Everything You Need to Know About the Intentional Balk
By now, most baseball fans have probably heard about Kenley Jansen’s intentional balk. If you haven’t, let me catch you up to speed.
The rarity occurred on Friday night. It was the top of the ninth inning. The Dodgers held a 5-3 lead over the Cubs, and Jansen was on the mound to close out the victory. The inning started nicely, as Jansen struck out Carlos Gonzalez, but the Cubs did not go down cleanly. Thanks to an error from first baseman Matt Beaty, Jason Heyward reached second base. David Bote then struck out, leaving Victor Caratini as the only roadblock between Jansen and his 20th save.
The oddity commenced when Jansen yelled, “I’m going to balk,” following the strikeout of Bote.
And that’s exactly what he did, even going as far to award Heyward third base himself.
With Heyward now on third, Jansen completed the save with a Caratini strikeout.
The reason behind this move is fairly simple: with Heyward (or any runner) on second base, there exists a possibility that he could signal pitches or locations to the batter. Teams always change their signs with runners on base, but if Heyward managed to pick them up, then the Cubs could have been at a tactical advantage. Instead, with him on third base, the ability to steal signs is greatly diminished, if not impossible altogether. Because the Dodgers had a two-run lead, it did not matter on which base Heyward stood.
“It’s something Bob [Geren, Dodgers bench coach] and I have been talking about since spring training, but I keep forgetting to do it,” Jansen said, via Mike DiGiovanna of the Los Angeles Times. “I thought it would be a good time to try it.”
Jansen continued.
“I’m not saying the Cubs are stealing signs or tipping locations, but you always have to be on your toes… Whether you give up a bloop or a base hit, the guy is going to score from second with two outs.”
In the context of this game, the decision to balk made sense. The Dodgers’ win expectancy did not change as a result, sitting at 96.6% before and after the play. Therefore, by this logic, if Jansen determined that there would be any statistical advantage to having Heyward on third instead of second, it would be in his best interest to commit the balk.
The calculus of the situation changes, of course, if the balk would have had any impact on the outcome of the game. For example, let’s say that the balk decreased the Dodgers’ win probability from 96.6% to 94.6%, a two point drop. Jansen would have had to consider whether this drop was “worth it,” by calculating the odds that he could get Caratini out. If the change in odds of getting Caratini out with a runner on third base versus on second base did not outweigh the two point drop in win expectancy, then it would not be advantageous to balk. That’s why something like this only works in specific situations, and Jansen executed it to perfection here.
With something so rare and so new as an “intentional balk,” I had a few questions. Is there any defense to something like this? If he thinks it is to his advantage to stay at second base, could Heyward decline the balk? Or could he decide to return to second base later if he so desired? Let’s delve in.
First, based on the 2018 Official Baseball Rules, I give you the penalty for a balk. From Rule 6.02(a):
“The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.”
The word “shall” is important, considering that it can be defined in multiple ways which could alter the overall meaning of the sentence. In this context, it is likely being used to express a command. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it is particularly important to note when the word “shall” is used in a legal context. The word is “used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.” In short, a runner can’t decline a balk.
And, no, Heyward couldn’t have moved back to second base later in the at-bat. From Rule 5.09(b)(10):
“After he has acquired legal possession of a base, he runs the bases in reverse order for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. The umpire shall immediately call ‘Time’ and declare the runner out.”
If Heyward had decided to go back to second, he would have been called out. That would be quite the travesty, if I’d say so myself.
So, in short, there’s really no defense to this. If a team is actually stealing signs, the intentional balk would be a great way to throw them off. Of course, as mentioned, it only works in specific situations. Most of the time, moving the runner up a base is never good. But in the case of Kenley Jansen on Friday night, he found the perfect opportunity to introduce something new to the game of baseball.
Devan Fink is a Contributor at FanGraphs. You can follow him on Twitter @DevanFink.
Everything about this is delightful and if the analytics revolution had no impact other than to encourage one pitcher to do this one time, it would have all been worth it.
I also get a warm glow from knowing that a site exists where after an intentional balk I can comfortably expect to find this article the next day.
