Tango on Baseball Archives

Mike's Baseball Rants - Sac Flies (August 28, 2003)

I've long believed that the sac fly should count as a regular AB. Not mentioned in Mike's excellent piece is that if you look at the breakdown by men on base, some of the difference with BA and SLG with RISP is attributable to the SF not counting as an AB.

This is one of those silly rules where "data recording" is not kept separate from "data analysis". RBOE falls in this thing too. Of course a batter should get "credit" for the reaching base on error as a safe play and not an out play, just like he should get credit for hitting a ball at a slow-moving fielder. PB, WP. A "CS" that doesn't result in an out? Yup. A pickoff where the runner is safe? Why not give the OF an assist for nailing a runner at home, but the catcher missed the swipe?

Ahh, but let's preserve the historical silly standards. Isn't there the Historical Statistical Preservation Committee of Everything Ever Done Then is Better Than Now, in MLB? Could have sworn I read about it.

--posted by TangoTiger at 03:30 PM EDT

Posted 4:25 p.m., August 28, 2003 (#1) - David Smyth
The link is not working. I have always wondered, why is an out in play which allows a runner to score more noteworthy if it is a flyball than if it is a groundball? What about a "sac grounder", or SG?

Certainly, a SF should be an AB, but so should a BB or a HBP, etc. Why take the overall PA category and create a sub-category (ABs) which consists of the hits and the outs? Why not list the batting outs, instead of having to compute it as AB-H?

Give me 10 minutes and I'll create a stat tree which makes sense.

Posted 10:50 p.m., August 28, 2003 (#2) - DCW3
So why, exactly, was the sac fly rule introduced in the first place? My theory has been that, back in 1908 when the rule was introduced, sac flies might have often been as deliberate as bunts. With hitters in the deadball era trained to keep the ball more on the ground, managers might have signalled the batter to try an uppercut swing with a runner on third and less than two outs. Am I completely off base? Or is this common knowledge? Or somewhere in between?

Posted 8:04 a.m., August 29, 2003 (#3) - Bases Loaded
I have always wondered, why is an out in play which allows a runner to score more noteworthy if it is a flyball than if it is a groundball?

Because the CW is that before the ball is put in play that hitting a FB to the OF is generally more likely to score a run than a GB. People believe that a player may be trying to hit a FB to score the run. I am sure players think of this often, that they try to get apitch they can lift because the result will be a run even if it is an out. People think of this as analgous to a sacrifice in some sense(I think that is accurate but it just so happens that the rule applies in situations where it is not the case. Nothins perfect.)

Posted 7:16 p.m., August 29, 2003 (#4) - David Smyth
"...hitting the FB to the OF is generally more likely to score the run than a GB."

Maybe so, but we are only awarding statistical credit here for what did happen, not for what was most likely to happen. Furthermore, the only studies I've seen suggest that there is no "ability" to hit a FB in a SF situation that is different than the player's overall tendency to hit FBs. Since that topic has not yet received the detailed scrutiny that DIPS has, I am not going to assume that the conclusion is correct. But I have seen studies which suggest that GB hitters tend to be as good or better at advancing runners on outs as FB hitters are. Yet the FB hitters get all of the credit (in SFs) while the GB hitters get all of the debit (in GDPs). IOW, the official statistics in this area are biased in favor of FB hitters, for no good reason that I can see.

Posted 2:34 a.m., August 31, 2003 (#5) - RossCW
Whether a ground ball scores the runner often depends on the decision of the fielders. If they are playing in, they will go to the plate - otherwise they are conceding the run. While that is not always the case for groundballs, it is virtually never the case for fly balls.

I don't see why it matters. The player who had the ability to hit fly balls more often is rewarded for it in a situation where it is a better outcome.

Posted 9:19 a.m., August 31, 2003 (#6) - David Smyth
If you (RossCW) think that anything your post contradicts anything in my post, then you simply were sleeping while reading it. :)

Posted 2:55 p.m., September 1, 2003 (#7) - Jim R
"Maybe so, but we are only awarding statistical credit here for what did happen, not for what was most likely to happen."

