Sacrifice Flies, Accidents?

[digglahhh]

There was a discussion a few months ago about whether or not batters should be rewarded for Sac. Flies by not registering an AB, as they are not necessarily "giving themselves" up.

Anyway, here's an article from Hardball Times that goes into this topic

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/do-batters-try-to-hit-sacrifice-flies/

One thing, that the atricle touches on but doesn't address specifically is the way having runners on influences how a pitcher pitches, especially in bases loaded situations. It is mentioned that the overall strikeout rate and walk rate drops in sacrifice fly situations. Quite possibly, this could be because pitchers don't want to issue walks in these situations and, especially after falling behind in the count, stop nibbling, throw more fastballs and therefore allow batters to hit more deep fly balls.

The Sac Fly is, in a sense, a result that is the sum of its parts. The hitter's possible shift in approach is only one of many factors that leads to an increased likelihood of a sac fly. Others include, the adjustments of the pitcher and defense, the game situation, speed of runner on third, aggresiveness of coaches and defensive ability of the outfielders.

While I feel it is a stretch to say that batters try to hit sac flies, I believe at times some do. Also the fact that the sac fly exists as a safety net for those players who are trying to slug is not necessarily a bad thing, it allows the sluggers to take their shots. It is also a testament to their slugging ability that they are not asked to lay down a squeeze.

Further, I don't think that the players are particularly concerned with driving in a run with a sac fly as opposed to a ground out to help their average, at least I hope not.

For the record, I have worked with this data and would not completely trust the trajectories on the retrosheet PBP data, they are used a lot in this study.

[SABR Matt]

The main reason I think SF should be tracked is that they have a very high value in terms of generating runs. I do however agree that an at bat should be charged...I don't think SF is really a repeatable skill once you correct for battrers' tendencies to hit the ball in the air and to make contact in general.

[KCGHOST]

I, also, think it should be an AB. The batter is attempting to hit the ball hard. I do believe some hitters are more than capable of hitting fly balls on demand. It is simply a matter of bat control and getting a pitch you can deal with.

[four tool]

Some hitters adjust to pitchers just as pitchers adjust to hitters. If a hitter can send a ball far enough out to score a run despite the pitching and defense, the batter should get credit, not an AB and no hit. The sac fly rule does just that.
Ifa batter whales one 400+ ft and the fielder makes a spectacular catch, the batter should get credit for driving the runner in. But what's the best way to score it--AB, great defense, robbery? All of the above?

[SABR Matt]

I think the at bat should count because no hitter intends only to make an out and drive in the run...they intend to hit it hard...hoping it will AT LEAST drive in the run...and maybe more.

The At Bat should count, but I think we should continue to record SF...I also think we need to record "Reached On Error" as both an at bat for the hitter AND a seperate event...because we need to know when hitters got on base but it's not the hitter's skill that got him there so he shouldn't be positively rewarded.

IOW I think we should be tracking the different out types and their effect on the game situation rather than just lumping everything into one stat called outs.

[four tool]

All stats should be relative to game situation. If a player hit 2 or 3 HR in a blowout consistently, for instance, but never in a close game, we should know that.

[west coast orange and black]

i am with four tool on this: "If a hitter can send a ball far enough out to score a run despite the pitching and defense, the batter should get credit, not an AB and no hit."

[Appling]

The main reason I think SF should be tracked is that they have a very high value in terms of generating runs. I do however agree that an at bat should be charged...
Seems strange to even care about SF if it still counts as an At-Bat.
Batter gets credit for the RBI. Isn't that enough to know about it? Or should we also track RBIs that result from a ground out that allows a runner to score from third?

The on-again off-again history of the Sac Fly rule is interesting to follow. Introduced for a few years starting in 1908 (even crediting Sac if a runner advanced without scoring); then re-introduced from 1931 thru 1938 (but for RBI only); and finally introduced yet again in 1954. Unfortunately, Sac Flies were recorded same as Sacrifice Bunt prior to 1954, so we really can't examine the impact of SF on hitting stats prior to 1954. Hitters I've sampled after 1954 have career BA 2-3 points higher than they would be if SFs were counted as an official at-bat.

