Head Gear for Pitchers

quote:

Lets face it, before these bats came along wood was used by everyone. I'll bet dollars to donuts many people did not want the change back then. Now we have them due to $$$ being the overriding factor, and kids are being killed and permanently injured as a result

Do you realize that more of these injuries have occurred with wood vs other materials? It's a pretty relevant fact when wishing to make laws based on safety.

I also wonder something. Had that law passed banning anything but wood, what happens to a kid hitting with metal in a cage. Do the police come and get him and put him in jail? Is he expelled from school?

quote:

Who pays for the people nailed by a ball hit off a wood bat?

Huh?
Look, I know you believe you are smarter than just about anyone posting here, especially me, and the reason I know that is you keep telling us/me.
Your question implies some "agreement" or acknowledgment between us that the risks from wood and the risks from the aluminum torque/rebound propulsion bats were/are the same.
We have been there and done that dance. You say they are the same and many, many others disagree. I disagree.
My view is metal presents an increased risk.
Because I believe there is an increased risk of serious injury from aluminum, for pitchers, I believe it is reasonable to ask the question who pays for the serious injuries resulting.
You don't. That is fine.
Move on.
As to the bill, my posts speak for themselves. Others can judge for themselves what I have posted. I trust others won't accept your effort to skew what they can read for themselves.
Getting tired of others linking your advocacy for aluminum with your allegiance to the bat manufacturers, so you thought you would try the reverse?
Don't you ever give that pony a break?

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:

quote:

Yup, justbb got it right before. One trick pony. Same stuff and arguments over and over and over and......
BTW, who pays and bears all the financial consequences for the catastrophies upon which you bet the bank?

Why can't you just address what I said rather than deflect and ignore it?

Can you point to a single fact in that bill that showed metals bats to create a higher incidence of serious injury over their wood counterpart?

Seriously, you falling back to that line is disappointing, to say the least.

Now, if you can show where they were relying on facts in order to ban anything but wood in AB7, I will be the first to apologize for being wrong. Certainly wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

I think this boils down to something completely outside of baseball to be honest with you. I think you have a "go to government first to solve an issue" mentality and I want government to be an absolute last resort as an entity to go to in order to solve issues like the one being discussed..

Edit: Sorry but your last part made no sense at all so I can't address it.

infielddad, you said and I quote:

"BTW, who pays and bears all the financial consequences for the catastrophes upon which you bet the bank?"

I asked you what the heck you meant. I have no idea how it fits into this discussion? Are you saying only balls hit off metal bats cause catastrophic injuries? Are you saying headgear will prevent all future catastrophic injuries?

THAT is what I was talking about. I asked you to clarify a comment you made that made absolutely no sense at all. It came out of the blue and I still have no idea how it fits into the discussion or what it means.

quote:

In regard to your other point, there are many, many things we do that have a risk associated with them. If we attempted to eliminate everyone of them, we would be immobilized. The chances of one of our kids getting killed or critically injured in a car wreck (whether or not a seatbelt is worn) are FAR greater the the possibility that they will be hit in the head with a batted ball. Yet we continue to allow our kids behind the wheel of a car or allow them to drive with us and subject them to that risk. Why? Because we are willing to take that risk for the sake of convenience, necessity or enjoyment.

While I understand the point/s you are making, I do not think using a comparative analogy of associated risk in one arena is justification to ignore the risks associated in another.

quote:

I'm not against having a standard that brings metal/composite bats more in line with wood bats - if that's what baseball wants to do. Remember, that will still not eliminate the risk, only lessen it slightly. Personally, I prefer the wood bat game. Not because of the risk of injury, but as the dad of a pitcher, those hits off the sweet spot on a wood bat are more often outs than they are with a metal bat. Hitters have to be better with wood. Good pitches are more often rewarded when wood bats are used. Like I said, I'm not against change in baseball necessarily, I'm against the government becoming way too intrusive in our lives. This is a baseball issue, not a federal or state government issue.

