Fake to 3rd then throw to first now illegal

[DrungoHazewood]

I think most hard core baseball fans don't mind long games, unless the cause of the long games is too much offense across the board.

Are there really people out there who see a 15-6 Oriole win and say "dude, that was ok I guess, but I'd much rather have seen a 2-1 duel. Chris Davis' three homers and 9 RBI just cheapened the whole thing for me"?

[Spy Fox]

Are there really people out there who see a 15-6 Oriole win and say "dude, that was ok I guess, but I'd much rather have seen a 2-1 duel. Chris Davis' three homers and 9 RBI just cheapened the whole thing for me"?

Haha, of course people still like to see some high scoring games. But if scores of 8-7 and 10-5 became more common than scores of 5-3 and 3-0, that would push the games longer and maybe be too much offense for a lot of people's tastes. Aren't most fans happy that scoring is down closer to the historical averages instead of being at the bloated 1995-2005 rate?

[DrungoHazewood]

Haha, of course people still like to see some high scoring games. But if scores of 8-7 and 10-5 became more common than scores of 5-3 and 3-0, that would push the games longer and maybe be too much offense for a lot of people's tastes. Aren't most fans happy that scoring is down closer to the historical averages instead of being at the bloated 1995-2005 rate?

I think some fans like that. I don't know that I'd generalize to "most". There is a reasonably strong correlation between higher offense and increased attendance. The bloated offense era didn't stop a number of franchises, like the Orioles and Indians, from selling out every game in the mid-to-late 90s.

And actually, 8-7 and 10-5 games haven't been more common than 5-3 games since maybe the 1890s. The steroid era peak in runs/game was 5.14 in 2000, so an average game then was something like 6-4. Runs were in the same ballpark in the 1925-40 era, and were over 6.00 through most of the 1890s (at least post-60'6" pitching distance in '93). Really the only time an average score was 8-7 was in 1894. I have a reprint of the Spalding guide from 1895, and they break down games into records in games with 10+ runs scored by one team, and games where neither team scored 10 runs.

[Frobby]

I find it hilarious that the reason to ban the "fake to third, throw to first" play is to speed up the game. I mean, we see this move, what, once every five to ten games during the season? Even that estimate may be generous. I'm with Drungo -- don't let the batter leave the batter's box for 10-20 seconds between pitches, make the pitcher throw the ball in a reasonable amount of time, put an official limit on the amount of time for a mound visit (either by the coaches or the catcher). If you want to get more radical, limit the number of times a pitcher can throw over to 1B in an at bat, and limit the number of times you can change pitchers in one inning.

[howboutthoseos]

Interesting article from this morning - Buck commenting on the rule change. Sounds like he's against it, but is fully planning to take advantage of it when the O's are at bat.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/buck-showalter-baltimore-orioles-manager-balks-at-new-pickoff-rule-021713

[The Wedge]

That's a really good point that I hadn't even considered.

[Number5]

Interesting article from this morning - Buck commenting on the rule change. Sounds like he's against it, but is fully planning to take advantage of it when the O's are at bat.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/buck-showalter-baltimore-orioles-manager-balks-at-new-pickoff-rule-021713

Yup. This is what I was saying earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that all managers/coaches are going to take advantage of this ill-conceived rule when they are on offense. We are almost sure to see offenses run set plays to take advantage of the hamstrung defenses. The pace will be slower, there will be more stolen bases, and there will be some silly run-scoring balks resulting from this, IMO. Just a bad rule all the way around. We're stuck with it this year, but once the ramifications are seen in the games, I think that we will be back to real baseball in 2014.

[Can_of_corn]

Yup. This is what I was saying earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that all managers/coaches are going to take advantage of this ill-conceived rule when they are on offense. We are almost sure to see offenses run set plays to take advantage of the hamstrung defenses. The pace will be slower, there will be more stolen bases, and there will be some silly run-scoring balks resulting from this, IMO. Just a bad rule all the way around. We're stuck with it this year, but once the ramifications are seen in the games, I think that we will be back to real baseball in 2014.

I am still in favor of killing the Balk rule entirely. I have never understand why the pitcher should not be able to deceive the runner. What was going on in 1898 that they needed to create the Balk in the first place?

[Number5]

I am still in favor of killing the Balk rule entirely. I have never understand why the pitcher should not be able to deceive the runner. What was going on in 1898 that they needed to create the Balk in the first place?

Sports require rules to govern fair play. Rules are made in sports when they become necessary to control trickery and/or unsportsmanlike behavior that is not in the interest of fair play. It is illegal, for example, for a defensive player to dig a small trench with his cleats in front of a slow-rolling ground ball curving over the foul line into foul territory before the ball reaches the base. The reason it is illegal is that it was done by a third-baseman. The next day, the rule was in place to prevent it happening again. As players and/or coaches devise new schemes that defeat the game's design of fair play, new rules have to be incorporated into the sport for the good of the game. This is why the balk rules exist.

The game would be ridiculous if pitchers had no rules governing their actions on the mound. In fact, had the rules not come about, we wouldn't be talking about it today, because surely the sport would have gone by the wayside long ago. Would you rather that linemen be allowed to flinch and quarterbacks be allowed to bob their heads over center to draw the defense off-sides in football? You think you are bothered by the occasional balk call? Trust me, if there were no such rules and it was a free-for-all of deception and endless false moves, you would have no interest in watching the game at all. Nobody would.

