This is a completely stupid question

[NeilT]

Why are Sac Flies included in the denominator for OBP, but sac bunts apparently are not?  Why include sac flies at all?

[HurricaneDavid]

Not a stupid question at all.  I had always assumed that the denominator in OBP was plate appearances.

[homer]

Quote:
Why are Sac Flies included in the denominator for OBP, but sac bunts apparently are not?  Why include sac flies at all?

Because a sac bunt is a fielder's choice.

[NeilT]

But a sac bunt is excluded for AB, isn't it?

[mihoba]

When OBP (hits plus walks plus hit by pitch, divided by at-bats plus walks plus hit by pitch) was adopted as an official stat in 1984, the denominator was expanded to include sacrifice flies. The effect is to penalize a batter in his on base percentage by giving him a plate appearance while at the same time crediting him in his batting average by deleting the plate appearance. Sac Flies are calculable on a continuing basis only since 1954.

From one of my many books, Total Baseball.

[Limey]

Quote:

Quote:
Why are Sac Flies included in the denominator for OBP, but sac bunts apparently are not?  Why include sac flies at all?

Because a sac bunt is a fielder's choice.

Am I the idiot, or is Neil wrong in using the term "denominator" or are you wrong in your explanation?  If sac bunts are ruled as fielder's choice, then they would be in the denominator as a plate appearance, correct?  An "out" by another name.

maybe I should just look this up me-self.

[HurricaneDavid]

Huh?  An UNsuccessful sac bunt is a fielder's choice...

[homer]

OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

[Limey]

Quote:
maybe I should just look this up me-self.

...or read mihoba's explanation.  Or google it and get this site, which explains everything.

[Trey]

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

[NeilT]

Excellent explanation.  Those Turks, they know how to liberate Constantinople.

Denominator is right.  The formula is:

hits+bb+hbp
-----------
AB+bb+hbp+sf

AB excludes sf and sac bunts, but only sf is added back in.  Saying that a sac bunt is a fielder's choice is right, kinda, but it's not exactly helpful since it's excluded from AB.  If you're gonna penalize the batter for sf, why not sac bunts?

I don't know, this has already received way more attention than it deserves.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

I'm guessing the reasoning is that a SF is an attempt to reach base, but a sac bunt is not.

[T. J.]

Quote:
Excellent explanation.  Those Turks, they know how to liberate Constantinople.

Denominator is right.  The formula is:

hits+bb+hbp
-----------
AB+bb+hbp+sf

AB excludes sf and sac bunts, but only sf is added back in.  Saying that a sac bunt is a fielder's choice is right, kinda, but it's not exactly helpful since it's excluded from AB.  If you're gonna penalize the batter for sf, why not sac bunts?

I don't know, this has already received way more attention than it deserves.

This is completely a guess, but when the geniuses who decided this did the deciding, it probably had soemthing to do with a sacrifice fly being more of an "accident" than a sacrifice bunt.  What I mean is, with a sac bunt, you're more than likely  really sacrificing yourself, where with a sac fly, you're more likely trying to get a hit and just end up with the sacrifice fly.  In other words, with a sac fly, the player is trying to get a hit and with a sac bunt, the player knows he isn't getting a hit.

With a bunt, the player isn't trying to reach base, so it shouldn't affect his on-base percentage.  With a sac fly, he was trying to reach base, but happened to hit a sac fly instead, so therefore it does affect OBP.

[utastro]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

I'm guessing the reasoning is that a SF is an attempt to reach base, but a sac bunt is not.

Tell that to Willie T.

[NeilT]

Makes sense, though.

[pravata]

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

Everything is because thems the rules.  A sac fly can be just a deliberate as a sac bunt.

[Trey]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

Everything is because thems the rules.  A sac fly can be just a deliberate as a sac bunt.

So, is this the part where I stomp my feet, pout and say, "But I want and Oompah Loompah NOOOOOW."?

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
When OBP (hits plus walks plus hit by pitch, divided by at-bats plus walks plus hit by pitch) was adopted as an official stat in 1984, the denominator was expanded to include sacrifice flies. The effect is to penalize a batter in his on base percentage by giving him a plate appearance while at the same time crediting him in his batting average by deleting the plate appearance. Sac Flies are calculable on a continuing basis only since 1954.

From one of my many books, Total Baseball.

Total Baseball refused to follow the rule, however, and calculated OBP without sacrifice flies.

Sacrifice flies were not officially recorded until 1954, so pre-1954 OBPs are without sacrifice flies.

