Wade Boggs knows more about getting on base than anyone I've ever met. But the Hall of Famer's career .415 on-base percentage should've been higher. The reason it wasn't? The sacrifice fly.

Boggs' 96 career sacrifice flies actually knocked his on-base percentage down four points — from a would-be .419 to the actual .415 — because, unlike a sacrifice bunt, a sacrifice fly actually counts against a player's on-base percentage, despite having no effect on batting average. Didn't know that? You're not alone. Even Boggs was perplexed.

“It is strange," he told me. "You get rewarded [with an RBI and by helping your team], but then you are penalized at the same time.”

Exactly, which is why it's time for baseball to rethink the sacrifice fly.

MORE: Spring training reporting dates for all 30 teams

I suppose the idea is that bunting is viewed as the intentional act of giving oneself up, while a sacrifice fly is instead viewed as a literal stroke of luck. But I don't buy that a sacrifice fly is pure luck; it is a skill, just like bunting. Boggs seems to agree.

“It’s really not even that hard," he said. "It is what we preach at the high school [Boggs is a coach for the 2016 High School District Champion Wharton Wildcats] with a man on third and less than two outs.”

Sacrifice flies have been an official baseball statistic since 1954. Previously, they were grouped with sacrifice bunts, known as “sacrifice hits." So, for example, Babe Ruth, who played his entire career before 1954 and had a career .474 on-base percentage, actually gets a bump because his sacrifice flies were not held against him.

Since their separation, it has been determined that neither would count as an at-bat, thus not harming a player’s batting average, but that sacrifice bunts would not be held against a player’s on-base percentage. This, of course, raises an issue.

“How many base hit bunt attempts end up being sacrifice bunts because runners advance, but the batter was thrown out at first?" said Cody Asche of the White Sox. "At best you get a hit, at worst you don’t impact your numbers. Which is (essentially) the same as with a sacrifice fly. At best you get an extra-base hit, at worst a sacrifice fly. Don’t execute either way? It is a non-productive out."

So why penalize a batter who produces an unquestionably productive out?

The greater sacrifice

Modern baseball statistics — specifically, win probability added — have taught us that bunting almost always has a negative effect on a team’s probability of victory, whereas the sacrifice fly will, more often than not, increase a given team’s probability of victory. But for some reason, a batter is punished for the one that has the most positive influence on the outcome of a game for his team. In essence, a player is rewarded for the lesser “sacrifice," while the greater “sacrifice” is perhaps made even greater because his on-base percentage incurs a penalty.

“The sacrifice fly should not count against the hitter in any way. It is helping your team score, which is a positive,” said Geoff Blum, who had 40 career sacrifice flies.

MORE: MLB unveils 2017 spring training hats, jerseys

After all, a batter can intentionally hit a sac fly, just as he can lay down a sac bunt, right?

“You are correct," Blum said. "Big leagues hitters try to and can hit medium fly balls for sacrifice flies. ... The sacrifice fly is a guaranteed run. The sacrifice bunt is not.”

Besides, hitters can take advantage of the sacrifice bunt rule.

“The sac bunt is a bogus stat, because guys will try to do it knowing they will not have an 0-for-1 in the box and possibly a 1-for-1 with a hit," said Kevin Youkilis, famous for his ability to get on base and who had 44 career sacrifice flies of his own, including a league leading 11 in 2006. “I also never understood why a player gets a sacrifice for bunting, but not moving a runner over [by way of a well-placed ground ball]. You are taught to do it all the time. Give yourself up for the team. Why not be rewarded for being selfless?”

Truth, Youk.

'Your approach changes'

Let’s take a look at an extreme and improbable hypothetical situation, but one that is, in theory, possible. Say a ballplayer goes 1-for-1 on the season with a solo home run and 501 sacrifice flies. He then bats 1.000/.002/4.000 on the year with 502 RBIs. Despite a "horrible" .002 on-base percentage, this would undoubtedly represent the greatest individual single-season offensive effort in baseball history.

That obscene stat line illustrates a key point: Because a hitter often adopts a different mindset in a sac-fly situation, the execution of the mindset definitely takes skill. And there's no reason to punish the successful execution of an important skill.

“Your approach changes with a runner on third and less than two out — it has to," said Bret Boone, who had a career .354/.359/.585 with 73 sacrifice flies and 358 RBIs with a man on third with less than two outs. "You’ve got one job to do with a man on third and less than two outs. Get that that man home. You have to know that. Some guys are better at it than others."

Boone continued: “I can deal with an 0-for-4, but man, I leave a runner on third with less than two outs ... that’ll ruin my whole night. ... No way should a sacrifice fly go against your OBP. It is a completely different approach. You don’t hit them by accident.”

Former big-leaguer Todd Hollandsworth went a step further.

“I don’t believe there has ever been an accidental sacrifice fly,” he said. “No hitter walks to home plate and fails to realize there's a runner on third with less than two outs. It is his job to assess the situation. Hitting is about relaxing the mind, simplifying the demands of the situation, and then executing.”

MORE: A baseball fan's survival guide for winter's stretch drive

Hollandsworth continued: “I have never hit a sacrifice fly and not slapped hands with every teammate in the dugout. ... I’ve found that rule ridiculous. ... Why should a hitter be penalized for doing what the situation asks?”

In other words, again, players view a sacrifice fly as an intentional act — just like a sac bunt.

"When there is a guy on third with less than two out, I know I want to get the ball in the air. A base hit would be great, don’t get me wrong, but I want to get the run in," said the Phillies' Cameron Rupp. "I don’t understand why it wouldn’t count the same as a sac bunt. ... I think it does need to be changed, 100 percent.”

Players' consensus

In all, I spoke to an even dozen current and former ballplayers — Hall of Famer Tim Raines (76 career sac flies), Jerry Hairston Jr. (35 career sac flies) and Phillies slugger Tommy Joseph (six sac flies in 2016) also among them — and the jury is in: There is no reason that the sacrifice fly should be held against a player’s on-base percentage.

Look no further than this final point: In 1954, when the sacrifice fly was established as its own statistic, a stipulation was made so that it would not impact a player’s batting average, which at the time was believe to be the keystone statistic representing offensive output. Today, we know that batting average does not paint a clear picture, rather on-base percentage is a much more vivid portrait of a batter’s production. However, it did not become an official statistic until 1984, and even then was not lauded by the masses for another 15-20 years.

We are privy to a lot of information and data that was not previously available. Using it, we can determine that the 1954 formula for on-base percentage ([H + BB + HBP] / [AB + BB + HBP + SF]) is outdated and in fact the formula that pre-dates it ([H + BB + HBP] / [AB + BB + HBP]) is probably a better representation.

It's clearly time for a change. Don't punish a ballplayer for successful execution.