The Giants’ #8 Hitters
Posted by Raphy on May 12, 2010
The production that the Giants have received from the 8th spot in their lineup this season has been remarkable. Here are the numbers for the 8th spot in each team's line-up heading into today.
Rk | G | GS | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | TB | GDP | HBP | SH | SF | IBB | ROE | tOPS+ | sOPS+ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SFG | 40 | 31 | 124 | 105 | 22 | 46 | 14 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 15 | 18 | .438 | .508 | .686 | 1.194 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | .500 | 213 | 234 |
2 | NYY | 40 | 31 | 125 | 108 | 19 | 34 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 20 | .315 | .398 | .491 | .889 | 53 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .365 | 114 | 149 |
3 | CHC | 41 | 34 | 134 | 113 | 18 | 32 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 26 | .283 | .383 | .504 | .888 | 57 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | .325 | 130 | 148 |
4 | BOS | 47 | 34 | 140 | 118 | 15 | 32 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 19 | 3 | 0 | 19 | 34 | .271 | .377 | .500 | .877 | 59 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .325 | 116 | 145 |
5 | CIN | 47 | 33 | 132 | 111 | 11 | 35 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 14 | .315 | .424 | .441 | .866 | 49 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | .347 | 138 | 144 |
6 | SDP | 43 | 32 | 128 | 108 | 14 | 32 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 19 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 24 | .296 | .402 | .454 | .855 | 49 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | .358 | 145 | 141 |
7 | NYM | 46 | 33 | 133 | 120 | 20 | 34 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 22 | .283 | .331 | .517 | .847 | 62 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | .287 | 134 | 136 |
8 | WSN | 40 | 33 | 126 | 112 | 12 | 34 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 21 | .304 | .365 | .446 | .812 | 50 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | .352 | 116 | 127 |
9 | LAD | 45 | 33 | 136 | 113 | 15 | 36 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 18 | .319 | .403 | .398 | .801 | 45 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | .361 | 107 | 126 |
10 | TOR | 40 | 35 | 139 | 130 | 20 | 29 | 8 | 0 | 9 | 18 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 30 | .223 | .273 | .492 | .766 | 64 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | .220 | 98 | 111 |
11 | ARI | 41 | 34 | 139 | 119 | 14 | 27 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 34 | .227 | .338 | .412 | .750 | 49 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | .275 | 92 | 110 |
12 | MIL | 42 | 33 | 141 | 126 | 16 | 31 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 20 | .246 | .326 | .413 | .739 | 52 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | .279 | 84 | 107 |
13 | ATL | 42 | 33 | 129 | 108 | 12 | 28 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 17 | 23 | .259 | .367 | .370 | .738 | 40 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | .301 | 114 | 108 |
14 | FLA | 52 | 33 | 132 | 116 | 15 | 27 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 28 | .233 | .318 | .397 | .715 | 46 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | .279 | 103 | 100 |
15 | PHI | 37 | 32 | 128 | 105 | 13 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 24 | .229 | .354 | .333 | .688 | 35 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | .275 | 76 | 95 |
16 | CHW | 39 | 33 | 125 | 110 | 15 | 23 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 23 | .209 | .304 | .382 | .686 | 42 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | .229 | 91 | 92 |
17 | TBR | 40 | 33 | 134 | 116 | 19 | 29 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 15 | .250 | .346 | .336 | .682 | 39 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | .280 | 86 | 93 |
18 | MIN | 41 | 33 | 136 | 127 | 14 | 31 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 23 | .244 | .294 | .378 | .672 | 48 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | .277 | 70 | 88 |
19 | COL | 36 | 32 | 128 | 115 | 11 | 27 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 27 | .235 | .313 | .348 | .660 | 40 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | .299 | 76 | 86 |
20 | OAK | 42 | 33 | 127 | 114 | 15 | 24 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 11 | 32 | .211 | .286 | .360 | .645 | 41 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .266 | 87 | 81 |
21 | KCR | 38 | 33 | 132 | 120 | 11 | 27 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 18 | .225 | .277 | .333 | .610 | 40 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | .248 | 66 | 71 |
