[Mick]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

He's #3 in the league in batting average, #6 in OPS.  And I think he's a natural shortstop, so Vosler would go to the corner.

https://www.milb.com/pacific-coast/stats...ng-average

[Mick]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

He's #3 in the league in batting average, #6 in OPS.  And I think he's a natural shortstop, so Vosler would go to the corner.

https://www.milb.com/pacific-coast/stats...ng-average

[DC 86]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

I wouldn't put too much stock in 115 AAA plate appearances this year, certainly not more than I would his 121 career major league plate appearances (with a 214/267/348 line.)

The six different sophisticated projection systems that FanGraphs publishes project him as ranging between 234/277/355 to 239/285/369.

[DC 86]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

I wouldn't put too much stock in 115 AAA plate appearances this year, certainly not more than I would his 121 career major league plate appearances (with a 214/267/348 line.)

The six different sophisticated projection systems that FanGraphs publishes project him as ranging between 234/277/355 to 239/285/369.

[Mick]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

I wouldn't put too much stock in 115 AAA plate appearances this year, certainly not more than I would his 121 career major league plate appearances (with a 214/267/348 line.)

The six different sophisticated projection systems that FanGraphs publishes project him as ranging between 234/277/355 to 239/285/369.

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

[Mick]

Estrada hitting .381 in the PCL.  What's the rule?  IIRC, subtract 100 hitting points from PCL to MLB, so he should be in the .281 range.

I wouldn't put too much stock in 115 AAA plate appearances this year, certainly not more than I would his 121 career major league plate appearances (with a 214/267/348 line.)

The six different sophisticated projection systems that FanGraphs publishes project him as ranging between 234/277/355 to 239/285/369.

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

[DC 86]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

[DC 86]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

[Mick]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

Well, two standard deviations above or below the projection would cover 95% of the players in the league, so the projection doesn't seem very useful to me.  You stated they were six different "sophisticated" projections.  By your use of the term, I inferred that you considered them dispositive and therefore stood behind them.  So it seemed to me, my read on your comments was that the optimal end of the six sophisticated projections was .239 but you're telling me it's the mean (incidentally, the current NL leaguewide batting average is .235, same as SFG). So two standard deviations above the .239 would put him at about .288, right?  And two standard deviations below would put him at .205?  Assuming 425 +/- players, top 2.5% or about top 10 hitters and bottom ten hitters among position players.

[Mick]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

Well, two standard deviations above or below the projection would cover 95% of the players in the league, so the projection doesn't seem very useful to me.  You stated they were six different "sophisticated" projections.  By your use of the term, I inferred that you considered them dispositive and therefore stood behind them.  So it seemed to me, my read on your comments was that the optimal end of the six sophisticated projections was .239 but you're telling me it's the mean (incidentally, the current NL leaguewide batting average is .235, same as SFG). So two standard deviations above the .239 would put him at about .288, right?  And two standard deviations below would put him at .205?  Assuming 425 +/- players, top 2.5% or about top 10 hitters and bottom ten hitters among position players.

[DC 86]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

Well, two standard deviations above or below the projection would cover 95% of the players in the league, so the projection doesn't seem very useful to me.  You stated they were six different "sophisticated" projections.  By your use of the term, I inferred that you considered them dispositive and therefore stood behind them.  So it seemed to me, my read on your comments was that the optimal end of the six sophisticated projections was .239 but you're telling me it's the mean (incidentally, the current NL leaguewide batting average is .235, same as SFG). So two standard deviations above the .239 would put him at about .288, right?  And two standard deviations below would put him at .205?  Assuming 425 +/- players, top 2.5% or about top 10 hitters and bottom ten hitters among position players.

I thought my short answer was easy to understand, but perhaps not, so I will try to simplify it for you.

If I said that "I think Tanner McKee will throw for 15 touchdowns next year" that means that it's my best guess. Implicit would be that there's a 50% chance that he throws more than 15 touchdowns and a 50% chance that he throws fewer. It would be absurd for your retort to be "Sounds like you think Tanner McKee's ceiling is throwing 15 touchdowns" as a setup for "I told you so" if he subsequently throws for 20 touchdowns.

That's essentially what you did, to which I responded, since it looked like a deliberate effort to misrepresent my argument.

