What is Wrong with Throwing Spitballs?
By
Dale Murray
Assistant Professor
Department of Philosophy
University of Wisconsin – Baraboo/Sauk County
1006 Connie Rd.
Baraboo, WI 53913
University of Wisconsin-Richland
1200 Highway 14 West
Richland Center, WI 53581
dale.murray@uwc.edu
Word Counts
Abstract = 235
Paper = 5,286
Abstract
What is Wrong with Throwing Spitballs?
Controversy over the use performance–enhancing substances in athletics has
involved the use of sometimes rather complex technological advances (e.g., blood doping
in cycling, “designer steroids” in track, anabolic steroids in baseball, football and
wrestling, “greasy swimsuits” in swimming). However, historically there have been other
substances banned from Major League Baseball competition that are examples of simple
technology, such as soap, grease, spit, human perspiration and the like. Before the 1920
season, Major League Baseball team owner decided to ban the pitchers’ use of spit of and
foreign substances on the ball in League play (with the exception of a group of spitballers
“grandfathered in” who were allowed to use the pitch remainder of their careers).
I will explore the question of whether “spitballs” (pitches whereby pitchers
applying foreign substances to baseballs with the aim of gaining an advantage over a
hitter) ought to be banned from Major League Baseball competition. While I do not
defend the position that those who have broken League rules by throwing spitballs have
done nothing wrong, I do challenge the legitimacy of the current ban on spitballs. In this
investigation, I refer to Randolph Feezell’s definition of cheating and Mark Hamilton’s
criteria for assessing the morality of strategic play in baseball. I note that while safety
issues could arise with the reintroduction of spitballs into League play, a series of policy
measures could be implemented to protect players from harm.
What is Wrong with Throwing Spitballs?
Revised: April 2009
The most recent debates over the place of technology in sports have mainly arisen
from the revelation of athletes’ clandestine use of performance-enhancing drugs. From
blood doping in amateur sports to anabolic steroid injection in Major League Baseball,
the increased visibility of cases of athletes “juicing up” has spawned popular outrage.
Interestingly, there is little debate in the general public about whether the use of
performance-enhancing substances by athletes is morally permissible. By and large, the
use of these substances is simply taken for granted as not only a violation of the rules in
place, but also as being ethically problematic. The debate for most sports fans comes in
the specific issues of what the punishment of those caught should be and perhaps more
significantly, of what accolades “dopers” and suspected dopers deserve, as well as casting
a verdict on their legacies.
However, the question of whether or not the use of performance-enhancing
substances is morally permissible in the first place is a significant one. It is a question
that also begs us to get to the heart of what is wrong, if anything, with enhancements of
athletes generally speaking. And, this brings me to the question not of biological
enhancements to athletes (though that is an intriguing topic), but to the issue of the moral
permissibility of other uses of very simple technology that can aid the performance of
athletes. In this case, what is wrong adding a substance to a baseball in order to alter its
movement? That is, what is wrong with throwing a spitball?
I must say from the outset that I am not addressing the issue of whether or not
there was anything wrong with the actions of admitted spitballers such as Gaylord Perry
or suspected ones such as Kenny Rogers. Perry clearly violated the rules of Major League
Baseball and in my view, cheated. In the same way that Jason Giambi’s admitted use of
anabolic steroids was wrongful in that he actively deceived all in gaining unfair
advantage over others under full understanding of the rules prohibiting the use of such
substances (3: A1), so was Perry (9) guilty of knowingly loading up baseballs despite the
rules and he thus acted wrongfully.
In other words, what I am not directly addressing in this paper are instances of
cheating. A more “relaxed” and conventionalist definition of cheating comes from
Randolph Feezell who calls it “the attempt to gain unfair advantage over your opponent
by violating the agreements underlying the game” (4: 67-68). I say that this a “relaxed”
definition of cheating since it suggests that strictly speaking rules violations are not
morally wrongful. On this conventionalist account, in fact, there is nothing morally
wrong with Perry throwing spitballs because according to Feezell he was engaging in a
practice that has come to be part of the accepted tradition of the game. As Feezell himself
puts it:
“Many hitters dig up the chalk line in the batter’s box and position their
back foot, illegally, out of the box. Pitchers are taught to throw “inside” to
establish a more intimidating presence on the mound. And, primarily at
the professional level, pitching coaches develop and teach the most artful
techniques of making the baseball do unexpected things. All of these
things are ‘part of the game,’ a part of the historical existence of baseball.
