Some sports folks are questioning whether Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers had some kind of foreign substance on his pitching hand Sunday night during the second game of the World Series. They're calling the incident "Dirtgate."
There is no proof he was doing something illegal. It seems such an unlikely possibility in a game as important as a Series game, and even the umpires didn't search Rogers for illegal substances. But because I thought it was an interesting question, I went looking for information on how spitballs and other such tainted balls alter the game. I was just having trouble imagining how spitting on a ball or rubbing something on a ball would make it harder to hit.
There are two main explanations.
An
AtHomePlate.com article says it is mainly an issue of making the ball harder to see or giving it "a slight wobble." The foreign substance makes the ball darker. This is a very good article if you want background.
The most thorough explanation I came across was from Baseball-Reference.com:
Descriptions of how to throw the spitball vary enough that it seems likely that the term actually refers to at least two different pitches. Some pitchers described a pitch in which saliva was placed on one side of the ball, which was then thrown conventionally. Such pitches would tend to break sideways, with the direction of break controlled by which side of the ball was modified. The same general approach works with a ball that was defaced in any way, either by adding any kind of foreign substance or by scuffing the ball's surface.
In a second approach, the pitcher would grip the ball so that his fingers didn't touch the seams, and use saliva or another slippery substance to lubricate the area where his finger tips touched the ball. He would then squeeze his fingers and thumb together as he threw so that the ball squirted out of his hand rather than rolling off the ends of his fingers. This negated most of the spin on the ball, causing it to drop more than expected, much like a modern splitter. Pitchers who threw this style of spitter often chewed a substance such as slippery elm when pitching in order to improve the lubricating properties of their saliva.
Whichever approach a pitcher took in throwing the spitter, deception was a key part of his arsenal. With most pitches, the pitcher can select his pitch just by changing his grip on the ball. With the spitter, though, he must actually get spit onto his hand or the ball. Even pitchers who were legitimately allowed to throw the spitter needed a way of disguising their intent so that hitters never knew if they were getting the spitball or another pitch. Pitchers who threw the spitball after it had been made illegal had the added complication of needing to throw the pitch in complete secrecy.
Bill Nye the Science Guy explains:
By using something slippery, pitchers can throw the ball hard and fast, but with much less spin than it would normally have.
So, the stitches can affect the flow of air on the ball with a flight that's not quite a curveball, not a fastball, and flying too fast to be a knuckleball. It's hard to hit, and of course, it's illegal. Nevertheless, a spitballer does appear on the baseball scene from time to time.
Spitball pitchers have lubricated their grips with saliva, hand lotion, glove-leather dressing, petroleum jelly and tar. That last one is probably the origin of the spitball descriptor in the phrase, "He throws the 'dark' one." A recent alleged and notorious spitball pitcher, Gaylord Perry, won more than 300 games and was thrown out of a gamefor throwing spitballs. It is believed that he kept Vaseline between his legs, in the crotch of his uniform -- a place most umpires are reluctant to inspect.
Health Concerns
Spitballs were not banned because of concerns about fairness. The Boston Globe says it was a health issue that forced the question:
It wasn't until the winter of 1919-20 -- after a worldwide influenza pandemic raised concerns about balls spreading infection -- that baseball first banned the spitball and teams started keeping fresh balls available for play.
Even after the ban, 17 pitchers (Scroll down to "Grandfathered Spitballers.") who were identified as "spitball" pitchers were "grandfathered." They were allowed to finish throwing spitballs for the rest of their careers. The last of these grandfathered pitchers, Burleigh Grimes, retired in 1934.
Who Invented the "Spitter"?
Baseball-Reference.com gives the history of the "spitter" (aka spitball):
It is unclear when pitchers first began experimenting with the spitball, but there is no evidence that any pitcher made it an important part of his pitching arsenal before 1902. The spitball has often been credited to Elmer Stricklett. Stricklett did not invent the spitter -- he learned it from minor league teammate George Hildebrand, who had learned it from his minor league teammate Frank Corridon -- but he had a key role in introducing it to the majors. While both Hildebrand and Corridon used it in the majors, Jack Chesbro and Ed Walsh were the first star pitchers who depended heavily on the spitball, first learning about it by watching Stricklett. The tremendous success of Chesbro and Walsh -- the only American League pitchers ever to win 40 games in a season -- led other pitchers to take up the pitch, and it quickly became common.
The legality and ethics of the spitball were always questionable. Rules dating back to the 1890s forbid players from discoloring or "otherwise damaging" the ball, which might or might not cover applying spit. The situation became worse when Russ Forddiscovered that he could create a devastating pitch by scuffing the ball with emery paper, and other pitchers quickly followed suit. The questionable spitball had opened the door for the clearly illegal emery ball and similar pitches. Even though defacing the ball was clearly illegal, pitchers continued to do so because the rule was weak -- the only penalty for being caught was a $5 fine -- and rarely enforced. In many cases the pitcher didn't need to scuff the ball because the rules allowed balls to remain in play after they had been damaged and discolored by ordinary use.
Absentee/Early/Walk-In Voting
This year's elections are attracting more absentee and early voters than ever. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News says that in California, it is possible that more people will vote before Election Day on Nov. 7 than on Election Day.
