So, I know the numbers. I have seen the tables. I know that outs are precious. I understand that sacrifice bunting reduces the odds of a big inning, and even reduces the likelihood of scoring a single run if you bunt with a man on first and no one out. I even realize that sacrifice bunting can certainly fail, with pop ups and strikeouts, and even the occasional double play. But hear me out. Maybe there is a case for bunting, after all. First of all, while the tables show that your team will score fewer overall runs in all three typical bunting situations (1st, 1st/2nd, 2nd with no one out), in the latter two situations, the tables show that you are, in fact, increasing your chance of scoring at all. Especially with a man on second and no one out, a sacrifice bunt increases the chances of cashing that runner at second. So there's that. Second, major league hitting is mostly about failure. The large majority of the time, a hitter fails to get a hit, and almost as much of the time, he returns to the dugout without getting on base. In addition, most innings, a team heads back out into the field with their gloves not having scored. Sacrifice bunting greatly increases the chances that a hitter will succeed--at the task he was assigned. Granted, the bar is lower, only being asked to advance the runner, but still, he returns to the dugout and gets a round of high fives. He feels positive and gains confidence, believing he helped move the team towards achieving its goal of scoring. Similarly, the next batter (especially the batter who comes up with a man on third and one out) has a much higher chance of success than he would in a normal at bat, because he can succeed in getting the run home with a mere fly out or grounder. And the team has, in at least two of the scenarios, increased their chance of success - defined as scoring in the inning. With so much failure in baseball, the confidence that comes from increasing hitters' chance of success must count for something. What that is, or how to measure it, I am not sure. Similarly, scoring a run is clearly better than not scoring a run. While scoring more runs is clearly better than scoring exactly one run, the choice between zero runs and (a small chance at) two or more runs is not so clear cut. Finally, the playoffs are a time when there are better pitchers on the mound. Only the best teams are in, and only the top 3 or maybe four pitchers from the rotation pitch, and then the best relievers. Runs are at a premium. Manufacturing runs, getting leads, adding on...are all a part of successful October baseball. Sometimes you need Dave Roberts to steal a base and get "productive out"-ed around to home to have a chance against Mariano Rivera. The Twins have certainly been practicing National league smallball this year under Molitor, and they may have increased their chances of succeeding at it for having practiced it. I know it's crazy. It's dumb to give away the few outs you have. I've long felt that, having spent years reading Baseball Prospectus, The Book, Tango, and Bill James. I understand the numbers. But maybe, just maybe, there is more to the story...and Molitor is crazy like a fox?