Literally the math and actual real world scenarios have been tested
Runner on 2B with no outs has a run expectancy of 1.10, runner on 3B with 1 out has a run expectancy of 0.95
It's math, not an opinion.
Edited to link: https://www.danblewett.com/run-expectancy-bunting-bad/
Well, since they clearly only hire the visually challenged to be actual umpires, it would make sense that the people in the replay room would be blind f***ing idiots too.
They've been really bad at it since they started. It's almost like the people looking at replay HATE the idea of replay so they're trying to undermine it.
That was ridiculous on its face, nobody could look at that and agree with that call. Nobody.
Holy f***, he was nowhere near the base, how could this possibly not be overturned?
Oh, right, the idiots in New York are idiots, so like 20% chance they get this call correct.
Anyone here defending the sac bunt move should look at exactly what just happened and realize that even when they tried to do the stupid move that was a bad idea, they failed.
BUNTING IS f***ING DUMB AS f*** 95% OF THE GODDAMN TIME.
Maile blooping the ball into right field is more likely than the bunt resulting in a run. Bunting is bad when you crunch the numbers, NEVER f***ING BUNT. Unless you're in the dumb NL where they pretend that pitchers hitting is a thing that anyone wants...
The math says that a sac bunt is bad.
Maile has hit flare singles in the past, it's not like he literally cannot hit the baseball. Him swinging away has a better chance of a good result than him sac bunting.
He gave up 2 strikes with stupid bunt attempts.
Oh, and if he had successfully bunted there, the Jays still wouldn't have scored on that ground out to first.