22 | STL | 79 | 33 | 133 | 117 | 9 | 26 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 31 | .222 | .289 | .308 | .597 | 36 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | .286 | 61 | 68 |
23 | SEA | 39 | 32 | 123 | 106 | 14 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 15 | 29 | .189 | .293 | .292 | .585 | 31 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | .237 | 83 | 65 |
24 | TEX | 53 | 33 | 129 | 109 | 11 | 25 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 26 | .229 | .333 | .248 | .581 | 27 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | .301 | 67 | 66 |
25 | DET | 37 | 32 | 129 | 105 | 8 | 19 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 26 | .181 | .298 | .257 | .556 | 27 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .228 | 43 | 58 |
26 | HOU | 50 | 32 | 115 | 110 | 8 | 24 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 25 | .218 | .246 | .300 | .546 | 33 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | .265 | 85 | 53 |
27 | CLE | 32 | 30 | 116 | 101 | 7 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 27 | .168 | .261 | .277 | .538 | 28 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | .216 | 56 | 52 |
28 | LAA | 40 | 35 | 132 | 123 | 7 | 24 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 34 | .195 | .235 | .293 | .528 | 36 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | .247 | 51 | 48 |
29 | BAL | 43 | 33 | 124 | 117 | 5 | 21 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 25 | .179 | .226 | .299 | .525 | 35 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .202 | 54 | 47 |
30 | PIT | 138 | 33 | 129 | 109 | 6 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 35 | .174 | .248 | .239 | .486 | 26 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 | .243 | 48 | 38 |
TOT | 1390 | 984 | 3898 | 3411 | 396 | 837 | 172 | 22 | 86 | 408 | 31 | 13 | 393 | 752 | .245 | .328 | .384 | .712 | 1311 | 71 | 35 | 39 | 20 | 41 | 33 | .290 | 94 | 100 |
An astonishing .438/.508/.686. Their 1.194 is the highest OPS for any team batting slot this season. (The White Sox #4 hitters are second at 1.132). How have they done it? Here's the breakdown for the team's #8 hitters this season.
Rk | G | GS | PA | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SB | CS | BB | SO | TB | GDP | HBP | SH | SF | IBB | ROE | tOPS+ | sOPS+ | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Eugenio Velez | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 2.000 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.000 | 538 | 465 |
2 | Eli Whiteside | 6 | 6 | 19 | 17 | 6 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | .471 | .500 | 1.059 | 1.559 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .545 | 195 | 328 |
3 | John Bowker | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .400 | .400 | 1.000 | 1.400 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .333 | 313 | 282 |
4 | Nate Schierholtz | 12 | 11 | 46 | 38 | 10 | 19 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 5 | .500 | .578 | .737 | 1.315 | 28 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | .563 | 183 | 268 |
5 | Matt Downs | 4 | 4 | 18 | 15 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | .467 | .556 | .667 | 1.222 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | .636 | 176 | 243 |
6 | Ryan Rohlinger | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | .500 | .667 | .500 | 1.167 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .500 | 100 | 234 |
7 | Andres Torres | 4 | 4 | 14 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | .273 | .429 | .364 | .792 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | .333 | 127 | 126 |
8 | Juan Uribe | 4 | 4 | 16 | 14 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | .357 | .375 | .357 | .732 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .385 | 92 | 107 |
9 | Aubrey Huff | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | -100 | -100 |
10 | Sergio Romo | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
11 | Brandon Medders | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
12 | Jeremy Affeldt | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Team Total | 40 | 31 | 124 | 105 | 22 | 46 | 14 | 0 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 15 | 18 | .438 | .508 | .686 | 1.194 | 72 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | .500 | 213 | 234 |
A lot of players over-performing when they happen to hit 8th. As you would expect, these players have not hit nearly as well at other spots in the line-up. This convergence of luck and randomness is sure to dissipate over the course of the season, but it is certainly fun to look at now.
How does this rate historically? PI does not offer us an easy way of determining that, but I can provide you with one stat.
Here are the leaders (1920-1939,1952-2010) for the teams with the most games in their first 31, in which their starter from the 8th spot had at least one hit.
