I know a lot of you out there are reading this and saying, Ewww, spitballs! Gross! I know some of you are saying that's cheating. First of all, it doesn't necessarily have to be "gross". As I said, there are many ways to doctor a baseball without hocking a loogie on it. The most common practice is getting a bit of sandpaper and sticking it somewhere on your person (usually the glove) and scuffing the ball up with it. Billy Martin's Oakland A's teams of the early 1980's were thought to have rubbed white soap on the thighs of their white pants. When they worked up a sweat, they would allegedly rub the ball where they put the soap to slicken the ball. Gaylord Perry was famous for putting Vaseline on his neck or cap or head and before each pitch wiping his hand where he allegedly put the grease and either pretending to or actually greasing the ball up. Players used to take a file to their belt buckles to rough them up and then, during the game, scuff the ball on their buckles. Some pitchers used to moisten the ball and then rub some dirt on it to make a mud ball.
Then there's the cheating part. Some of you may not know that the spitball was actually a legal pitch until 1921. There were a couple of reasons behind this. The main reason was that Ray Chapman of the Cleveland Indians was hit in the head by a spitball from Carl Mays of the New York Yankees in 1920. Remember, there were no helmets then and, from what I understand, it was late in the afternoon and there were no lights then. So it was hard to see to begin with. Also, the custom of the time was to keep the ball in play until it was almost falling apart. Foul balls may have even been thrown back on the field then. As a result, the ball picked all kinds of dirt and sweat and grass stains on it until it became about the same color as the dirt. Evidently, the pitch - which was either a spitball or a shine ball - (that's when the pitcher rubs the ball against the mud and dirt of his uniform) got away from Mays and it hit Chapman in the head. The other reason was to increase the offense. This was right after the Black Sox scandal and when Babe Ruth was starting to catch the fancy of the nation by his home run hitting. They felt if a ball got dirty it was tougher for the hitter to see. So not only did they outlaw the spitball (except for the pitchers who already threw it) but also they put a new ball in play when it got dirty.
It seems to me that the Lords of Baseball overreacted then. I'm all for keeping a clean ball in play. But why ban the spitball? Let's look at this logically. The spitball is no tougher to hit than a split-finger fastball or a forkball or a good change-up. The splitter is the pitch that the spitball is compared to the most. Without going into the physics equation, both balls come up to the plate like a fastball but at the last second they dive straight down. But we have to get over the mentality that the spitball is taboo. There is absolutely no difference between a spitball and a forkball or a slider or a curve or a splitter. They are all pitches that are meant to deceive the hitter. The only difference is that, in the case of a spitball, the ball is doctored up and for the other pitches, the ball is just held differently. The great thing about the spitball is just the threat of throwing it is as good as throwing the pitch itself. I mentioned Gaylord Perry before and in his last few years, he would go out there on the mound and touch his cap, his brow, his neck, his uniform, and whatever hair he had left before each pitch. It would affect some batters so much that they would get themselves out even before Perry threw a pitch. That's the great thing about pitching. If you can get the hitter thinking about what you might throw, it's as good as what you do throw.
But I want to be fair about this. If the spitball is legalized, I'm all for taking the ball out of play if it gets too scuffed or messed up. It'd be a moot point anyway since just about any foul ball these days goes into the stands either directly or a player or coach will toss it up in there. If the batter wants the umpire to check the ball, by all means, let him. If the umpire thinks the ball is too scuffed, throw it out of play like they do now. But the problem with that is that there could be unnecessary delays in between pitches. The pitcher doctors the ball and after he pitches it the batter asks to have the ball checked. Then the umpire throws the ball out and it starts all over again. The best way to keep this from happening is to enforce the 20-second rule, which calls for the pitcher to pitch the ball within 20 seconds of receiving it with no one on base. That way it would discourage a pitcher from going overboard in doctoring the ball.
There may be some of you out there who still aren't convinced yet. I think I know where you're coming from: If the spitball is legalized, that will make great pitchers out of mediocre pitchers. That's a good point but it's not necessarily true. A spitball's just like any other pitch. You have to have control over it in order to throw it. A spitball isn't going to make a Steve Parris into a Greg Maddux any more than a splitter would. This is no threat to the integrity of the game. All this is trying to do is even the playing field - no pun intended. It may help in the case of a closer where he could just have one gimmick pitch and that could make a difference. But for a starter, I doubt that would make much of the difference. Besides, if a closer can make his career out of a gimmick pitch, ala Bruce Sutter, why would making a career out of a spitball be any different? It could be a boon to younger pitchers as well. Too many young pitchers - pre-teens and early teens - are trying to throw curves and sliders when their still maturing arms can't handle the strain curves and sliders put on their arms. There may be some strain with a spitball but the arm isn't using near as much torque as it uses with a curve or a slider. As I've said, this pitch isn't for everyone. But neither are the other trick pitches.
This isn't brain surgery. The two main reasons for banishing the spitball were concern for the batter's safety and the proliferation of the offense in the early 20th century. These days batters wear helmets, ballpark lights are excellent and whenever a ball gets mussed, it's thrown out. As far as a spitball getting away from the pitcher, that could happen with any pitch, so why all the fuss about the spitball? An eight year old kid can tell there is enough offense in the game. Hey, maybe I'm wrong and the spitball won't make any difference whatsoever. But why not try it? If it isn't a difference maker then no one's going to want to ban it again. But if it does make a difference, then all the better for the pitchers.