You used an anecdotal "system" based on a very small sample size in a brand new league that only has partial overlap to the league that forms the benchmark for your estimate. I countered by referencing projection systems that have been independently documented to yield the most accurate results in this area historically. That's all it is; you're free to believe what you believe, I'm free to believe what I believe, and anyone still reading these posts can form their own judgments.

The fact that substantial variance exists doesn't make a projection less useful at all; it's simply an acknowledgment that in a limited sample size (and even a full major league season isn't a large sample size, moreso for a player like Estrada who's joining the team over two months after the start of the season and is unlikely to be a full time player) outcomes are going to be all above the place. That doesn't change where the most likely range of outcomes is centered, which is still valuable information for whatever purpose you use projections.

Now I'm back to focusing on Stanford trying to hold on against UC Irvine, which seems far more important.

[DC 86]

Actually, I think I might put more stock in a 25 year old's recent plate appearances than year old or two year old MLB efforts.  His prior best AAA stat was .266/313/.452 -- and now he's hitting 115 points higher.  Maybe he improved, maybe the training/coaching got better, maybe he benefitted from a change of scenery.  Or maybe not.  We'll find out.  Seems as if you have him at a ceiling of .239.

That last sentence is a deliberately unfair summary of what I said.

A projection is not a ceiling. A projection is a projection, meaning the median projected outcome. His ceiling could be as much as 1-2 standard deviations above his projection, just as his floor may be 1-2 standard deviations below his projection. And over a short period the variance could be even larger.

Well, two standard deviations above or below the projection would cover 95% of the players in the league, so the projection doesn't seem very useful to me.  You stated they were six different "sophisticated" projections.  By your use of the term, I inferred that you considered them dispositive and therefore stood behind them.  So it seemed to me, my read on your comments was that the optimal end of the six sophisticated projections was .239 but you're telling me it's the mean (incidentally, the current NL leaguewide batting average is .235, same as SFG). So two standard deviations above the .239 would put him at about .288, right?  And two standard deviations below would put him at .205?  Assuming 425 +/- players, top 2.5% or about top 10 hitters and bottom ten hitters among position players.

I thought my short answer was easy to understand, but perhaps not, so I will try to simplify it for you.

If I said that "I think Tanner McKee will throw for 15 touchdowns next year" that means that it's my best guess. Implicit would be that there's a 50% chance that he throws more than 15 touchdowns and a 50% chance that he throws fewer. It would be absurd for your retort to be "Sounds like you think Tanner McKee's ceiling is throwing 15 touchdowns" as a setup for "I told you so" if he subsequently throws for 20 touchdowns.

That's essentially what you did, to which I responded, since it looked like a deliberate effort to misrepresent my argument.

You used an anecdotal "system" based on a very small sample size in a brand new league that only has partial overlap to the league that forms the benchmark for your estimate. I countered by referencing projection systems that have been independently documented to yield the most accurate results in this area historically. That's all it is; you're free to believe what you believe, I'm free to believe what I believe, and anyone still reading these posts can form their own judgments.

The fact that substantial variance exists doesn't make a projection less useful at all; it's simply an acknowledgment that in a limited sample size (and even a full major league season isn't a large sample size, moreso for a player like Estrada who's joining the team over two months after the start of the season and is unlikely to be a full time player) outcomes are going to be all above the place. That doesn't change where the most likely range of outcomes is centered, which is still valuable information for whatever purpose you use projections.

Now I'm back to focusing on Stanford trying to hold on against UC Irvine, which seems far more important.

[Phogge]

Probably the reason that I don’t care much about stats is that I stop at addition and subtraction. I had to repeat simple algebra in college (still finished 3.25 overall) so I would have flunked out of Stanford.

W’s are the only stat I care about. If Stanford can run the ball McKee or West or Palu won’t have to throw 20 TD’s. I’d rather be 20-8 with an era of over 4 than 12-14 with a 3. As a pitcher when you get behind you need to find that little extra to keep your team in the game. That’s what made Vic Raschi great and what kept him out of the Hall.

Luck probably could have matched Joe Burrow’s numbers but he didn’t need to. You could tell how good he was on a spring evening at Kezar in 2009. I sat between Bob Lee (longtime NFL) and the infamous (around here) Doctor Football (NFL, CFL) and they raved. McKee will impress the scouts for sure but will impress me more with many W’s.

[Phogge]

Probably the reason that I don’t care much about stats is that I stop at addition and subtraction. I had to repeat simple algebra in college (still finished 3.25 overall) so I would have flunked out of Stanford.

