Question regarding stealing, hitting with held on

[Knerrpool]

I know this question has been done to death, but I've seen different answers so I just want to make sure I understand it. Regarding a player with a * steal rating versus one without a *, I've seen [i:8acad13493] "the * means if he is not held on, he will always get a good lead" [/i:8acad13493] and I've seen [i:8acad13493]"the * means he will [b:8acad13493]always [/b:8acad13493]be held on"[/i:8acad13493]. If the second statement is true, does that happen if the runner is on second base as well? What about if the * runner is on first and there is another runner on second?

Regarding the player hitting behind the aforementioned * runner, I've seen that if the runner is being held on, this lowers the infielders defensive rating by 1. I've also seen that, on the hitters card, any groundball with a + (i.e. gb(2b)A+) becomes a single if the runner is held on. Are both of these things true and would that affect who you have hitting after the * runner? A lot of leadoff guys are * runners and you would typically have another high OBP guy after him (and, I guess, would want low gb(A) even if they are +), but if you've got a * runner lower in your lineup, would it statistically make sense to have a gb+ guy after him, even if he is possibly a weaker hitter than someone else?

Thanks.

[maligned]

I'll answer part of this. Others can answer the rest.

1. Only the lead runner is held on. Trail runners are not held.
2. gbA+ ratings only affect the fielders doing the holding. For holding a runner on first, this will be the first baseman and the shortstop against lefthanded hitters and the first baseman and second baseman against righthanded hitters. Most gbA results are then pulled to the opposite middle infielder from the one doing the holding. Thus, the amount of times you get the '+' benefit compared to the number of times you ground into double plays are not nearly enough to warrant putting a high double play (gbA) guy in the 2 or 3 position of your batting order.
3. It's true that star* guys will be held much more than non-star guys, but I don't recall the details of how Hal decides or how often Hal holds guys at second base. Someone else will have to give these answers.

[Mean Dean]

[quote:99eb6e86b2="maligned"]gbA+ ratings only affect the fielders doing the holding.[/quote:99eb6e86b2]No, in the super-advanced version of the game (i.e., this one), gbA+ results only apply when the infield is in. What holding does is a) worsen the holding fielder's range by one rating, and b) turn 20% of that fielder's X-rolls from outs into singles.

In any event, you're not going to "hit the holds" enough to justify hitting a high-GIDP player 2nd. If anything, you should hit such a player 1st, so no one will be on base to begin with...

[quote:99eb6e86b2="maligned"]I don't recall the details of how Hal decides or how often Hal holds guys at second base.[/quote:99eb6e86b2]Yeah, I don't think anyone can answer these questions for 100% certain, because they depend on the exact details of how the TSN computer manager is programmed, which we don't have access to.

But, if it is programmed the same way as the computer game -- and that seems like a very safe assumption -- then anyone with a * will in fact be held on 1st (unless it's a blowout.) As far as players without a *, I believe [b:99eb6e86b2]lucky[/b:99eb6e86b2] has said that in his opinion, it won't hold unless the player has a decent chance to get the lead. That hasn't been what I've noticed; in my experience, it will in fact hold the 2/- (20-6) type guy. But [b:99eb6e86b2]lucky[/b:99eb6e86b2] has probably played about as much as I have.

As far as holding on 2nd... well, for one thing, the * doesn't matter once the guy's on 2nd, we at least know that. I think it will only hold on 2nd if the guy is [i:99eb6e86b2]really[/i:99eb6e86b2] fast, i.e. both a very high chance to get the lead, and a very high chance of success given the lead. But I haven't paid nearly as much attention to that.

[maligned]

Thanks for the correction, Dean. Good stuff as always.

[childsmwc]

Dean,

I actually had several results with a 1 at SS giving up the single on an X chance (runner on 1B Left handed batter, so SS was responsible for hold and allowed the single). It helped answer the hold question and it significantly lessens the value of the asterisk.

The computer was holding Ted Kluszewski a non asterisk runner with only a chance on a 3 to get the lead and a (13-5) if he gets the lead. What I determined (it happened on several other occasions) is that Hal is programed to hold runners based on their success chance of stealing and he completely ignores the likelihood that they will get the lead.

I don't recall now, but I think with the hold and catcher/pitcher holds he was a 13 to safely steal, so I think that is where Hal is set to hold at.

The reason I say it significantly reduces the value of the asterisk is that Hal holds everyone and ignores the % chance that they can even get the lead. Hals actual programming should look something more like:

If asterisk, hold runner if greater than 60% success chance to steal
If no asterisk, hold runner if greater than 60% success chance to steal and 25% chance to get lead.

In the CD ROM game you can set all three of those factors to achieve that result, but I wouldn't trust Hal to be set that way.

[MARCPELLETIER]

I stand corrected. Hal does hold runners with 2 (20/6) rating.

Which is really stupid.

[downingfan]

So i am completely wrong in my assumption that all +'s on a batters card turn in to Single** when there is a runner being held??

I'm sure alot of you have already answered this question in the past but i could be overlooking a huge detail.

[Mean Dean]

Right, see my earlier post in this thread (11 Nov 2009 17:06).

[downingfan]

Thanks Dean, good info...now its time for some slight line up adjustments