Bunt and run with 0 outs vs. 1 out

The hit and run is a glorified bunt. It's primary purpose is to advance the runner into scoring position. Anything more is just "gravy." But, the bunt and run is a little different in that regard. The bunt and run with a runner on 1st is designed to move the runner to 3B. The runner gets a good break and the ball is bunted at the 3B. The runner anticipates the throw to 1B and proceeds to 3B. Is this play worth running with 1 out?

I guess you could summarize the question with this simple point - can the batter beat the bunt out?

If there is a better chance than not that he will be thrown out, then you definitely don't want to bunt and run with 1 out. The batter will more than likely be thrown out at 1B for the 2nd out. This makes the runner going to 3B a very risky proposition.

Again, we never make the 1st or 3rd out at 3B. The last thing the coach wants to do is make this play a burden on the baserunner. Why would we start the runner and ask him to make it to 3B if there are 2 outs at the time? We wouldn't. So, the thought of the bunt and run with 1 out needs to be weighed vs. the batter beating out his bunt for a hit.

Another caveat- the bunt and run is not designed to be treated like a bunt for a hit. The batter squares late but puts the ball down in the direction of the 3B. The primary concern here is to make sure the ball is bunted. This makes it even more unlikely that the batter will beat out the bunt.

This is certainly a esoteric concept but one that needs considered when deciding if the bunt and run is a legitimate option.