W’s are the only stat I care about. If Stanford can run the ball McKee or West or Palu won’t have to throw 20 TD’s. I’d rather be 20-8 with an era of over 4 than 12-14 with a 3. As a pitcher when you get behind you need to find that little extra to keep your team in the game. That’s what made Vic Raschi great and what kept him out of the Hall.

Luck probably could have matched Joe Burrow’s numbers but he didn’t need to. You could tell how good he was on a spring evening at Kezar in 2009. I sat between Bob Lee (longtime NFL) and the infamous (around here) Doctor Football (NFL, CFL) and they raved. McKee will impress the scouts for sure but will impress me more with many W’s.

[old spanish trail]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

[old spanish trail]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

[Phogge]

Don’t worry now with Dickerson out we are getting closer to seeing Heliot Ramos.

[Phogge]

Don’t worry now with Dickerson out we are getting closer to seeing Heliot Ramos.

[lex24]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

Slater needs to cut down strikeouts. They are high even for today’s game.

[lex24]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

Slater needs to cut down strikeouts. They are high even for today’s game.

[teejers1]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

Slater needs to cut down strikeouts. They are high even for today’s game.

Giants need a closer.  Rogers ain't that.

[teejers1]

As Tauchman looked over matched at the plate again, I said to others in the room, they should send him down and play Slater. Then BOOM. I still think .200 to .220 is about his level. That's really not good enuf. He was hitting about .186. Of course, Slater is not doing much better. At least he hasn't dropped below .200.

Slater needs to cut down strikeouts. They are high even for today’s game.

Giants need a closer.  Rogers ain't that.

[BobK]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings.
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender. However Rogers pitched fine. Hard when you start with a runner on second

[BobK]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings.
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender. However Rogers pitched fine. Hard when you start with a runner on second

[lex24]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

Rogers has been excellent all season.  Defense let him down.  A lights out closer would be great. Tell me where to get him and the cost?

[lex24]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

Rogers has been excellent all season.  Defense let him down.  A lights out closer would be great. Tell me where to get him and the cost?

[Phogge]

There is such a thing as a pitchers union. I would try to get all pitchers to agree to throw to second into infinity in the 10th inning to show their disgust for this crappy rule. It's artificial and unfair to both teams.

And finally somebody agrees with my thought of a month ago. The Giants need a closer. Beg, borrow or steal.

[Phogge]

There is such a thing as a pitchers union. I would try to get all pitchers to agree to throw to second into infinity in the 10th inning to show their disgust for this crappy rule. It's artificial and unfair to both teams.

And finally somebody agrees with my thought of a month ago. The Giants need a closer. Beg, borrow or steal.

[lex24]

There is such a thing as a pitchers union. I would try to get all pitchers to agree to throw to second into infinity in the 10th inning to show their disgust for this crappy rule. It's artificial and unfair to both teams.

And finally somebody agrees with my thought of a month ago. The Giants need a closer. Beg, borrow or steal.

Never a matter of disagreeing.  Question is the cost. Prospect wise.  And if they give up quality prospects, they have to be “in it”. It’s June 10.  Deadline is July 31.  Let’s see where they are at end of this month. If they still appear to be a contender (and I still have my doubts) then you start looking. But again, it’s going to depend on the cost.

[lex24]

There is such a thing as a pitchers union. I would try to get all pitchers to agree to throw to second into infinity in the 10th inning to show their disgust for this crappy rule. It's artificial and unfair to both teams.

And finally somebody agrees with my thought of a month ago. The Giants need a closer. Beg, borrow or steal.

Never a matter of disagreeing.  Question is the cost. Prospect wise.  And if they give up quality prospects, they have to be “in it”. It’s June 10.  Deadline is July 31.  Let’s see where they are at end of this month. If they still appear to be a contender (and I still have my doubts) then you start looking. But again, it’s going to depend on the cost.

[BobK]

Ah Phogge coaching softball for almost 20 years and a fan for 27 or so I’m very used to the runner on second to start the extra innings.

Lex more like fluke hits today off Rogers

How about Long ? 4 innings one hit a HR but 7 Ks

[BobK]

Ah Phogge coaching softball for almost 20 years and a fan for 27 or so I’m very used to the runner on second to start the extra innings.

