Was This A Balk?

[USAFChief]

Parker: where are you finding "at least one foot"?

 

The catcher's box is defined as where the catcher "must stand until the pitcher delivers the ball."

[Platoon]

I agree with Jimmer on this, he took all the steps, he just speeded them up. In principle not any different than the slide step Dick/Bert mention ad nausea. And it can't be a quick pitch because the batter was set after a reasonable time between pitches. This is the first time I have seen the play, and it never occurred to me that Guthrie is right handed. This put a batter in the LH box, the pitcher facing Hunter, two outs, and a hit away from a big inning. The only balk here was in Hunters brain. As for the oft mentioned "nod" from Molly? What would you expect, he has done everything Torii has wanted so far, why change now.

[Platoon]

Often slo motion replay clarifies a call, in this case it seems to complicate it. Seeing it full speed ,ales it look much cleaner and legal. Seeing it slow speed muddies the issue. But the umpires saw it only once, and at game speed.

[Dantes929]

 

that heck-bent thing wasn't addressed to you, so you know.

 

And yeah, about the decision to attempt the steal goes, because we don't know if Vargas gets a hit there, I lean towards not taking the bat out of a slugger's hands when bases are loaded, myself.  If Schaefer or Robinson is up there, maybe yes.

 

I think if a younger player had tried it, like Plouffe or Escobar (or any person not considered a willy veteran), people would be calling it stupid not aggressive.

Vargas batting .191 Guthrie with a slow windup plus he looks at the ground while doing so.    I suggested that if he were safe or a balk was called it would alter peoples opinion so I liked your spin on pondering if it was another player whether or not it would affect anyone's opinion.    I can promise you that even if it was everyone's whipping boy Arcia I would have supported the play.   The runner studied the pitcher and thought he had a good chance.  You can see how startled and awkward Guthrie was.  He was lucky he threw low and lucky the catcher scooped the ball and probably lucky Hunter didn't hook slide to the inside of the plate.    IMO, it had a much better chance of success than 50%.     Maybe if Robinson or Schaefer is batting he checks the runner.   Only way it could have been a better chance is if Guthrie was a lefty so maybe he doesn't notice Hunter running.       

[Boom Boom]

Right, the two rules that speak to that are (1) catcher has to have at least one foot in the box (he did)* and (2) catchers are not allowed to step in front of or on home plate without possession of the ball (Perez stayed back).

 

 

*There was an Ask the Umpire with Tim McClelland who was asked about that rule and he said:

 

 

I feel like a lot of balk rules operate that way. The rules are there but they are never enforced.

Catcher's balk? Never heard of that one. From what McClelland said, nearly all pitch-outs and every intentional walk pitch should be called a balk.

[Sam Morley]

This is one of the best threads I have read on TD. My own thoughts:

 

Hunter did the right thing: if you are on third and the pitcher is going from the wind-up, it should be automatic that you try to steal home. The most shocking part of this whole thing to me is that Guthrie went from the wind up with runners on base. I thought most pitchers learned that lesson in high school or earlier. I bet he never does it again. Even with the other factors against Hunter mentioned: Guthrie being right handed and facing third, Vargas being left handed, and Hunter being a older and slower, he still almost steals this straight up- without a deviated slide, without a high swing from Vargas to keep Perez back, and with a perfectly coordinated low throw, catch, and tag from Guthrie and Perez. Even with Guthrie making the adjustment and he and Perez making a great play, Hunter was barely out and could've very easily been safe. If any one of a number of things go a little bit wrong for Guthrie/Perez (including everything happening the exact same way and the umpires deciding it was a balk instead of the way they happened to rule), Hunter is safe by a long shot. I don't think this is a play that every player should attempt, due to speed, but I doubt Hunter is as slow as everyone is saying he is. Is he slower than when he was 30, probably, but that doesn't mean he's slow. He looked like he was running pretty well there, and his jump was pretty quick too. He's probably developed a reputation for having slowed down in the outfield, but I bet it's partly selective. To last in the big leagues as long as he has, I think being selective about when you go all out and when you coast is key. My guess, is Torii lollys on a lot of fly balls he could probably bust ass to get.

 

Hunter did the awesome thing: this is one of the greatest plays in the greatest game at the highest level. You are lucky if in your twenty year career you ever even get the chance to attempt it, and Guthrie served it up for the taking. Even though he was out, it was still awesome. It forced Guthrie and Perez to make an awesome play. Vargas probably gets out in any number of boring ordinary ways. If he gets a base hit and a couple RBIs, that's ordinary. If he hits a grand slam, that's cool, but with a three run lead, is it awesome? Probably, but not as awesome and/or rare as what Hunter did, and what Guthrie and Perez had to do to get him. With all the whining about pace of play in baseball (which I think is crap) Hunter does something totally worth watching, and people complain and criticize and question it? Crazy. As Twins fans we even have the luxury of having won the game, so it doesn't even matter. Would he have done the same in a tie game? Late innings? Probably not, but I hope so. Also, this is the kind of play that the good Twins teams from 5-10 years ago would've attempted. This was the kind of fire those teams played with. So, I don't even necessarily see this as a selfish play on Hunter's part (though I don't really have a problem with that either). I see it as Hunter trying to impart/pass on some of that fire and aggressiveness to what hopefully becomes the next strong Twins teams. I coached freshman ball a few years ago, and none of the kids would dive for balls. I had to tell them, hey this is what's fun about this game. You don't know what you can get to until you try, and so what if you miss sometimes. Obviously major leaguers  should know what they are capable of doing, but maybe sometimes they need a reminder not to be so conservative.