The distinction, by the way, makes the difference in whether Jeff Bagwell or Tony Gwynn led the league in OBP in 1994.

With sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .454, Bagwell .451.

Without sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .458, Bagwell .461.

[Limey]

Quote:
Everything is because thems the rules.  A sac fly can be just a deliberate as a sac bunt.

This is true, it's just less obviously deliberate.  Unless, of course, you point to the bleachers before the pitch to indicate your intention to hit it out.  If that was the norm, then you could eliminate "deliberate" sac flies from the accidental ones.

Then Jake Taylor indicates homer, drags a sac bunt and all hell breaks loose.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

Everything is because thems the rules.  A sac fly can be just a deliberate as a sac bunt.

It can be, but don't get me started on the SF rule.  Why reward the fly ball but not the grounder to the right side to bring a guy home from third?

[NeilT]

I noticed, as I was trying to figure this out on my own, that Baseball-Reference's definition did not include Sac Flies in the formula.  So that my not be accidental?

[Limey]

Quote:
It can be, but don't get me started on the SF rule.  Why reward the fly ball but not the grounder to the right side to bring a guy home from third?

In mihoba's (IIRC) explanation, he pointed out that the anomaly is fixed in BA - both types of sacrifice are eliminated.  Seems to me that neither should be counted in OBP also.

[mihoba]

Quote:

Quote:
It can be, but don't get me started on the SF rule.  Why reward the fly ball but not the grounder to the right side to bring a guy home from third?

In mihoba's (IIRC) explanation, he pointed out that the anomaly is fixed in BA - both types of sacrifice are eliminated.  Seems to me that neither should be counted in OBP also.

I think the reason being that the intent of the sac bunt is to NOT make a hit, only to advance the runner. As far as the 'sac. grounder', depends if the infield is in on the grass, no? Similar is the defensive outfield lineup when a deep fly can win the game, where said hit becomes a single when the fielder realizes he will never get the runner tagging, so just he can just jog to the dugout and let the ball drop. The batter is awarded a hit instead of a sac fly, which I admit happens rarely.

[mihoba]

Damn, I confused myself with that one. My intention was that defensive positioning affects the outcome of several different situations, why reward one and not reward the other?

[astro pete]

Quote:

I'm guessing the reasoning is that a SF is an attempt to reach base, but a sac bunt is not.

Quote:
Tell that to Willie T.

Well, technically if Willy Taveras tries to bunt for a hit, but is thrown out at first while advancing a runner, he is not credited with a sacrifice.  The official scorer must somehow determine the intent of the bunter: was he trying to sacrifice the runner over, or trying to reach base himself.  Seems as though the same logic applies to the sac. fly/sac. bunt distinction.  It's all about the perceived intent of the batter.

Of course, there is no way to determine the intent of every batter.  Welcome to the world of inherently flawed statistics.

[jasonact]

Quote:
Welcome to the world of inherently flawed statistics.

a.k.a. The world of statistics

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

A sac fly does more than advance a runner, it plates a run.

[JimR]

indeed. there is no such thing as a sac fly that does not score a run.

[JimR]

not just a grounder to the right side--any grounder up the middle with the infield back plates a run...just like the fly ball. good point, MM.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:
indeed. there is no such thing as a sac fly that does not swcore a run.

When was a sophomore in HS and first came up to the varsity, the older guys used to brag about their batting averages being .450, .500 whatever.  Then I'd see them come back to the dugout after grounding out 4-3, but moving the runner to 3B and claiming a "sacrifice".  It's a lot easier to hit .400 instead of .260 when you don't count fielder's choices in figuring your batting average.

[MusicMan]

Quote:

Quote:
indeed. there is no such thing as a sac fly that does not swcore a run.

When was a sophomore in HS and first came up to the varsity, the older guys used to brag about their batting averages being .450, .500 whatever.  Then I'd see them come back to the dugout after grounding out 4-3, but moving the runner to 3B and claiming a "sacrifice".  It's a lot easier to hit .400 instead of .260 when you don't count fielder's choices in figuring your batting average.

Problem number 1 in the quest to make any meaningful sense of HS statistics.

[Limey]

Quote:
Problem number 1 in the quest to make any meaningful sense of HS statistics.

The only stats I cared about in high school were which girls were growing boobs.

[HudsonHawk]

Quote:

Problem number 1 in the quest to make any meaningful sense of HS statistics.

Well, these weren't official stats or anything, just what these clowns bragged about.

