SpecialFNK wrote:i would rather have a player at 2nd base with 1 out than 1st base with 0 out.
Then you must not like scoring runs. A man on 1st with no outs is more likely to generate a run, or has a higher average run expectancy anyway, than a man on 2nd with one out.
Bunting, unless you're in a close game late, is generally stupid and a waste of an out.
From the Markov Chain article:
The number of bunt transitions is not nearly large enough to support any definitive conclusions, but it is still interesting to interpret the above data. The sacrifice bunt as practiced in the games sampled appears to have been a good play. There is a meaningful increase in the probability of scoring at least one run in the AL games, a small increase for the NL one out bunts, and a sizeable decrease for the NL no out bunts. However, all of the NL one out bunts and many if not most of the NL no out bunts are by pitchers. With a pitcher hitting away, the actual probability of scoring after (1,0) or (1,1) is much less than the values shown, which are based on all players. Thus, the NL comparisons are more in favor of the bunt, especially with pitchers batting, than shown, although the exact amount can't be quantified from the data available.
It seems like sac bunts are a good way to increase the probability of scoring 1 run, but total scoring might decrease some.