2011 MLB Discussion Thread (leagues, Cincinnati, pitchers, stance)

[jtur88]

Another game decided not on the merits of play, but when the judge from Kazakhstan holds up a card awarding less than ten points for style to Royals pitcher Aaron Crow. This must stop, it is stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid. It makes a travesty of the game. Why does everybody else WANT baseball games to be decided this way?

A batter stands at the plate with a bat in his hands, ready to try to win the game by hitting the pitcher's best pitch into the teeth of the poised defense, and the umps wave their arms and shout No no no no no no, that's not how the game is played. We must be vigilant, and end forever this dreaded deception by the pitcher, the scourge of all that is holy. Go on home folks, nothing to see here. Shame, shame, shame on that pitcher for deceiving the poor base runner that way, did you see what he did, did you see that? The poor base runner, a family man with wife and babes in arms, deceived so. That pitcher deserves to lose the game, for such a heinous violation of the fundamental principles of baseball and human civilization. Clear the spectators, for their own safety, oh, woe is me, this game cannot go on. There is no place in humankind for such deception.

[Grandstander]

jtur...

Was there some traumatic balk in your childhood which left permanent emotional scars?

Again, how to you distinguish balks from any other type of play which is replaces action with a judicial finding? Are ground rule doubles "stupid, stupid, stupid?" How about hit by pitches? Does the infield fly rule cause you this much inner turmoil? Hell, for that matter, all that you write above could be applied to the entire concept of balls and strikes....why should a game between professional athletes be decided by the guesses of some non player?

Maybe you have a vision of Anarchyball...where rules never intrude to decide matters because there aren't any.

You are not making good sense here with all this.

[jtur88]

Of course not. 1. Ground rules doubles are balls that go out of play, and require an adjudication about how to position the runners and resume play. 2. Yes, the Infield Fly rule is similar, and I will rant against that if you want me to. It is the ONLY play in baseball in which a legally batted ball is automatically an out without defensive execution, and has no place in the game, and if you like, I will propose a common sense alternative to that as well, but you have created a shield of immunity against common sense. 3. Balls and strikes, like safes and outs, are judgements of a ball that has been put in play by players, executing the fundamentals of the game. Most of the time, they are obvious and indisputable, and require an umpire to make a judgement only when they are unusually close.

How does the balk rule fit into any of that? Please don't tell me that you really want baseball to be a game like the other major team sports, so dominated by the defect of a referee arbitrarily awarding scoring opportunities on the basis of procedural penalties, rather on the execution of play. I'm disappointed with the abject vacuity of your argument, you usually can come up with something more salient than that when you predispose yourself to disagree with someone.

As I have, the last time a game was decided so stupidly a few days ago, pointed out: I am not opposed to the existence of the balk as a penalty for play contrary to the spirit of the game. I just want it to be applied only where there has been an occurrence of the kind of deception it was designed to combat. The concept of the balk and the rationale behind has been allowed to run amok, now existing and multiplying itself for its own sake rather than the integrity of the execution of play. It is now applied as an archaic pageantry, unrelated to the fairness of play.

This is the second time in 18 days that an entire night of baseball was spoiled by a non-player waving his arms and saying That's all folks, which is an extreme penalty when there was neither intent nor fact of the deception the rule is designed to combat. It's making a travesty of a game that can ill-afford any more travesties.

Tell me, how would the fairness of the outcome of last night's game have been tainted if the balk call had NOT been made, and play went right on? But you didn't want play to go right on. You wanted the ultimate penalty for whatever it was that the pitcher did, because you think that makes is a better and a fairer game.

Again, another game has been ruined, I've said what I have to say about it, and have no interest in repeating myself, even if baseball does have an interest in repeating this mockery over and over again.

[Grandstander]

jtur:

Please don't tell me that you really want baseball to be a game like the other major team sports, so dominated by the defect of a referee arbitrarily awarding scoring opportunities on the basis of procedural penalties, rather on the execution of play. I'm disappointed with the abject vacuity of your argument, you usually can come up with something more salient than that when you predispose yourself to disagree with someone.

But that's the thing, the game isn't in any manner dominated by balks, they are a rare phenomena. Baseball Reference lists 35 different catagories of records for pitchers, but doesn't include balks because they are so rare. Can you tell me who led either league in balks in any season in the last decade? Apart from Stu Miller's "blown off the mound" balk in the All Star game in '61, can you identify a single famous balk?

The reason that they are so rare is that most pitchers have no problem complying with the rules. How many pitches does a starter throw each year with runners on base? 1500 or so? How many times do they get nailed for balks in all that? Once? Twice?

Currently Cole Hammels and Anibal Sanchez lead MLB with three balks each. There are eleven pitchers who have balked twice and twenty seven with one balk apiece.

