe is going to be good and shut the LA media up for Depodesta's sake, it's going to be because of something he does, with a dismissive wave to Voros Mccracken himself. I saw many of the hits Lowe gave up and they were square and would've been hits anywhere, even in Petco, in my exceedingly humble opinion.

What's interesting to me about Lowe, is that with the exception of 30.1 innings in Triple-A Pawtucket, whenever Lowe's walk rate has been below three, he's been a damn fine pitcher. This has been true in every single level of baseball, from rookie ball to the grand stage of The Show. In his finest season in baseball, taking into consideration the relative value of starters and relievers, Lowe's walk rate was a svelte 2.0 and he rocked. These last two seasons his BB rate has been 3.2 and 3.5 and while his homer rate has kept uncharitable like always, he can't seem to prevent hits. Personally, as a Red Sox devotee, I blame his skin cancer of two years from changing his offseason routine and making him less precise; the invisible stewardship of David Wallace who two years ago replaced Tony Coningler as pitching coach in title but not as the active mentor and mental bulwark Coningler (wrong spelling) was to Lowe; and also on Lowe overrelying on his sinker.

If the Dodgers have a good pitching coach, if Lowe gets particularly lucky with pitching-friendly selection of umpires, so that his BB rate is 2.9 or lower, I will take all comers in betting that 2005 will be the Great Year of Derek Lowe.

Assuming for a minute that Lowe was signed with the idea that Dodger Stadium suits him perfectly and that he'll be unbelievably good when pitching there, Lowe still needs to make half of his starts somewhere else. What's the point of having a guy who fits in great at home if he's equally bad on the road? It's not exactly easy to move starts around to make sure he gets more starts at home. Is there any chance that Lowe's apparent versatility might come into play here? He seems to be a guy who doesn't need a set schedule to pitch on; although the other starters in LA don't seem to fall into that category. I still think that He's better off in a place with a good infield defense, but I've never been a big believer in getting a player who is as good in one place as he is bad everywhere else.

bares (bears?)

Bears.

What's the point of having a guy who fits in great at home if he's equally bad on the road?

But his DIPS data doesn't say that he'll be bad on the road - it says that he'll be average in an average context (according to ESPN, his DIPS data was the median for pitchers who threw at least 162 ip - so actually he'd be a bit above average, since the really bad pitchers don't throw that much). And with a better than average infield defense behind him, that should help an extreme ground ball pitcher. Plus any DS effects for half his games.

Assuming that he pitches next year like his DIPS data for this year, he should have a slightly better than average ERA on the road, and then factor in any DS effects, he could be much better than average at home.

Bears? The Rolling Bears?

Actually, Lowe's ERA the past three years is 3.20 at Fenway, compared to 4.98 on the road. That might be the most disconcerting thing I've discovered about this deal from the Dodger's perspective.

Since everyone knows Lowe is an extreme groundballer, maybe the Red Sox let the grass grow long when he pitches, and on the road the team he faces cuts it down like the green on a golf course to let ground balls zip through.

For those of you with Insider, Rob writes about this today. He even quoted whoever made the crack about 5 infielders.

He even quoted whoever made the crack about 5 infielders.

That was J. Cross, one page back.

He also quoted the Swedish Chef:

"Sure, the park and the defense will make him look better. But they would make the cheap guys look better too."

www.ross.assl-league.com/index.shtml

I bought a laptop a couple of weeks ago, I’m thinking about returning it because it didn’t tell me Derek Lowe was the perfect pitcher for Dodger stadium. It’s not easy to decipher Paul Depodesta or his laptop. One may call me myopic looking for ways to find reasons behind Paul’s odd ball moves. I’ll admit even with my huge ego that Paul Depodesta is smarter than I and when he does something I do not understand I want to know why, if that makes me myopic with then so be it.

So what did Depo’s laptop say? Unfortunately we won’t have the privilege to look into Paul Depodesta’s mind but I can make a lame attempt to provide the cliff notes.