My philosophy on this subject does not stem from only my own personal interest, mainly because I have read too many stories of kids being killed or permanently injured by being struck in the head, neck, and torso. That includes batters as well, who can be hit in the neck and chest with a ball causing a life threating hematoma or cardiac arrhythmia. It also included kids in the on deck circle, coaches along the lines, players in the dugouts, and even fans hit with errant balls. While the game cannot eliminate all risks, there is no reason not to investigate, and when prudent, apply increased safety measures to lessen the chance of tragedy. I am not one of these safety Nazi's, but I also think safety measures should not be ignored at the alter of the almighty dollar.
`

quote:

Why can't you just address what I said rather than deflect and ignore it?

The master of deflection on wood vs metal in action.
You ask a question and "demand" or "command what you perceive as the direct answer.
Throughout this and other threads, many posters have commented on your responding to questions by failing to answer but deflecting to other questions.
So, I guess if I left you with a similar impression, that might be a positive but completely unintended consequence.
BTW, did I mention the bill did not pass and didn't make it through committee and didn't generate much support or following in the CA. legislature? I believe I did.

quote:

Originally posted by 1baseballdad:
Are you saying only balls hit off metal bats cause catastrophic injuries? Are you saying headgear will prevent all future catastrophic injuries?

This is not a zero sum game nor is it a vast, uncontrollable slippery slope. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We as a society are free to live with the consequences of acceptable risk and we are also free to review it (acceptable risk) as necessary.

If I observe that a new speed limit increase seems to be causing more close calls (almost run over) for little kids in the area, then it behooves me and other concerned citizens to slow things down BEFORE someone does get hit. Mind you, we have zero proof since no accident has ever occured, but our collective intuition tells us something bad is going to happen. The ultimate red-herring is proposing that if a measure doesn't mitgate or eliminate ALL incidents, that the measure is bogus on its face or is unworthy otherwise. I assert that the all or nothing argument is bogus on its face. I am sensitive to slippery slope arguments but baseball has been relatively conservative over the years regarding change and thus I think that might also be a red herring.

infielddad, unfortunately I have given up on you being able to respond with anything coherent that pertains to the discussion. Three times I tried to get some sort of clarification as to what the heck you meant by the cost question and how it pertains to this discussion and three different times you responded with a personal attack. Its a shame. I gave it a shot.

ClevelandDad, you make some great points and I agree with many of them. I just want to clarify that my stance is that we take care of these issues through the baseball community rather than immediately looking to government in a knee jerk reaction.

I think the whole BBCOR bat issue is a prime example of how that gets worked out and I think AB7 is a prime example of government run amok. There was absolutely no reason to even introduce AB7 and now, due to AB7, we are looking at more extreme measures that now seem to upset more than just the wood bat crowd. So to that point, the slippery slope is a valid conclusion, especially when you seek to fix a problem with a fix that will not necessarily fix it. You have now set yourself up to continue to legislate "fixes". I call it the "we need to do something" mentality. It tends to make people feel better but doesn't necessarily address a specific issue and many times, introduces more problems (the law of unintended consequences).

Again, I absolutely applaud the efforts of research and development of protective headgear for pitchers and I do think we will get to the point that someone develops something acceptable by pitchers. The fact is, these "kids" are getting bigger and stronger and no matter what they swing, the ball is screaming off the bat in many cases. It would be interesting to compare the average size of a HS roster today vs the average size 25 years ago.

Lastly, the choice to wear something like protective headgear for pitchers and infielders should ultimately rest with the individual, not be a government mandate. If the baseball community deems it mandatory, I have no problem with that either since again, that is where decisions like this should rest since they will be more thoroughly vetted by baseball knowledgeable people.

I guess the trick is determining when you are dealing with freak accidents vs real problems that can be traced to a specific element.

One you can never stop. The other you can and like it or not, statistics are they way to determine which is which. If there is another way, please chime in.

