Lowe Looking Like A Different Pitcher With Mechanical Changes

For now, let’s forget Lowe’s first outing in pinstripes. In 2010 and 2011, pitched nearly two identical season where he posted a 3.89 and 3.70 FIP, a 3.54 and 3.65 xFIP, a 6.32 and 6.59 K/9, and a 2.83 and 3.37 BB/9. The difference was a 4.00 ERA in 2010, and a 5.05 ERA in 2011, due to a well below average LOB% of 65.9%, and a BABIP .030 points above his career average. From one point of view, you have a good season and a bad season, but from another, you see how bad luck with runners in scoring position and an exaggerated .273 BABIP on the flyball will lose you 17 games. In the end, 2011 was more of an unlucky season than a bad one, and the Indians certainly understood this when they took on a chunk of his contract.

His 2012 season isn’t far removed from 2010 or 2011 either. The walk rate is the same (3.29), the batted ball rates are consistent, the velocity has remained, but the strikeouts are gone. Couple that with the same unfortunate luck with runner on base and the high BABIP on the flyball, and Lowe’s having his worst season since 2004. With such similar batted ball rates, no signs of command issues, and the same velocity, I’d chalk this all up to small sample size, but the strikeout rates are a huge eye-soar. How can a pitcher lose half his strikeout rate in less than a year? The answer is a loss in movement.

 Comparing Derek Lowe 2011 v. 2012

Pitch	Selection	Velocity	H Mvt	V Mvt	Spin Angle	Spin Rate
Sinker (2011)	48%	88.63	-12.98	-28.05	265	1,829
Sinker (2012)	67%	88.60	-11.78	-27.00	260	1,684
Cutter (2011)	9%	85.99	-1.27	-24.99	203	804
Cutter (2012)	8%	86.75	-3.44	-22.30	211	1,163
Slider (2011)	25%	80.86	3.54	-37.88	44	399
Slider (2012)	12%	81.12	4.30	-35.68	80	387
Changeup (2011)	16%	83.72	-10.32	-33.23	272	1,379
Changeup (2012)	12%	83.95	-9.59	-32.65	270	1,287

While the selection has certainly changed, I wouldn’t read too much into that due to possible errors in the pitch identification, especially between the cutter and the slider. The most important aspect of comparing 2011 and 2012, is to see the decline in movement, especially from the sinker. There’s an overall loss of an inch in horizontal movement towards right handed batters, and an inch in sinking action. It’s created an outcome of more linedrives and less whiffs. The biggest culprit appears to be a loss of 150 rotations per minute on the sinker.

And that’s why Lowe has been terrible. So that would be the end of this post if it wasn’t for 4.0 innings, 2 hits, and 4 strikeouts, against one of the best offenses in baseball.

“I’m a huge tinkerer,” Lowe said. “I have done it my whole career. I try to fix things mechanically, and one little tinker turns into two, turns in to — basically, you almost get lost. I’ve done it my whole career. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Any time you’re a sinkerball pitcher and it’s flat, you’re going to do a lot of backing up bases and that’s what I did. This was a great opportunity. It kind of came out of nowhere. It happened in literally about 10 minutes. Scott called — we had been talking to four other teams — he called and said, this is an opportunity. Within 10 minutes, it was done.”

Supposedly Lowe used his two weeks off to fix his mechanics.

Above, I’ve timed the videos to matchup at the release point. Lowe’s mechanics have certainly been altered, but amongst a flurry of differences, the extensive time at a balance position seems to be the most effective change. It’s allowing him to take a more explosive stride toward home plate, which has resulted in more spin rotation. Compared to the 1,684 RPM on the sinker, with the Indians, Lowe had 1,959 RPM Monday night. This caused an additional inch of movement both horizontally and vertically. Considering the type of game he pitched in his return, there’s reasons to be optimistic on Lowe.