(Derek Lowe) + (AL to NL) + (Dodger Stadium) + (Groundballs) + (Durability) + (Luck) = 9 Million Dollar Pitcher

Lowe will be helped by many factors coming to the Dodgers. For one he will be helped by facing no DH and one thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the numerous managers that squander runs (Larussa , Baker , Alou , McKeon etc. etc.). Dodger Stadium is a notorious pitchers park but I don’t think the masses know why. It’s not hard to hit home runs in Dodger stadium, in fact it’s quite easy. It’s not easy however to Chavez’s boycott on doubles and triples. Lowe gave up 41 doubles last year along with 4 triples and 35/7 the year before. To put some perspective on how much Dodger Stadium will affect Lowe’s XBH’s, lets look at Kevin Brown:

2003: 211 IP 25 Doubles 5 Triples pitching for the Dodgers
2004: 132 IP 36 Doubles 0 Triples pitching for the Yankee’s

So the theory Lowe who does not give up a lot of home runs will keep the ball in the park and the park will do the rest. Those are amazing numbers and leave it to Depodesta to know them before everyone else. One of the things we do, is we get comfortable with certain stats and we evaluate everyone with those peripherals. Luckily, Paul Depodesta does not.

Lowe will still walk more batters than you’d like but Lowe’s extreme groundball tendancies are going to induce a lot of double plays. It’s tough to rely on double plays to remain effective but when you have an answer to one of your only problems you set yourself up nicely.

As Tom Meagher mentions on “ The Fourth Outfielder”, Lowe’s durability or “ability” to pitch for an extended amount of innings without injury makes him even more attractive. Even if Lowe is only above average, he will be above average for more innings than most. Two hundred innings from an above average pitcher isn’t exactly something dodger fans are used too and it is a welcomed sight.

You cannot quantify luck but you can minimize it as much as possible. Rob Neyer explains it better than I ever could in his article about Lowe’s signing:

“Lowe's really not the pitcher that his 2004 ERA suggests. For one thing, he was awfully unlucky. As I'm sure you know, in general a pitcher controls only three things: walks, strikeouts, and home runs. Pitchers typically give up hits on roughly 30 percent of the batted balls in play (not counting home runs). When a pitcher gives up significantly more than that, it's often the result of bad luck, and last year batters hit roughly .330 on the balls in play against Lowe.”

So Lowe is going to pitch for a lot of innings, Keep the baseball in the yard, induce a lot of groundballs and ultimately prove Paul Depodesta’s genius. He better for 9 million a year and a 1st round draft pick.

Can somebody post Neyer's ESPN article about Lowe please.

I hate this freakin ESPN Insider ####!!!!

Can someone help me out here?

its posted at my site

www.ross.assl-league.com/index.shtml

Bears? The Rolling Bears?


Brilliant reference. If you drop one that good, someone has to point it out. Code of the Poster.

I called this one earlier today:

The Dodgers and Paul Bako have agreed to a one-year, $650,000 contract, pending a physical.

Bako brings nothing to the table offensively, and it's not like he's a top defensive catcher. Given a fair chance, Mike Rose could beat him out for a job. Jan. 10 - 8:26 pm et

Very late to the party --

A No-Prize for the first Primate who can come up with a good reason for Lowe getting more money than half the guys who signed for seven or eight million per season...

Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't Lowe get more money than all the guys who signed for seven or eight million? :-)

Seriously, though, what gets me about the Lowe discussion is the fact that the consensus is that he was paid twice what everyone else would offer him. I understand DePo is valuing him quite highly, but if no one else was willing to spend more than, say, $4mm, why pay $9mm? Was DePo bidding against himself?

The Derek Lowe signing wound up the best of any of the deals for pitchers that offseason.

The Derek Lowe signing wound up the best of any of the deals for pitchers that offseason.

Yeah...I couldn't have been any more wrong on the relative value of the Lowe contract to the Ortiz contract. Although I suspected Ortiz would suck, I thought Lowe would too. Dead wrong.

I learned a lot from that faulty evaluation though. So there's that. ;)