Ted Williams played most of his career without benefit of the Sac Fly rule (he was 35 when the rule was introduced again in 1954). I figure that Ted's lifetime batting average of .344 (actually .3444) would be about .347 if he played all his career with the SF rule that is now in place for the last 52 years. More significantly, Ted would probably have another batting title on his belt if the SF were in play for the 1949 season.

Now the question seems only one of fairness. It does seem that only rarely will a hitter deliberately make a FLY OUT (rather than try for a safe hit) so why should he get excused that at-bat? Is it fair to take the SF away now, when hitters for most of the past 90 years (and all of the past 50 years) have benefitted from it?

[Appling]

Here is my sample of hitters whose career is mostly after 1954 (when SF totals became official part of a player's record). For each player listed, I will show his (1) official career BA; (2) career SF total; (3) adjusted career Batting Average (when SFs are added to official AB total):

Player Name: BA / SF / ABA
Hank Aaron: .305 / 121 / .302
Mick Mantle: .298 / 47 / .296
Willie Mays: .302 / 91 / .299
W McCovey: .270 / 70 / .267
Harm Killebrew: .256 / 77 / .2536
Wade Boggs: .328 / 96 / .3245
C Yastrzemski: .285 / 105 / .2827
Larry Walker: .314 / 63 / 311
Barry Bonds: .300 / 87 .297 (thru 2004 season)
Albert Pujols: .333 / 25 / .3296

Ted Williams is credited with just 20 SF, but that counts only SF after 1954. Adding those 20 to his career AB would cut his career BA from .3444 to .3435. If he had benefit of SF rule for his entire career, Ted's career BA would be about .347. This would put Ted at #5 on the career BA list, ahead of Delehanty and Speaker.

-- And if Williams had just one SF more than George Kell in the 1949 season , he would have won yet another BA title (and his third Triple Crown).

[Ubiquitous]

Stats are not about fairness but about what happened on the field. This whole notion of not charging an AB to hitters is like a woman who keeps saying she is 29 for 30 years. Just because the reality isn't pleasant does that mean we should not count it. Batting average, RBI, and so on are not rewards or penalties they are data. They tell us what happened.

[SABR Matt]

Fortunately it doesn't matter...since we track SF data...I can still count them as outs in my analysis whether or not they show up in ABs.

[four tool]

One reason I like Total Average is because it counts SFs as outs

[SABR Matt]

Most major RC estimators these days count SFs as outs...I count a SF as a rare brand of out...an out that creates a run. IOW, the value of a SF is the same thing as turning a triple into a HR and adding an out (essentially)...

[four tool]

If you say so:noidea

[Imapotato]

Do you guys every hit any balls in a cage?????

YES, yes you can determine whether you hit under or over the ball, if you have skill, and MLB players have that skill

If a man is on 3rd, almost any player on any pitch can pop it up...just depends if it goes far enough

[SABR Matt]

Yes...but most players aren't trying to just fly out...they're trying to elevate the ball and make sure it goes far enough to get home the run...but they'd like to get a hit too.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yes...but most players aren't trying to just fly out...they're trying to elevate the ball and make sure it goes far enough to get home the run...but they'd like to get a hit too.

I agree Matt, that they want to get a hit. That can't ever be debated. During an AB, depending on the count and how the pitcher has been working him, a hitter may take what is given.

For instance , lets say there are 2 strikes on a hitter. Instead of taking a pitch at the letters for a ball, a hitter might feast on that as a great pitch to elevate. He'll cut down his swing a bit, and try to score the run. In a sense, he is sacrificing his AB to get the run home, with the outside shot that it finds a gap.