Lex more like fluke hits today off Rogers

How about Long ? 4 innings one hit a HR but 7 Ks

[Phogge]

Softball ugh. Totally different game. Little League proportions. This is a stupid rule. What's wrong with a 16 inning game? Marichal/Spahn. Or a 23 inning game? Perry.

[Phogge]

Softball ugh. Totally different game. Little League proportions. This is a stupid rule. What's wrong with a 16 inning game? Marichal/Spahn. Or a 23 inning game? Perry.

[qwerty49]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

[qwerty49]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

[lex24]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

“Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out.”

One would think that to be the case.  But not so these days.  Players don’t bunt (and if I’m the road team I’m not bunting anyway) and situational hitting is poor. 

 Key to winning in xtras with the ghost runner is to have a high strikeout option in the bullpen.  Giants don’t.  Which is why I expect them to continue to struggle in xtra inning games . 

[lex24]

I watched ground ball hit pop up hit. That’s it off Rogers in 2 innings. 
Yes we need a solid closer if we are remaining a contender.  However Rogers pitched fine.  Hard when you start with a runner on second

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

“Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out.”

One would think that to be the case.  But not so these days.  Players don’t bunt (and if I’m the road team I’m not bunting anyway) and situational hitting is poor. 

 Key to winning in xtras with the ghost runner is to have a high strikeout option in the bullpen.  Giants don’t.  Which is why I expect them to continue to struggle in xtra inning games . 

[DC 86]

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

Since you asked, in the last full MLB season (2019) a team with a man on second and no outs scored at least one run 61% of the time. Offense is down slightly this season, but that's countered by teams in extra innings being more likely to use pinch runners, pinch hitters and context-specific strategies that increase the likelihood of scoring a run even if it decreases run expectancy (a team that is down by a run in the bottom of an extra inning will first prioritize scoring at least one run; a "big inning" of 3+ runs is obviously no longer a consideration.)

There have been a lot of additional total runs being scored in extra innings under the new rule but the scenario of multiple extra innings still requires teams to score the exact number of runs in each extra inning, which is not that common.

As far as runner on second with no outs vs runner in third with one out: the run expectancy with a man in second /no outs is significantly higher than the run expectancy with a man in third/one out, so in the top of an extra inning it's still a mistake to attempt a sacrifice since the goal is still to score as many runs as possible. In the bottom of an extra inning, even if the goal is not to maximize runs but to maximize the chance of scoring a run (i.e. in a tie game or down by a run) it's still very close. The chance of scoring in the second/no outs is the aforementioned 61% which increases to 65% in the third/one out scenario, however a successful sacrifice is not a 100% proposition; overall close enough that the optimal strategy probably comes down to the speed of the base runner, the hitting ability of the batter, the bunting ability of the batter, etc.

[DC 86]

I’m sure Mick or DC86 can cite the percentages, and I get the math,  but on the face of it both teams can score pretty easily. Man on 2nd with no outs translates pretty easily to man on 3rd with one out. I’m surprised there aren’t more games where it’s 14-14 going into the top of the 20th.

Since you asked, in the last full MLB season (2019) a team with a man on second and no outs scored at least one run 61% of the time. Offense is down slightly this season, but that's countered by teams in extra innings being more likely to use pinch runners, pinch hitters and context-specific strategies that increase the likelihood of scoring a run even if it decreases run expectancy (a team that is down by a run in the bottom of an extra inning will first prioritize scoring at least one run; a "big inning" of 3+ runs is obviously no longer a consideration.)

There have been a lot of additional total runs being scored in extra innings under the new rule but the scenario of multiple extra innings still requires teams to score the exact number of runs in each extra inning, which is not that common.

As far as runner on second with no outs vs runner in third with one out: the run expectancy with a man in second /no outs is significantly higher than the run expectancy with a man in third/one out, so in the top of an extra inning it's still a mistake to attempt a sacrifice since the goal is still to score as many runs as possible. In the bottom of an extra inning, even if the goal is not to maximize runs but to maximize the chance of scoring a run (i.e. in a tie game or down by a run) it's still very close. The chance of scoring in the second/no outs is the aforementioned 61% which increases to 65% in the third/one out scenario, however a successful sacrifice is not a 100% proposition; overall close enough that the optimal strategy probably comes down to the speed of the base runner, the hitting ability of the batter, the bunting ability of the batter, etc.