Wonder what Jean Segura would have done if he were in Heyward’s shoes.
Gone back to first.
Tripped, probably.
Hmm … trying to come up with a scenario where a balk might actually provide an advantage to the pitching team. I mean straight up. Not concerned with sign stealing or nay of that nonsense. Maybe something to do with shifting against a RHB and wanting the baserunner(s) to be near defenders?
It doesn’t say is automatically out if he steals second back. He could argue he has a tactical advantage in being At second. And it’s neither to confuse or cause a travesty. I’d want an umpire to sign off on that first though 🙂
But in order to argue that he had a tactical advantage being on second, he would have to explain that it would help him steal signs.
Sure, but sign stealing (by players on the field) is not prohibited.
But then, you’ll likely get into a similar situation to the Pat Venditte Rule.
But imagine the beauty of him leading off of third, toward second, trying to steal second back!
Yeah, 5.09(b)(10) has always made me wonder. Aren’t those “for the purpose” clauses restrictive? It’s talking about if you run backwards AND it’s for one of these reasons. Really seems to say if you have another reason you can do it.
Sheryl Ring?
5.09(b)(10) was enacted for a very specific reason in a response to a very specific play, which makes clear that this would be EXACTLY the type of situation that was designed to prevent.
On August 4, 1911, the Senators were hosting the White Sox. In the bottom of the 9th Inning, with the score tied 0-0, Germany Schaefer was on first base and Clyde Milan was on third base. Schaefer stole second base, trying to get a throw from Fred Payne, the White Sox’ catcher, to allow Milan to go home on the double steal. Payne didn’t throw, and let Schaefer take second on defensive indifference. On the next pitch, Schaefer stole first, to set up the double steal again. The Sox’ manager, Hugh Duffy, came out to argue that Schaefer should be out because of the whole “running the bases backwards” thing, but Schaefer decided to run out in between first and second, with the intention of getting caught in a rundown — he was caught in a rundown, and Milan broke for home, but was thrown out. The Senators ended up winning in 11 when Milan scored on a wild pitch. Walter Johnson got the complete-game shutout. As a result of this, the rule against going backwards on the bases was implemented, to prevent people from trying to steal bases in reverse to gain some type of advantage.
Except that the very play that inspired the rule was done merely for a tactical advantage:
With runners on the corners, the runner on first base stole second, hoping to draw a throw to allow the runner on third base to steal home. However, the defense didn’t bite. Therefore, he stole first base, then he repeated the attempt at the double steal, which worked the second time.
I suppose you could argue this confused the defense, but that really wasn’t the intent behind it. The rule makers probably considered it to fall under the “travesty” clause, in which case so would stealing second base as a protest to an intentional balk; especially since the pitcher could then just intentionally balk him back to third base, making the steal ultimately pointless and an intentional waste of time.
It didn’t actually work the second time — Schaefer was caught in a rundown, and Milan broke for home, but Milan was thrown out before he could score.
“Gaining a tactical advantage” is exactly what the rule was designed to prevent. The specific incident that resulted in the rule being written was specifically in a circumstance where a runner stole a base backwards to gain a tactical advantage.
On August 4, 1911, the Senators were hosting the White Sox. In the bottom of the 9th Inning, with the score tied 0-0, Germany Schaefer was on first base and Clyde Milan was on third base. Schaefer stole second base, trying to get a throw from Fred Payne, the White Sox’ catcher, to allow Milan to go home on the double steal. Payne didn’t throw, and let Schaefer take second on defensive indifference. On the next pitch, Schaefer stole first, to set up the double steal again. The Sox’ manager, Hugh Duffy, came out to argue that Schaefer should be out because of the whole “running the bases backwards” thing, but Schaefer decided to run out in between first and second, with the intention of getting caught in a rundown — he was caught in a rundown, and Milan broke for home, but was thrown out. The Senators ended up winning in 11 when Milan scored on a wild pitch. Walter Johnson got the complete-game shutout. As a result of this, the rule against going backwards on the bases was implemented, to prevent people from trying to steal bases in reverse to gain some type of advantage.
