Master Index of Archived Threads


Ban the balk

Edgy DC Dec 11 2006 01:41 PM

I stumbled upon this old online discussion in which Bill James criticizes the balk rule. Note his last sentence. Sean, MN: If you could change one of the game's rules, which one would you change and why? Bill James: There are several, but. . one could profitably get rid of the balk rule. Dan from NJ: Why would you want to get rid of the balk rule? Then you will never see a regular SB. Bill James: Nonsense. The balk rule doesn't work. You just need to replace it with a rule that works. Dante, Chicago: Can you elaborate on how/why the balk rule doesn't work? Thanks Bill James: The rule manifestly fails to achieve its goals. It's one of those rules that, when it didn't work, they tried to fix it. When that didn't work, they fixed it again, and they fixed it again, and they fixed it again. At some point they should have stopped and tried something else, but they didn't, so they stuck history with a rule which (a) is almost totally unintelligible, and (b) is arbitrary in its enforcement. In principle, trying to prevent one player from decoying another is a dumb idea. The balk rule is like a rule in basketball that says (a rule that would say. . .theoretical example) that if you fake a shot, you have to take the shot; otherwise it is travelling. That would be a dumb rule. The balk rule is basically the same thing, only applied to baseball. His point radical, but valid, and similar to Vic Sage's position against the infield fly rule. It seems it was decided at some point that anything that smacked of deception was unsportsmanlike, so they should outlaw opportunities for deception. In fact, deception is at the heart of, and one of the most exciting parts of, athletic competition. Some time late last season (I think in the playoffs against the Cards), Jose Reyes took a step or two to his left to spear a line drive with two runners on. Rather than squeeze it, he knocked it down, picked it up and went for the double-play. The umps knew what he was up to and called the batter out and the runners safe. Apparently there's a variation on the infield fly rule where the ball doesn't even have to be a fly. Even thinking faster than the play, Reyes was ineligible to capitalize on his ingenuity.

metirish Dec 11 2006 01:45 PM

James makes sense,how many games do you watch where the pitcher balks and it's never called,and he does it several times a game..

Edgy DC Dec 11 2006 01:52 PM

I dislike the balk rule a lot. But it strikes me that the reason we want some rule is that it's too easy for a pitcher to use very little effort in a series of farcical fake throws to first, causing the baserunner to expend a great deal of effort continually diving back. But... (1) it's not like pitchers routinely pull that crap on runners on second and third, and (2) so, guys would simply tend to take shorter leads off of first.

Vic Sage Dec 11 2006 02:20 PM

i think the only part of the game that would be effected by eliminating the balk rule would be a lower success rate in stealing 2b. If you want to counter the pitcher's edge in that realm, simply limit the number of attempted pickoffs per base, per runner. If you can't pick off the guy on three balk-free moves to 1st, you better quick pitch him and let your catcher try and nail him. And why shouldn't Jose's ingenuity in that case be rewarded. For every double play caused by the elimination of the IF rule, there'd always be some guys that just forget to drop it and a number of busted attempts (resulting in errors) causing even more baserunners, or at least no fewer.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 11 2006 02:48 PM

For many years now I've been silently advocating, in my head, the abolition of the balk rule. Largely for the reasons Bill James mentioned. I've never understood the difference between a balk and a non-balk. Even during a time when I was rabidly into learning everything I could about the game, the nuances of the balk rule were more than I cared to take on. Yes, it will make it harder to steal second base. Big deal. While we're at it, let's stop calling the phantom double play. Forcing double plays to be legitimate is a better way of boosting offense than using something contrived and artificial like the designated hitter.