"I went 1 for 2 tonight"

"No you didn't, you went 1 for 4.  Huge difference."

[JimR]

i was my own statistician and was the ultimate arbiter of scoring the game. no Daddy Ball stats on that team.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
i was my own statistician and was the ultimate arbiter of scoring the game. no Daddy Ball stats on that team.

I have an image of a very, very tough official scorer.

[JackAstro]

Post deleted by JackAstro

[JackAstro]

Post deleted by JackAstro

[Golden Sombrero]

12-6 can't find the strike zone

[Golden Sombrero]

OUCH

[JackAstro]

I hate me so fucking much. I'm going to go do some shots.

[Golden Sombrero]

We still have 3 outs to salvage the game.  You did your penance--maybe the BBGs will forgive us.  

In other news, Lidge's performance is a concern.  Even before today he's not been his old lights-out self.  I wonder what's going on.

[Bench]

Quote:
We still have 3 outs to salvage the game.  You did your penance--maybe the BBGs will forgive us.  

In other news, Lidge's performance is a concern.  Even before today he's not been his old lights-out self.  I wonder what's going on.

Whatever. It's ludicrous to hold someone to a standard of perfection. Lidge was just about perfect for a season and a half, expecting him to maintain that indefinately is unrealistic.

Mariano has some blown saves this season. Wagner does also. Lidge now has one, while leading the league in saves. Get over it, I'm sure Brad will.

[Golden Sombrero]

Has he had any 1-2-3 innings this season?  Before tonight he's been good about not blowing saves, but he's always made it interesting with baserunners and giving up runs.  He seems to have lost some of his control and placement.  I'm just wondering what may have led to his downturn in performance.

[Bench]

Quote:
Has he had any 1-2-3 innings this season?  Before tonight he's been good about not blowing saves, but he's always made it interesting with baserunners and giving up runs.  He seems to have lost some of his control and placement.  I'm just wondering what may have led to his downturn in performance.

You really need to get over the Pujols homerun. Everyone else has, especially the players on the Astros.

You really expect a 1-2-3 inning everytime he appears? That's ridiculous.

We're three weeks into the season, where's he executed his job admirably. If his "downturn in performance" continues at this rate, he'll still be one of the best closers in the league.

[mihoba]

Quote:
Total Baseball refused to follow the rule, however, and calculated OBP without sacrifice flies.

Sacrifice flies were not officially recorded until 1954, so pre-1954 OBPs are without sacrifice flies.

The distinction, by the way, makes the difference in whether Jeff Bagwell or Tony Gwynn led the league in OBP in 1994.

With sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .454, Bagwell .451.

Without sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .458, Bagwell .461.

I missed this yesterday, interesting. I wasn't aware of that. My 1999 version indeed has Bagwell leading the league with .461 obp.

[David in Jackson]

Quote:

Quote:
Total Baseball refused to follow the rule, however, and calculated OBP without sacrifice flies.

Sacrifice flies were not officially recorded until 1954, so pre-1954 OBPs are without sacrifice flies.

The distinction, by the way, makes the difference in whether Jeff Bagwell or Tony Gwynn led the league in OBP in 1994.

With sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .454, Bagwell .451.

Without sacrifice flies, it was Gwynn .458, Bagwell .461.

I missed this yesterday, interesting. I wasn't aware of that. My 1999 version indeed has Bagwell leading the league with .461 obp.

I'm probably more sabremetrically-inclined than most but this drives me crazy.  In attempts to promote new statistics, many of these new "Encyclopdias" use TOO many stats no one has heard of or, in this case, different definitions for the same stats, or, different numbers for whether they accept someone historical research or not.  It's confusing.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I'm probably more sabremetrically-inclined than most but this drives me crazy.  In attempts to promote new statistics, many of these new "Encyclopdias" use TOO many stats no one has heard of or, in this case, different definitions for the same stats, or, different numbers for whether they accept someone historical research or not.  It's confusing.

I wouldn't call Total Baseball new at this point. It's been around for more than 20 years and has long since displaced the old MacMillan tome as the "official" baseball encyclopedia. Pete Palmer, who founded it, is no longer associated with it and has his own new encyclopedia.

Since probably 95 percent of Total Baseball readers don't realize that publication's earlier editions excluded sacrifice flies from OBP while Major League Baseball includes them, it's probably not that confusing. And only the super-geeks really obsess over whether Cobb's hits are listed as 4,191 or 4,189 or Ruth's walks are listed as 2,056 or 2,062.

