Talk:Cheating in baseball

Pine tar incident

I don't think this is a good example of cheating, as it was not done by a player to gain an advantage. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, in spite of my pro-Yankee bias, that the pine tar incident is not a good example of cheating. But, it's the most notable example of the pine tar rule being enforced. It needs to be expanded to indicate that it was a technical rule violation but that the AL president overruled the field umpire. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Rule violations don't necessarily fit the definition of cheating, though, particularly in cases where the violation has no impact on play. I disagree with including this event under the topic of cheating. isaacl (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

As the rule regarding the length of bat covered with pine tar is not related to enhancing the batter's performance, I propose removing this example. Cheating has a connotation of breaking a rule to gain an advantage, not simply a technical violation. isaacl (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, I am leaning towards agreeing with you on this one. It's probably more notable for Billy Martin's gamesmanship than anything else. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

History of pitching

Reading an article in The Athletic today which discussed how cheating/taking the rules to their limits goes back to the start of the game, when pitchers were just putting the ball into play with underhand tosses, with restrictions on how they delivered the pitches. I know I've read about it before somewhere (maybe in the Historical Baseball Abstract?). This would be good info to include. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't heard about them pitching in that way. If it was an attempt to cheat, it can be added. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Pushing the edge to gain an edge?

A number of years ago I read The Cheater's Guide to Baseball, which covered lots of ways teams tried to gain an advantage, including groundskeeping, delaying the game, and the hidden ball play. Should this article broadly cover these types of shenanigans that may not be specifically cheating? isaacl (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

That book sounds highly relevant. I have read some about the use of groundskeepers to cheat and it should be added. I read that Maury Wills was suspended for ordering the grounds crew to alter the batters boxes once. The hidden ball trick is I think just a trick play and not cheating, as it's not illegal. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The thing is keeping the grass longer or shorter, or watering the mound or basepaths to make them harder isn't against the rules, either. Playing slowly and making pitching changes to try to avoid a game becoming official also isn't against the rules, though the umpires will try to keep teams from making a mockery of the game. These tactics are sufficiently well-known that I think they ought be included in a Wikipedia article, and this article might be the best fit. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: the mound height and slope are prescribed by the rules, as well as the level grading of the baselines and home plate, and so violations fall under cheating. Extra watering, though, would fall under the "gamesmanship" definition at the start of the article, at least within a certain range. (Excessive watering such that the field was unplayable would be a failure of the home team to provide adequate playing conditions.) isaacl (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

As watering the field is an example of gamesmanship and not cheating, I propose removing this example from the article. isaacl (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, What's the difference between cheating and gamesmanship? You decide The perceptual difference between gamesmanship and cheating for many of us appears to be who benefits. If the act in question benefits the team, we smile, look the other way, and call it gamesmanship. If an individual is the primary or sole beneficiary then we often call it cheating. In this case though, I'm on the fence as there are sources that include it with the other ways that they manipulated the field, and there are some reliable sources that lump it in with cheating.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was looking at the definition in the Wikipedia article that is linked to in the lead section of this article, which says "Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport." I think turning the air conditioning up and down based on who's batting would qualify as an unfair advantage benefiting the home team, even if there's no specific rule against it, so would consider it cheating. But since both teams have to play on the same heavily- or lightly-watered field, or with the same grass height, I don't feel this falls into the category of cheating. Just like if Boston tailors its team to take advantage of the Green Monster or Pesky's pole, it's not cheating per se. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Dmoore5556, any thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Muboshgu & Isaacl, good discussion. I would generally view something like tailoring the length of the grass to suit fielders as gamesmanship. Over-watering the baselines to slow down base stealers, I'd still say is still gamesmanship, but it's more towards the grey line. Contouring the baselines along first and third I would view as falling on the cheating side of the grey line; while the contouring is certainly the same for both teams during the game, the home team knows about it (else the exercise is rather meaningless) while the visiting team does not, giving the home team an exploitable advantage. And Maury Wills having the batters box drawn a different size than is stipulated in the rules is blatant cheating (for which he was suspended), as would be modifying the height of the mound. That all said, I'd say in the Altering the grounds section we can maintain Maury Wills as the prime example of cheating, and frame the Cleveland Indians grounds crew shenanigans as skirting the line. I'll edit the section shortly; further adjustment or discussion here welcome. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Contouring is against the rules, as they specify the baselines and home plate must be level. Pitchers typically test the dirt on the mound to see how compacted it is, and I assume the players check out the base paths. Now it may make sense to cover at least some examples of gamesmanship together with rule violations, as I raised initially. If we do so for groundskeeping, then they should be identified as not cheating, but attempting to craft the playing conditions to favour the characteristics of the home team. isaacl (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair point about contouring. What I adjusted the relevant passage to say is: "The groundskeepers of the Cleveland Indians were known to make various changes to the grounds; some of which could be viewed as gamesmanship, such as over-watering the infield to slow down opposing base stealers, and at least one that would be a rules violation, altering the height of the pitching mound to benefit Bob Feller." Feel free to revise/add further if you see benefit in directly highlighting the "craft the playing conditions" aspect. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Regarding the verb tense for Spider Tack: I guess it depends if you think the new enforcement initiative will actually stop all usage :-). It's still very effective (present tense)—its use just might become past tense. isaacl (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to present perfect tense, "has been Spider Tack", as it's happened from some time in the past until now. The "now" continues to move, conveniently, unless/until a change to past tense is warranted. :-) Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that cheating in baseball includes doctoring baseballs, corked bats, electronic sign stealing, using performance-enhancing substances, and age fabrication?
  • ALT1:... that players are often not punished for cheating in baseball?
  • ALT2:... that cheating in baseball includes doctoring, corking, and fabricating?
  • ALT3:... that pitchers are cheating in baseball with a glue invented for strongmen to hold Atlas balls?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Presidential transition of Franklin D. Roosevelt
• Comment: Open to any hook ideas that may be more interesting

Moved to mainspace by Muboshgu (talk), Dmoore5556 (talk), and Isaacl (talk). Nominated by Muboshgu (talk) at 19:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good to go! Promoter can choose the hook. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)