SpaceCityAg05 said:
Because the run expectancy numbers are taking the whole picture into account, which includes the odds of putting up a crooked number. This is why in conventional situations the sac bunt is a foolish play as it decreases run expectancy. It improves the odds of scoring that one run, but drastically reduces the odds of scoring more than one run.
However, as the home team in the bottom of the ninth and beyond in a tie game, you only need one run. Therefore, the bunt CAN be a smart play depending on other factors.
That being said, the BEST play with quality hitters is to hit to the right side of the field so that the runners moves up regardless without sacrificing the chance to get a hit.
Simply put, in Manfred ball if the home team prevents the visitor from scoring in the top of the frame, then it should be easy to win in the bottom. Yet the Astros consistently fail in this area. The only way games should get to the 11th inning and beyond is if you get a stalemate where both teams keep scoring one run per inning.
In run expectancy numbers, the 1 run is still there, correct? Whether the inning is scoring 1 run or multiple, the 1 run is still scored. Who cares about multiple runs in that case? Don't you still want the highest odd to score 1?
You are going from a scenario where 1 run is scored more often than not to a scenario where 1 run is scored less often than not. I'm not talking about the over scenario where multiple runs are scored. I'm talking about the exact 1 run you need because it's included in the numbers. You're willingly giving up a scenario where you will more often than not score more than 1 run by giving up an out via bunt.
At least this is how I view it. If I'm interpreting rune expectancy wrong, please tell me.