RealityChuck Dec 11 2006 02:51 PM

Assume no balk rule. Pitcher takes a step toward the plate and batter gets caught leaning toward second as the pitcher turns and fires to first. It was basically put an end to base stealing and would require runners at first keep a foot on the bag at all times, since they could never be sure if the pitcher was going to the plate. Hell, even going from first to third on a single would be more difficult. The ultimate effect would be to reduce scoring (since it would cut down the number of baserunners). The solution is to make sure the balk is called consistently. As for the Reyes's play, he was doing exactly what caused the creation of the infield fly rule in the first place, and I'm not surprised he was called on it. It's one thing to get an edge, but it's another to remove all chance of success. Without the IF rule, there will be a situation where it's nearly always a double play, no matter what the runners do. If they stay close to the bag, the fielder drops it and gets a DP; if they run, the fielder catches it and gets a DP.

Vic Sage Dec 11 2006 03:25 PM

]It [would] basically put an end to base stealing and would require runners at first keep a foot on the bag at all times, since they could never be sure if the pitcher was going to the plate. Hell, even going from first to third on a single would be more difficult. The ultimate effect would be to reduce scoring (since it would cut down the number of baserunners). it would reduce the lead, not eliminate it. Yes, it would make stealing 2b more difficult, but it wouldn't have much effect on stealing 3rd. Once the ball is released toward the plate, the baserunner can extend his lead, so this shouldn't signifcantly impact on going from 1st to 3rd. You are also assuming 100% success rate in pickoff attempts. More attempts = more errors advancing runners. Pretending its a rule that actually does what its supposed to, or that its fixable anymore, is just silly. ]The solution is to make sure the balk is called consistently. well, thats the point. Its such a subjective rule, it is not AND CANNOT be called consistently. The solution is to eliminate the rule and, if it drastically reduces scoring, then come up with some OBJECTIVE standard, like x number of pickoff attempts, to counter-balance it. ]As for the Reyes's play, he was doing exactly what caused the creation of the infield fly rule in the first place, and I'm not surprised he was called on it. It's one thing to get an edge, but it's another to remove all chance of success. We're not debating whether Reyes was guilty or not, or the rule should've been invoked or not. But the play does not at all "remove all chance of success". ]Without the IF rule, there will be a situation where it's nearly always a double play, no matter what the runners do. If they stay close to the bag, the fielder drops it and gets a DP; if they run, the fielder catches it and gets a DP. A fielder might (a) forget to drop the ball, (b) drop the ball, but throw it into centerfield, advancing both runners, (c) drop the ball but find a baserunner standing safe on 2b (anticipating his drop ball play), (d) drop the ball and fail to throw out the baserunner, if the hitter hustled down the line knowing the "drop ball play" is a possibility, or (e) execute the play perfectly (along with his teammates) while the runners failed to anticipate it, thus resulting in a DP. There are lots of possible outcomes, and that makes the game more interesting. why would the elimination of the IF Rule be so awfully unfair to the baserunners, when we simply say of a line-drive double play (or triple play) "tough luck"? Why do we penalize the fielder for his ingenuity in turning a pop-up into a line-drive double play? The fielder is taking a calculated gamble by giving up a sure out in the attempt to get 2 outs. Surely he should be rewarded if he (a) thinks to do it, and (b) executes it properly and (c) his teammates likewise execute it properly and (d) the hitter and/or runners don't hustle or take a chance of their own, knowing the play is a possiblity. These are both archaic rules that aren't necessary and, frankly, never were; neither do they add anything to the game. In fact, the balk rule slows down the game. If you want to have an "automatic play" (like the IF rule), how about making an intentional walk automatic? The few wild pitches you lose out on i think is more than made up for by the time saved. Also, keep the hitters in the damn box.

Edgy DC Dec 11 2006 03:59 PM

I agree that it's strange that a hard grounder or a liner right at an infielder should result in a double play while a popup, in many regards a lesser accomplishment, should be protected from resulting in two outs. I think it's a pretty tricky play to intentionally drop a ball, get the runner going for third, and then get another guy going for second. It's pretty tricky to catch a major-league popup while peeking at the runners to see which way they are committing.

