Bonderman Among AL FIP Leaders

In an earlier post, I discussed team run prevention using FIP ERA to measure pitching performance and DER to measure fielding performance. Now, I will evaluate the performance of individual starting pitchers using FIP ERA. There were 56 American League pitchers with 17 starts (approximately a half season) or more in 2005. Table 1 below lists Detroit Tiger starting pitchers in 2006. Table 2 lists all 56 qualifiers in the league.

In both tables, ERA represents the pitcher’s actual ERA. FIP ERA represents the pitcher’s equivalent ERA based on fielding independent statistics (K,BB,HR) only. DER is the Defensive Efficiency Ratio of the team when the given pitcher was on the mound. A higher DER indicates that he received more fielding support. FIP-Actual is the difference between the pitcher’s FIP ERA and actual ERA. It tells how much the actual ERA was helped or hurt by non FIP factors. A negative number indicates that the pitcher probably pitched better than his actual ERA. A positive number says that he probably pitched worse than his actual ERA. LOB% is the percentage of runners put on base which were left stranded.

The tables show that Jeremy Bonderman had a FIP-Real of -0.71 indicating that he pitched better than his actual ERA. His DER (.682) was lower than any starting pitcher on the team which means that he may have received less fielding support than his pitching mates. While Bonderman’s actual ERA (4.08) was 16th in the league, his FIP ERA (3.37) was 4^th.

Since FIP ERA is a better predictor of future performance than actual ERA, Bonderman’s exceptional FIP ERA in 2006 may bode well for 2007. The bad news is that his FIP ERA has been far better than his actual ERA for 4 straight years indicating that it might be something more than just bad luck. The good news is that he has indeed improved his ERA each year and in each case it has been pretty close to his FIP ERA of the previous year. That may just be a coincidence but let’s hope the trend continues next year.

On the other hand, Justin Verlander (4.37 versus 3.63), Kenny Rogers (4.68 versus 3.84) and Nate Robertson (4.73 versus 3.84) all had FIP ERAs approaching a run above their actual ERAs. All three had DERs greater than .70 which suggests that they received better fielding support than Bonderman. Verlander (78%) and Robertson (76%) were in the top 8 in the league in LOB%. LOB% is not generally a repeatable stat so I’m inclined to think that the three were a little fortunate in that respect. Bonderman stranded only 69% of his base runners as compared to the league average of 70%. This may have been a product of not pitching well with men on base and allowing big innings but that’s just a guess.

What can we expect from next year? I would expect Bonderman to continue to lower his ERA. The other 3 pitchers will likely have to pitch better if they are going to finish in the top 15 in ERA again next year. Verlander is young and developing and should keep his ERA down if his arm is healthy and strong after a heavy workload in his rookie year. Robertson and Rogers might fall back a little but maybe not too much if the Tigers continue to field well.

Table 1 – FIP ERA for Tiger Starters in 2006

FIP ERA Rank	Name	IP	ERA	FIP ERA	DER	FIP-Actual	LOB %
4	Bonderman	214.0	4.08	3.37	.682	-0.71	.69
28	Verlander	186.0	3.63	4.37	.706	0.74	.78
35	Rogers	204.0	3.84	4.68	.738	0.84	.72
36	Robertson	208.7	3.84	4.73	.723	0.89	.76
N/A	Ledezma	60.3	3.58	4.20	.718	0.62	.73
N/A	Maroth	53.7	4.19	5.93	.709	1.74	.84
N/L	Miner	93.0	4.84	4.57	.699	-0.27	.68