Was wondering the same thing – whether Heyward could have declined the balk.
As to running the bases backwards, I remember this from a book I read back when I was a kid. I had to look up the specifics just now, but this came up back in the early 1900’s.
On 8/4/1911, Germany Schaefer was on 1st with teammate Clyde Milan on 3rd. Schaefer stole 2nd hoping to draw a throw so Milan could score. Well, the catcher didn’t bite so Schaefer was safe at 2nd. Wanting to keep the strategy alive, Schaefer stole 1st on the next pitch. This was not the 1st time he had tried this particular tactic but this was the most famous. Took until 1920 but eventually they put the rule in that you can’t run the bases backwards.
Actually, back in the early days of baseball when the skill level was quite a bit lower and errors were far more common, teams employed all sorts of baserunning tactics like this as regular strategy. Teams would get into intentional rundowns to get a runner in and that sort of thing.
Having a runner intentionally enter into a rundown also works well in some lesser baseball video games.
Heck, the intentional rundown is still used sometimes even today. How often have you seen a runner rounding first on a single and head for second base with no shot of making it, hoping to draw a throw that puts him into a rundown in order to ensure that an important run scores from second base?
Since Jansen throws 93% cutters, is the only real worry that Heyward’s going to convey pitch location here? Or maybe he’s worried the lone slider he throws will get picked up?
It’s not a lot of data to go off of, but Jansen’s “only” thrown 74% cutters in June according to statcast. That probably makes stealing signs more advantageous than with his usual cutter usage.
That being said, I would imagine pitch location is by far the bigger worry here. That cutter’s still deadly pretty much no matter what, but if you’re sitting cutter every pitch and know the location you’ve got a fighting chance.
was waiting for karma to come knocking in the form of a wild pitch
It wouldn’t have mattered. There’s no scenario involving the Dodgers losing the game that doesn’t involve the batter at the plate scoring and there’s no scenario where the batter at the plate scores where the runner on second doesn’t also score. He could have balked him all the way home and it wouldn’t have made any practical difference.
“He could have balked him all the way home and it wouldn’t have made any practical difference.”
Perhaps a somewhat notable difference would be that with him still on the bases, there are more options to turn a BIP into an out than if the runner was just balked home.
I suppose that’s true, but given that unforced runners are hyper-conservative in this particular situation, it would require a pretty calamitous base-running error.
Bob Wickman was frustrating us with these in 2005 (https://www.cleveland.com/tribe/2010/08/is_there_a_way_to_stimulate_mo.html). Can we call these Wickmans?
This is ignoring the specific intent element to the rule regarding running backwards around the bases. In order for the punishment to take effect, it must be done for the purpose of confusing the defense or making a travesty of the game. If the base-runner does it for any other reason, it is legal.
The reason here would have been so the baserunner could steal signs. Would that amount to “making a travesty of the game?”
(Further questions: Would the burden lie with the umpire to prove it was for a illegal purpose or the baserunner to prove it wasn’t? What is the standard of proof is here – is it just the umpires judgment? Preponderance? Probably not reasonable doubt..)
AFAIK stealing signs is not technically against the rules, except in as much as outside devices (cameras, etc…) are prohibited from use. However, if the Cubs attempted to convince an umpire that they wanted Heyward to remain on 2nd in order to steal signs:
1) I would consider that rising to the level of “travesty”
2) Since the LADs would, at a minimum, be forced to switch up the signs it would also rise to the level of attempting to confuse the defense.
And I suspect the burden would be on the Cubs to convince the umpire that Heyward had a legitimate reason to refuse the base. When otherwise in doubt, the Umpire is the captain of the ship and what he says goes. If he disallowed it, the Cubs would have to appeal after the fact, and perhaps a ruling would come down from New York to be used the next time there was an Intentional Balk.
Argument on that point would be; running backwards has to be done with the purpose of making a travesty of the game. Here, the runner is running backwards with the purpose of stealing signs, which incidentally makes a travesty of the game.
Besides, Jansen would’ve just balked him back to third base, making the theft nothing but a waste of time. In today’s environment, intentionally wasting time in a game is a travesty.