David,

I've re-read this a couple of times, and I might not understand your point. If the FBOut does not score a run, it is not a sacrifice, regardless of the batter's intent. If the FBOut, scores a run, we are awarding the sacrifice. Perhaps there is a presumption that the batter did intend to give himself up for the run.

Conversly if a GBOut scores a run, the player usually gets an RBI, but not a sacrifice. Perhaps there is a presumption that the batter did not intend to give himself up. However, in all cases, the SAC is based on our judgment of the batter's intent. Even if the batter squares to bunt and advances a baserunner, we award the SAC because we believe the batter intended to give himself up. If a batter squares or drags a bunt, the official scorer can choose to not give a sacrifice because he believes the batter was not trying to trade his out for the advancement of a baserunner.( 10.09(d)

I would agree that there may be other situations, such as hitting behind the runner where the batter is giving an out and AB for advancing a baserunner. Nevertheless, this would probably create even more wrangling about a hitters intent.

"Furthermore, the only studies I've seen suggest that there is no "ability" to hit a FB in a SF situation that is different than the player's overall tendency to hit FBs. Since that topic has not yet received the detailed scrutiny that DIPS has, I am not going to assume that the conclusion is correct. But I have seen studies which suggest that GB hitters tend to be as good or better at advancing runners on outs as FB hitters are. Yet the FB hitters get all of the credit (in SFs) while the GB hitters get all of the debit (in GDPs). "

If you have links to these studies, please post them. I would really enjoy reading through them.

"IOW, the official statistics in this area are biased in favor of FB hitters, for no good reason that I can see."

This is probably true in the sense of judging a player by his batting average, GIDPs etc., is the prevailing methods by most sports fans. However, this is probably not true for both the baseball insiders (re: Conventional wisdom, etc.) or the hard core data analysts. The latter group, which comprises the majority of the Primate Studies crowd is probably seeking better and more refined methods of value. The former crowd will speak to "productive outs" etc.

"Historical Statistical Preservation Committee of Everything Ever Done Then is Better Than Now"

I know this is Tongue and Cheek, and I realize that Tango is among the most humble in advancing his own research, but I did want to make one comment.

I am not sure that the prevailing wisdom is that its better, its more along the lines of the value of the intended measurement doesn't change for the increase in data collection. The official scoring mechanism when instituted was probably the best conceivable means for achieving the result of most counting and rate stats that were perceived valuable for both performance and projection systems. In that sense, there was a convergence on data performance and data analysis.
In most cases, and IMHO, we want to remove as much subjectivity as we possibly can from a human machine, who must make a decision in a RT system. If we add these judgment calls to the official scoring system, we are going to have a bigger mess than a fix to the problem.
With an increase in instrumentation, we have sought to increase the data recordation to include PBP data. We can get it, and for the most part, its not RT dependent. We can actually wait a few days for the information. Within the last few years, we have even augmented our ability to get zones on batted balls, etc. I'm sure that everyone agrees it would be even more helpful if we could get additional info, like starting position of fielders, trajectory to the balls, et.
Also, the traditional stats from the official scoring system still have value despite the error from the miscounting. A casual baseball fan can look at Barry Bonds numbers and immediately determine he is one of the best hitters in the game. It is more difficult for him to judge the relative value of Bonds vs. Pujols within this season.
Said casual fan may also have trouble determining the value of Giambi versus Dmitri Young etc. They may also engage in frustrating arguments over the career worth of Joe Carter because of the RBIs.
Nevertheless, this frustration index does not disappear when dealing with a casual saber fan, who may also misinterpret the meaning behind statistics that use other methods of data recordation. I'm sure that you will find many people on this board that will attribute a meaning to a statistic that simply does not exist.
IMHO, the answer is not to change the official scoring procedures. They do what they are designed to do. Any changes in them would not likely increase their instrinsic value. The answer lies more into recording what we consider meaningful data into seperate systems and determining if the analysis of that data helps us in gauging the value of performance or enhances our ability into making projections.

Posted 9:40 p.m., September 9, 2003 (#8) - unc84steve(e-mail)
As far as the origin of the sacrifice fly rule we can speculate a lot, but asking historians would be better. My guess: in the pre-Ruth era, going for HR's was a sucker game so outfielders played much shallower and batters hit liners & grounders--not fly balls. A sac fly was a special skill ala a sac bunt which would be needed in low-scoring games only in specific situations.

