Sac from 2nd?

Yes and an RBI if there were no errors ie overthrowns that allowed the runner to advance to home plate. If there were errors on throws then it is an AB and no RBI.

OBR 10.09e.

Well that is the weird part. The runner was going all the way the moment the ball was caught. The throw in was off the mark and missed short stop. I think the runner would've scored regardless. I wasn't sure about the Sac with the runner on 2nd.

If he came all the way and he would have made it then it's a SAC. He'd have to pretty fast to make that move against two clean throws in a normal sized HS field.

He was fast. Also the outfielder waited a few seconds to make his throw and didn't have a good (or accurate) arm.

The scorekeeper would have to make a judgment call on whether the run scored with aid from the throw being off the mark. While you cannot charge an error for a weak throw or a delayed throw, you can charge one for an errant throw.

BTW, this play happened in MLB the other day. Runner scored from 2nd on a fly out when the CF made a diving catch and took a moment to get up after hitting the warning track and the wall pretty hard. No error there, actually a very fine play defensively. And it was indeed properly scored a SF/RBI.

While I certainly agree that by the rulebook this absolutely could qualify as a sac fly -- allow me a bit of philosophical rambling.

I'm curious if anyone else has ever wondered about the generosity awarding the batter an "0 for 0" in a situation like this one ... or on most any sac fly for that matter.

In life, the concept of "sacrifice" is typically associated with doing (or not doing) something intentionally. In baseball, consider a sacrifice bunt. Now there a case where the batter is indeed sacrificing himself (intentionally) for the sake of advancing the runner. So being rewarded with an "0 for 0" seems absolutely appropriate.

In the case of many "regular" sac flies, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that the batter was actually intentionally sacrificing his at-bat in order that a run might score.

And in the case of a sac fly scoring a man on 2nd -- wow, pretty cool for the batter not to have that out count against his average. I'm thinking that the batter was not really attempting to intentionally sacrifice himself.

With a man on 3rd, I suppose it could be argued that, "Hey, the fly ball produced a run, so let's give the batter a break." But that logic quickly fails, because a ground-out to 2B could have produced the same result. And do we credit the batter with "0 for 0" in that case?

OK -- that's it. As I said, I'm not disagreeing, just making some observations and wondering if anyone else ever had similar thoughts.

But the truth is that this is exactly the kind of thing that makes baseball the great game that it is. Gotta love it!!

RPD,
There was actually a time in the 1920's, I don't remember the exact years, that Major League baseball took away the Sac on runscoring flyballs for exactly the reasons you pointed out. This was reinstated in the 1930's I believe.

Wow - very interesting!

I checked it out online and found this. It's WAY more than most people would ever care to know about sacrifices ... but kind of intriguing of you're into that kind of stuff.

http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-fly

That was very interesting RPD--my years were off since I was at work and couldn't look it up. I had forgotten about the time also that they changed it for one year in 1939-1940.

Very interesting article, thanks for finding it...

RPD, I've often wondered why getting the ball in the air to the OF exempted you from a time at bat, but when a hitter REALLY sacrifices by just punching a weak grounder to 2nd or SS with a runner at third and less then two outs is NOT considered a sacrifice. It would seems that guy really IS giving himself up to score a run.

As the article mentions, the guy hitting the deep fly has 'other things' on his mind. Of course, hitters are taught to let it fly on a high pitch they can drive, knowing they'll probably fly out in that situation, but still...

I think we've got logic on our side in what we're saying, but this is a case where tradition carries a lot more weight than logic. I'm not looking for MLB to rush to re-examine this.

But ... just for the heck of it, I looked up some stats for a few players and compared their lifetime BA vs what their lifetime BA would have been if sac flies were counted as an AB.

Here's what I found:

Albert Pujols:----.333 actual vs .329
Dustin Pedroia:--.302 actual vs .299
David Ortiz:------.282 actual vs .279
Derek Jeter:------.317 actual vs .315
Eddie Murray:----.287 actual vs .284

And for what its worth, Eddie Murray is the all-time leader is sac flies (with 128).

So while changing the rule to count a SF as an AB would cause batting averages to drop, it's not by as much as I would have thought.

It's my thought that a batter that is hitting deep with a runner on may have the homer in mind but knows also that if it doesn't reach, the run will score anyway. Odds are that an infield hit will result in a double play with both the 3B runner and the batter getting out. A bunt, and a deep flyball are pretty much guaranteed to be just one out. When I'm playing and we got 0 or 1 down and a runner at 3rd, I'm telling those guys to swing for the fences.

I think a sac does affect your OBP
Right?

It counts against your OBP but not BA.