Sacrifice flies have been flighty
So many stats for an out
Reading the many excellent newsletters and blogs is often the impetus for a thought that leads to a post of my own. I was reading David Harris’ excellent Substack earlier this month, and he noted that sacrifice flies were not kept as an official statistic until 1954. I was aware that the status of sacrifice flies changed several times. But unlike saves, a statistic that was created by Chicago sportswriter Jerome Holzman in 1969 and then baseball historians went back and retroactively awarded pitchers saves, sacrifice flies as a stat are stupidly inconsistent.
A not-so-brief history of sacrifice flies because it’s complicated
Officially appearing from 1908-1930 (counted with bunts), sacrifice flies were absent 1931-1938, briefly back 1939 (RBI only), gone again 1940-1953, and finally reinstated in its current form (no at-bat, RBI awarded for scoring run) in 1954, making HOFer Gil Hodges the first seasonal leader with 19 in that season, with HOFer Eddie Murray holding the career record with 128.
A quick AI-generated refresher:
Key Milestones:
1908-1930: Adopted, counted as a sacrifice hit (not a separate stat) if a runner scored or advanced.
1926-1930: Became more liberal, counting any fly ball that advanced a runner.
1931-1938: Eliminated; RBI flyouts counted as at-bats.
1939: Reinstated, but only for RBI flyouts.
1940-1953: Eliminated again, with RBI flyouts counting as at-bats (affecting batting averages, like HOFer Ted Williams‘ 1941 season).
1954-Present: The current rule established: a batter gets an RBI and plate appearance but not an at-bat for a fly ball that scores a runner.
Key Figures & Records (Under Current Rules):
All-Time Leader: HOFer Eddie Murray (128).
Single-Season Leader (First Year): HOFer Gil Hodges (19 in 1954).
Most in a Game: Tied at 3 (Don Mattingly, Fernando Tatis, Shawn Green, among others).
Pitcher Record (Allowed): HOFer Nolan Ryan (146).
Going deeper from David Harris’ post:
First, there is no unofficial sacrifice fly data on anyone before 1912, but the issue runs deeper. There is no data on anyone for RISP performance or anything like that, either. “Bases Occupied” as a split doesn’t come aboard until 1912.
A sacrifice fly counted as a sacrifice hit starting in 1908, so once Retrosheet is compiling by base situation in 1912, they make the effort to break out the sacrifice flies and sacrifice bunts for us. However, to get them, you can’t go to the summary line of splits at the top; you have to go down to the “Men On” line.
Once sacrifice flies stopped counting as sacrifice hits and just counted as outs (1931-1953, excepting 1939), there is no Retrosheet record of them in the bowels anymore. This is technically a very defensible decision, not to document them. It removes confusion and allows batting average and slugging average calculations to come out right. But on the other hand, it is an adherence to baseball scoring, not the most detailed possible description of the games that were played. It would be nice to have the information and to be able to recalculate under different scoring rules if one wanted to. Surely, fly balls that scored runs still had extra value, even if they were recorded as outs.
The Retrosheet division is faithful to the rules of the day at all times, I take it. In other words, when from 1926-1930, all advancing fly balls were officially sacrifice hits, regardless of whether they scored runners, Retrosheet is also counting all as sacrifice flies. I believe in all cases, they divvy up the sacrifice hit total they get between hits and flies. Because of no record of some games, incomplete information, or errors on one side or the other, Retrosheet might not have the sacrifice hit total that the official record has. But whatever they have, their hits and flies always add up to it. But again, to see their work, you have to go to the “Men On” line. specifically.
Screwy right? The term sacrifice ‘hit’ is a misnomer to boot as the batter is not credited with a hit on a bunt (or even to advance a runner for the five years noted above) or a sacrifice fly. A sacrifice hit doesn’t count against the batter as a failed at-bat (one in which an out was made) and that’s a positive. A sacrifice fly offers a bonus of awarding the batter an RBI.
Let’s forget about what happened before 1908 since we will clearly never know as the data does not exist. HOFer Ty Cobb’s career began in 1905, and fellow HOFer Honus Wagner’s in 1897. No doubt costing them a few RBIs. Cobb had 1,944 RBIs for his career so it’s not as if he would have made it to 2,000.
HOFers Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx, all began their careers after 1912 and were at their respective peaks during the mid-1920’s. Sacrifice flies merely being an out and counting against a player’s batting average (as a failed time at-bat), surely cost all three of them (there are many more) a few points on their seasonal but still ridiculously high batting averages. That’s interesting but not enough for me to wander through the archive and try to piece together what would be their revised batting averages and RBI totals if sacrifice flies were not counted against their batting averages.
Record-keeping in 19th and 20th century baseball was in its infancy and in no way compares to what is the case today. A baseball fan in the 22nd century marveling at the career totals and histories of players that played in the first 50 years of MLB will shake their collective heads that baseball’s early days of inconsistent record-keeping like that of sacrifice flies, adds to the romance of the game!
About the Author: Mark Kolier along with his son Gordon co-hosts a baseball podcast called ‘Almost Cooperstown’. He also has written baseball-related articles that can be accessed on Medium.com and now Substack.com



Thank you for the reference and kind words. The rage I feel about how position-player pitching ruins statistical integrity could perhaps be termed irrational since there are all of these thorny points like sacrifice flies that have been handled in different ways through the years and then not retroactively "corrected." Some would also say that .300 in 1925 meaning something very different than .300 in 2025 constitutes just as important a discrepancy, even though it's theoretical in nature. But I think not caring about the exact numbers at all in the name of the big picture would represent a slippery slope, and would eventually mean that we didn't care about their meaning, either. So I will continue to fight the good fight.