That's different than the "oh by the way" nature of SF's scoring runners from 3rd breaking up rallies in a higher scoring environment.

Personally, I'm for tracking "the stat formerally known as SF" as well as changing the BA & error rules. Just describe what happens.

Posted 1:03 p.m., November 3, 2003 (#9) - RossCW
, but we are only awarding statistical credit here for what did happen, not for what was most likely to happen.

That is true - we only give "credit" when the fly ball does score the run.

Furthermore, the only studies I've seen suggest that there is no "ability" to hit a FB in a SF situation that is different than the player's overall tendency to hit FBs.

I doubt this is true but why would it matter? It still means that player had the ability to hit a fly ball that scored the run. Do we count home runs based on whether the player is trying to hit one or it simply happens?

A ground ball isn't really the same. In that case, it is the defense that is making the choice between the sure out at first and the possible out at the plate. It is the runner going or not going that initiates that choice.

Posted 2:21 p.m., November 3, 2003 (#10) - David Smyth
----"I doubt this is true but why would it matter?"

Well, I got that from a study in a STATS Screboard book. As I recall, a batter's longer-term rate of hitting a SF (in a SF situation) is the same as his tendency to hit FBs in general. So if batter's do not have greater success in a skill when they are (presumably) trying for it, then it does not matter at all what their intention was. So a GB or a FB which scores the runner are essentially the same thing. But they take out SF in the Bavg and Slg, which is a bias in favor of the FB hitter. Furthermore, a study by Tom Ruane (you can probably find a link on this site) showed that GB outs are significantly more effective in advancing runners overall than FB outs, even including the greater # of GDPs by GB hitters.

The end result is that, according to MGL's PBP research, a GB out(including all runner advancement and GDPs) and a FB out(including SFs, outs on OF Assts, etc.) have almost exactly the same value.

So I just don't see what is the special quality of SFs which merits their being kept as a special category in modern baseball.

Posted 1:06 a.m., November 4, 2003 (#11) - RossCW
As I recall, a batter's longer-term rate of hitting a SF (in a SF situation) is the same as his tendency to hit FBs in general.

If true, wouldn't that indicate they must be hitting FB at a higher rate in SF situations since clearly not every FB will lead to a successful SF?

a GB out(including all runner advancement and GDPs) and a FB out(including SFs, outs on OF Assts, etc.) have almost exactly the same value

Again, if true, it means that a FB is more likely to score a runner since I think groundballs will clearly advance runners on first and second more often than a flyball will.

So I just don't see what is the special quality of SFs which merits their being kept as a special category in modern baseball

As I pointed out, they are the only out that directly leads to a run scored. A ground ball out scores a run only if the fielder decides to allow the run to score. You will be hard-pressed to find a game that was won on a groundball out. Its probably happened, but the circumstances must have been pretty extraordinary.

Posted 12:11 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#12) - tangotiger
If true, wouldn't that indicate they must be hitting FB at a higher rate in SF situations since clearly not every FB will lead to a successful SF?

If you have a batter that has 100 FB and 60 GB, and the league rate is to have a SF on 40% of all FB, then our above hitter will end up with 25 SF per 100 (FB+GB).

100 * .40 + 60 * 0 = 40 SF, in 160 outs, or 25% of outs are SF

If you have the reverse, 60 FB and 100 GB, then our batter is expected to have 15% of outs as SF.

I doubt you will find hitters that have a special ability in hitting SF, beyond what is known about their hitting profile. (long FB rate, FB/GB ratio, etc).

And you have the flip side with GB as well. It all balanaces out nicely, more or less.

The point is that the batter did not "sacrifice" himself. He alters his hitting approach to maximize his team's chances of winning. If that means he might gets slightly more outs, so be it. That doesn't mean that, after the fact, after you know he has a FB out and the runner scores, that you should remove that as an opportunity.

If you want to be "right" about it, remove the PA for all "men on 3b and less than 2 outs", regardless of the outcome (HR, H, SF, GB, etc).