That is 60 balks for all of MLB this season to date. That is 60 such events out of about 1300 games played. That means a balk is called about once every 22 games. Or, another way to look at it is...to date ML teams have compiled 34,020 total bases on offense. 60 of them came on balks. Balks represent .00176 of all bases gained.

Yeah....hate to see the sport get "dominated" like this.

Where is the "vacuity" in the above? You are raging about something which is actually quite inconsequential in the larger picture, yet decide to characterize my reasonably pointing out to you that this is groundless hysteria on your part, as vacuuous.

[jtur88]

If game-ending balks hadn't happened twice in the past three weeks, I'd agree with you about their rarity.

Nevertheless, no matter how rare they are, there is nothing to be gained by continuing the fiction that it is necessary to exact that kind of a penalty for the inadvertent glitches in a pitching motion that are completely unrelated to base runners that the pitcher isn't even paying any attention to, much less trying to deceive.

It's very simple. If the pitcher's move is intended to and likely to deceive a base runner to whom the pitcher is paying a modicum of attention, then (as I proposed weeks ago) write a balk rule to combat it, and enforce it. If that condition is not met, then there is no harm, no balk. What is so hard about that? Plenty of baseball rules are predicated on an umpire's judgment of intent, to call or not to call on that basis.

(It was your earlier arguments that I characterized as vacuity, and I see you have now abandoned them in favor of new ones, which, in spite of their novelty, you referred to as "the above". I continue to be disappointed by your uncharacteristic argumentation.)

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

(It was your earlier arguments that I characterized as vacuity, and I see you have now abandoned them in favor of new ones, which, in spite of their novelty, you referred to as "the above". I continue to be disappointed by your uncharacteristic argumentation.)

Why are you writing such mush today? "I see that you have abandoned..etc." I expect that sort of remark from the dmmer bulbs who show up here but not from you. I obviously haven't abandoned anything, I have added to my earlier remarks...enhanced them if you will. Or is it your notion that each new post from a poster replaces rather than adds to what is being said?

Nor has anything that I have written here been "uncharacteristic." I've always been the sort to jump on badthink when it appears here and have never made exceptions for you.

The only thing you probably are actually disappointed with is that no one else has rallied to your side to share your advanced state of outrage over what, as noted, is an inconsequential aspect of the game.

As for the specific outrages you reference, know what Tony Sipp of the Indians said after the balk called on him ended the game against the Giants? He said "Yeah, I balked." Know what the Cleveland manager said by way of protest? Nothing at all.

If the pitcher who does it, and the manager who lost because of it, have no problem with the call, why are you so angry about it?

Now c'mon, no more of this "No, you!" stuff. Lets get down to specifics. Here is what a pitcher can do to get a balk called on him:

switches his pitching position from the windup to the set (or vice versa) without properly disengaging the rubber;
while on the rubber, makes a motion associated with his pitch and does not complete the delivery;
when pitching from the set position, fails to make a complete stop with his hands together before beginning to pitch;
throws from the mound to a base without stepping toward (gaining distance in the direction of) that base;
throws or feints a throw from the rubber to an unoccupied base, unless a play is imminent;
steps or feints from the rubber to first base without completing the throw;
delivers a quick return, a pitch thrown right after receiving the ball back, with intent to catch the batter off-guard;
drops the ball while on the rubber, even if by accident, if the ball does not subsequently cross a foul line;
while intentionally walking a batter, releases a pitch while the catcher is out of his box with one or both feet (rarely enforced);
unnecessarily delays the game (rarely enforced);
pitches while facing away from the batter;
after bringing his hands together on the rubber, separates them except in making a pitch or a throw;
stands on or astride the rubber without the ball, or mimics a pitch without the ball; or
throws to first when the first baseman, because of his distance from the base, is unable to make a play on the runner there.

Which things, from the above list, do you intend to change? How will dropping any of the above situations from the balk rule not result in decreasing stolen bases? How can any of it be changed without shifting some of the advantages enjoyed by baserunners, to advantages enjoyed by pitchers?

I don't think your "umpire's judgment" business is a more satisfactory way than having rules, that would lead to greater, not less controversy since such calls will now be more arbitrary...hmm...felt like a balk to me. Would you like to do away with the concept of an official strikezone and just make it "umpire's caprice" on whether or not a pitch was hittable?

Finally, in your analysis you do not seem to have anticipated the possibility that your suggestion would lead to more, not fewer balks. If it is an "umpire's judgment" deal, why are you assuming that all of the umps are like you and hate to see balks? For all you know they may be generally unhappy that they cannot call it more frequently, and if left unfettered by rules, would turn into a balk happy crew of officials.

[jtur88]

A few decades ago, umpires were instructed to call more balks. They did, for a month or two. They called 2 or 3 balks a game, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them was in conformity with the rule book definition of the balk that you have kindly quoted. It was quickly recognized as making a travesty of the game, and the idea abandoned. They didn't change the rule, they just stopped calling 99% of them, and (according to your compelling statistical analysis) they still don't. Which, I think, pretty much trashes every point you made in your last post.