The umpire never ever ever has the burden of proof in baseball.
I might be missing something but I think I have identified at least one possible slight disadvantage to the intentional balk in this situation. Suppose Caratini draws a walk or is hit by the pitch and safely reaches 1B. Now there are runners on 1st and 3rd instead of 1st and 2nd. Had Jansen not committed the intentional balk there would be a force play at every base except home as he faces the next batter. However, now that the runner was balked to 3B there is only a force play at 1st or 2nd and the defense has lost the advantage of a force play at 3B. There are times that the only play an infielder may have is at 3B.
This situation is accounted for in the winning percentage odds for the game states.
The article said the winning percentage odds remained unchanged after the intentional balk.
Quote: “The Dodgers’ win expectancy did not change as a result, sitting at 96.6% before and after the play”.
I was trying to think if there was literally no possible downside to the intentional balk in this situation but clearly there is at least some potential downside. If the tactic was widely used we would soon see that sometimes the next batter will reach 1st base via HBP or BB and when that happens it will always have been better for the defense to have had a force available at 3 bases vs only 2 bases. So there is a readily foreseeable disadvantage to issuing the intentional balk in this situation. Does it outweigh the advantage of preventing sign stealing? Maybe?
The only play I can think of where you would need the force at 3rd (ie, couldn’t get the out at 1B or 2B) would be a grounder deep, deep, deep in the hole and in that case I would assume the 3B would try to make aplay on it also leaving 3B unguarded so you aren’t getting the out there anyway.
No, the only case I can think of would be losing a possible out on an error. Say the 2B boots a grounder and the ball gets a little ways away from him, or he throws wild to 1B and it gets deflected away. With the runner on 3B he just scores but if he’s on 2B (& presumably running) he might round the bag and try to score and you might throw him out at home.
But either case is just so remote it’s not worth worrying about. Mathematically it never makes sense to give up a base but honestly, if Jansen was at all worried about it or distracted then it was definitely worth it.
If the shortstop fields that grounder in the hole while moving to his right, then the situation where the only out is at third base would indeed occur. Alternately, there could be a swinging or actual bunt to the third base side fielded by the pitcher whose only play is at third base. Also, even if the third baseman does have to field the grounder, the pitcher may be aware enough to cover third base like he routinely does for grounders to the first baseman.
More usefully, you have the situation where a ground ball is hit to the third baseman who simply steps on third base, but if he threw to first would have a chance of committing a throwing error. You don’t have to stretch possibilities too far for that, it happens regularly.
What this shows is that one-decimal precision on win probabilities isn’t sufficient to evaluate this situation precisely. Which may or may not be relevant in relation to Jansen’s decision-making.
“Most of the time, moving the runner up a base is never good”
“60% of the time, it works every time”
I just saw “What the Constitution Means to Me” and in it there’s an extended (and dark and surreal) reliving of Scalia and Breyer debating whether “shall” does, in fact, mean “must” in hearings for Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In the end, the Court ruled it is not necessarily true that, as you put it, “The word is ‘used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory.'” Of course, the United States Supreme Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over baseball’s rulebook, so their opinion probably matters less than what Merriam-Webster says about it.
So, the runner on second “shall” furnish his tax returns to Congress?
[ducks for cover.]
This is a rather interesting play. If intentional walks are legal, why not an intentional balk? As far as I know, nobody cares about a pitcher’s “balk rate,” anyway.
Soooo, was that even a balk? Is what Jansen did any different than a pitcher digging the dirt in front of the rubber?
If you are going to intentionally balk, why not do some tricky move that has a 5% chance of not being called a balk?
My head is running wild with the most creative balk ideas. Might as well get your money’s worth, right?
Another thing to factor in here: if the Dodgers think there’s a chance the runner can steal the sign, and it’s on the back of the mind of the pitcher and catcher, reducing their concentration on getting the batter out to some degree, then there’s another reason for eliminating that threat.
What about this rule :
Rule 5.06(b)(3)
3) Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when:
(A) There is a balk
It says may. To me that means it’s optional.
Honestly it’s kind of ridiculous that it wasn’t in the main article.