With sac bunts, you *should* throw out all bunt ATTEMPTS where the batter TRIED to give himself up, regardless of whether he was successful or not. As it is, only successful SH are removed. This is another case where the result is irrelevant, and it should depend on the initial intent.

The sac bunt and the SF are not the same thing at all. In the former case, we know that the batter has the bat taken out of his hands, and into the manager's (like the IBB). In the SF, the batter changes his hitting approach (as they do for ALL 24 base/out situations).

Anyway, it's stupid to make the distinction in the official stats this way.

Just record what happened.

What I almost always do is throw out the IBB and Bunts from the batter's and pitcher's line, and track them separately, since the pitching/hitting approach are completely different.

If there was a preponderance of SF, where the batter would completely change his hitting approach to "force" a FB, then I would remove those as well. As it is, a SF is alot more a regular PA than a sac PA.

Posted 1:28 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#13) - RossCW
"the league rate is to have a SF on 40% of all FB, then our above hitter will end up with 25 SF per 100 (FB+GB)."

I understood the claim was that his "longer-term rate of hitting a SF (in a SF situation) is the same as his tendency to hit FBs in general." Not that he hit FB in SF situations at the same rate as other situations.

But either way it doesn't prove much. Afterall, in SF situations not only is the hitter trying to hit a flyball, the pitcher is trying to prevent it. And in critical situations managers may even choose pitchers or hitters for that reason.

I doubt you will find hitters that have a special ability in hitting SF, beyond what is known about their hitting profile.

That may be. But it seems obvious that if a player is trying to hit a fly ball he is more likely to hit one than if he isn't and if the pitcher trying to prevent a fly ball they are more likely to prevent it than if they aren't.

Anyway, it's stupid to make the distinction in the official stats this way.

Just record what happened.

No one is eliminating the plate appearance from official records. The question is whether you are going to penalize a player who does his job driving in the run. The reason we don't take away an at bat for a ground ball that scores the run is the same reason we don't give players a hit on a fielder's choice. It was primarly the fielder's decision, not the batters ability, that determined the outcome.

I see no reason to treat failed SB the same as successful ones. There is simply no reason to not treat them as at bats and you don't count successful ones for the same reason you don't count SF.

since the pitching/hitting approach are completely different.

Hitting and pitching approaches change in a whole variety of situations. There is really very little reason to think that results can be measured and then treated as random samples. I sometimes wonder if the whole sabermetric community isn't in denial about that fact.

Posted 1:44 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#14) - tangotiger
Nothing is ever completely random. Just our ability to spot these things is dependent on the size of the sample. What you do is assume randomness to make life easy, but being aware that there's a margin of error in so doing.

******

I would count a "reached base on error" as a "safe" play in OBA, even though the official records gives one AB and no safe play for it.

A batter does "his job" by scoring the runner from 3B? Nope. The win probability in almost all cases says that the batter REDUCED the chances of his team winning. The obvious exception is when it's the winning run. Can't a batter do his job by moving a runner from 2b to 3b, while hitting the ball to the 1b or 2b? Or is the job only about scoring the run, and not moving the runners over?

All these things are so contextual, that you might as well just break out the batter's PA by the 24 base out states, instead of inventing rules as what constitutes a job.

Posted 1:59 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#15) - tangotiger
In 2002, with men on 3b and less than 2 outs, this is what happened:

AVG : .329
AVG (but including SF as an AB): .278

airout/groundout ratio (without SF): 0.45
airout/groundout ratio (without SF): 1.00

The air/ground ratio for ALL situations is: 1.00.

So, what REALLY gives a more honest representation of what happened? Do you want to exclude the SF from the airout to ground out ratio? Nope, I don't think so. Do you want to exclude SF from AB, since they are not really failed AB, but only so-so failed AB? I don't think so either. The .278 is alot more representative than what .329 is.

What it comes down to is that regardless of the batter/pitcher intent to the approach in the man on 3b and less than 2 outs, the results are better represented when counting the SF as an out in the air/ground ratio, and countint the SF as an out in AB.