This is why they do not constitute cheating” (6: 60).
But I will not even allow myself this indulgence. For the purposes of this paper I will
stick to the common formalist understanding of cheating and thus say that all who threw
spitballs post-1920 (when Major League Baseball banned the practice) have cheated, and
that this is wrong.
Yet the deeper question is for what reasons should spitballs be banned from use in
baseball? I shall investigate this question, providing some historical justifications for
prohibition. I will also use a series of criteria to evaluate the moral permissibility of
allowing spitballs. I conclude that there doesn’t appear to be any convincing moral reason
why spitballs should be banned from baseball.
The Nature of the Spitball and Historical Reasons for its Prohibition
Technically a spitball is a ball whose surface is altered by some sort of lubricant.
This alteration can occur in any number of ways. The ball can be greased (with saliva or
Vaseline) in order to affect its flight on the way to the plate. With creating a slippery
surface, the pitcher can let the ball squirt out instead of letting it spin off of the tips of the
fingers. This puts little spin on the ball so that it moves erratically as it reaches the plate.
And, of course, placing mud or spit on the ball can also change the contour of its surface
and ever so slightly change the weight of the ball or how air currents push against it,
causing it to move like a knuckleball (1: 238-239).1 While not technically a spitball, the
surface of the ball can be altered in other ways that can cause a similar effect. For
example, the ball can be cut (sometimes with a ring with a sharp edge), or scuffed (often
with sandpaper) to alter the surface so that when thrown it will move erratically. Notice
1
Interesting Perry provides a quite different account from others about why the spitball is so difficult to hit.
He asserts that what makes the pitch difficult to hit is the forward spin that a spitball pitcher can apply to
the ball (presumably driving the ball in a sharp, downward trajectory as it reaches the plate such as a splitfingered fastball does).
that both spitball and “scuff ball” pitchers can create this movement with much less arm
action than is needed for a “conventional” breaking pitch.
The spitball (as well as cut or scuffed ball pitches) was officially banned from
Major League Baseball not long after the 1920 season.2 Before this time, there had been
several prominent hurlers who perfected the spitball and built successful careers for
themselves. Ed Walsh, Dutch Leonard, Burleigh Grimes, Jack Chesbro, and Eddie
Cicotte (of Black Sox scandal infamy) all flourished due to heavy reliance on the pitch.
The official reason why the spitball was outlawed from Major League Baseball
was supposedly due to safety concerns. Coupled with the erratic movement of the ball,
scuffed and/or lubricated baseballs harbor dirt and other residues. A number of spitball
pitchers rendered baseballs in very dark hues by applying tobacco juice. All of this makes
them difficult for the batter to see. If we add to this that a spitball is thrown faster than
another pitch that moves unpredictably (the knuckleball) this increases the danger that the
ball could more easily hit a batter without him even being able to see it. And of course on
top of all of this batters did not wear any special protective gear when the spitball was
banned. In fact, some suspect that the spitball contributed to the only Major League
Baseball player ever killed during game action (Ray Chapman). At most, Chapman was
only armed with his thin fielder’s cap when he stepped into the batter’s box against Carl
Mays on that fateful day. There is speculation that the ball was so dirty that Chapman
didn’t see it before it struck him in the head and left him dead a day later.
