What is Wrong with Throwing Spitballs?

ABSTRACT

Controversy over the use of performance–enhancing drugs (PEDs) in athletics has involved sometimes rather complex technological advances (e.g. ‘designer steroids’ in track, and anabolic steroids in baseball, football and wrestling). However, historically other performance enhancing substances (PESs) banned from Major League Baseball (MLB) competition are examples of simple technology, such as soap, Vaseline, grease, spit, human perspiration and the like. For instance, before the 1920 season, MLB team owners decided to ban their pitchers’ use of spit and other foreign substances on the ball in League play. I will explore the question of whether ‘spitballs’ (pitches whereby pitchers apply foreign substances to baseballs with the aim of gaining a competitive advantage over hitters) ought to be banned from MLB 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, none of these are strong enough concerns to warrant the spitball ban. I conclude with a series of policy measures that could be implemented to protect players from harm if the spitball were to be reintroduced in MLB. This will include a discussion of what could permissibly done to a baseball by spitball pitchers if the ban were lifted.

KEYWORDS:

• Baseball
• performance enhancement
• deception
• cheating

Acknowledgments

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all involved in the vetting process of this article, especially two anonymous reviewers. Your insightful queries prompting clarification and other suggestions for improvement have allowed me the chance to revise this paper into a stronger one.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The following list of references is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but at least provides a snapshot of the literature dedicated to this topic (Fost 2008; Fraleigh 1985; Hoberman 2007; McKeever 2017; Murray 2018; Russell and Brown 2018; Savulescu, Foddy, and Clayton 2004).

2. To be clear, I understand PEDs to be a subset of PESs. For example, PESs could be either ‘internal’ (e.g. taken as a pill, injection, or installed as a prosthetic) or ‘external’ (e.g. a substance such as Vaseline, mud, saliva applied to a baseball, etc.). In this paper, I am addressing only external performance enhancing items, not PEDs or other internal PESs. I wish to thank an anonymous reviewer for prompting me to clarify this point.

3. Interestingly, Perry provides a quite different account from others about why the spitball is such an effective pitch. He asserts that the forward spin a spitball pitcher can apply to the ball (presumably driving it in a sharp, downward trajectory as it reaches the plate such as a split-fingered fastball does) makes the pitch hard for batters to follow.

4. The spitball was actually banned in two stages. In the winter of 1919–1920, MLB partially prohibited 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 during the first stage.

5. 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 MLB participants.

6. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for pressing this issue.