This is really not a complicated or difficult area. Composite wood bats will make the game safer, reduce the cost for players, and improve hitters and pitchers. Why do we not do this? Because if you are getting a lot of money from a company to use their bats in a time where budgets are crunched and programs are dropped, it gets to be a difficult choice. We consistently use wood and play in a number of wood bat tournaments, the game is more exciting and the pitchers are more confident...period. Every situation becomes magnified and intense. I STRONGLY feel these bats are the answer, I just hope we get to that point soon.

1baseballdad,
You seem to think that I have read all the posts you've ever written. I haven't. You call me names because I don't take into account something you may have written in some thread at some time in the past.

This may shock you but most people on here don't read your posts. They don't read my posts. They simply read what looks interesting on a given day. They don't usually remember who wrote what and don't really care. Most people don't care enough to go find what somebody said in a thread once upon a time.

You seem to have a very overinflated perception of your own importance.

hsballcoach,
I did read your last post and I like it.

Coach

I agree

We play nothing but wood, even in metal bat tournaments

TR,
Way to do the right thing for your players. My guess is that approach has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with developing baseball players.

That's a purely positive statement on my part just in case anyone might take it otherwise.

CADAD

I am not concerned with the so called safety thing between metal and wood--- a pitcher can be drilled by a wood comebacker as easily as by metal---no so called scientific data, I am aware of how numbers can be manipulated, just my many years of experience on a ball field.

By the way---do not ever , ever try to assume what I am thinking--you are not that intelligent

Why all the mean spirited comments?

quote:

infielddad, unfortunately I have given up on you being able to respond with anything coherent that pertains to the discussion. Three times I tried to get some sort of clarification as to what the heck you meant by the cost question and how it pertains to this discussion and three different times you responded with a personal attack. Its a shame. I gave it a shot.

More victim games. You tell others they are "slow," call others idiots, tell others to act like adults and you are the "victim" subject to "personal attack."
What happened is I responded numerous times.
Perhaps I did not respond in the manner you chose for me, but it is my choice how to respond, just as it is your choice how to respond.
"Given up on me?"
You choose to discuss and want to debate the merits of a bill that did not become law and has been dropped. I don't.
You raise the issue of pitchers and infielders being struck and seriously injured by batted balls with equal frequency. I ask you to provide any information that infielders get struck with similar frequency and with similar results to pitchers.
You choose not to respond.
In a post about bat safety, you were the one who posted in 1/09 that you were so glad your son was not a pitcher.
In your post in this thread, you posted that serious injuries will continue and everyone should "bet the bank" on that.
My question in response was, since you want to "bet the bank" on continued serious injuries, who should bear the financial costs of the serious injuries. You chose to respond that it should be whoever did in the past and wood vs metal make no difference.
As a dichotomy, in 3-4 posts, bballman and I had a nice exchange. We appreciated that the families of those pitchers struck and severely injured by metal bats, as they have been reported over the past 2-3 years are facing catastrophic medical costs, life disruption, and potential bankruptcy. In a nice exchange with different suggestions recognizing there are consequences that can bankrupt a family and result in taxpayers assuming the costs or that other options could be possible to pay the lifelong financial consequences so one family is not devastated.
Your initial sentence is just another example of your evident superiority on this issue. Anyone, like CADad or myself, who does not agree with your opinions, edicts and rules on wood vs metal are not rational or coherent. They are "slow," "idiots," "not rational or coherent" and not acting like "adults."
Why not check the "victim" role? It does not fit

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
My guess is that approach has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with developing baseball players.

It's also exactly what I have been saying about wood. Move to wood for the right reasons. I have been extremely consistent with that message as well as how I feel about what happens when you do it the wrong way (citing safety as the reason).

CAdad, each and every one of these bat discussions have devolved with a few posters accusing me of working for a bat manufacture or being a bat rep simply because I challenged their opinions on the safety issue. It's a tactic that allows the person making the accusation to essentially stick their fingers in their ears and scream "la la la, I can't hear you". It is a tactic that allows the person using it to simply dismiss an opinion that disagrees with theirs without addressing the merits of that other opinion.

It was laughable at first and then it just got old. It's also something I have answered in every thread about bats that I have participated in.

infielddad, please feel free to take any more correspondence you may have with me to PM's.