How might we respond to this charge? First of all, there is no direct evidence to
suggest that Chapman was actually killed by a spitball. Mays was a “submarine” pitcher,
2
The spitball was actually banned in two stages. In the winter of 1919-1920, MLB partially banned the use
of the pitch by declaring that each team could have only two designated spitball pitchers. However,
umpires were quite lax in enforcing the rule.
who had a penchant for throwing inside to pitchers, but was not known for loading up the
baseball. Also, no reports at the scene of the beaning suggested that the ball was
lubricated when it hit Chapman. By the date of Chapman’s beaning (August 16, 1920) a
“partial” spitball ban was already in place. Finally, when Chapman was hit, he was
attempting a bunt and likely was leaning out over the plate (he was known to do so when
push-bunting). Now, of course, none of this shows conclusively that the ball couldn’t
have been doctored. Even if it wasn’t doctored, it could be that the ball that hit Chapman
could have been lubricated at some previous time and perhaps was soiled to the point
where it was hard for hitters to pick up.
Yet, we need to recognize that the context in which Major League Baseball is
played has changed quite drastically in some ways over the years. Today, batters step into
the batter’s box with an unparalleled level of protective body armor. Not only do batters
have much more sophisticated headgear that can withstand the shock of a hard thrown
pitch, but they also have shin guards, elbow guards, forearm guards and cups to help
shield protruding and/or sensitive areas of the body from errant pitches. Additionally,
though the majority of MLB games are played at night these days (none were in 1920),
the lighting for such games has dramatically improved to the point where many batters
actually prefer to play at that time since they think that they can pick the ball up much
more easily without the glare of the sun. Along with all of this, umpires have many more
game balls available for use than umpires did during the deadball era. One of the reasons
why balls would get so dirty after having lubricants applied to their surfaces was that they
were used much more frequently than they are today.
What all of this suggests is that a number of the factors that caused (possibly
high) risks when using spitballs almost a century ago may now be mitigated to the point
that it is implausible to contend that spitballs greatly increase the danger to players as
they once did. In my proposal below, I will detail some measures that could further
reduce the risks of spitball use.
Another standard reason why the spitball was outlawed in League play was
because it was thought to be unsanitary. The saliva applied by pitchers doesn’t merely
touch the balls, but also frequently comes into contact with other “handlers” such as
catchers, umpires, fielders and even sometimes fans in the case of foul balls or home
runs. Certainly, as medicine teaches us, pathogens can be transmitted in this way.
Is this much of a reason for continuing the ban on spitballs? The health of
participants, on-field officials and spectators is, of course, always a legitimate concern.
However, how plausible is to claim that these health concerns are greatly increased by the
use of spitballs over other pitches? For one thing, the mere contact with the ball is enough
to spread germs without an additional introduction of bodily fluids. There is a very small
chance that the common cold could be transmitted more quickly if saliva-greased
spitballs were regularly used. In rare instances, other diseases could be spread by
touching baseballs loaded with bodily fluids through open cuts. Besides there is a very
simple way of allaying this worry – legal spitballs would not have to be lubricated with
bodily fluids. More will be said about this in the proposal provided below.
Of course, League officials at the time of the ban contended that removing the
spitball from the repertoire of pitches available to pitchers made the game “cleaner.” That
is, not only would the ball not be so dirty, but that banning the spitball added to the
aesthetic of the game in other ways. Some might think that the spitball is just “gross” –
that applying saliva or tobacco juice to the ball is somehow unsavory. What’s worse,
many are offended by the use of chewing tobacco and the legal use of spitballs may
promote its use.
What to say to all of this? Banning the spitball may have relieved some from the
psychological discomfort caused by the idea of loading up and handling lubricated balls.
Of course, this ban hasn’t stopped a host of other activities of athletes that many
(including myself) may find offensive on a baseball field or off. Spitting certainly hasn’t
decreased with the ban of the spitball – players seem to splatter their saliva all about for
all to see.3 Some find this act to be repulsive, especially when it is done on the dugout
floor (with sunflower seeds no less!). Though a combination of health official, public and
advertizing pressures has reduced the number of players who use chewing tobacco during
play, a number still do. If the League was truly so bothered by the health risks and
etiquette of players and coaches using tobacco, perhaps they should have banned its use.
