A commonly-held belief that I don’t believe is true (or at least is way less true than we think it is):

“Hitters actually PREFER that pitchers use foreign substances, bc it gives the pitchers better control and the batters don’t get beaned as much”

1. HBP are currently at an all-time high. The league-wide HBP rate:

2019-current: 1.1%
2010: 0.8%
2000: 0.8%
1990: 0.5%
1980: 0.4%

If using foreign substances prevents HBP, why are the HBP rates actually rising significantly?

2. Pitching vs hitting is a zero-sum game; if something gives an advantage to pitchers, it is generally bad for hitters, and I think most hitters understand that on a basic level.

3. Most hitters are not scared of getting hit by the ball. Sure they don’t like it, but these dudes are not afraid. They’re tough and most wear body armor. What these dudes want to do is mash, and what they really don’t like is getting beat at the plate.

Hitters make their living off their offensive production; I find it extremely hard to believe that they want pitchers having nastier stuff just so they get hit a little less often (esp when that’s not actually true).

4. If there’s actual evidence that the majority of hitters prefer that pitchers use foreign substances, I haven’t seen it.

Is it possible I’m wrong, and that the majority of hitters are more scared of getting hit than they are opposed to pitchers gaining a big advantage?

And that they’re unaware HBPs are actually up a ton? Of course.

But more likely, the idea that hitters prefer that pitchers use foreign substances is an urban myth, an anecdote we’ve heard and spread and now commonly accept as fact without evidence, that opposes common sense.