 

Did Guthrie balk: Don't care. (but reading the debate between those who do has been enjoyable, and adds to the my list of reasons I'm glad Hunter did what he did. People are digging deep into the zaney rules of baseball and coming out with plenty we never would've considered or cared about otherwise). I will say this: whether or not what Guthrie did was a balk, it was the right thing to do, and it was a very impressive adjustment and execution in the heat of the moment. Neither do I care if MLB addresses the ambiguity of the rule book in this case. For me, umpire interpretation is part of the drama of the game. In this case, I'm glad a balk wasn't called. The play was left up to the athletes. I think the intent of the balk rules are to eliminate deception elements that would break down the game, and to penalize a player/team for accidentally/intentionally breaking a rule. I think the rules get complicated because they are trying to address "you shouldn't be able to do this, but you should be able to do this" for a million different and potentially unimaginable scenarios. Guthrie made the mistake of going from the wind up. Should he have had to concede the run, or should he be allowed a last ditch effort of athleticism to make up for his initial buffoonery? 

 

Vargas: The one thing I haven't read in this thread, but maybe I missed it: Vargas should've swung high to keep Perez back (swinging high so Hunter can safely slide under). To me this is a real mistake, a forgivable one but still reprimand-able. Even if he didn't know the play was on, he could see Hunter coming (this is even one argument in favor of Hunter choosing to steal with a lefty up) and could've swung high and late. If Vargas had done this, Hunter certainly would've scored. Still feel the bad for the guy. Nothing worse than inning ending in the middle of your AB with the bases loaded. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

If Kenny Vargas had taken a high swing at that low throw/pitch, the home plate umpire probably would have determined that Vargas was attempting to interfere with the catcher, ruled interference per rule 6.06-c, and he would have jumped from behind the plate with his hands up (just guessing on that, though). The play would have no good result for the Twins at that point. Meanwhile, Perez would probably still have tagged out the base runner (who again, shall remain nameless). And it would have gone as a caught stealing anyway.

 

And honestly if the throw/pitch had come in waist high and a little more outside, instead of right to the ground, the play would have been even less close, as the catcher wouldn't have had to make that extra motion. It probably won't scare Guthrie from pitching from the wind up with runners on, but it might give him cause to take a closer look at the guy on third next time. In this case, it was a very exciting play but with a very, very low probability of it succeeding--all my opinion. I wouldn't mind someone else trying it sometime though

 

But you are correct in that Vargas still has a right to take a cut at that pitch-I assume he does, anyway. Umpires?

[Otto von Ballpark]

Sam's post hit the nail on the head for me.

 

Nice risk by Hunter, good reaction by Guthrie/Perez, and a good call (or no call) by the ump.

 

There are situations where I wouldn't want to take this risk (and Hunter has done that before, like diving for Kotsay's liner in the 2006 playoffs, or getting thrown out at third trying to stretch a double in the 2004 playoffs), but the second inning of an April game is a fine time for it.  Go baseball!

[Jham]

Put it this way.  In the many years, and many millions of pitches I've seen, I have NEVER seen a pitcher deliver the ball before his front foot touched down.  That's a XXX,000,000/1 ratio.  If that's not considered deception or an "alteration" then there is no such thing.  

 

Put another way, if the ump had ruled a balk and provided the explanation that the pitcher clearly altered his natural delivery beyond simply speeding up his usual delivery, would there have been a thread like this on the KC forum?  I doubt it.

[Jham]

 

If Mike Pelfrey threw a knuckleball, would that be a balk because it's not his natural pitching motion?

 

The knuckleball is an actual pitch.  Many pitchers throw a knuckleball.  How many pitchers throw pitches before they finish stepping?  0.  Your comparison isn't fair.  Obviously there is grey area in the rule.  But throwing a knuckle ball is well within the rule, like getting pulled over at .05 Blood Alcohol.  IMO, short-arming a throw before finishing your natural throwing motion is outside, or perhaps in the grey area, I'd argue a .22, but others may think it's a .08+- .01.  
 

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Put it this way.  In the many years, and many millions of pitches I've seen, I have NEVER seen a pitcher deliver the ball before his front foot touched down.  That's a XXX,000,000/1 ratio.  If that's not considered deception or an "alteration" then there is no such thing.  

