The argument that a Sacrifice is no better than a regular at Bat is Flawed.

The purpose of a sacrifice is to try and get a runner into scoring position. The purpose of not sacrificing is to try and have a big inning. What Saber Meterics has forgotten to do when comparing a runner on first base and no outs to a runner on second base and one out is how many of the runs that scored from first base were not necessary.

As stated during the 2018 MLB playoffs, a runner on first, no outs, scores 42% of the time, a runner on second base, one out, scores 40% of the time. This works out to a 5% differential. However, what Saber metrics did not do was calculate how many of the extra runs were entirely unnecessary, aka stat padding. If at the end of the year we discover that of a team's 700 runs scored, 70 runs were the equivalent of stat padding, then those runs should be removed from the sacrifice versus non sacrifice comparison. If most of those 70 runs were scored without benefit of a sacrifice, then suddenly we would see that sacrifices may produce slightly less overall runs, but the runs that are scored are in close games.

If a team wins a game 15-3 but it is statistically shown that any run over 9 was a wasted run, then why allow those six extra runs to be part of the comparison between a runner at first base and no outs versus a runner on second base and one out?

I think it is entirely plausible that if we removed all the stat padding runs from the comparison between the runner on second one out, and runner on first and no outs, we may find that a runner on second base, one out, actually scores at a higher percentage than a runner on first with no outs, while also discovering that overall a runner on first with no outs scores more overall runs with a certain percentage of those runs being over kill.

As it stands now, the Sabermetric world has not necessarily quantified baseball strategy as in when one run matters more than hit or miss but when one hits more runs are scored.  A manager would probably prefer to win an occasional game by one or two runs then always go for the big inning and then lose an extra game or two by one run because their big inning plans just did not materialize.

Lets not fall into the trap that the highest percentage of runs scored is also the most effective use of total runs scored, especially when the difference is only 5 percent.

2018 World Series game three between Los Angeles and Boston features runs scored by each team in 13th inning by sacrifices, that were not credited as sacrifices.

In the top of the 13th inning, the Red Sox were able to push home a run on an infield hit that basically was no different than a bunt. However, seeing eye infield hits that act like a bunt are not counted as a sacrifice.

So of course sabermetric statistics on sacrifice bunts are going to produce SLIGHTLY lower runs per innings scored than when a sacrifice is not done because anytime an out is not recorded, the batter is not credited with a sacrifice.

When the Dodgers were able to score specifically because the runner at first base, Max Muncy, was able to advance from first to second base on a tag up when the Red Sox third baseman Eduardo Nunez landed in the stands making a catch on a foul ball, was a sacrifice credited on the play? I just checked the box score and this was not ruled a sacrifice either. Amazing, the next play would have been a game ending play at second base if Muncy had not advanced on the caught foul ball that put Nunez in the stands.

If Box scores are going to ignore plays that mimic exactly what a sacrifice does, and does not give a sacrifice credit when a baserunner advances, then the stats are going to skew towards runner on first base, no outs, as scoring more runs per inning than a runner on second base, one out.

And lets not forget the real comparison is not whether or not a runner on first no outs scores SLIGHTLY more often than a runner on second base with one out, the REAL TEST is does a runner on second base, one out, score more often than a conventional inning. If a runner on second base by way of a sacrifice results in more runs scored than no one on, no one out, then a sacrifice still INCREASES the likelihood of scoring a run, and that is the real test that should be used to valuate a sacrifice. 

What all the major Sports Publications should consider before discussing Omar Vizquel's Hall of Fame Worthiness.

I am asking that all of the baseball scribes who focus their research to sabermetrics, (which do not necessarily tell the entire statistical story), do the following; Why not discuss Omar Vizquel's Hall of Fame eligibility with the actual play by play announcers who saw Omar Vizquel play?

Omar Vizquel played for six different professional baseball teams. There are plenty of television and radio play by play announcers who saw Omar Vizquel play on a day to day basis.

Why not balance out your assessment of Omar Vizquel's Hall of Fame chances by talking to the people who watched Omar Vizquel play everyday? And of course, lets not forget that Omar Vizquel is the modern era leader in combo sac hits and sac flies with 350.

Omar Vizquel, the Sultan of Sacrifice, and worthy of the MLB Hall of Fame.

      Babe Ruth is known as the Sultan of Swat. Omar Vizquel should be known as the Sultan of Sacrifice. Omar Vizquel is the Modern Era Leader in Combo Sacrifice Flies and Sacrifice Hits with 350. As far as my research has shown, no other Modern Era player has even reached 300 Combo Sacrifice Flies and Hits. Ozzie Smith is second among modern era players with 277 combo sacrifice flies and sacrifice hits.

     Sabermetricians claim that a sacrifice produces less runs than if a hitter were to simply hit away. Sabermatricians claim that a runner at first base with no outs will produce more runs than a runner at second base with one out. The problem with making such statements is they are most likely devoid of so many of the nuances that are constantly attenuating within the game of baseball.