[SABR Matt]

The point is...the ability to get SFs is statistically very nearly entirely explained by normal GB/FB ratios...there appears to be no other skill associated with it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The point is...the ability to get SFs is statistically very nearly entirely explained by normal GB/FB ratios...there appears to be no other skill associated with it.

Taking a certain approach and executing with that approach by capitalizing on a pitchers mistake is certainly a skill. Should it be enough to add a new variable to some formula; probably not. But it exists.

[SABR Matt]

Well..*shrug*...if a skill falls in the forest and doesn't create runs...does it make a sound?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It makes a sound, but not loud enough for a sabermatrician to hear it :D

[four tool]

Well..*shrug*...if a skill falls in the forest and doesn't create runs...does it make a sound?

Last time I looked, sac flies did create runs

[SABR Matt]

Last time I checked, I accounted for the obvious run a SF creates...I didn't however go out of my way to look for the "skill" of hitting the ball in the air.

[four tool]

So you think anyone can hit balls into the air if they want to, even the scrubs?

[SABR Matt]

I think anyone who is normally a flyball hitter will hit flyballs when the situation calls for it...and those who are not...won't. At least not enough to show up and actually have meaning.

[Ubiquitous]

Someone did a study, I thought it was on retrosheet but isn't so I have a feeling it is on Hardball times. Anyway the study look at sac flies and found that the flyball hitters did not suffer or change much in this situation while the groundball hitters who changed their style got the ball up but it resulted in more negative events then there normal style of hitting would have in that situation.

[SABR Matt]

Interesting Ubi...

That sort of confirms my belief on SF...that flyball hitters will hit them anyway, but groundball hitters who try to adapt probably won't hit as many as flyball hitters, and will pay a price.

[Ubiquitous]

A really quick google search turned it up (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/can-batters-successfully-modify-their-batting-approach/)


What can we take away from this little study of batting performance in sac fly situations? That, as a group, batters modify their hitting approach in such situations. They adopt a more "contact-oriented" approach, cutting down on strikeouts and walking less, in an effort to put more balls in play, with the goal of driving in the runner from third. I have not tried to determine if this is the correct strategy in sac fly situations; such an investigation could be performed with the play-by-play data and would be an interesting analysis in its own right. What I've tried to do here is answer the question "Is the 'contact-oriented' approach generally more productive than the standard approach?" The answer appears to be "no," as can be seen after translating the aggregate performance in sac fly situations into a defense-independent context.

[Ubiquitous]

There are actually two articles from that author and neither one has the data I was looking for. But what he looked into and found out is that in general in sac fly situations batters tended to walk less and strikeout less then expected and hit more flyballs and groundballs then in other situations. Those GB and FB come because of more balls being put in play but also at the expense of the highly important line drive. Line drives decrease in Sac Fly situations, which to me means that a lot of players are trying for a more loftier swing then they normally do. The other important thing is that HR's in sac fly situations are way down compared to normal situations.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yup. You hit it right on the head Ubi.

Subtle things like this are where todays young, inexperienced pitchers suffer. They don't seem to think along with a hitter and recognize their approaches, which change depending on the situation. More than likely a hitter will move up in the box (toward the pitcher) and look for an elevated pitch, while cutting down his swing to ensure a fair ball. So why in God's name would these pitchers try to blow it by a guy at belt level, or constantly leave curveballs up and out over the plate. Even if fooled, a simple flick of the wrists is all it takes for that hitter to "succeed" in that AB.

[digglahhh]

From the article I posted to beign the thread:

So, as a group batters do seem to be able to change their approach at the plate to increase the probability of getting a fly ball to score a run in a sacrifice fly situation. However, the increase in fly balls comes simply from putting more balls in play (by striking out and walking less often) and not by batters putting more of their batted balls into the air.

Another interesting point was that Adam Dunn was criticized for not hitting many SFs, however he hit numerous homers in SF situations, so his HRs were hiding SFs, call me old school, but I'll take the jack, thank you very much.