And of course there is a ghoul’s gallery of other disgusting activity that occurs in
plan sight of paying customers at the ballpark and as well as to those viewing games on
their television sets. Players adjusting their cups (whether they need to or not), slapping
each other on the buttocks after making a good play, picking their noses, chewing vast
quantities of gum (see Terry Francona), and other uncouth behaviors. While we can
easily recall these on-the-field cases where there is an utter lack of tact and etiquette, the
fan can also refer to a plethora of offenses of players off the field as well, such as general
womanizing, drunken rowdiness and one particularly disgusting practice, “slumpIn fact, in one of the more humorous of Frank DeFord’s weekly segments for National Public Radio he
appealed to a “letter” sent to him from one of his fictional recurring characters on the show, the Duchess, in
which she rails against the excessive “expectoration” of Major League Baseball players.
3
busting.” As Mark Grace puts it, When a hitter is going through a hitting slump, the
player must find and sleep with an “ugly and preferably fat girl” to break the slump. “It's
called "diving on a live grenade," Grace joked, or "taking one for the team" (8).
Often (perhaps always) I can only appeal to the “yuck” factor to try to explain
why the practices listed above are distasteful. But notice what is going on here. All of this
confuses offensive aesthetic activity with morally problematic behavior. I can’t appeal to
any sound moral reason why these behaviors should be stopped. My liberty is not
impaired by them (I am not coerced or unduly influenced into taking any course of
action), nor am I in any straightforward sense, harmed. Likewise, my character is not
degraded in any way by other players spitting especially since they are not expectorating
on me or a loved one. As we learned from political philosopher Joel Feinberg in his
famous treatment of the offense principle, the mere fact that someone is offended and
placed in some sort of unpleasant state is not a weighty enough reason to curb the
activities of other citizens (2: 84).
However, I think that behind all of this is a much more prudential reason for why
the spitball was banned, which has little to do with either morality or aesthetics. As
historical research has shown, the real death knell of the legal spitball came from Babe
Ruth’s emergence on the baseball scene. In 1919, Ruth hit 29 home runs, which in that
era was a startling number. Attendance soared with Ruth’s accomplishments and team
owners saw an opportunity. With the general abolition of spitballs and other trick pitches,
crowds flocked to ballparks to watch an explosion of hitting and offensive power
production (7). Simple said, the spitball’s demise came in unison with the death of the
deadball era.
Some speculate that in the modern baseball context MLB officials turned a blind
eye to the increased use of steroids when it became clear that “jacked up” players
attracted huge crowds with awe-inspiring increases in home runs. Coming out of a
second, very unpopular baseball strike of 1994 the general explosion of offensive power
production (punctuated by the fantastic home run record chases of Sosa, McGuire and
Bonds) re-energized fan interest in the game. League officials and team owners once
again saw an opportunity – but this time without the need of a rule change – and let
practical concerns get in the way of principled moral action.
Moral Evaluation of the Spitball
In consideration of whether or not spitballs ought not to be allowed in baseball,
we can think about whether the practice of throwing them somehow constitutes immoral
strategic deception. In a recent article on lying and cheating in sports, Mark Hamilton
usefully outlines criteria by which we may evaluate the morality of strategic deception in
baseball (6). While Hamilton’s criteria are helpful, this doesn’t mean that I endorse them
uncritically. In fact, I will show some worries about some of the criteria and some of their
limitations. However, all things said, I think his criteria provide a good, working starting
point for evaluating strategic deception.
The first thing to determine is whether or not throwing a spitball is indeed a case
of strategic deception. Consider the following scenario. Let’s say that throwing spitballs
was not prohibited by the rules of the game. In doing this, note that I am not loading the
case in my favor, I am merely having us imagine that throwing spitballs is a sort of
legally permissible action (i.e., permitted by MLB rules), not a morally good one.
Presumably, in throwing a doctored pitch I am in some sense trying to deceive the batter.
