Why do baseball players put a black mark under their eyes? 5%

By Adam Annaccone0%

6/22/2026, 5:34:08 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Authority, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 10.3% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 921 faulty-reasoning hits from 748 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.5% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,810 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.10% of the article peer group.

Bottom of the ninth. 
Two outs. 
Bases loaded. 
The winning run is standing on third base. 
The pitcher winds up and throws. 
The batter swings and sends a high fly ball into the air. 
The center fielder races back, looks up at the sky and then says the sentence no baseball fan wants to hear: “I lost it in the sun.” 
For baseball players, seeing the ball clearly can be the difference between making a game-winning catch and watching the winning run score. 
That is one reason many athletes put black marks under their eyes before a game. 
Baseball, football and other outdoor athletes apply black stripes under their eyes because they hope it might reduce the glare from the sun or bright stadium lights. 
But the use of eye black comes down to tradition as much as it does science. 
As an athletic trainer and professor who studies sports medicine and performance, I spend a lot of time thinking about how details like vision, sunlight and confidence can affect the way athletes play. 
Eye black is usually made from black grease or black stickers placed underneath the eyes. 
The idea is simple: Bright light from the sun or stadium lights can bounce off a player’s cheeks into their eyes. 
The black color absorbs some of that light instead of reflecting it, which may help reduce glare. 
The practice of using eye black has been around for a long time. 
Some stories say Babe Ruth used burned cork under his eyes. 
Football players may have been experimenting with it more than 100 years ago. 
By the mid-1900s, those black marks had become a familiar part of outdoor sports. 
Scientists have tested whether eye black actually works. 
In one study, black grease helped reduce glare a little and improved something called contrast sensitivity. 
That means it may help your eyes notice the difference between an object and its background, like a white baseball against a bright blue sky or a bank of stadium lights. 
But the research is not totally settled. 
Another study found that the benefit may be small and can depend on how the test is done. 
So eye black probably does not give players superhero vision. 
But in a sport where a hard-hit ball can travel more than 95 mph, even a potential tiny visual advantage can feel worth trying. 
Eye black is not the only way athletes fight glare. 
Baseball hats help shade players’ eyes. 
Skiers wear goggles because snow can reflect sunlight like a mirror. 
Race car drivers use tinted helmet shields, and some athletes wear sunglasses, tinted visors or tinted contact lenses outdoors. 
If eye black helps only a little with glare, you might wonder why baseball players do not all wear sunglasses instead. 
Some do wear sunglasses during games, especially outfielders. 
But not every player likes them. 
In a fast game, players need to track the ball quickly and feel comfortable while they play. 
Sunglasses can fog, slide down, collect sweat or slightly change how the ball looks. 
Some players like sunglasses. 
Some would prefer not to have anything extra on their face. 
Others feel more comfortable relying on their own eyes, a baseball hat and a little eye black. 
Eye black is not a secret weapon. 
It is more like one small tool from an athlete’s glare-fighting utility belt. 
If science suggests eye black only helps a little, then why do so many players still wear it? 
The answer is not just about eyeballs. 
It is also about routine. 
Baseball is famous for routines and superstitions. 
Some players eat the same meal before every game. 
Others always put on their equipment in the same order or avoid stepping on the foul line. 
Sports psychologists have researched how routines can help athletes prepare for performance. 
A 2021 study on preperformance routines found that routines before competition can help athletes improve focus, manage emotions, get ready to compete and perform better under pressure. 
Eye black eventually became part of that routine for many athletes. 
Over time, it also became part of the look of baseball and football. 
Some players wear simple black lines. 
Others use stickers with messages, crosses, flags or team slogans. 
The next time you see black marks under a player’s eyes, you’ll know that it’s not there just to look tough. 
They are trying to see the ball, block the glare and feel confident for the next big play. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.8%Adam Annaccone: 1.2%The Conversation: 3.0%Confirmation Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Adam Annaccone: 1.4%The Conversation: 2.7%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 5.1%Adam Annaccone: 1.3%The Conversation: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Adam Annaccone: 1.5%The Conversation: 3.2%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 6.4%Adam Annaccone: 1.6%The Conversation: 5.3%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Adam Annaccone: 1.5%The Conversation: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 1.5%Adam Annaccone: 0.4%The Conversation: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.5%This article: 6.1%Adam Annaccone: 2.3%The Conversation: 2.3%Optimism Bias6.1%This article: 0.9%Adam Annaccone: 0.2%The Conversation: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.9%This article: 3.6%Adam Annaccone: 0.9%The Conversation: 6.1%Negativity Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Adam Annaccone: 1.2%The Conversation: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.0%Adam Annaccone: 1.5%The Conversation: 1.1%Recency Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Adam Annaccone: 2.9%The Conversation: 4.2%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 4.1%Adam Annaccone: 1.0%The Conversation: 1.7%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Adam Annaccone: 2.5%The Conversation: 4.8%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.9%The Conversation: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.4%Adam Annaccone: 0.6%The Conversation: 0.9%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 5.1%Adam Annaccone: 1.3%The Conversation: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.5%Adam Annaccone: 1.1%The Conversation: 0.6%Appeal to Nature4.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.3%Adam Annaccone: 2.9%The Conversation: 1.9%Anecdotal10.3%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Adam Annaccone: 1.0%The Conversation: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Adam Annaccone: 0.5%The Conversation: 0.3%Middle Ground2.1%This article: 2.8%Adam Annaccone: 0.7%The Conversation: 0.0%Personal Incredulity2.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Adam Annaccone: 0.6%The Conversation: 1.5%Unattributed Quote2.4%This article: 3.6%Adam Annaccone: 0.9%The Conversation: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 7.2%Adam Annaccone: 1.8%The Conversation: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice7.2%This article: 2.8%Adam Annaccone: 0.7%The Conversation: 2.1%Indoctrination2.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Annaccone: 0.0%The Conversation: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

748 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.