Originally Posted by 757690
While in the abstract, statistically you have a slightly better chance of scoring a run from first with no outs than you do from second with one out, the difference is so small I would not call it "insane". The difference is .436 to .421, basically 1.5 times every hundred times tried.
And that is in the abstract. Factor in actual batters, pitchers, matchups, and there are times where it makes sense to bunt. Not saying all the times the Reds did were smart, but theoretically speaking, bunting with a runner on first and no outs can be advantageous.
I believe the difference is more than that. Last year, for instance, a runner on 1st and 0 outs = .925 expected runs (according to Baseball Prospectus), whereas a runner on 2nd with 1 out = .728 expected runs (I'm not sure how that translates to chance of scoring runs, so you could be correct about that). That also assumes that the sacrifice works, which clearly there is not a 100% chance of, so it would seem your chances of scoring runs when deciding to sac bunt with a guy on 1st and 0 outs goes down even further. You also have a significantly greater chance to score runs when you don't have any outs. By giving up an out, you signficantly decrease your chances of scoring more than one run, and you give away your best chance to score runs period.
You are correct. There are a few times when sacrificing the guy over is the right call, depending upon who's up, who's on, who's on deck, the score, the inning, etc. Dusty doesn't seem to take any of this into account. He sacrificed in the first inning last week at least once!