Enough is enough.

TR,
You have no idea how intelligent I am. There's no way to be certain but it is pretty unlikely you are anywhere near being in the same ballpark as I am when it comes to intelligence.

I make a positive post about you and because you are so transparent I realize you may take it negatively. I make a point to say it is positive. You still manage to be negative. You really seem to have problems dealing with intelligent or educated people. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex that causes you to answer with bluster about your "experience in the game" to most any reasoned discussion?

Here are the facts:
1. Statistically there is very little difference from a safety standpoint between aluminum and wood simply because pitchers don't get hit in a critical spot all that often. The bat manufacturers use that as their key argument.

2. There is a significant difference from a safety standpoint between aluminum and wood if a pitcher does get hit in a critical spot. The ball comes off the high performance aluminum bats faster than it does off a wood bat, especially on balls not hit on the sweet spot.

People use 1. to try and say there is no difference. There is a big difference to the pitcher who is struck by the ball, especially to the pitcher who almost got a glove on it.

CADAD

Ok--lets not go into the intelligence realm because we will never agree

Transparent in your mind but totally honest in my mind

Have a great day

With my early dementia trends, I believe
I am having a decrease in my IQ to about 135.

Which one of you S-O-B has better numbers?



cheers

Depends on the test. Mine just barely slips into the genius range on whatever test I take. I'm the dummy of the family. Many of my cousins are off the charts. There are a lot of people who are far more intelligent than I am. I tended to not have much to say when our lunch group at work would started talking about which Nobel Laureates they had studied under.

It also makes a difference what you are doing with your mind. The tests are supposed to independent of education but when you are exercising your mind more through education the scores tend to rise.

My guess is posting on here doesn't help much.

Bragger

For those who want headgear for the pitcher, what will you want when he he gets drilled in the face ala Bryce Florrie?

In one of those weird contortions of the space-time continuum I agree with TRhit. Injury is inherent in all sports.

DQ tests? All I wanted was a Dilly Bar? Can I get grandfathered into some kind of Mr. Misty Freeze exception based on years of loyalty and a high volume of consistent purchasing?

What's this world coming to if I have to pass a test for some Dairy Queen?

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
For those who want headgear for the pitcher, what will you want when he he gets drilled in the face ala Bryce Florrie?

In one of those weird contortions of the space-time continuum I agree with TRhit. Injury is inherent in all sports.

What do you mean, I think the head gear should have face protection. Several of our friends have been hit in the face and they are very good pitchers.

quote:

Originally posted by Homerun04:

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
For those who want headgear for the pitcher, what will you want when he he gets drilled in the face ala Bryce Florrie?

In one of those weird contortions of the space-time continuum I agree with TRhit. Injury is inherent in all sports.

What do you mean, I think the head gear should have face protection. Several of our friends have been hit in the face and they are very good pitchers.

How about if pitchers work on improving their reactions? I don't think there is much emphasis along those lines in today's training regimens.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
For those who want headgear for the pitcher, what will you want when he he gets drilled in the face ala Bryce Florrie?

In one of those weird contortions of the space-time continuum I agree with TRhit. Injury is inherent in all sports.

There is no doubt a slippery slope here. I just don't see things getting too radical however.

If pitchers wear helmets, then their faces are still vulnerable. If we put face masks on them, their necks are still vulnerable a la Mike Coolbaugh. If we figure how to protect their heads, faces, and necks, then their sternum is vulnerable and so forth. I know that there are pitchers out there who don't wear a cup because they don't like how it feels when they pitch

The whole issue is what risks are acceptable. If switching to wood lowers the risk, then it is something we ought to consider. IMHO, based on my own observations and other data (people posting here) and such as PG's observations that batting practice upper deckers (for 17/18 year olds) are common with aluminum and extremely rare without, a wood bat change is something that ought to be considered.

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
For those who want headgear for the pitcher, what will you want when he he gets drilled in the face ala Bryce Florrie?

In one of those weird contortions of the space-time continuum I agree with TRhit. Injury is inherent in all sports.

