I’ve long considered the catcher “framing” the pitch to be cheating, because, as you point out, he is deliberately trying to gain an advantage by tricking the umpire into making the wrong call. But I didn’t know that MLB tacitly endorses framing by keeping statistics on “the best framers” on its website. I find that shocking, and thinking about it is turning my brain into a pretzel.
Your conclusion is that, because MLB endorses framing, that that means framing is legal and therefore not cheating. But are you sure about that? I mean, the definition of cheating is not changed by the fact that the league endorses it, is it? The catcher is still trying to gain an advantage by tricking the umpire into making the wrong call, which is the very definition of cheating.
MLB has basically made cheating legal. But does making it legal really mean it’s not cheating? It turns the whole thing into a debate about semantics, a debate so vexing that it’s driving me crazy.
Very interesting column, and very well presented.
All that being said, I wonder what your thoughts are on all the other types of cheating that go on in baseball. The spitballs, the corked bats, the PEDs, etc. It seems to me there is more cheating and attempted cheating in baseball than there is in other sports. Would you agree, and if so, why do you suppose that is?
Appreciate the comment! I think the resolution to this paradox (as I tried to explain in the essay) is that cheating means violating the rules, and MLB is the arbiter of what those are. You can think framing is unsportsmanlike, and disagree with their decisions about what's legal, but if the people who have the authority to say that it's okay say it's okay, then it isn't cheating.
I agree that cheating seems more pervasive in baseball than in other sports (or at least team sports), but I think that's largely because 1) other sports have real-time in-game discipline mechanisms (penalty yards in football, foul shots in basketball) that make misconduct more immediately remediable and seem less like cheating; and 2) I don't know about you, but I pay a lot more attention to baseball than other sports!
This was a really well-written and thought provoking article! I think the reason the average person views PEDs as cheating today and doesn’t share the same aversion to the examples you gave here comes down to two main reasons. The first of course being that Jeter’s phantom HBP and catcher framing are both implicitly condoned by the MLB whereas PEDs are treated as an assault to the intergrity of the game. People are not very good at critical thinking and it is easy to follow the MLB’s revisionism as you pointed out. The second reason I think is that this a pretty standard example of doing vs allowing harm. You seem pretty smart so I don’t want to over explain and patronize you as I’m sure you might know what that concept is. But when you frame pitches or allow the umpire to say you were hit by the pitch, you are allowing the umpire to make the incorrect call and affect the game, rather than doing it yourself fully under your agency. Therefore, allowing the harm to the game in some sense. People celebrate good framers and admonish bad umpires (the ones “doing” the harm)! In Jeter’s case there is enough plausible deniability that it was just a natural reaction to the inside pitch which did still hit his hip and possibly knock the wind out of him, I think, so while many don’t support the flopping reaction selling the HBP, surely to many it really is as Jeter said just going along with the Umpire. It’s not as if he grabbed his left hand and yelled “he hit me!” Contrastingly, people certainly feel more strongly about leaning in to get hit by a pitch. Remember Game 1 of the 22 WS? There’s no way to pretend you’re “allowing” the HBP call in this example; people view it as doing harm. Of course, none of this is to say you’re wrong that Jeter’s action is worse than people think and cheating in some sense. Even from a doing/allowing perspective technically Jeter might be setting off the whole causal chain with his flopping reaction and who’s to say how consciously that was done intent-wise. The framer certainly hopes receiving the ball well will lead to some technically incorrect advantage even if he doesn’t make the call himself. But I think that’s why the average person doesn’t consider something like that foul play while injecting steroids consciously to give yourself an advantage is certainly foul play. You’re definitely doing harm to the sport there directly. Now I was not following baseball when that happened so you tell me if I’m missing context but I believe the second point explain why people react so differently to PED bans and leaning in to get hit by a pitch compared to this Jeter example and framing, beyond the MLB’s rules and endorsement.
When it comes to the overall broad subject of cheating, I think in our minds we can gauge the general impact of any specific incident, and so our reaction is relative to that impact. So as you put in the footnote, steroids were against the rules since 1991. Period. Some were illegal, against the law. Period. Those facts shouldn’t be lost in the details. Now, did the cheating influence a game or two, or did they alter history? Brady Anderson hitting 50 HRs was more than one AB like Jeter, that was a whole season. Sammy Sosa passing Frank Robinson on the career HR list altered history.
You make a good point (as always). Cheating is relative and our view is subjective. But what’s funny to me is that this works both ways, this is the ultimate two way street. All of these athletes did something with one determination, to win at all costs, and now later they or their advocates say “that’s not fair”. The writers aren’t kind to the PED guys and the response is “that’s not fair”. The Hall itself manipulates the Era Committee ballot and stacks the committee itself with a bunch of ringers and we *all* say “that’s not fair”.
Sucks for you, guys that we view as cheaters. Pitch framers will probably be okay, just like guys that excel at being hit by pitch.
