Some stats

Like i said, with Hal coaching, there is no difference between, say 4 (18/6) and *4(18/6). But a player with 2 (20/6) will have less hold, so it's not a * vs non * issue.

To come back with how Hal deals with holding a runner or not.

In a game tonight, Tulo (4/12, 13-5, no star) was held at first, against a wainright-Gattis combination (combined 0).

Also, recently, I saw Hal even held at first, first inning, a player who had a 2/(20-6) steal rating, only to realize that my combo was +5. So basically, if not held, my opponent could have tried to steal second without restraint with a 55% chance of success. But he was held, and a gb inning-ending dp was turned into a 3-run ouverture.

These examples are pretty much in line with my memory of playing the computer game. Hal holds in presence of a high probability to get the lead with a 55% chance of success, an average probability of getting the lead with a 60% chance of success, or a low probability with a 65% chance of success or higher- but not as low as 2 (1/36).

Deleted.

[ed according to Marc the analysis previously posted is wrong]

Hey freeman, you forgot that gbA+ don't matter when it comes to holding or not!! A gbA+ is turned to a single** only when the defensive team is playing in.

The negative impact from holding a runner comes uniquely from the defensive charts. A def-1 becomes a def-4 with regards to hits allowed, and becomes a def-2 with regards to gbA, gbB, gbC. Also, the net impact for holding runners depends on the situation and the defensive ratings of players, but the following applies for defenders rated 2 or better (all numbers per 216 PA):

A lefty hitter with a runner held on first: 2.7 more singles; 2.25 less gbA.
A righty hitter with a runner held on first: 2.4 more singles; 2 less gbA
A lefty hitter with a runner held on second: 3 more singles; 2.5 less gbA
A righty hitter with a runner held on second: 2.7 more singles; 2.25 less gbA

(if a defender is rated 3, they are LESS gbA lost because of an increase of gbB and gbC but hits are not changed. BTW, technically, if you look at the defensive charts, these gb are not called gbA/gbB/gbC, but G1/G2/G3, but they are equivalent).

I note that Dean Carrano assumed that fielders would only hold asterisk runners.

Yes, because in face-to-face strat, with a few exceptions, coaches only hold runners with asterisks. And I should add that Dean C's paper is addressed to the whole Strat community, and most of the Strat community play face-2-face or via netplay where they have controlled of the coaching decisions. But Dean's assumptions don't apply to the online game (same for your own assumptions you stated in last post). And, to repeat, the differences are not small. Just to illustrate:

Out of the 506 players in this year's set:
181 have an asterisk (are held both in face to face and by Hal)
181 don't have an asterisk, but they are held by Hal to various degrees (many are always held, but some are held only in presence of bad pitcher/catcher combination)
144 are probably never held even by Hal.

That's for holding at first-base only. At second base, I estimate that there is a set of 80 players that are probably always held by Hal at second base, and another set of 70 players who are held on occasion. In face to face, only a set of 20-40 runners are held systematically.

It's unclear as to the effect of not holding a player without an asterisk.

Technically, the effect of holding a player without an asterisk has no impact on his probability to get the lead, but it reduces the success rate of 10%, and the speed ability of the runner is reduced by 1 instead of being increased by 1.

In my examples above, without being held, Tulo would have a 8% chance to get the lead and try to steal with a 65% chance of success. Being held, the percentage to get the lead is not changed, but the rate success is down to 55%. (and Tulo becomes a 1-10 runner on bases instead of being a 1-12 runner without being held).

Well , I guess I got it wrong but it still seems like a minor effect on hitting due to speed. Is that fair to say?

Yes, the effect is small, but like you suggested, they can accumulate when all your runners have legs in concrete.