The difference between a BB and moving runners over depends on who is hitting behind them as putting runners on 1B and 2B rather driving them in on a sac. fly isn't as productive when there's a poor hitter behind them. That said if you want to analyze things in retrospect using Sacs then fine but they would have little to do with their value from this point on which safe to say matters more. When comparing two players it's not what they've done to this point it's what they will do from now on that matters. So valuing sacs and flies really becomes irrelavent. I've never done this study, but given the volatile nature of G/F rates for hitters from year to year there is probably too much "statistical noise" in the data to ever verify any of this, but that's beside the point. Anyways, take this example of meaningless information im so good at finding. Run expectancies, runners second and third no out: 2.052 runs with a sac fly you score one, but the runner stays at second, so runner on 2nd with 1 out, your expectancy is 1 run score + .725 runs = 1.725 runs. had the player walked and not made an out, our run expectancy would have been 2.417, so even a walk is batter than a sac fly with runners on second and third. With just a runner on third? 1.297 - sac fly 1.904 - walk so with no outs, a walk is always better than a sac fly. Ditto for sac bunt. With one out it might be different 1 Out scenario __3 - 1.117 - sac fly __3 - 1.243 - walk _23 - 1.344 - sac fly (1.387) _23 - 1.650 - walk on a sac fly with a runner on second as well as third, I am saying the runner doesn't advance, the number in parantheses says he does... so under no circumstances is a sac fly worth more than a walk with a league average hitter on deck. With Matt Clement on deck, that's different.