Comments on: RBI by batting order position

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:38:45 +0000

Yeah, keep in mind that poor performance by the #7 and #8 hitters can lead to more RBI opportunities by the #9 hitters. Even if the #9s don't hit well, if there are enough extra RBI opportunities, they could get more RBI than another team's #9 guys.

I used the Batting Event Finder to get some numbers.

Marlins #9 hitters had 183 plate appearances with runners in scoring position, yielding a .165 batting average with 37 RBI.

Phillies #9 hitters had 189 PAs with RISP, .160 BA and also 37 RBI.
Mets: 160 PAs with RISP, .185 BA with 23 RBI
Braves: 179 PAs with RISP, .185 BA with 33 RBI
Nats: 159 PAs with RISP, .239 BA with 37 RBI

Here are the seasonal RBI totals for each team (from all batting order positions):

FLA 727
PHI 788
NYM 631
ATL 700
WSN 685

All the teams all had very similar numbers of PAs and batting average (except for the Nats, whose higher BA didn't seem to produce more runs in this small sample.) The Mets generated a smaller number of RBI but they had fewer overall RBI as well so the percentage is roughly equivalent. The Marlins tied for the most RBI from the 9th hole with RISP but with a a smaller number of RBI than the Phillies as well as below league-average performance at all other holes except #3 and #5, their #9 percentage is boosted.

The Nats are weird, despite also tying for the most RBI in those circumstances, their percentage is quite low. This is probably due to well above-average production they got from #2 and #8, causing #9 to form a smaller percentage.

By: DavidRF

DavidRF — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:54:17 +0000

Actually, the Marlins hit worse than league average in the #9 slot (sOPS+ 82)... their pitchers were pretty bad (sOPS+ 68). On the other hand their leadoff batters (mostly Coghlan) had a decent year (sOPS+ 106).

But RBI's are situational, so even though Coghlan hit well overall (.321/.390/.460) and with RISP (.352/.448/.477), he didn't have that many opportunities because the pitchers were never on base so his RBI totals projected to a paltry 59 per 162 which is pretty low for someone with that much pop.

As for the #9 slot, the Marlins had above average production from the #8 position (sOPS+ 122) so there was more people on base there than usual. Also, they pinch-hit well (sOPS+ 140)... not sure how often that occurred in the #9 slot but anecdotally, you would guess that happens quite a bit with RISP in the late innings.

That's the trouble with RBI's. They often measure the performance of the guys in front of a batter rather than just the performance of that batter.

By: DoubleDiamond

DoubleDiamond — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:44:28 +0000

It looks like the Marlins are actually a bit higher at #9 than at #1 and comparatively much higher than any of the other four teams at #9. Did they use line-ups with the pitcher batting elsewhere (maybe 7th, since they are lower than the other four in that slot)? Or was one of their pitchers a pretty good hitter? (Dontrell's gone, so he can't be the one.) Or did they get great production out of their pinch hitters? Hmm, maybe the opposition should have pitched around that guy in the 9-hole to face the lead-off man with runners in scoring position!

By: Kahuna Tuna

Kahuna Tuna — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:17:44 +0000

The Mets and Braves both have a strange bump at #7, jumping way above what the rest of the NL did in that position. My first thought was that they each had a good player in that spot who took advantage of his RBI chances. Not so. My first thought was "Francoeur?" Again, not so — he wasn't very good in the #7 spot for the Braves (13 RBI), and he didn't bat in that position even once as a Met.

By: James

James — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:30:13 +0000

Try showing the OBP and SLG or ISO as you've done above to see which teams most closely follow theories about batting order. You could also
plot the results against runs scored (or runs created ... Etc.) to see which teams order selection process worked best.