I never liked the sacrifice bunt. As Earl Weaver used to say, you only get 27 outs in a game, so you better not waste them. Instead of bunting a runner to second, I'd rather play for a big inning or a three run homer. That's what wins most games, not moving the runner over. Too many double plays will get a manager fired however, so most do the "smart" thing, although I doubt they can prove it is statistically. In football, NFL coaches feel a lot of pressure to "get something" out of every trip into or close to the red zone. So they almost always settle for the field goal on fourth down rather than trying to make a first down. I've seen stats that suggested strongly you are better off to go for it inside the 10 if you only have a yard or two. Even if you fail to convert, your opponent takes over in terrible field position, an important factor, particularly if it's early in the game. I think reasonable assumptions can be made that support going for it anytime inside the 30 if your probablity of converting is greater than 70%. For a decent offensive team, I'd think anything inside three yards would be in that range. I think most coachs and fans have trouble thinking in probabilities. The coaches are thinking CYA, and the fans are ready to criticize any decision that goes wrong. so there is pressure to do the safe thing. I was frustrated this past week in an exhibition game when Coach Gibbs didn't go for a 57 yard field goal in the first half of a scoreless game. After watching the kicker hit the top of the goal post arm on a 48 yarder in the first game, i thought he had a good shot of making it. After running some basic probablities, I decided that going for a low percentage field goal is always a terrible strategy, unless you have no choice, ie fourth down and no time left. Your opponents' enhanced chances of scoring with the great field position they will receive if you miss totally offsets the expected value of the kick. It's tempting to want to see the kicker take a whack at it, but unless he is within >70% range, it's probably a suboptimal idea.