Musing Over Jeremy Bonderman and Carl Pavano

By the time you read these words, the Indians may have already signed Jeremy Bonderman—hopefully to a contract that is light on guaranteed cash and heavy on performance-based incentives.

When I first heard the Bonderman-scuttlebutt on Tuesday evening (reported by Jordan Bastain, doing a great job filling Anthony Castrovince’s shoes, by the way) I was immediately reminded of Carl Pavano.  Yesterday, TD touched on, among other things, the similarities between a potential Bonderman signing and the Pavano deal from 2009.

And for good reason.  Both guys appeared to have peaked several years before the Indians came calling.  Both were above average pitchers (though neither “great” nor even “very good”) before their careers took respective detours.

Pavano had five productive-ish seasons with the Expos and Marlins before the Yankees backed up their dumptruck full of cash.  The four-year deal in New York was not a good one: Pavano pitched both badly and rarely, while being paid like an ace.  He was injured for most of the deal, pitching only 145.2 innings over the four year span.  He was called out by everyone for his work ethic, from the local papers to Cap’n Jeets himself, while Pavano insisted that his injuries were both real and significant.

Bonderman’s fall from glory was slightly less publicized, but no less ignominious.  In both 2004 and 2006, he struck out more than eight batters per nine innings, averaging nearly 190 innings pitched over that span.  He was, as TD pointed out, a key cog to the Tigers World Series appearance in 2006.  Then came the injuries.  In the 2008 and 2009 seasons combined, he pitched only 81.2 innings, with unspectacular ERAs and a strikeout rate hovering around five batters per nine.  Last season, he stayed healthy enough to pitch 171 innings, and saw his strikeout rate climb to 5.89 K/9.

So in many ways, Bonderman and Pavano share a story.  And, much like Homer J Simpson, I like stories—especially ones that suggest the Indians might be finding a bargain on the free agency market.

But I also have a nagging feeling that these two guys aren’t nearly as similar as their personal histories might suggest.  Let me explain my hesitation.

First, despite their common career arcs, these two aren’t similar sorts of pitchers.  By that, I mean that Bonderman has typically relied on strikeouts to generate success, whereas Pavano has relied more heavily on control.  Here are two charts to explain what I mean.  First Bonderman:

You’ll notice that even when he successfully limits his walks—look at 2007, for example—his ERA doesn’t necessarily follow.  That’s because his effectiveness is tied most to his ability to strike batters out.  His best strikeout year, 2006, was also his best ERA year.   It’s not a perfect relationship by any means, but it appears that Bonderman needs to have a K-rate north of six to have any success—a level he hasn’t cracked for three years.

Now here’s Pavano:

For one thing, you can see that outside of 2001, Pavano was never a strike-out pitcher.  He always relied on control and pitching to contact: limit walks and throw groundballs.  Look at his best season: in 2004, he struck out fewer than six batters per nine.  That’s in the danger-zone for Bonderman, but Pavano can live there because of his control.  You can also see that over the last several years, his walk-rate got better and better.  A good sign for a pitcher who isn’t going to strike many batters out.

So no, I don’t think they’re similar guys.  But let’s push this further.  How did Jeremy Bonderman go from being a good pitcher to an execrable one?  Why did his strikeouts drop so much?  Here’ a hint:

This graph presents Bonderman’s fastball velocity over the last four years.  In early 2007, Bonderman was still occasionally throwing 95+ mph.  We don’t have pitch/fx data going back further than 2007.  But consider: when he was drafted out of high school in the first round by the Oakland A’s, his best tool was an unhittable, upper-90s fastball.  His fastball velocity in 2010 averaged barely over 90 mph.  Not only is Jeremy Bonderman not like Carl Pavano.  He doesn’t even resemble Jeremy Bonderman—at least not the gas-thrower he used to be.

It seems fairly clear that Bonderman’s velocity dropped due to injury.  Once his velocity dropped, his strikeouts dropped.  Once his strikeouts dropped, his ERA ballooned.  He’s just not shown any reason for me to believe that he can pitch effectively without his best fastball.  And he’s shown me no reason to believe that his fastball is anything but a distant memory.

Look, would a deal with Jeremy Bonderman make me upset?  Not really.  It’s not like I’m dying to see 150 more innings from David Huff or Jeremy Sowers.  But does it have the upside that the Pavano deal did?  Maybe, but if so, I’m not seeing it.

As always, I hope I’m wrong.