I’ve long considered the catcher “framing” the pitch to be cheating, because, as you point out, he is deliberately trying to gain an advantage by tricking the umpire into making the wrong call. But I didn’t know that MLB tacitly endorses framing by keeping statistics on “the best framers” on its website. I find that shocking, and thinking about it is turning my brain into a pretzel.
Your conclusion is that, because MLB endorses framing, that that means framing is legal and therefore not cheating. But are you sure about that? I mean, the definition of cheating is not changed by the fact that the league endorses it, is it? The catcher is still trying to gain an advantage by tricking the umpire into making the wrong call, which is the very definition of cheating.
MLB has basically made cheating legal. But does making it legal really mean it’s not cheating? It turns the whole thing into a debate about semantics, a debate so vexing that it’s driving me crazy.
Very interesting column, and very well presented.
All that being said, I wonder what your thoughts are on all the other types of cheating that go on in baseball. The spitballs, the corked bats, the PEDs, etc. It seems to me there is more cheating and attempted cheating in baseball than there is in other sports. Would you agree, and if so, why do you suppose that is?
Appreciate the comment! I think the resolution to this paradox (as I tried to explain in the essay) is that cheating means violating the rules, and MLB is the arbiter of what those are. You can think framing is unsportsmanlike, and disagree with their decisions about what's legal, but if the people who have the authority to say that it's okay say it's okay, then it isn't cheating.
I agree that cheating seems more pervasive in baseball than in other sports (or at least team sports), but I think that's largely because 1) other sports have real-time in-game discipline mechanisms (penalty yards in football, foul shots in basketball) that make misconduct more immediately remediable and seem less like cheating; and 2) I don't know about you, but I pay a lot more attention to baseball than other sports!
This was a really well-written and thought provoking article! I think the reason the average person views PEDs as cheating today and doesn’t share the same aversion to the examples you gave here comes down to two main reasons. The first of course being that Jeter’s phantom HBP and catcher framing are both implicitly condoned by the MLB whereas PEDs are treated as an assault to the intergrity of the game. People are not very good at critical thinking and it is easy to follow the MLB’s revisionism as you pointed out. The second reason I think is that this a pretty standard example of doing vs allowing harm. You seem pretty smart so I don’t want to over explain and patronize you as I’m sure you might know what that concept is. But when you frame pitches or allow the umpire to say you were hit by the pitch, you are allowing the umpire to make the incorrect call and affect the game, rather than doing it yourself fully under your agency. Therefore, allowing the harm to the game in some sense. People celebrate good framers and admonish bad umpires (the ones “doing” the harm)! In Jeter’s case there is enough plausible deniability that it was just a natural reaction to the inside pitch which did still hit his hip and possibly knock the wind out of him, I think, so while many don’t support the flopping reaction selling the HBP, surely to many it really is as Jeter said just going along with the Umpire. It’s not as if he grabbed his left hand and yelled “he hit me!” Contrastingly, people certainly feel more strongly about leaning in to get hit by a pitch. Remember Game 1 of the 22 WS? There’s no way to pretend you’re “allowing” the HBP call in this example; people view it as doing harm. Of course, none of this is to say you’re wrong that Jeter’s action is worse than people think and cheating in some sense. Even from a doing/allowing perspective technically Jeter might be setting off the whole causal chain with his flopping reaction and who’s to say how consciously that was done intent-wise. The framer certainly hopes receiving the ball well will lead to some technically incorrect advantage even if he doesn’t make the call himself. But I think that’s why the average person doesn’t consider something like that foul play while injecting steroids consciously to give yourself an advantage is certainly foul play. You’re definitely doing harm to the sport there directly. Now I was not following baseball when that happened so you tell me if I’m missing context but I believe the second point explain why people react so differently to PED bans and leaning in to get hit by a pitch compared to this Jeter example and framing, beyond the MLB’s rules and endorsement.
When it comes to the overall broad subject of cheating, I think in our minds we can gauge the general impact of any specific incident, and so our reaction is relative to that impact. So as you put in the footnote, steroids were against the rules since 1991. Period. Some were illegal, against the law. Period. Those facts shouldn’t be lost in the details. Now, did the cheating influence a game or two, or did they alter history? Brady Anderson hitting 50 HRs was more than one AB like Jeter, that was a whole season. Sammy Sosa passing Frank Robinson on the career HR list altered history.
You make a good point (as always). Cheating is relative and our view is subjective. But what’s funny to me is that this works both ways, this is the ultimate two way street. All of these athletes did something with one determination, to win at all costs, and now later they or their advocates say “that’s not fair”. The writers aren’t kind to the PED guys and the response is “that’s not fair”. The Hall itself manipulates the Era Committee ballot and stacks the committee itself with a bunch of ringers and we *all* say “that’s not fair”.
Sucks for you, guys that we view as cheaters. Pitch framers will probably be okay, just like guys that excel at being hit by pitch.