 

Put another way, if the ump had ruled a balk and provided the explanation that the pitcher clearly altered his natural delivery beyond simply speeding up his usual delivery, would there have been a thread like this on the KC forum?  I doubt it.

I guarantee that Yost would have questioned it, KC fans would have questioned it, and it probably would have gotten national notice at Fangraphs, etc.

 

 

The ball left his hand before the foot touched down, but just barely.  Almost certainly no umpire could have detected it without replay unless they were specifically watching for it.  I just looked at the frames of the animated GIF, and there is a two frame difference between the two events, out of 82 frames total.  Maybe 1/14 of a second?  And even then, there's nothing inherently wrong with such an alteration unless it's considered an alteration in the context of the rule.

 

 

The word "alteration" is invoked in the rule with the word "interruption", so I suspect they are two sides of the same coin.  Once begun, the pitcher can't stop or notably pause his delivery, and he also can't notably lengthen his delivery to achieve the same effect (I am thinking the exaggerated cartoon windmill windup?).

 

[Jham]

 

I guarantee that Yost would have questioned it, KC fans would have questioned it, and it probably would have gotten national notice at Fangraphs, etc.

 

 

The ball left his hand before the foot touched down, but just barely.  Almost certainly no umpire could have detected it without replay unless they were specifically watching for it.  I just looked at the frames of the animated GIF, and there is a two frame difference between the two events, out of 82 frames total.  Maybe 1/14 of a second?  And even then, there's nothing inherently wrong with such an alteration unless it's considered an alteration in the context of the rule.

 

 

The word "alteration" is invoked in the rule with the word "interruption", so I suspect they are two sides of the same coin.  Once begun, the pitcher can't stop or notably pause his delivery, and he also can't notably lengthen his delivery to achieve the same effect (I am thinking the exaggerated cartoon windmill windup?).

 

So I'm assuming you've seen this maneuver before?  I never have.  To me, given that the rule is open to interpretation, the argument that a gimmick is legal on a "technicality" is less persuasive to me than the common sense application.  IE, if a pitcher delivers the ball in a way that no pitcher ever has, that is a balk.  

 

"Technically" Tom Brady's arm is coming forward.  Common sense says he's not trying to throw it, it's a fumble.  #tuckrule.  That play fit the definition of a fumble and an incomplete pass.  The refs chose to interpret a technicality when they did not have to.  If the refs call a fumble, no one outside of New England remembers that play.  

 

I'm a lawyer, except when I'm posting here.  Judges hate technical arguments. So should umps.  Never should they decide a call based on a technicality if they can resolve it based on a simple reading of the rule.  On a close call, who should we award?  The pitcher who was caught napping, and made a panicked throw to the plate, or the heady base runner who picked up on the pitcher's cadence and made a smart play based on his belief that a pitcher couldn't do what he did.  

 

 

[Sam Morley]

 

 

The ball left his hand before the foot touched down, but just barely.  Almost certainly no umpire could have detected it without replay unless they were specifically watching for it.  I just looked at the frames of the animated GIF, and there is a two frame difference between the two events, out of 82 frames total.  Maybe 1/14 of a second?  And even then, there's nothing inherently wrong with such an alteration unless it's considered an alteration in the context of the rule.

 

I think this is an excellent point. When I watched the clip in real time, I could not tell that the ball was released before the foot came down. I would never have known it was the case had someone else not established it and said so in this thread. I think that replay and video are fun for fans, and are excellent learning tools for players, but I hate their place in the game itself. I would've been disgusted if the umpire crew reviewed the video to check for something so hair-splitting. 

 

And from a hitter's perspective, there wasn't anything deceptive about what Guthrie did. He was throwing quickly and out of the zone to try and catch Hunter. Like I said before, Vargas should have swung... not to try and hit the pitch, but to delay Perez's reaction.

[Otto von Ballpark]

A balk call here would have been the "technicality" call. No call was the common sense call (and probably the rule book call too).

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I'm a lawyer, except when I'm posting here.  Judges hate technical arguments. So should umps.  Never should they decide a call based on a technicality if they can resolve it based on a simple reading of the rule.  On a close call, who should we award?  The pitcher who was caught napping, and made a panicked throw to the plate, or the heady base runner who picked up on the pitcher's cadence and made a smart play based on his belief that a pitcher couldn't do what he did.  

Right. A balk call would have been the technicality call. The umpires probably felt there was no reason to go outside the relevant rule 8.05 to make a decision on this. 

 

There is a published Comment in support of Rule 8.05 which I think captures the "spirit of the law" you are looking for. 

 

"Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpires mind, the intent of the pitcher should govern."

 

Hunter wasn't deceived by anything Guthrie did, even though yes Guthrie sped up his windup after Hunter took off. For a great straight steal of home, here's Jacoby Ellsbury.