Like many of my fellow posters, I've been subjected to countless game threads being hijacked by a guy who seems to insist there is never, ever an instance where bunting makes sense. Here is where that logic goes wrong from a math POV.

Let me start by saying, it really only applies when you are truly playing for 1-run, and 1- run is all you need.

If you are truly in a position where you're willing to decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run in a given inning, and you have a runner on 1B with no outs, then the odds of scoring a single run by bunting the runner over to 2nd are nearly 6% greater than they are by, "swinging away".

When we look only at the overall statistics for "runs scored" or "run expectancy" for a game, it seems a slam-dunk that bunting is a bad idea. But when we look closely at the math for situations where the need for 1 run is paramount, math supports bunting the man to 2B as a better option, assuming you have a man at the plate who doesn't particularly suck at bunting.

While it does decrease your chances of scoring more than 1 run, and also slightly increases your chance of scoring zero runs, the increase in chances you'll score exactly one run is a good 4% better than the increased chance of scoring none.

All that said, I side with those who think playing for 1 run in an inning is a bad strategy overall if it's early in the game, and/or a situation where you aren't yet desperate to score a single run to extend or win the game.