There is no doubt a slippery slope here. I just don't see things getting too radical however.

If pitchers wear helmets, then their faces are still vulnerable. If we put face masks on them, their necks are still vulnerable a la Mike Coolbaugh. If we figure how to protect their heads, faces, and necks, then their sternum is vulnerable and so forth. I know that there are pitchers out there who don't wear a cup because they don't like how it feels when they pitch

The whole issue is what risks are acceptable. If switching to wood lowers the risk, then it is something we ought to consider. IMHO, based on my own observations and other data (people posting here) and such as PG's observations that batting practice upper deckers (for 17/18 year olds) are common with aluminum and extremely rare without, a wood bat change is something that ought to be considered.

I have to wonder, prior to the rise of "PEB's", was there an equivalent concern regarding pitcher injury?

snowman - can you clarify the acronym PEB?

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Homerun04:


How about if pitchers work on improving their reactions? I don't there is much emphasis along those lines in today's training regimens.

I do agree that increased reaction time and follow through and landing technique training could improve the pitcher's success. Putting a jugs machine shooting balls back at pitcher's upper body, could well improve reaction time, but how many pitchers do that.

Some of the local folks affected:

The high school pitcher who has been in the news (he was hit by another "pitcher" from my sons' former high school, he was very disturbed for a long time having hit him).

The local college player who was hit in the head twice in one season (coached by a former pitching coach of sons' college).

A pitcher who is in the AAA minors, who was a first round draft pick two years ago, was hit in the forehead while on the mound at a regional game.

A pitcher who pitched for a very good college and pitched in the CWS as one of the pitching stars for his team and is in the AA minors, was hit in the eye socket. Now wears protective eye glasses.

And a college pitcher who was last year's conference MVP and was a starting pitcher in his CWS for the last two years was hit in the mouth and had his mouth wired shut for a while.

Another pitcher, in college now, who was hit on the nose when in high school and wears a protective mask.

quote:

Originally posted by bballman:

My son got hit in the thigh once. Left a pretty good bruise.

My guys have been taught to get their hands through and go up the middle by a player who is in the pros, they have hit quite a few pitchers, luckily none in the head.

One of our high school pitchers was hit in the crotch, he did not have a cup, he made the play before going down for the count, but that is another thread!

Yeah, the one in the thigh was pretty close to crotch. Fortunately, he does wear a cup when he pitches.

quote:

Originally posted by snowman:
How about if pitchers work on improving their reactions? I don't think there is much emphasis along those lines in today's training regimens.

I agree with you. That doesn't mean that things won't happen, but are we teaching pitchers to better protect themselves through proper landing and quick response time?

quote:

Originally posted by ClevelandDad:
snowman - can you clarify the acronym PEB?

Performance enhancing bats.

quote:

I do agree that increased reaction time and follow through and landing technique training could improve the pitcher's success. Putting a jugs machine shooting balls back at pitcher's upper body, could well improve reaction time, but how many pitchers do that.

Wrenches. "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Patches O' Houlihan

Cardinals reliever Hawksworth hit in head by liner
1 hour, 47 minutes ago

(AP)—St. Louis Cardinals relief pitcher Blake Hawksworth has been hit in the head by a line drive off the bat of Cubs center fielder Sam Fuld.

Hawksworth had come in for starter Chris Carpenter in the fifth inning Saturday and was facing his second batter when Fuld’s liner hit him in the face and Hawksworth fell to the ground.

Though he initially appeared only shaken up, he remained on the ground for several minutes while trainers from both teams tended to him. He stood up with the help of the trainers and walked off the field under his own power holding a compress to his head.

His condition was not immediately available.

He was given a standing ovation by the crowd. The Cubs were ahead 5-3 at the time.

MLB.com w/Video

quote:

How about if pitchers work on improving their reactions?

A hitter has roughly two tenths of a second to react to a 90mph fastball; not enough time to see, recognize and move out of harms way in many instances.

A batted ball can travel at higher speeds and the pitcher is closer after release making what you suggest physiologically impossible unless the ball "hits your glove" that hopefully is protecting your head.