Just like with any competitive encounter between pitcher and batter, as a pitcher I am
trying to get the batter out and I would prefer that he not correctly guess at what pitch is
coming. For example, I would rather have the batter “thinking fastball” when I throw him
a curve. Likewise, when I plan to throw a spitter, I would want him to think that I am
throwing some other kind of pitch.
Of course, the deceit doesn’t have to be achieved this way. Let’s imagine that I’m
an especially cocky pitcher and I tell the catcher to let the batter know what’s coming. I
think that the batter cannot hit my best pitch and it just so happens to be a spitter. But
let’s say the batter is still fooled; he believes he has a good bead on the ball, but it still
breaks in a way such that he miscalculates and consequently swings and misses. The
point of the matter is that in throwing the pitch the batter is clearly deceived regardless of
my intention. Throwing a spitball would seem to qualify as a deceitful activity even if it
was legal and thus it is an appropriate subject of Hamilton’s criteria for evaluation of
strategic deception.
With that said, I should list Hamilton’s criteria and see if or how each criterion
applies to the practice of spitball throwing. The first criterion is that the constitutive rules
of the game ought not be broken (6: 134-135). It is simply wrong to use plays that violate
the written rules of the game. When baseball players use steroids in the current baseball
climate, they are wrongfully violating the rules set down by the MLB. In effect, I agreed
with this in the introduction when I mentioned that I am not defending the actions of
spitball pitchers who continued to throw the pitch even after it was formally banned. In
fact, why this sort of deceit is wrongful is because it allows a player to gain an advantage
in a way unavailable to other athletes following the rules of the game. I gave a more
lenient interpretation of cheating from Feezell above. However, all of this is also in
concert with Warren Fraleigh’s more standard definition of cheating as follows:
Cheating is an intentional act that violates an appropriate interpretation of
the rules shared by the participants, done to gain advantage for one’s self
and one’s teammates while trying to avoid detection so as to escape
penalty (3: 211).
It is clear why breaking the rules is wrongful and how this fits with different definitions
of cheating. But there is a significant limitation to this criterion. It merely stipulates that
once a particular practice or activity is banned, it is now wrongful to use it, since it
provides an unfair advantage to its practitioner. And of course the whole point, if you are
using steroids in a league where they are banned or trapping a ball you didn’t catch, is to
make sure that you don’t get caught. However, what I am challenging are the very
reasons why the spitball was banned. Unfortunately, the first criterion does not provide us
with much guidance as to why this practice ought to be banned in the first place.
Even so, this criterion is still illuminating. Notice that there is nothing contrary to
the constitutive rules of the games by being deceitful to players simpliciter. In the same
way that pitchers try to deceive hitters, there are a variety of other deceptive strategies in
which baseball players engage that provide them with competitive advantage, such as the
hidden ball trick. But notice that there is nothing “unfair” about this sort of strategy. This
strategy is within the rules of the game, and perhaps more importantly, it is available to
players from both teams if they so wish to deploy it.
This brings us to Hamilton’s second criterion for evaluating cases of strategic
deception. While deceiving an opponent is permissible, Hamilton thinks it is wrongful to
deceive umpires (or other officiating members who enforce the rules of the game) (6:
135-136). For example, “pulling a pitch” to make the umpire believe that a pitch outside
of the strike zone is a strike, or even a fielder trapping the ball and acting as if he caught
it are wrongful because the player attempts to interfere with the umpire’s ability to
enforce the constitutive rules of the game.
Does the throwing of a spitball violate this second criterion? I don’t think so.
Notice that if the rules allowed spitballs to be thrown, the deceitful nature of the practice
is directed only at the opposing batter. There isn’t say, some optical illusion presented to
the home plate umpire by throwing a spitter that is intended to make him more inclined to
call a pitch outside the strike zone a strike. In fact, those who throw other erratically
moving pitches, such as knuckleballers, may even concede the fact that they are less
likely to get strike calls than other more conventional pitchers because umpires are not as
accustomed to how their pitches approach the plate. So, if the umpire is deceived, it is
actually most likely not in the favor of the pitcher. More importantly, it is not intended by
the pitcher to fool the umpire – again deceiving the umpire would not provide the pitcher
with competitive advantage in any way.
