I had a Tweet about the Balk which got over a thousand likes and about 150 angry responses telling me that if you eliminate the Balk you eliminate the Stolen Base. 

              Obviously if you eliminate the Balk Rule you will need SOME rule to defend the base stealer’s right to break for second.   My point was not that there should be NO such rule; it was that the rule that we have now is an absolutely horrible rule.   I don’t want less base stealing; I want more.  With a better designed rule, there would be more.

              There is a syndrome here which interests me, which is the belief that the only alternative to the current bad situation is chaos, therefore we have to live with the current bad situation.   I never think that way, so I am constantly surprised that other people do—but lots and lots of other people do, so whenever I propose an idea I am always blindsided by these people who assume that the only alternative to the current bad situation is chaos. 

              I remember one time I argued—and I still believe—that America should have hundreds and hundreds of car companies, building a wide variety of cars.  This was early in the Obama Administration; one of the car companies was in danger of dying, and serious-minded analysts were debating "Can America still support four car companies?"  We sell 17 million plus automobiles in the United States each year; if we had 300 car companies they could be selling 55,000 automobiles apiece, which would make each one of them a billion-dollar company.  If we had 300 car companies building automobiles, innovation in that industry would run at many times the speed that it now does.   Cars would get cheaper, safer, more fuel-efficient, and would sprout a wide variety of designs, some functional and some beautiful.  To me, the idea that America can no longer support four car companies could not possibly be more asinine. 

              But when I suggested this, I got the same sort of answers:  we can’t do that, because the major car companies control critical patents without which you cannot make a competitive automobile.   Well, DUH.   FIX THE PATENT LAW, dipshit.  Patent law in many countries, and in the United States in many areas, requires that people who control patents create a licensing system to sell the rights to use them to others who need them. 

              It’s the same syndrome; we can’t do that because, well, there would be chaos.  110 years ago there were a large number of American car companies.  Whatever city you live in, 110 years ago there was a company in your city trying to compete with Henry Ford.   We have backed ourselves into a corner in which we have very few options, but rather than busting down the walls, we focus on protecting ourselves in the corner. 

              There’s a million ways to protect the baserunner.  Limit the number of throws to the base.   My suggested limit would be "one".   The pitcher gets one throw to the base; if he throws over a second time and doesn’t get the runner, all runners automatically move up a base.   Another way to do it would be to prohibit the pitcher from throwing to first base unless the baserunner was at least eight feet off the base.  The baserunner has a safe zone; stop the crap and let’s play ball. 

              Rules should be clear and specific. We have a terrible rule, a rule which is vague and unintelligible.  Sure, we need SOME rule, but we don’t need a terrible rule.   Fix it.