Prime9,
I think that a pitcher generally does have enough time to react to a well struck ball, assuming he ends in a good defensive position. Here's some data from Adair's "The Physics of Baseball".

A 90 mph pitch takes slightly more than 0.4 seconds to reach the plate from 55 feet. For many pitches, the batter can recognize if the pitch is likely to be a strike, to judge its speed, and to swing the bat so that some kind of contact is made. He is also trained to "stay in there" on pitches which may be inside. According to Adair, it takes the eye 25 millisconds to assemble a raw image, 20 mSec for the image to reach the brain, and 30 mSec for the brain to construct a recognizable image. The batter needs to assemble several of these images (taking some tens of mSec) and then the brain needs an additional 50mSec to decide which type of pitch, its speed, and if it will be a strike or perhaps be aimed at the batter. Once a decision is reached, it takes about 25 mSec for the nerves to carry a signal to the thigh muscles. He says that the swing takes about 150 mSec once the batter has fully committed. Add all these up, and it turns out that a batter has 100 mSeconds at the beginning of a 90mph pitch to acquire image data before the brain needs to make a decision.

A pitcher has an easier task. If the ball is aimed at him, he can take defensive action immediately, unlike a batter who has to consider that the pitch will break away from him. He doesn't need great timing (if a batter swings 7mSec early, the ball is pulled foul!), and his glove is much larger than a bat. He can move his glove more quickly than a bat can be swung.

So even a batted ball whioh arrives at the pitcher in 0.3 seconds (very rare in high school, and pretty rare in college) allows time to get a glove in front of it.

Two things:
1) Both batters and pitchers do get hit in the head. I believe that in some of these instances, the usual flow of processing and reacting outlined above gets interrupted in some way. Perhaps pitchers would benefit from practice avoiding batted balls, but batters get lots of practice avoiding inside pitches, and batters still get hit by pitch. More likely this is just a characteristic of the human brain and nervous system--sometimes it doesn't work well.

2) If the processing and reacting does happen normally, the pitcher has some time to defend himself. But it's harder if the pitcher is falling off to one side, since that affect his ability to recognize that the ball is coming toward him, and also slows the movement of his glove. Some pitchers aren't even facing the batter as they complete the pitching motion. It does seem to me that a pitcher who ends up in an athletic, balanced stance with his glove in front of his chest or neck has a better chance to avoid head injury than one who is off balance with his glove still tucked, or perhaps dropped behind him.

3FingeredGlove,

Those are some nice points. I remember reading several times that in one of the more famous pitcher injuries--the Herb Score shot to the face and eye in 1957--he himself stated that at the end of his motion he ended up in a very awkward unprepared stance in which he sometimes lost sight of the ball. Pitchers should learn to end up in a defensive position for their own protection and to enable them to be better fielders also.

quote:

A pitcher has an easier task. If the ball is aimed at him, he can take defensive action immediately, unlike a batter who has to consider that the pitch will break away from him. He doesn't need great timing (if a batter swings 7mSec early, the ball is pulled foul!), and his glove is much larger than a bat. He can move his glove more quickly than a bat can be swung.

3's

Thanks for sharing that. Still, not sure why it's easier for the pitcher? On a 95mph fastball to the head I don't really think the batter uses additional time to determine if the ball is going to break away nor has he begun to "time up" the ball. He doesn't, in this instance, consider using the bat to protect himself either. He just is trying to move "butt and head" to the ground to miss the incoming "Scud." I wonder if there isn't the "deer in the headlight" reaction occurring, in some cases, like Herb Score described his "inability to react?"

I agree being in an athletic position at finish with the glove nearby the head is certainly preferable and should be practiced as it could save your butt!
Having said that, I'm not sold that landing square with all the vital areas dangerously exposed is the best position to end up in either! As we've seen, a direct blow to the heart can result in death quicker than a head shot! If you can't cover everything you may want to "close the vitals off," just in case!

Hopefully, we never have to experience this up and close with our players!! You saw what happened last night to Hawksworth?