The third criterion is that we need to take into account the context of the lie. What
does this mean? As Hamilton reminds us:
Many plays of deception should not be classified as lies because of the
context. At most, such lies are jocular ones and thus not immoral. Lies told
in the context of an artificial game or set-up are not equivalent to any other
lie. They should be excused if they are told as part of the game but not to
gain an unfair advantage. Deceiving Manny Ramirez by telling him it is a
foul ball and asking Mike Hegan to step off the base are examples of
jocular lies. This type of lying is expected and acting is part of the game
(6: 136).
Hamilton is borrowing from Aquinas and Augustine the distinction between jocose lies
and mischievous lies. The former sort of lie is told with the intent to amuse and without
malice (6: 131). Hamilton is suggesting that in the context of the game, certain supposed
deceitful practices are not even really lies since they are jokes. Players should learn not to
trust their opponents and oughtn’t be so gullible. In a sense, those who fall prey to such
practices deserve what they get. And of course, pulling pitchers with the intent to deceive
umpires in order to gain a strategic edge is closer to instance of mischievous lying. Such
plays distort the truth and are mischievous because they are born of intentions to fool
unbiased officiants and gain unearned advantage.
Unfortunately, Hamilton doesn’t provide us with any examples of what sort of
practices would violate this criterion. However, it is safe to say that the throwing of
spitballs would not do so. We must recognize that part of the deception that would make
the spitball effective operates on the same principle as with all other legal pitches. What
makes the deception work is that if you have the ability to throw a pitch, the batter has to
worry about whether he is going to see it and have time to react to it. Actually, a good
deal of hitting at the Major League level comes from calculated guessing. While the very
best hitters might be able to make the split second adjustments to speed up or slow down
bat speed in order to properly time a swing if they incorrectly guess what pitch is coming,
most hitters greatly depend on “looking” for a pitch. Accordingly, pitchers (usually
prompted by their catchers) try to mix up their pitches. Stan Coveleski, one of the
greatest of the “second generation” spitball pitchers, emphasizes the power of merely
making the batter believe that a spitball was coming. “I’d go to my mouth on every pitch.
Not every pitch would be a spitball. Sometimes I’d go maybe two or three innings
without throwing one. But I’d always have them looking for it” (10: ?).
However, these are all accepted practices of the game. In fact they provide the
mental element of baseball that can make the sport so appealing. There is no reason to
think that using a spitball (or the threat of using one) is any less a jocular lie than the use
of any other pitch.
The fourth criterion is that we need to take into consideration the age and
experience of the competitors (6: 136-137). Hamilton does think that we need to use
some discretion in allowing strategically deceptive play. It is quite a different context
when we are discussing whether or not Little Leaguers ought to load up baseballs versus
those players who have had a great deal of experience. To capture Hamilton’s worry, we
normally place those who are not as experienced (mainly I think he has children in mind
here) in a special moral category. Trick plays where children are deceived (if either by
other children or adult coaches) does smack of the unseemly. They are not prepared for
being duped, and it is plausible to say that it would be wrongful for any coach to use such
plays. Additionally, part of the maturation process of the child involves some sort of
moral training, and athletic contest is often see as a possible conduit for such training.
Coaches who show and encourage the use of deceptive plays interfere with the process of
building respect for competitors, establishing relationships of trust, and creating
conditions where lying is permitted (can the eight-year-old really tell the difference
between deceit in the relatively innocuous context of baseball versus deceit in the “game
of life?”). If we are to think that sports offer opportunities (which is perhaps debatable) in
the moral development of young people, we should also think that participants should at
least practice a principle of non-malfeasance. As professionals, Major League baseball
players are likely schooled in the ways of baseball deception – so it is fine to dupe Manny
Ramirez but morally inappropriate to fool Tanner, the Little Leaguer from the Bad News
Bears.
