Breaking down Bonderman

A Tiger season wouldn’t be a Tiger season without doubt about Jeremy Bonderman. In 2003 when he struggled out of the gate, there was much speculation that he was brought to the majors to quickly (which he may have been). He then shutdown Oakland. In 2004 after a particularly rough spell, there was talk of demoting Bonderman from the rotation or even sending him to Toledo. He then went out and struckout 14 White Sox. In 2005 he faltered down the stretch, was hit by a line drive, and people wondered if he was injured…and he was.

So when Bonderman dropped his second and third games, and struggled in the first inning of his fourth, there was a right to be concerned that the previous year’s injury was still around. Or perhaps we think to highly of Jeremy and he’ll never be the stud we thought he could be. Or he was rushed and never had a chance to develop that third pitch.

Even after bouncing back against the Angels, Bonderman’s ERA stands at 5.04 which is worst among the Tiger starters. But with a closer look at the stats, one could argue that he has pitched the best, or at least question why he hasn’t had better results. For these stats, I went to the always valuable Hardball Times.

	JB	AL
FIP	3.35	4.85
ERA+	94	100
DER	0.744	0.692
LD%	15.70%	19.00%
GB%	47.70%	43.00%
IF/F	18.20%	11.00%
K/G	8.5	6.1
BB/G	1.9	3.2
HR/G	0.94	1.2
HR/F	11.80%	13.00%

Bonderman has K and walk rates that are considerably better than league average, and the best among Tiger starters. He also has allowed fewer homers than league average. Those 3 components help to explain why his FIP (Fielding Independent ERA) is the best on the Tiger staff.

Frequently when FIP is significantly less than ERA, it is because the defense isn’t as proficient at getting outs. In Bonderman’s case, the defensive has been well above average with a DER (Defense Efficiency Ratio) of .744.

Contributing to that high DER are the types of balls in play that Bonderman is allowing. His infield fly rate is high and his line drive rate is low. Two components that make things easy on the defense in that pop-outs are easy to field and line drives are hard to field.

So Bonderman is doing all the defense independent stuff well, and he’s getting good support from his defense, and inducing many fieldable balls. So how can he be sporting an ERA over 5? There is one more stat that tells the story:

	JB	AL
LOB%	52.20%	70.00%

Jeremy has done a very good job keeping runners off base. Where he’s failed is keeping those who do get on from scoring. Now I have no idea why this is happening. It may be bad luck in terms of all the hits being bunched together. It may be that Bonderman is having trouble pitching from the stretch due to lingering arm issues. It may be that he lacks the focus with runners on base, or he changes his approach. In any case he is allowing a 904 OPS when runners are on base (a 571 SLG) as opposed to a 505 OPS when the bases are empty.

In 2004 and 2005 Bonderman’s LOB % held constant at 69%, which is very near the league average. Whether or not stranding runners on base is a repeatable skill I’m not sure. He has a history of being pretty average at it, and given all his other statistical improvements this year, I have a hard time imagining that this number won’t be corrected.

I don’t think there is any reason to be concerned about Jeremy Bonderman – other than typical injury paranoia about potential star pitchers. He’s had one rough game, and he’s pitched remarkably well in his other games. While I don’t know that he will continue to pitch at a 3.35 FIP rate, I’m quite certain that he won’t pitch at a 5.04 ERA rate either.

12 thoughts on “Breaking down Bonderman”

  1. Interesting point that stats back up Bonderman’s problems with men on base. As a fan, this is my preception also, if he can get into a groove he’s outstanding, if he gets people on base they will often score.

    You put out some ideas that I didn’t think of, especially the notion that arm problems are forcing him to struggle in the strech. My observance is he gets frustrated way to easy. His expressions and allowance of emotions to overcome his concentration have not gotten better with experience.

    I think the next few starts will be very telling, he’s pitched well in his last couple outings, hopefully that trend will continue.

  2. Interesting stats on Bonderman. I was thinking the other day that Bonderman seems to have a tendency to give up some runs in the 1st inning but shut down the opposing lineup the rest of the way. Would be interesting to look at his performance by inning this season and last. Not sure what the pracitical reason for this trend is (if it actually exists).

  3. Bonderman has had a PERA (and FIP too I think) significantly lower than his ERA for three straight years. I don’t know whether this is bad luck or whether there is something else going on.

    Lee

  4. Answers to my own questions:

    2005 Stats: 1st inning / Remainder of game

    IP: 29 / 160
    RA: 10.55 / 3.77
    H/9: 14.6 / 8.55
    HR/9: 1.9 / 0.8
    BB/9: 3.4 / 2.6
    K/9: 8.1 / 6.7

    2006 Stats: 1st inning / Remainder of game

    IP: 5 / 25.1
    RA: 9.00 / 4.26
    H/9: 14.4 / 6.1
    HR/9: 1.8 / 0.7
    BB/9: 0.0 / 3.2
    K/9: 12.6 / 4.3

    Definitely something goin on here. 2006 breakdown is looking an awfully lot like the 2005 breakdown. He’s giving up a lot more hits and and runs in the first inning, but actually striking out more people, too. Any theories to explain this?

  5. Kyle,

    You’d have to compare those numbers to the league averages. It would only take a couple really bad days to skew the 1st inning stats. When a pitcher just flat out doesn’t have it on a given day, he won’t make it out of the first couple innings, so his later inning numbers will likely look better.

    I would bet that the league average for starters in the 9th inning is far better than the league average for starters in the 1st inning, simply because they don’t make it to the 9th unless they have their A game.

    This is purely speculation though. Hopefully, someone has numbers to back me up.

  6. Jeff, I was recently looking at Bonderman’s numbers with regards to his first inning struggles and I don’t think you need to compare it to league averages to assert that he struggles early. The first inning is definitely the toughest, but Bonderman noticeably struggles with it.

  7. So far this year, the RA for the entire league in the first innning is 5.97. The RA for starters in all other innings is 5.09. So Jeff’s theory seems to have some validity. Bonderman’s discrepancy has been much larger than this, though. The rate is over twice as high for the first inning than for the remaining innings.

    So far this season, Bonderman’s first inning RA of 9.00 is a function of giving up 2 runs in the first inning against Cleveland and 3 runs in the first inning against Oakland. In the Cleveland game, he gave up 4 more runs. In the Oakland game, he didn’t give up any additional runs.

    So he gave up runs in the first inning in 2 of his 5 starts. I’ll try to check the breakdown of his 2005 starts when I have the time.

  8. Could it be that Bonderman is guilty of trying to be perfect when he’s in trouble, just like Leyland was saying about Robinson. Instead of trying to let the batter hit the ball (to the infield hopefully), he’s bearing down for the strikeout but also serving up something that the batter can hit for a homer.

    In the home opener, the runs the Sox scored were on homers with runners on. I think his other HR allowed were also with runners on.

  9. You guys raise a bunch of great points.

    RE: the first inning – it seems, and I haven’t researched this, that many of the best pitchers seem to have the toughest time with the first inning. Basically, that is a team’s chance to get them. If they get out of the first they can often times cruise. I’m not saying that Bonderman is on par with the game’s best, it’s just something I’ve noticed.

    And Mike, I think you raise a very real possibility.

  10. NOTE TO SELF: Double check posts twice after long days at work.

    I meant Robertson not Robinson.

Comments are closed.