Baseball Has Philosophy Too

The sport of baseball is replete with philosophically interesting questions.  From notions of truth to issues of morality, a baseball game provides us with rich examples from which to argue.

There seem to be two general types of calls that umpires have to make.  Some calls—such as a safe or out call—seems to have a clear-cut and objective truth of the matter.  Others seem more subjective and up to the umpires’ discretion.  There are also some interesting middle-ground cases, like ball or strike calls.  There is clearly an objective truth, which stems from the specific strike zone laid out in the rules, but an actual umpire’s strike zone can digress from this objective standard.  On a 3-0 count, for instance, the umpire will usually widen the strike zone.  If the catcher sets up an inch or two off the outside corner and the pitcher hits his mitt perfectly, the umpire will usually call it a strike.

This discussion was prompted by the controversial obstruction call that ended Game 3 of this year’s World Series.  When an umpire makes such a call, is he applying an objective standard external to himself, or in a certain sense is he making a more subjective interpretation?  It may seem obvious to some of you that it is the former.  But if one examines how the actual games play out, this certainty disappears.

Another set of interesting philosophical questions involves morality as it pertains to baseball.  Consider the following situation.  I am playing in the outfield and a ball is coming my way.  I dive and make the catch.  I know that the ball bounced into my glove, but the nearest ump doesn’t see that it does and calls it a catch.  If I play it off as a catch, am I acting immorally? One side would argue that such a deception is clearly immoral.  Another, however, would say that imperfect umping is part of the game.  Within the confines of baseball, such deception is just part of the game.  If one views morality more in terms of consequences, the latter seems more appealing.  Such a deception seems perfectly harmless.  But declaring this action morally neutral may have dangerous implications for deception more generally.  Do the same rules of morality apply to the clearly contrived and artificial setting of baseball? I don’t have a simple answer for you.  If instant replay begins to pervade baseball, many of these questions will disappear.  But hopefully when the next controversial call arises—and it will—you’ll consider some of the important underlying questions.