Posted 2:01 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#16) - tangotiger
That should obviously read as:
airout/groundout ratio (with SF): 1.00

Posted 10:16 p.m., November 4, 2003 (#17) - RossCW
A batter does "his job" by scoring the runner from 3B? Nope. The win probability in almost all cases says that the batter REDUCED the chances of his team winning

I don't know how you are calculating win probabilities but this ought to be a red flag for your methodology. I don't it is credible to say that a team is more likely to win with one out and a runner on third than they are with that runner scored and two outs. It may be true if they are down by 10 runs but that is about it.

What you do is assume randomness to make life easy, but being aware that there's a margin of error in so doing.

The problem with this convenient assumption is that it allows people to pick and choose conclusion based on personal preference while appealing to their findings as "objective" evidence.

So, what REALLY gives a more honest representation of what happened?

What does this mean? WHat happened, happened. At the end of a game does a team having 15 hits matter more than that it only scored one run, while its opponent scored two runs, both on sacrifice flies, and those were the the only runners on the team to reach base? What is the "more honest representation of what happened", the 2-1 score or 15-2 margin in hits? Both happened and neither is "more honest" than the other. But its pretty clear who won the game.

You think that a fly ball that scores a run is pretty much the same as a fly ball that is an out. I don't. I am not sure, given this argument, why you think we should make a distinction between a fly ball that is a hit and one that isn't. Or a foul ball fly and a fiar ball fly. Or a foul ball in the stands and one that is caught for an out. Or ... you can find all sorts of apparent equivalancies that aren't really equivalent.

Posted 7:51 a.m., November 5, 2003 (#18) - Tangotiger
Why not remove singles where the runner is out trying to stretch into a double?

Why not remove singles where the runner is stranded on the bases, and never drove anyone in?

Why count the SF as an unsuccessful opp in OBA, but don't consider it in batting average?

Why treat a BB the same as a SF with batting average?

You are trying to separate the SF from the other outs, while not doing the same thing with the hits and other events.

Anyway, I'm bored already.

Posted 10:04 a.m., November 5, 2003 (#19) - tangotiger
I don't it is credible to say that a team is more likely to win with one out and a runner on third than they are with that runner scored and two outs.

I spoke too spoon. I was thinking about some other study I ran.

Anyway, is it better to have the man on 3b and 0 outs, or bases empty 1 out and a run scoring (assuming average batters all-round)?

If it's the home team and you have 0 outs:
- The SF is ALWAYS preferable if you are ahead.
- It is also preferable with the score tied in the 3rd and later innings (the closer to the 9th, the more preferable).
- It is also preferable being down by 1 run in the 7th and later innings

If you have 1 out:
- all the above applies, plus
- being down by as much as 6 in the 1st, 5 in the 2nd/3rd, 4 in the 4th, 3 in the 5th, 2 in the 6th

Posted 5:01 p.m., November 5, 2003 (#20) - RossCW
You are trying to separate the SF from the other outs

No I'm not. If you want to include SF in the percentage of outs I have not objection.

The question however is whether to count an SF as an at bat - the very same question as there is with a BB.

Why count the SF as an unsuccessful opp in OBA

Because on base percentage measures how often a batter gets on base per plate appearance. If you want to change AVG so that it uses plate appearances instead of at bats then you would have a brand new stat.

The obvious reason that wasn't done is that it would change the comparison. Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas would look like much worse hitters. So the decision was to ignore plate appearances that were partially, but not wholly, successful - sacrifices and walks so that a player was neither rewarded or punished for them.

but don't consider it in batting average?

Posted 5:09 p.m., November 5, 2003 (#21) - tangotiger
Because on base percentage measures how often a batter gets on base per plate appearance. If you want to change AVG so

Finally! My definition of batting average is:

"number of times batter reaches (but not limited to) 1B safely on a contacted ball in play, without forcing a runner out" divided by "number of times batter contacts a ball in play"

I know that's not what the rules say, but that's me. I might change the "contact" to "non-bunt contact".

Posted 12:14 p.m., November 6, 2003 (#22) - RossCW
I know that's not what the rules say, but that's me. I might change the "contact" to "non-bunt contact".

And probably you should add "and is caught" to the "number of times batter contacts a ball in play" since presumably foul balls are "in play" but only count if they are caught.

I'm also not sure why you would eliminate bunt hits and not slow ground balls. But I suppose it would make SLG more accurate.