The Nats won last night - after a "fun" ninth full of blown saves and initially blown calls. They won in extras by doing something that is somehow counter-intuitive in the ghost runner era. They bunted the runner over.
There's a lot of agreement on what you should do and that's not it, but oddly enough there isn't a lot of research into proving that agreement makes sense. And personally I think that agreement is wrong.
I'll note here that this is a very general talk. A lot of baseball decisions have to the with the EXACT situation on hand. Who's on second, who's up at the plate, who's up after them, who's pitching, how deep and good is your pen, and so on. Blindly following any rule is not the way to go. However, there can be a general guideline.
The general consensus is you don't bunt the runner over. A man on second with no outs and a team trying to score as many runs as possible will usually score more runs than a team trying to score as many runs as possible with a man on third with one out. That out matters a lot.
However, I posit that the first run is so much more important than the subsequent runs that the most important thing is that you score at all and you are more likely to score at all man on third, one-out than man on second, no-out.
Early analysis into ghost runner data showed some things. Generally the winning team scored more than one run. Generally the away team won. Generally though, the teams that bunted men over won more. But there aren't a lot of one-run games so it's a lot of small sample size work. Though each year we do add to it.
There are ways of figuring this out. Getting all the games from 2020 on and analyzing them is probably the best way. Using expected runs to estimate outcomes. Generalizing strategy and running thousands of simulations. It'd be great if someone did this, but as extra-inning games aren't all that common and the advantages are likely slight in either direction it's not a priority for teams. They weren't even sure it would be back. One of you must have the time though. Me? I'm busy! I got a job! Kids to feed!
Expected runs would be the easiest but the problem is the numbers we have are not situational. We know runner on 3rd, one out scores a run more often than runner on 2nd, no out. But we know that in context of every inning of every game where it's more likely you are always trying to score as many runs as you can. What if you were JUST trying to score 1 run given the first scenario? It's likely that slight advantage that exists now grows. But to what? And if the road team doesn't score the home team almost certainly tries for one, also changing expectancy. We must also consider whatever the road team scores, the home team could play for that number - trying to extend the game more than trying to win it. Do they? I'm sure it happens. But is it the prevalent way the game is played?
Simply analyzing scores doesn't tell you what you need to know. I can be playing to score as many runs as possible, but my first guy grounds to the right side and my second guy flies out and the last guy strikes out. I get a run but it's no different than if I just tried for one. I can be playing to score one, bunt the guy over, get IBBd to set up a DP and then my batter's attempt to just get one up in the air lands over the fence. Three runs when all you were going for was one. And let's not forget the potential pressure and situation. Teams do hit worse late & close, or in the 9th and extras, or when behind. If you score at all and you can put that pressure on and you can bring on maybe a better pitcher than you would if tied, shouldn't we factor that in?
This is why I think analyzing actual games is the best way to do it. There's assumptions we can make on strategy and then there is the way the game is actually played. And we CAN separate out "bunt first" half innings from others to see if there is success.
But until then right now we're seeing it comes down to feeling. A lot of people want as many runs as possible. I want just one.