Now, three weeks ago, I started this discussion by proposing a clear and definite balk rule that would meet the requirement to discourage deceptive practice. Then, the last thing I said, just above, was there needs to be a balk rule, enforceable when the pitcher is attending to a base runner and deceives in intent or in fact. And throughout the entirety of the discussion, you keep responding as if I wish to abolish any and all regulating pertaining to the pitchers motion.

Why can't you simply address my point.

If the pitcher's move is intended to and likely to deceive a base runner to whom the pitcher is paying a modicum of attention, then (as I proposed weeks ago) write a balk rule to combat it, and enforce it.

Why are you in such furious objection to that? Can you address that point?

[Grandstander]

jtur:

If the pitcher's move is intended to and likely to deceive a base runner to whom the pitcher is paying a modicum of attention, then (as I proposed weeks ago) write a balk rule to combat it, and enforce it.
Can you address that point?

I did. Did you quit reading my post before you reached the final two paragraphs? Here they are again. Now, remember, your not reading them is not the same as them not being there.

I don't think your "umpire's judgment" business is a more satisfactory way than having rules, that would lead to greater, not less controversy since such calls will now be more arbitrary...hmm...felt like a balk to me. Would you like to do away with the concept of an official strikezone and just make it "umpire's caprice" on whether or not a pitch was hittable?

Finally, in your analysis you do not seem to have anticipated the possibility that your suggestion would lead to more, not fewer balks. If it is an "umpire's judgment" deal, why are you assuming that all of the umps are like you and hate to see balks? For all you know they may be generally unhappy that they cannot call it more frequently, and if left unfettered by rules, would turn into a balk happy crew of officials.

I would add to the above, at the risk of course of your charging me with abandoning all that I have written before, that under your system, one which says the umpires have a capricious authority to call balks as they interpret pitcher's behavior, that you leave pitchers with no guidelines whatsoever regarding what they can and cannot do on the mound. Each umpire would have to be studied over a long period of time to get a sense of what he thinks is a balk and what he thinks is okay. Of course it is a superior situation to have specific rules and guidelines rather than placing reliance on eccentric individual interpretations.

Also...you have some of your facts wrong about the 1988 balk controversy. You wrote that umpires were instructed to call more balks. That is untrue, no such instructions were issued. What happened was that the balk rule was changed before the 1988 season.

The existing rule before '88:

Baseball Official Rule 8.01(b): The pitcher, following his stretch, must (a) hold the ball in both hands in front of his body and (b) come to a complete stop.

Changed to:

1988 Baseball Official Rule 8.01(b): The pitcher, following his stretch, must (a) hold the ball in both hands in front of his body, and (b) come to a single complete and discernible stop, with both feet on the ground.

The difference was that "complete stop" was replaced by "single complete and discernible stop, with both feet on the ground." The thinking behind it was to try and get umpires in sync when calling balks in this one particular aspect of the rules...the pause before pitching.

The problem was that pitchers were used to doing it the old way, and were unable to adjust their motions to comply with the newer rule. The umpires in 1988, back before Sandy Alderson busted their union, were a snotty group with an inflated sense of their own power. They came out against the new rule and when MLB told them to shut up and enforce it as written, they decided to teach their bosses a lesson by going overboard and calling every single possible violation of that stop motion rule.

That controversy was more about the umpires wanting to stand up to new commisioner Bart Giamatti, who wrote that new balk rule and ordered the umps to enforce it uniformly. All those balks were really "scru U, Bart" gestures rather than anything having to do with a reasonable balk rule. The consequence was that the single season balk record was broken in May.

MLB then gave into this stunt by the umps and in the '89 off season, changed the rule back to what it had been.

So, you were in error when you said that all the '88 nonsense took place without changing the rules. That saga doesn't help your argument a bit.

[jtur88]

I have no problem with depending on the integrity of umpires to enforce or call rules that are clearly stated and serve the purpose of averting deception that would be detrimental to the fair execution of play.

If you, as a knowledgeable and interested observer, were charged with the task of writing the balk rule, would you include the following provisions:
1. It is a balk if the pitcher drops the ball unintentionally.
2. It is NOT a balk if the pitcher, with foot on the rubber, fakes a throw to second or third, and doesn't relese the ball, and makes the runner dive back into a base with no fielder in the vicinity.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

I have no problem with depending on the integrity of umpires to enforce or call rules that are clearly stated and serve the purpose of averting deception that would be detrimental to the fair execution of play.

Which cycles us back around to my earlier question. I provided a list of the situations where balks get called...which of those do you find incomprehensible? Which of those fail to serve the purpose of averting deception?