Table 2 – FIP ERA for AL starters in 2006

FIP ERA Rank	Name	Team	IP	ERA	FIP ERA	DER	FIP-Actual	LOB %
1	Santana	MIN	233.7	2.77	3.11	.731	0.34	.78
2	Sabathia	CLE	192.7	3.22	3.32	.706	0.10	.72
3	Lackey	LAA	217.7	3.56	3.35	.703	-0.21	.70
4	Bonderman	DET	214.0	4.08	3.37	.682	-0.71	.69
5	Kazmir	TB	144.7	3.24	3.44	.691	0.20	.77
6	Mussina	NYA	197.3	3.51	3.51	.716	-0.00	.70
7	Bedard	BAL	196.3	3.76	3.64	.691	-0.12	.72
8	Halladay	TOR	220.0	3.19	3.66	.725	0.47	.75
9	Schilling	BOS	204.0	3.97	3.67	.676	-0.30	.76
10	Escobar	LAA	189.3	3.61	3.68	.694	0.07	.69
11	Burnett	TOR	135.7	3.98	3.73	.688	-0.25	.71
12	Vazquez	CHA	202.7	4.84	3.76	.692	-1.08	.66
13	Hernandez	SEA	191.0	4.52	3.93	.688	-0.59	.68
14	Millwood	TEX	215.0	4.52	3.94	.694	-0.58	.68
15	Westbrook	CLE	211.3	4.17	3.94	.678	-0.23	.70
16	Weaver	LAA	123.0	2.56	3.95	.764	1.39	.86
17	Wang	NYA	218.0	3.63	4.00	.708	0.37	.72
18	Contreras	CHA	196.0	4.27	4.07	.717	-0.20	.68
19	Haren	OAK	223.0	4.12	4.10	.711	-0.02	.72
20	Loewen	BAL	112.3	5.37	4.11	.686	-1.26	.64
21	Padilla	TEX	200.0	4.50	4.13	.696	-0.38	.70
22	Blanton	OAK	194.3	4.82	4.20	.665	-0.62	.69
23	Wright	NYA	140.3	4.49	4.22	.685	-0.27	.70
24	Loaiza	OAK	154.7	4.89	4.22	.689	-0.67	.66
25	Cabrera	BAL	148.0	4.74	4.22	.691	-0.52	.70
26	Johnson	NYA	205.0	5.00	4.25	.719	-0.75	.62
27	Santana	LAA	204.0	4.28	4.26	.735	-0.02	.67
28	Verlander	DET	186.0	3.63	4.37	.706	0.74	.78
29	Garland	CHA	211.3	4.51	4.39	.691	-0.12	.71
30	Shields	TB	124.7	4.84	4.39	.672	-0.45	.72
31	Garcia	CHA	216.3	4.53	4.61	.718	0.08	.70
32	Meche	SEA	186.7	4.48	4.62	.705	0.14	.70
33	Bonser	MIN	100.3	4.22	4.65	.706	0.43	.76
34	Janssen	TOR	94.0	5.07	4.66	.718	-0.41	.64
35	Rogers	DET	204.0	3.84	4.68	.738	0.84	.72
36	Robertson	DET	208.7	3.84	4.73	.723	0.89	.76
37	Lee	CLE	200.7	4.40	4.73	.704	0.33	.71
38	Radke	MIN	162.3	4.32	4.76	.685	0.44	.73
39	Washburn	SEA	187.0	4.67	4.79	.721	0.12	.70
40	Byrd	CLE	179.0	4.88	4.81	.682	-0.07	.65
41	Zito	OAK	221.0	3.83	4.84	.719	1.01	.79
42	Wakefield	BOS	140.0	4.63	4.84	.736	0.21	.69
43	Lilly	TOR	181.7	4.31	4.85	.712	0.54	.74
44	Lopez	BAL	189.0	5.90	4.97	.672	-0.93	.67
45	Redman	KC	167.0	5.71	4.97	.681	-0.74	.66
46	Beckett	BOS	204.7	5.01	5.10	.737	0.09	.69
47	Moyer	SEA	160.0	4.39	5.10	.710	0.71	.74
48	Fossum	TB	130.0	5.33	5.17	.714	-0.16	.66
49	Pineiro	SEA	165.7	6.36	5.18	.673	-1.18	.64
50	Koronka	TEX	125.0	5.69	5.19	.698	-0.50	.68
51	Buehrle	CHA	204.0	4.99	5.31	.693	0.32	.71
52	Benson	BAL	183.0	4.82	5.60	.721	0.78	.73
53	Silva	MIN	180.3	5.94	5.77	.687	-0.17	.67
54	Hernandez	KC	109.7	6.48	6.28	.678	-0.20	.67
55	Chacin	TOR	87.3	5.05	6.33	.741	1.28	.77
56	Elarton	KC	114.7	5.34	6.72	.753	1.38	.74