Rk | Tm | Year | #Matching | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | PIT | 1925 | 27 | Ind. Games |
2 | TEX | 1981 | 26 | Ind. Games |
3 | TBD | 1999 | 26 | Ind. Games |
4 | SFG | 1962 | 26 | Ind. Games |
5 | SFG | 2010 | 26 | Ind. Games |
6 | CHC | 1923 | 26 | Ind. Games |
7 | WSH | 1931 | 25 | Ind. Games |
8 | TOR | 1982 | 25 | Ind. Games |
9 | SLB | 1932 | 25 | Ind. Games |
10 | OAK | 1973 | 25 | Ind. Games |
11 | NYY | 2001 | 25 | Ind. Games |
12 | MON | 1977 | 25 | Ind. Games |
13 | DET | 1992 | 25 | Ind. Games |
14 | CIN | 1976 | 25 | Ind. Games |
15 | CIN | 1960 | 25 | Ind. Games |
16 | CHC | 1931 | 25 | Ind. Games |
17 | CHC | 1977 | 25 | Ind. Games |
18 | CAL | 1996 | 25 | Ind. Games |
Only the 1925 Pirates had more than this year's Giants.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The 1925 Pirates' #8 hitters were their catchers, Earl Smith and Johnny Gooch. Over the team's first 31 games, Smith hit .388/.437/.575 (1.012), with 3 HR and 18 RBI; Gooch hit a much weaker .316/.366/.395 (.761), with no HR and 4 RBI. Throw in one hitless at-bat from Carson Bigbee, and Pirates' #8 hitters had a combined .923 OPS in those 31 games.
Smith finished the 1925 season with an .845 OPS (109 OPS+), Gooch with a .730 OPS (82 OPS+), and the Pirates won the World Series.
May 12th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Funny you should post this given that RBI by #8 hitters was a question in this week's stat challenge.
May 12th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Will be interesting to see where the Cardinals finish there now that TLR's hitting the pitcher 8th again.
May 12th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Andy - Sheer coincidence. I heard the Mets' announcers talking about the Giants #8 stats, that's what sparked my curiosity.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
The #8 hitter for an AL team would likely be a better hitter (relatively speaking) than the #8 hitter for an NL team. On the other hand, some AL teams put a fairly decent hitter at #9 and puts the worst hitter at #9 for the same reason that LaRussa puts the pitcher in the #8 slot - to give the top of the order a better chance to drive someone in, even before the pinch hitters and double switched guys take over #9 later in the game.
It might be interesting to compare #8's with #9's in the American League.
May 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
It's certainly always been my instinct that the #8 hitter in the AL is usually the worst hitter in the lineup. No idea if my instinct is correct.
Here are the 2009 splits by batting order number:
Generated 5/12/2010.
Looks like I'm wrong, although those #9 hitting stats do include pitchers in interleague games. However I doubt that alone accounts for the 60-some point gap in OPS. Note in particular the huge disparity in intentional walks--although that is probably due mostly to the benefits of facing #8 or #9 in favor of #1.
The stolen bases tell a large part of my story. I feel like most AL teams put a young speedster in the #9 slot. This is usually a guy like Roberto Kelly in his early days, who wasn't all that good at getting on base yet but stole a lot of bases. Eventually when his OBP went up some and older players declined, he moved from #9 to #1.
May 12th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
It might be time to do an entry on how bad leadoff hitters have been this season. Compare the 2009 MLB OPS figure for leadoff hitters, .775, with the OPS achieved by AL leadoff hitters so far in 2010: .701. (NL leadoff hitters have put up an OPS of .715 — not much better.) In fact, although MLB leadoff hitters had a 59-point OPS advantage over #8 hitters in 2009, in 2010 the eighth-place hitters have a four-point advantage over the leadoff hitters, .712 to .708! One reason is that AL leadoff hitters almost never hit home runs — only 21 so far, less than all other batting positions except the NL #9 spot. Also, NL leadoff hitters are not hitting singles: despite 63 more PA than #2 hitters, they have five fewer singles than the #2 hitters. Contrast that with the AL, where leadoff hitters have 84 more singles than the #2 hitters.
May 12th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Actually singles seem to be down throughout MLB. Don't remember where I saw that....maybe a Raphy comment somewhere on this site?
May 13th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Here, JT.
May 13th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Ahh...well, your knowledge is being remembered, even if your name is not.