[ashark]

> For example: The members of the defending team adopt fielding positions based on a maximum potential for fielding a hit ball. But if there is even a threat of a stolen base attempt, the defense must change their positioning accordingly, affecting their ability to field a ball put into play.

Yeah, that was the biggest flaw I spotted in the analysis of base-stealing: it doesn't seem to capture effect of the threat of base stealing on the defense's behavior, which is very probably non-zero and in favor of the offense. If you never, ever steal, and the defense knows that (someone'll notice before long), they can play better defense against the batter. It may still work out that a never-steal rule still provides better outcomes (by a smaller margin), but I'm guessing "rarely steal" ends up being the better guideline, overall.

[hyperpape]

If that's true, then I believe it means that the defenders are overcompensating for stealing. As I understand it, in equilibrium you'll have the feature that the defense cannot benefit by guarding steals less closely in exchange for better fielding position.

If trying to steal loses bases, then the defense could spend less effort preventing steals, and more effort fielding.

This principle comes up a lot: if you get into every college/job you applied to, then you probably didn't apply to enough schools/jobs, unless 1) you didn't want to go to Harvard/AppAmaFaceGooSoft, 2) you got in to Harvard/AppAmaFaceGooSoft, 3) you couldn't afford the applications.

[lodi]

He briefly addressed this in one of the appendices:

"Another reason to sac bunt (or bunt in general) is that the tendency to sometimes do this induces changes in defense which make non-bunt plays work better."

It apparently changes the probabilities slightly, but not enough to change the overall conclusion.