It is said that the Incans sacrificed flies
So, I'm wondering.
Runner on third, less* than two outs. The batter hits a fly ball to center, which is caught, after which the runner on third darts home for a run. The batter has thus sacrificed himself (what a guy) for the good of the team and the city for which he plays, and is accordingly rewarded by 1) being credited with a Run Batted In (RBI), and 2) not being credited with an At-Bat. So instead of going 0-for-1, he goes 0-for-0 and therefore does not lower his batting average. This is nothing knew to anyone with a decent knowledge of baseball.
Situation the second - runner on first, less than two outs. The batter drops a nice little bunt down the line, which is fielded by the first baseman, say, and is thrown out at first. The runner on first, being in on the plan, heads over to second where he now stands triumphantly in a place called Scoring Position. The batter is not given an RBI this time, because he did not Bat In a Run, but he does get a Non-At-Bat as reward for his selflessness. Everyone is happy.
Finally, Situation the Third - runner on third, less than two outs. The batter slaps a ground ball to the right side, where it is deftly fielded by the second baseman, who, having no other options at his disposal, throws the runner out at first. The runner at third runs home, crosses the plate, and the hometown nine are happy. The batter is credited with an RBI, but is also slapped with an 0-for-1. Which lowers his average. Which makes him sad. Outwardly, he appears happy to have served his team, but inwardly he knows his avg. and obp. will dip a bit. Which makes him a little less attractive to the Ladies.
My question is, why this difference? A huge part of baseball's allure is the infinitely exciting system of statistics. I can read box scores for hours, and sometimes do. I suppose the reason, in theory, could have to do with the fact that those who decided all of this believed that, in such a situation, a fly ball is more intentional than a grounder to the right side. Of course, a bunt is the most intentional of all batting tactics, so we won't go there for now. But as a former baseball player, who started when he was 8 years old, I can say that I was taught over and over to "get something to the right side" when runners are in scoring position. Why can't we call it a "sacrifice grounder," say? Or does it have to clearly be on purpose?
One of the reasons baseball statistics are so fucking interesting has to do with the fact that they deal with issues like personal sacrifice. It's noteworthy that baseball has tried to integrate teamwork into its statistics, but I think the system is a bit flawed. If you're going to reward someone for moving a runner over, you should do it every time someone does it. Furthermore, whoever decided that moving a runner from first to second deserves more compensation that grounding a runner home to score must have been smoking the dope-weed, yo! Sheeit.
This is all a bit ironic, however, when you realize that beyond the thin sheen of Teamworkness you see that stats are actually extremely personalized. Examples - when Pitcher A is yanked in the middle of an inning, and has left a runner on third, when Pitcher B comes in and allows that runner to score, it's credited to Pitcher A's line. Furthermore, if that run breaks a tie, and Pitcher A's team never reties or takes the lead, Pitcher A is hit with the loss. Other example - if there are two outs, and someone makes an error, any runs that score after this point are considered unearned. Meaning, the pitcher is not held responsible. He is vindicated with regard to his Earned Run Average.
I could write about this for hours, but I won't. I have work to do.
* Pee Ess - I know I "should" have written "fewer than two outs." But I stringently refuse to adhere to that, for many reasons I won't really go into. They involve the fact that we only have one word for the opposite (we say both "more potato chips" and "more time"), and also the fact that language is always changing. When we say "15 items or less," do we not understand? Do a lot of people not say it? So what's the freaking problem?