This particular rule change, however, is not combating unsportsmanlike play, and will create far more problems than the current impatience some few uninformed fans may have when pitchers legally fake to third and either throw or fake back to first, IMO.

[crissfan172]

I am still in favor of killing the Balk rule entirely. I have never understand why the pitcher should not be able to deceive the runner. What was going on in 1898 that they needed to create the Balk in the first place?

So...pitchers can just stop at any point in their delivery if the runner breaks for 2nd?

[Can_of_corn]

So...pitchers can just stop at any point in their delivery if the runner breaks for 2nd?

Sure. Have at it.

I will say that if it were to cause the delays that number5 thinks it will that something would have to give.

I am not convinced it will since unskilled baserunners won't be straying far from the bag.

[Number5]

Sure. Have at it.

I will say that if it were to cause the delays that number5 thinks it will that something would have to give.

I am not convinced it will since unskilled baserunners won't be straying far from the bag.

You're not convinced that players and coaches will do everything they can to gain an edge? Really?

[Can_of_corn]

You're not convinced that players and coaches will do everything they can to gain an edge? Really?

I don't think that a pitcher constantly fidgeting and throwing over will still be able to concentrate and get hitters out.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sports require rules to govern fair play. Rules are made in sports when they become necessary to control trickery and/or unsportsmanlike behavior that is not in the interest of fair play. It is illegal, for example, for a defensive player to dig a small trench with his cleats in front of a slow-rolling ground ball curving over the foul line into foul territory before the ball reaches the base. The reason it is illegal is that it was done by a third-baseman. The next day, the rule was in place to prevent it happening again. As players and/or coaches devise new schemes that defeat the game's design of fair play, new rules have to be incorporated into the sport for the good of the game. This is why the balk rules exist.

The game would be ridiculous if pitchers had no rules governing their actions on the mound. In fact, had the rules not come about, we wouldn't be talking about it today, because surely the sport would have gone by the wayside long ago. Would you rather that linemen be allowed to flinch and quarterbacks be allowed to bob their heads over center to draw the defense off-sides in football? You think you are bothered by the occasional balk call? Trust me, if there were no such rules and it was a free-for-all of deception and endless false moves, you would have no interest in watching the game at all. Nobody would.

This particular rule change, however, is not combating unsportsmanlike play, and will create far more problems than the current impatience some few uninformed fans may have when pitchers legally fake to third and either throw or fake back to first, IMO.

I think you're overstating this by a lot. You're speculating that allowing a pitcher to be a little more deceptive when delivering the ball will lead to the downfall of the sport, which I think it exaggerating to to the point of absurdity. Literally, most of the balk rule has not been called in my lifetime, and a lot of it has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. When's the last time you saw someone punished for not facing the pitcher when pitching?

The reason the balk rule exists in its current form is that all the rules with regards to pitching were in constant flux in the 1870-93 timeframe. In roughly 25 years they went from an underhanded delivery from 45' with a stiff wrist, almost like Dan Quisenberry as cricket bowler, to the modern incarnation with no restrictions on delivery as long as you're on the rubber on a mound. And a million other little things like the pitcher's box, and short run-ups, and inventing the concept of "balls" to keep pitchers from never throwing a hittable pitch. They were literally making stuff up as they went along, and stopped when it mostly worked. The balk rule was this crazy mess of stuff that was designed to counteract strategies in this transitional period, many of them now meaningless. For example, I'm convinced the "must face batter" part of the balk rule had something to do with the pitcher delivering from a ground-level box where he wasn't fixed to a rubber and could run/hop several steps. Which, of course, hasn't applied to modern baseball in 120 years. The idea that cleaning up some of this would lead to chaos in baseball is frankly ludicrous.

I think the balk rule can be essentially eliminated, and replaced with a much simpler version that just says once you've started your motion towards the plate you can't stop and throw to another base. But no more balks for accidentally dropping the ball. No more balks for twitching while on the mound. No more balks for failing to stop at the set position for however long the ump has decided is enough.

Let's stop deciding the occasional modern baseball game on mis-application of Victorian brainstorming.

Sure. Have at it.

I will say that if it were to cause the delays that number5 thinks it will that something would have to give.

I am not convinced it will since unskilled baserunners won't be straying far from the bag.

The problem with that is it would essentially eliminate stolen bases. The minute the guy breaks for second everyone yells, the pitcher stops, and there's a rundown. Steals become a trick play with multiple runners on, kind of like a delayed steal of home is today. You could probably lead the league with six stolen bases on the year.

If anything I think there should be rules changes that emphasize speed and athleticism. Completely eliminating the balk rule would lead to softball-like station-to-station baseball.

[Can_of_corn]

The problem with that is it would essentially eliminate stolen bases. The minute the guy breaks for second everyone yells, the pitcher stops, and there's a rundown. Steals become a trick play with multiple runners on, kind of like a delayed steal of home is today. You could probably lead the league with six stolen bases on the year.

If anything I think there should be rules changes that emphasize speed and athleticism. Completely eliminating the balk rule would lead to softball-like station-to-station baseball.

First off I agree with the portion I didn't copy.

I think quality baserunners will still get their steals and I don't think stopping in mid-delivery and throwing to second would be as easy as you make it sound.

Of course I could be totally off.

I would be much happier with your proposed rule then with the current system.