Of course, I am only making the case here why there is no moral reason for
banning the spitball in Major League Baseball. Hence, the practice of using the spitball in
this context should pass muster with this criterion.
The final criterion involves whether the deceptive act shows respect for the game
and one’s opponents (6: 137-138). I have to confess here that I have issues with the idea
of “respect for the game.” One reason for this is that it is unclear what the subject of the
prescription is. What does it mean to have “respect for the game?” To understand this
problem, we need to briefly examine some basic principles of normative reasoning.
When we think of the major moral and political theories which revere the notion
of respect (such as Kantian and Rawlsian ones), we should note that respect is directed
toward some sort of active trait or something that could be active. For example, when I
use you merely as a means to my own ends, the violation is that I am only using you as
an instrument to secure my own interests. There are two elements of your personhood
that I am disregarding. One is that I am not considering you as a being with her own
interests, goals, projects, etc. That is, I am not respecting you as a being who has some
interest in pursuing some conception of the good. Secondly, I am not respecting as a
subject capable of making choices for yourself. I am using you as an object, not allowing
you to properly exercise your will. In sum, what I am not doing is recognizing your
autonomy – that willfully chosen ability to identify, accept and follow rules that you give
to yourself.
With this said, what does it mean to respect something that does not choose for
itself? Certainly, the sport of baseball involves the willful activity of its participants, but
that doesn’t mean that baseball itself has autonomy. So, when I am “respecting the game”
we can’t really mean that we are treating it as a willful entity (unless we are thinking of
the sport of baseball in a metaphorical sense). Now, it does seem plausible to say that
when I gain some sort of unfair advantage over you and use you as a way of winning –
say I push off from you in basketball, which allows me to get to the rebound, disallows
you from doing so, and is not detected by the referee – I am disrespecting you in your
role as a participant in the sport.
But despite all of this, I do want to respond to one criticism that might come from
those who might worry that throwing spitballs is somehow disrespectful to the game.
Couldn’t one argue that part of the goal of sports is to provide the opportunity for players
to pursue excellences? Part of the virtue of sport involves competing with other athletes
who are putting forth their maximum effort, who have honed their skills to the highest
level and doing all of this within the rules of the game. In fact, a MacIntyrean
interpretation of sport would note that sport is valuable as a distinct practice that allows
participants the unique opportunity to strive for and display excellence to an audience
uniquely situated to appreciate such achievement.
With this said, is there something wrong with say, allowing pitchers with aging
arms being able to rely on “junk” or “trick” pitches to linger? If sports are about those
who are the most athletically gifted, shouldn’t we encourage contributions from only the
very best? In the same way that some hate the designated hitter in the American League
because it allows the aged, often out-of-shape slugger with only a few skills to continue
to compete, does the allowance of the knuckleball pitcher (or the reinstatement of the
spitballer) do the same? In other words, does the idea of encouraging the (overall) less
gifted to play disrespect other players (and perhaps the game itself?) by failing to field
the best participants?
Actually, this line of questioning assumes that spitballers “have no skill” and I am
not sure that this is the case. I am not talking about the artful ways in which Perry hid the
accountrements of his spitballing trade (Vaseline under the bill of a cap, sandpaper in the
glove, nail files in the waistband of pants, and so forth). I am referring to the idea that
controlling a spitball can be very difficult. In fact, a number of accounts from spitballers
suggest that this is the case. So, throwing a spitball may just demonstrate a sort of
competitive excellence, albeit a very specific one. One might also argue that given the
recent increase in offensive productivity, tactics that provide pitchers with more weapons
to compete may be a way to restore competitive balance to the game.
Allowing for a wide range of possible excellences that promote competitive
balance would seem to come closer to a MacIntyrean teleological ideal of sport. The use
of spitballs would seem to fit into that ideal. If providing the highest level of competition
shows my competitors respect, what could be wrong with allowing opportunities for
showcasing even limited (but highly effective) skills, such as throwing spitballs?
