To Hack, or not to Hack?

[calsnowskier]

It has been an irritant of this board for years now about how this team is just a bunch of hackers. We (I) have argued against my gut, saying that hacking is actually a good strategy when you look at the numbers, even though it LOOKS bad.

Well, lets look at some numbers...

I am looking ONLY at the Giants 2014 season, so this is certainly a SSS...

Outcome of AB when swinging at first pitch: .259/.279/.420
Outcome of AB when taking first pitch: .254/.329/.380

The above looks at the entire AB. Not just ABs that ended after 1 pitch. The OBP is SIGNIFICANTLY higher when the batter looks at the first pitch. This would tend to support the argument that batter or two in an inning should work the count. SLG is not nearly as important leading off as it is when there are runners on base. With runners on base (assuming you are not going to run) or with a slugger up, go ahead and hack.

These are the same numbers, but based on the AB ending on a certain pitch count...

0-0: .347/.353/.559 (651 AB/683 PA)

0-1: .290/.293/.448 (480/501)
1-0: .343/.338/.574 (359/369)

1-1: .318/.319/.465 (447/462)

2-0: .379/.376/.564 (140/143)
2-1: .363/.364/.620 (234/244)

3-0: .429/.966/.857 (7/117)
3-1: .397/.660/.621 (116/209)

0-2: .130/.141/.220 (460/468)
1-2: .185/.186/.234 (764/771)
2-2: .181/.187/.234 (753/763)
3-2: .196/.424/.322 (469/657)

Obviously, once there are 2 strikes, the batter is in trouble. That makes sense. But assuming the AB does not end on the first-pitch-swing, you are now guaranteed to be half-way to two strikes. Further, any time the batter has a favorable count, the numbers are MUCH better than hacking at the first pitch. Actually, having an 0-1 count does not hurt the overall numbers that much.

Looking at the 2-strike numbers actually makes me wonder if working a sac-bunt isn't the right strategy in those situations. Sure, a foul-ball is a K, but the Giants are hitting under .200 in all counts with 2 strikes anyway, so who cares?

Obviously these numbers are for the team as a whole, and does not take the batter or game situation into account. But I think these are pretty telling, that hacking really is not a good strategy, as I have been reluctantly preaching the last week or so.

Basically, I am back on the "NO HACKING!!" rant.

 

[Band of Brothers]

Nice job Cal. You put a lot of work into that post. Good arguments and great numbers.

 

[msgkings322]

Wow, cal, agreed. VERY well done.

I guess the answer, like most baseball questions, is 'it depends'. I'll always be mad though when a pitcher walks a couple guys and the next batter doesn't take a pitch. Especially with the bases loaded.

 

[calsnowskier]

Wow, cal, agreed. VERY well done.

I guess the answer, like most baseball questions, is 'it depends'. I'll always be mad though when a pitcher walks a couple guys and the next batter doesn't take a pitch. Especially with the bases loaded.

If it is Buster, I have no prob, unless the pitch is CLEARLY out of the zone, or is a breaking pitch. Buster, Herk and to a lessor extent, Panda, should be looking to cause damage in that situation. Not just walk a guy in. The SLG on first pitch swinging is pretty high.

 

[Stokes1931]

If it is Buster, I have no prob, unless the pitch is CLEARLY out of the zone, or is a breaking pitch. Buster, Herk and to a lessor extent, Panda, should be looking to cause damage in that situation. Not just walk a guy in. The SLG on first pitch swinging is pretty high.

I guess Buster gets a pass from me, most of the time. It does irk me when Guppy or Stamos do the FPOM thing in certain contexts.

2014 Giants are 34-46 when getting two walks or less, 44-18 when getting three walks or more.

It is more than just the individual at bats, but also a cumulative thing.

When our pitcher has just thrown 34 pitches in a tough inning, it is beyond maddening to me for the Giants to go out with a six pitch inning. As if context means nothing.

I don't necessarily like the aggressive approach (which is working now), nor do I favor the passive approach (work for walks, which this team cannot seem to do regularly). Selectively aggressive seems wisest to me, but I only post on the interwebs.

 

[calsnowskier]

I guess Buster gets a pass from me, most of the time. It does irk me when Guppy or Stamos do the FPOM thing in certain contexts.

2014 Giants are 34-46 when getting two walks or less, 44-18 when getting three walks or more.

It is more than just the individual at bats, but also a cumulative thing.

When our pitcher has just thrown 34 pitches in a tough inning, it is beyond maddening to me for the Giants to go out with a six pitch inning. As if context means nothing.

I don't necessarily like the aggressive approach (which is working now), nor do I favor the passive approach (work for walks, which this team cannot seem to do regularly). Selectively aggressive seems wisest to me, but I only post on the interwebs.

That is where game awareness comes in, and I fear that is an offensive concept that may escape our big-headed future HOFer.

On the flip side, there is evidence that the org in general is specifically drafting and developing hitters with this skill set (Panik and Duffy are recent graduates with this skill with Miller and Arroyo apparently coming up behind them with a similar mindset).