Of course, all of this sacrifice vs. at-bat talk is ultimately meaningless because it doesn’t affect the outcome of a game, it only affects the stats.
The stats are meaningless? Them’s fightin’ words 'round here, 'pard. 
It’s meaningless to the outcome of the game. But in terms of using statistics to evaluate a player’s performance, it’s anything but meaningless.
The player who attempts to sacrifice and succeeds has done his job. The player who bunts for a hit and gets thrown out, but advances a runner as an afterthought, has mostly not done his job. Most fans can tell the difference. When a team is several runs behind, or anybody except the pitcher is batting with one out, it’s pretty obvious the guy is bunting for a hit.
A certain amount of mind-reading is necessary to keep statistics in any sport. In football you have to distinguish between a quarterback draw for minus yardage versus getting sacked after intending to pass. In basketball you have to decide whether an air ball was supposed to be a pass or a shot. It comes with the territory.
I’d like to see discretion restored to the award of a sacrifice fly. It offends common sense when a guy gets a sac fly with his team four runs behind in the ninth inning.
Bullhonkey-he most certainly has done his job, in that he moved the runner up while also increasing his chances of getting on himself, vs. “meekly” trotting down to first and getting thrown out by 15 feet.
In any event I agree with your first statement-I’ve vented enough here about something which is rather insignificant.
Point of order:
I could be wrong about this, but every description i’ve read of the “Baltimore Chop” seems to suggest that it was an actual swing, not a bunt. For example, here’s a description from the book The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball, by Derek Zumsteg.
And i also found this, from the September 12, 1983, New York Times:
So what ever became of the Baltimore chop? Better pitching made it much more difficult to accomplish?
That’s probably part of it. Trying to smash an 89mph slider over the outside corner down into the ground is probably a pretty damn difficult task; you’re better off just making a proper swing at the ball.
Also, bigger and faster and more sure-handed fielders make it harder to pull off with any regularity. Sometimes you’ll see someone chop the ball into the ground accidentally, and most of the time if the ball comes down to a fielder, he still has plenty of time to make the throw to first for the out.
Finally, as far as i know there are no baseball parks in the Major Leagues where the ground in front of home plate is hard enough to really send the ball rocketing high in the air on a chop. During the late nineteenth century, when the Orioles were performing the Baltimore chop, the team did its best to make sure that the ground in front of home plate was tamped down hard as a rock, so that chopped balls would fly as high as possible. According to the Zumsteg book i quoted above, the ground was so hard that rumors circulated that the Orioles had placed concrete slabs under the dirt, but Zumsteg also says there is no evidence of this.
The sacrifice & sacrifice rules are ridiculous. Basically, if you keep your bunt away from the line and don’t run full speed, you are guaranteed a sacrifice (& not charged with an at bat.) Even if you keep your bunt away from the foul line, if you run full speed, you risk being charged with an at bat (though that ruling by an official scorer is rare.)
As for sacrifice flies, they really aren’t sacrifices at all, and they shouldn’t be awarded. While they are not an at bat, they do count against the batter toward his on-base percentage. So if a Adams goes oh-for-2 with a sacrifice bunt, he goes oh-for-2 toward both his batting average and on-base average. However, if Baker goes oh-for-2 with a sacrifice fly, he goes oh-for-2 toward his batting average, but he’s oh-for-3 toward his on-base average.
A sacrifice fly is less a sacrifice than the player, with a runner on second and no outs, intentionally hits to the right side to move the runner over. Ideally, he’s trying to poke a hit through, but he’s okay with the out as long as the runner moves over. On a sac fly, the batter isn’t really trying to make an out.
Sometimes he is. Very good, very experienced hitters can master the sacrifice fly stroke and deliver a sac fly on demand. Harold Baines was a master of this when he played for the White Sox, and Ken Griffey Jr. is very good.
But most of the time, you’re right–sac flies result when the batter just tries to hit the ball well and ends up with a fly ball.
This is one of those baseball myths that every amateur coach thinks he knows, and it drives every amateur umpire (like me) crazy. The batter is *not *required to pull the bat back.
A bunt stance is just that – a stance. If the batter* offers at *the pitch and misses it, it’s a swinging strike. If he doesn’t offer, it’s not (unless the pitch goes through the strike zone).
It is - to say the least - an extreme exaggeration to say a major league player could deliver sacrifice flies “on demand.”