       Sacrifices are validated through the act of making an out to move a runner over. Yet so many other scenarios can emerge where an out did not occur but the intent to move the runner over was still achieved, therefore numbers just can't be crunched based on pure sacrifices versus hits.

     For instance, if there is a runner at first base who has below average speed, and the batter has a lot of speed but is not known for much power, it might make sense in certain game situations to try a sacrifice because even though an out is given up, either the slower runner is advanced to second base and could possibly score on a single, or, the lead runner is out and the faster runner now replaces the slower runner at first. 

     Is this sacrifice worth an out? Every situation is different and statistics can't always know the answer. If the batter is trying to get on base while also being committed to advancing the runner, that is a metric difficult to evaluate  based on how baseball statistics are recorded and measured. 

     What can be said is that moving a runner over one base, or replacing the slower runner at first base with a faster one, is a better result than hitting a grounder to the shortstop that results in a double play, or popping the ball up, flying out, or striking out, unless the strike out required the pitcher throwing 8 pitches or more, in which case we can assess some value for raising the pitcher's count significantly. The conclusion is there are productive outs and the attempts to quantify a productive out at present time appears to be oversimplified.

    I would also suggest that even when a batter gives themselves up in a sacrifice situation, they still run hard to first base hoping to beat the throw, and this actuality could mess up the comparisons between sacrificing and hitting away. A ballplayer who is trying to get a hit when they sacrifice are not necessarily given credit for a sacrifice if they in fact do get an actual hit as a result of trying to move the runner over. Are ballplayers credited for both a sacrifice and a hit if their sacrifice turns into a hit instead? They should get both, but do they, I don't think they do. Instead, it the sacrifice is called a hit and can then be leveraged as proof that more runs score on hits than on sacrifices.

     
       Not only do sacrifice bunts generate hits, there are scenarios when a batter hits the ball to the right side to get a runner over and instead gets a hit. The batter is not credited for a sacrifice because they got a hit instead, yet the primary intent of the hitter was to move the runner over. So instead the batter gets a hit and therefore it was not a sacrifice, a big inning ensues, and it's not counted as being caused by a sacrifice even though that was the original intent of the batter. What if the batter had tried to muscle the ball and pulled it to the shortstop and it turns into a double play?  

       The point being that a straight comparison of a runner on first base and no outs with a runner on second base and one outs is an oversimplification that denies complex baseball strategy. Lets add another scenario to the mix and then compare all three. What happens if we compare a runner on second base, one out, with no one on, no outs? If no one on, no outs, produces more runs in an inning than a runner on second base and one out, then I would agree that a sacrifice is not batter than an at bat. However, if a runner on second base and one out is better than no one on, no outs, aka the beginning of an inning, then a sacrifice is clearly better than the start of an inning, even if overall it is less effective than a runner on first base and no outs.

       Sacrifice Flies also have not necessarily been measured correctly by statisticians. If a ballplayer is able to sacrifice a runner over but the ball was hit hard and very deep the scorer may assess that the hitter was trying to get a hit, and therefore no sacrifice will be assessed. That seems inequitable. What if a ballplayer comes up with the bases loaded and no outs and hits a deep fly ball and all three runners advance, only one sacrifice is assessed, and that too is inequitable.

       When calculating the runs scored with a runner on first base and no outs, versus a runner on second and one out, is the speed of the baserunner taken into account? Is it possible that the actual players most likely to bunt, the faster runners with less power, may also be tipping the scales against themselves when the one out, runner on second, zero outs runner on first stats, are compared? Clearly a faster runner on first base with no outs may not be bunted over by a power hitter because a faster runner on first base can be driven in by a double, or can get to third base on most singles, whereas a power hitter on first base is less likely to achieve either.

         It is also important to note, as has been mentioned numerous times by numerous baseball announcers and former baseball players as announcers, the sacrifices that are made during the season can position a team to do better at sacrificing in the playoffs in closely, well pitched games where going for one run to get an early lead or late in a game is the right baseball move to make. Situational needs can defy baseball sabermetric logic. What if the opposing pitcher is pitching really well. Suddenly the likelihood of stringing three singles together may actually be statistically unrealistic versus a single, a sacrifice, and a single. Sometimes just getting that early lead, or scoring that one run late in a game is what decides the game. The overall issue of sacrifices producing less overall runs becomes a moot point because of the game situation.

     Ultimately, those who think sacrifice hits and sacrifice flies have an overall negative impact have to also claim that a random at bat is better than a sacrifice when there is a runner at first base, and that is the sweeping type of statistical generalization that does not belong in Baseball.

      Omar Vizquel, with his 11 gold gloves and a virtual one to one walks to strikeouts batting ratio, along with being the modern era leading 350 sacrifice flies and sacrifice hits, matches the overall achievements of at least two Hall of Fame Shortstops, Luis Aparicio, and Walter "Rabbit" Maranville.