The New York Times says at least one out of five voters this year will vote before Election Day:
Experts estimate that more than 20 percent of voters nationwide will cast their ballots before Election Day by mail or at early-voting locations, a proportion of the electorate that is rising with each election. Some states and counties open the ballots before Election Day and keep the results secret; others count them with regular ballots.
Analysts and party officials who study early voting trends say that a decade ago those who took advantage of absentee ballots tended to be relatively well off and highly educated, with Republicans outnumbering Democrats by almost two to one. But as the ease of early voting has spread, the ratio is slipping and some analysts say that nearly as many Democrats as Republicans now vote early.
Those who favor the practice say it is convenient for voters and increases turnout. Most elections officials welcome the trend because it reduces the strain on polling places and poll workers on Election Day.
But some experts say there is no proof that early voting increases turnout and may well have the opposite effect because some voters request absentee ballots and then neglect to send them in. They are also concerned that absentee ballots are more open to fraud than votes cast at established polling places.
The story continues:
Nationwide in 2004, an estimated 25 million votes were cast early, roughly 20 percent of the 122 million total. In 2000, about 14 percent of the electorate voted early. There are no reliable national figures for 1996 and earlier, said Paul Gronke, director of the Early Voting Information Center at Reed College in Oregon.
How will these new voting patterns affect the country? The Mercury News offers this:
Experts warn the trend has made campaigns longer and more expensive and has raised new concerns about privacy and security.
"The old adage used to be just campaign in the last 10 days because nobody paid attention," said Allan Hoffenblum, a political analyst who publishes the California Target Book analyzing state elections. "They now start well over 30 days out, because they know a lot of voters start at least a month before the election. It's changed the tactics."'
And Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said that while the boom in absentee ballots has made it more convenient to vote -- and thereby may boost turnout -- it also has an isolating effect.
"In California, we don't have a lot of civic rituals as it is,'" Alexander said. "Voting at your polling place is one of the few civic rituals millions of Californians engage in. I think it would be a mistake to take that experience away."
Absentee-voting advocates say it allows voters more time to think through their votes -- particularly critical on a ballot like this year's in which many voters will be making more than 30 choices.
Still, experts say absentee voting also raises the question of whether people who vote at home may be pressured by others in the household to vote a certain way -- compared with voting at a polling place, which is a truly secret ballot.
In addition to the story idea of early voters, here are some ideas from the PBS program NOW that may increase voting participation.
"Google Bombing" the Election
Who knows at this point how well this will work, but a Web site called MyDD.com ("DD" stands for "Direct Democracy" here) is planning a "Google bomb" on Republican candidates. The site, in effect, is building plans to place the most negative stories about the Republicans at the top of Google search results.
What is a Google bomb, and how does it work?
If you really want to know how Google bombs work, here is a big deconstruction of a few of them.
What does Google say about the practice?
This is not a new idea.Slate had a pretty decent story on the practice of Google bombing back in 2002.
Larry Leaving
I am having a sad week this week. But the person I would go see to make me laugh at times like this is gone. My friend, Poynter colleague and longtime Al's Morning Meeting supporter and contributor Larry Larsen is going to work for Microsoft.
Lots of you who have been in my seminars here at Poynter have met Larry when I've invited him to do a session on the newest, coolest technology for newsies.
He has done amazing multimedia work here at Poynter Online. Here is a link to some of his remarkable work.
Nobody has done more over the last five-and-a-half years to make this column fun to produce and read. Larry, on average, sends me two story ideas a day -- more on a good day. In 2003, I declared Jan. 7 to be Larry Day, and I only used ideas that day from Larry.
Here is a column Larry wrote about some of the strange stories he's pitched to me.
Since we started Al's Morning Meeting in 2001, Larry and I have had two favorite stories. One is the story of a guy who started a Web site called CutOffMyFeet.com.
Larry explains it:
This was a story about a guy named Freck who was in an accident and was partially paralyzed from the waist down. He was formerly a runner and he only wanted to run again, but to do that, his feet would have to be amputated to accommodate a special set of hopped-up prosthetics. His insurance company wouldn't cover amputating feet, even if they were atrophied. So, Freck decided to cut his feet off himself, live -- online -- with a makeshift guillotine, and make a bee-line to the hospital, something his insurance would cover. The story here is not just the bizarre nature of the obvious, but what has happened with insurance companies such that they make no exceptions to policy at the expense of someone's livelihood, and the extreme torture one person is willing to go through to regain some normalcy.
The other story we liked was the story of Spring-Heeled Jack, a mythical character who comes into the news every decade or so. Every once in a while, somebody somewhere reports seeing him, even recently. Jack was described as a man wearing some strange costume and a hidden jumping apparatus who, during the 1830s, terrorized England. He was described as tall, thin and powerful. People said he wore a black cloak and could jump 20 to 30 feet -- vertically. It was reported that he had large, pointy ears and nose, with red glowing eyes and was capable of spitting an odd white-and-blue flame from his mouth.
Truthfully, so many of Larry's story pitches were too weird for me to pass along to you, but that is why I like him. He thinks of things I don't think of, and he knows things I don't know. As he reminded me Tuesday on his last day at Poynter: "Remember, weird is good."
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.
Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends upon the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be corrected.