Harold Baines did not hit a particularly great number of sacrifice flies - 99 in his entire career, which spanned 2800 games and over 10,000 plate appearances. He is tied for 29th in all time in that category (bear in mind they haven’t been counting it for all of baseball history) but is 32nd in plate appearances, which HAS been counted for all of baseball history, so to be honest I suspect hitting sac flies is a function solely of how much you play and whether or not you’re a fly ball hitter. Baines never led the league in sac flies and in fact I don’t think he ever even finished second.
Joe Carter hit more sac flies than Baines, and believe me as a guy who watch him play a lot, Carter had no plan up there except “Hit ball over fence.”
While we’re on that subject, reaching base on an error should not be counted against a batter as an out. It’s stupid, stupid, stupid - a case where a distinction is being made solely to change statistics in a way that has nothing to do with reality. But I guess it’s too late to change it now.
IMHO, it’s fine the way it is. Batting average = number of times you hit, successfully / number of times you tried.
And as a guy who watched Baines a lot, I’m telling you that he did have a plan other than “hit ball over fence”. In SF situations, he would hit SF’s with a visibly altered stroke. Ken Harrelson has discoursed at length on the SF swing, about how it requires keeping the trademark of the bat up and how he didn’t master it until late in his career, and most guys never work on it at all.
If Baines never led the league, it’s because “true” sacrifice flies are drowned in the statistics by accidental sacrifice flies, whe the batter is swinging for a hit and happens to hit a fly ball. Those will mostly be a consequence of how often the batter comes up with runners on third and to what extent he’s a natural fly ball hitter.
But to say that there is no such thing as a true sacrifice fly is just not correct.
If i understand RickJay’s argument correctly, he’s NOT saying that reaching on an error should count as a hit. What he said was that “it should not be counted against the batter as an out.” That’s quite a different thing.
A few things:
First, i think you also are misinterpreting RickJay’s post. I never saw him deny the possibility that some hitters change their swing in sac fly situations, especially in situations where a single run is very important.
We need to remember that not all “man on third, less than two out” situations are created equal. If the game is tied 1-1 in the 8th, and there’s just a man on third, then explicitly attempting a sac fly makes sense, because it will give you the lead with just one inning to play. If, on the other hand, you’re down by 5 in the 4th inning, and you come up with bases loaded, a sac fly is OK, but you’re far better off swinging for a base hit because you need to claw back as many of those runs as possible when you have a great opportunity like a bases-loaded, less-than-two-out situation.
For what it’s worth, i think that some batters probably do change their approach at the plate for sac fly opportunities. As RickJay’s post also implies, though, this might have a lot to do with what type of hitter they are. If they’re a power hitter, and/or a big fly-ball hitter, they might not need to change their approach very much at all. They can just try to “Hit ball over fence,” knowing that if they mis-hit a little bit and fly out to left field (or whatever), a run will come in anyway.
Finally, on the list of credible evidence regarding baseball, i would place Hawk Harrelson anecdotes somewhere down around crystal balls and tarot cards.
“Keeping the trademark of the bat up”? What the hell? I’d be very interested to see any evidence you have that keeping the trademark up improves a hitter’s sac fly ability.
As for Harrelson, let’s see how he was able to “master [the sac fly] late in his career.”
Year PA SF PA/SF
1963 253 2 126.5
1964 152 0 -
1965 556 3 185.33
1966 519 0 -
1967 368 5 73.6
1968 612 6 102
1969 672 6 112
1970 45 0 -
1971 187 1 187
Basically, accounting for the relatively small sample size, just about all we can say about this is that Harrelson’s sac flies seemed to track pretty closely with his plate appearances. He had a better-than-average sac fly year in 1967, but a far worse than average one in 1966.
Of course, none of this tells us how many sac fly opportunities he had, and i’m afraid i don’t have the time or the experience to crunch the play-by-play data for every Hawk Harrelson plate appearance to work that out. I’m perfectly happy to believe that Harrelson (and Baines) changed his approach at the plate in sac fly situations; i’m even willing to believe that a changed approach might have worked for him on occasions; but i’m also willing to bet that keeping the trademark up had nothing to do with his level of success.
Finally, RickJay never that there’s no such thing as a true sacrifice fly; he said it’s an exaggeration to say that players can deliver sac flies “on demand.” Again, quite a different thing.