Nymr83 Dec 11 2006 04:54 PM

I wouldn't completely eliminate the balk rule, though i'd change it somewhat. I would change the rule so that you no longer need to take a step towards the base before you throw over (this is barely enforced as is, guys like Andy Pettite balk constantly and it is never called), what i would keep is the rule that you have to complete your delivery to the plate once you start it, or rather once you take a step towards the plate.

dinosaur jesus Dec 11 2006 08:51 PM

I'm all for eliminating the balk rule. The reason Reyes didn't get away with what he did was that he actually caught the ball before he dropped it--it was definitely in his glove, so the batter was out and the force was eliminated before the ball touched the ground. If he had found a way to let the ball bounce off his glove, it would probably have worked.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2006 09:05 PM

I'm sorta with Chuck here. The IFR and the balk are two instances where bb doesn;t come up perfect, so's they gotsta legislate some solution. There is still plenty of deception practiced by pitcher and runner as is. I'm afraid the chill on steaing without balks would be pretty severe, making the game less interesting.

Vic Sage Dec 11 2006 11:05 PM

]While we're at it, let's stop calling the phantom double play. well, that's about safety as much as anything. Forcing the MI to stand in there against a guy coming in hard to break it up is just going to increase injuries. the "neighborhood play" simply reduces injuries and takes the axiom that if the ball beats the runner, he's out.

Nymr83 Dec 12 2006 12:10 AM

I fully favor killing the "area out," it is too much of a judgment call. If they are concerned about safety they should worry about the juiced ball and juiced players making life less safe for the pitcher fielding liners back up the middle before they worry about slides. They could also mandate padding on all walls/fences and stop the rule that you are allowed to barrel over the catcher (a rule which does not exist elsewhere.) The area out is like the current strike zone, its not in the rulebook at all and someone needs to either change the rule or start calling it the way its written.

attgig Dec 12 2006 05:52 AM

yeah, eliminating balk would eliminate the SB. if you're a pitcher, and you make the motion like you're throwing home, but you never release the ball. instead, you quickly turn around and throw the guy out at second (ball doesn't have to travel to home, and then back to second base). you've eliminated the SB. balk rule requires consistent enforcement. Reyes was just trying to get away with the infield softly hit line drive rule, aka, the infield fly rule. And the strike zone is never consistent. it's kinda what makes pitching an art. I hope as soon as glavine retires, they institute a better device than questec, put it in every ball park, and let it decide if the ball is a strike or a ball. let the umps keep on calling it if you don't want to change how the game is played too drastically. have questec signal the ump as to if it's a ball or strike, and play the game like it's normally played.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 12 2006 05:59 AM

Vic Sage wrote: ]While we're at it, let's stop calling the phantom double play. well, that's about safety as much as anything. Forcing the MI to stand in there against a guy coming in hard to break it up is just going to increase injuries. the "neighborhood play" simply reduces injuries and takes the axiom that if the ball beats the runner, he's out. The way I see it the second baseman or shortstop would have to tag the base and then get out of the way before making his throw. They can still be safe, but they'd be less likely to get a double play.

iramets Dec 12 2006 06:53 AM

Yeah, I always imagine some 1900s secondbaseman like Nap Lajoie looking down at new DP records being set and sneering, "If you'd have given me a ten-foot-safe-area around the bag, I couldda gotten a LOT more DPs, too." It's a friggen choice. Sometimes you can take the DP, sometimes you can take avoiding the baserunner. This bunch of crybabies wants both, and I say, "Sorry, boys, one or the other. You choose." The umps say, "Why,certainly, you can have both, junior. We'll just pretend those nasty old rules don' t exist, that's all, darling. Do you need my handkerchief? Here, blow."

Edgy DC Dec 12 2006 07:49 AM

We're in a different area here. The neighborhood play, while objectionable for all the reasons stated above, is either an umpire's tradition or an umpire's failure, but it is not codified. No baseball rules committee has to reconceptualize the rules and their impact, then put through an experiment in the minors or something, to end the neighborhood play; the supervisor of umps just has to tell them to stop calling people out at second if they're not.