[mihoba]

Quote:
I'm probably more sabremetrically-inclined than most but this drives me crazy.  In attempts to promote new statistics, many of these new "Encyclopdias" use TOO many stats no one has heard of or, in this case, different definitions for the same stats, or, different numbers for whether they accept someone historical research or not.  It's confusing.

I agree, and I usually refer only to the bible of numbers, the Baseball Encyclopedia, but I just happened to have Total Baseball in my hands when that question was asked.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
I'm probably more sabremetrically-inclined than most but this drives me crazy.  In attempts to promote new statistics, many of these new "Encyclopdias" use TOO many stats no one has heard of or, in this case, different definitions for the same stats, or, different numbers for whether they accept someone historical research or not.  It's confusing.

I agree, and I usually refer only to the bible of numbers, the Baseball Encyclopedia, but I just happened to have Total Baseball in my hands when that question was asked.

Which Baseball Encyclopedia?

[mihoba]

Quote:
Which Baseball Encyclopedia?

 The Baseball Encyclopedia

[mihoba]

A sentimental favorite. I grew up with that book. Hoisting it up to read bulked up my forearms enough so I could excell in sports. I was a stat head when the word saber was still a sword.

[pravata]

Quote:
A sentimental favorite. I grew up with that book. Hoisting it up to read bulked up my forearms enough so I could excell in sports. I was a stat head when the word saber was still a sword.

I had a similar experience.  I grew up with saber as a sport when batting average was still a stat.  Wait, that's not similar at all.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
Which Baseball Encyclopedia?

 The Baseball Encyclopedia

They haven't published an edition since 1991, I think. And I don't think they had OBP.

NTTAWWT.

[mihoba]

Quote:
They haven't published an edition since 1991, I think. And I don't think they had OBP.

NTTAWWT.

Huh? I have the 2004 edition, edited by Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette, and includes OBP, BB-IBB, HBP, AOPS (adjusted), ABR, SB-CS, blown saves, range, catchers D, etc.

[NeilT]

Quote:

Quote:
They haven't published an edition since 1991, I think. And I don't think they had OBP.

NTTAWWT.

Huh? I have the 2004 edition, edited by Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette, and includes OBP, BB-IBB, HBP, AOPS (adjusted), ABR, SB-CS, blown saves, range, catchers D, etc.

The Link

Is it any good, or just the nearest thing to hand?

[mihoba]

You know, I think that is the updated version of my 2004 edition, although I do not have the ESPN and Peter Gammons stuff. A spinoff of the original.

 the original

edit to add: No wonder my wife got it so cheap ($8). My copy is a Barnes and Noble version, not the original. Spinoff $25, original hardcover $50. I also have an original hardcover version from years ago.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
OBP is a determination of how often you reach first, without the benefit of a fielding error or fielder's choice. Mihoba's explanation shows why sac fly was added.

Yeah, but why?  I mean besides "because them's the rules."  Why is them's the rules?  Either count them both or count neither.  As was mentioned earlier, they are both outs that advance a runner (unless you do it wrong, in which case it doesn't count).

Everything is because thems the rules.  A sac fly can be just a deliberate as a sac bunt.

It can be, but don't get me started on the SF rule.  Why reward the fly ball but not the grounder to the right side to bring a guy home from third?

They both get you credit for an RBI.  Unless the grounder turns into a DP, of course.

I do think the SF is handled consistently in this context.  To me, the confusion comes from calling it a "sacrifice" fly, which causes people to think of it in the same sense as a sacrifice bunt, which it shouldn't be.  While pretty much everyone knows in a close game late, with a man on 3B and less than two outs, it is imperative for the hitter to elevate the ball, no one I ever heard of is actually trying to fly out to the LF.  You are still trying to get a hit in the gap, or out of the park; you are just making sure you hit it in the air, so in case you fall short, a run can still score.  You are not really sacrificing yourself.

Of course, that puts it in the category of the failed bunt for a base hit that still advances a runner, which the official scorer will charge you an at bat for.  But, as has already been pointed out, the SF doesn't just move a runner up, it drives a run in.  So giving the batter a "free" plate appearance for doing that doesn't bother me.  

But it is not really a 'sacrifice' fly in the purest sense.  They ought to rename it -- call an RBFly, or a Chili Hi Fly, something like that.  That should clear things up.

[mihoba]

RBFly, put it in the books right next to the RBGrounderwiththeinfieldbackandlessthantwoouts.