Conclusion: A Modest Proposal
In the introduction of this paper I indicated that Perry did do something wrong by
throwing spitballs despite clear League prohibition of this practice. But this isn’t entirely
right. One might point out the possible justification of the civilly disobedient. Ghandi and
Martin Luther King, Jr. conducted clearly illegal acts in protest to immoral practices. Yet,
most people judge these activities to have been morally acceptable ones. If we are
convinced that there is nothing particularly morally wrongful about throwing a spitball,
we could imagine a scenario (a quite humorous one) whereby a Major League Baseball
pitcher thinks the prohibition of the spitball is so unjust that he commits a civilly
disobedient act. He might, to make the moral point, casually take out a jar of Vaseline
and openly apply a glob of it to the ball. Just so long as the pitcher would be willing to
accept the penalty, this would seem to be a straightforward version of civil obedience.
But even if there is no strong moral problem with throwing a spitball, might there
still be concerns that speak against its reinstatement as a legally permissible pitch. There
are some concerns, including safety concerns that will need to be addressed. One of the
health concerns I mentioned earlier in the paper came from the use of saliva on the ball.
How great a concern this really is is hard to tell. But in any case, there is a rather simple
solution – that if spitballs were permitted, only “artificial” lubricants, such as petroleum
jelly would be permitted during play. This would also mean that tobacco juice would not
be permitted to lubricate baseballs and thus should assuage worries that chewing would
be promoted (this may appeal to those concerned with health and baseball aesthetics) and
that balls would quickly be stained and hard to detect.
But of course the deeper safety concern has to do with batters being hit by pitches,
especially if they can’t get out of the way of them in time. Considering how frequently
baseballs are changed out in the modern baseball context (due to scuffed surfaces and
other wear and tear) worries about playing with balls that are so filthy that they pose any
special danger is unwarranted. Additionally, just as there are ballwashers in golf, there is
reason to believe that a similar sort of washing system could be used occur for baseballs
as needed. Finally, just as there are “time and place” restrictions to free speech which are
designed to reduce violence and mitigate harms between opposing groups, there could be
similar restrictions on the use of doctored pitches in night games when the threat of not
seeing them is too great.
I conclude by saying that I am not advocating that players throw spitballs and I
have no positive moral reasons for promoting its use. My point has been to argue that the
supposed moral reasons for the ban are largely species and the pragmatic concerns are not
so great as to justify continuing prohibition of the spitball.
Bibliography
1. David L. Altheide, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, (1975) Vol. 4, no. 2 pp.
238-239.
2. Feinberg, Joel. “The Offense Principle.” Social and Political Philosophy:
Contemporary Readings. Edited by George Sher and Baruch Brody, Orlando, FL”
Harcourt Brace, 1999, pp. 84-96.
3. Fainaru-Wada, Mark and Lance Williams. “Giambi Admitted Taking Steroids.” San
Francisco Chronicle. December 2, 2004, A1.
4. Feezell, Randolph. “On the Wrongness of Cheating and Why Cheaters Can’t Play the
Game.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport. (1988) 15: 57-68.
5. Fraleigh, Warren. “Intentional Rules Violations, One More Time.” Ethics in Sport (2nd
Ed.). Edited by William J. Morgan, Chicago, IL: Human Kinetic, 2007, pp. 209-218.
6. Hamilton, Mark. “There’s No Lying in Baseball (Wink, Wink).” Baseball and
Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Batter’s Box. Edited by Eric Bronson, LaSalle, IL:
Open Court, 2004, pp. 126-138.
7. Mahl, Tom. The Spitball/Knuckleball Book. Elyria, OH: Trick Pitch Press, 2009.
8. McGraw, Dan. “Sports Stars, Sex and Stalkers.” Salon. August 6, 2003. Retrieved
March 28, 2009. (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/06/sports_stars/print.html)
9. Perry, Gaylord (with Bob Sudyk). Me and the Spitter. New York: Signet, 1974.
10. Ritter, Larry. The Glory of Their Times: The Story Of The Early Days Of Baseball
Told By The Men Who Played It. New York: Macmillan, 1966.